Kamala Harris

Ms. HARRIS

Ms. HARRIS. We are now 26 days into the longest government shutdown in American history, and 800,000 workers--800,000 Americans--are going without pay. Half of them are working anyway. Let's be very clear about how we got into this mess. The Senate unanimously passed a bill to open the government right before the holidays. The vote was 100 to 0. There was such jubilance on this floor that, literally, Members of the Senate were singing Christmas carols. Yet 2 weeks ago, the House, doing its job, then passed a bill to reopen the government. They sent six bills over to the Senate. This body needs to hold a vote on that legislation and send it to the President and ask him to sign it. The real obstacle to ending this shutdown is in the White House. The President is holding the American people hostage over his vanity project on the southern border and peddling his usual propaganda to distract from a crisis of his own making. The President has said that ``most of the workers not getting paid are Democrats,'' as if that is true or if that should matter. He has said that ``many of the people that we're talking about . . . agree with what we're doing.'' It has been said that the workers have said to ``stay out until you get the funding for the wall.'' Well, that is contrary to what we have been hearing and what I have been hearing. Last week, for example, I heard from a woman by the name of Trisha. Trisha and her husband are both air traffic controllers with nearly 40 years of Federal service combined. Trisha's husband served in the Navy. He now has to work long hours of overtime to compensate for the workers who are absent because they have been furloughed, and he is not being paid. Trisha's job was deemed nonessential, so she is also not being paid. Neither parent in this family is being paid. They have three young children, and this is on top of the fact that Trisha and her family have already endured hardship these past few months as victims of the Thomas fire. As she wrote me: On December 5th of last year, our home was completely destroyed in the Thomas fire and we have used every resource available to us to work towards rebuilding our home. While their home is being rebuilt, Trisha's family moved into a rental home, and they are currently evacuated from that rental home due to the flood and mudslide risks that are currently an issue in California. Trisha said: We have small children that we are most concerned about (with the uncertainty of our careers as Federal employees and the incredibly long road ahead in rebuilding our home but most importantly our livelihood). She writes: We will continue to stand with our NATCA Brothers and Sisters in ensuring the safety of the National Airspace System, but without the support staff working, it is a daunting task. Trisha's message is one of nearly 20,000 phone calls, emails, and letters my office has received since the shutdown started 26 days ago-- all pleading with us to reopen the U.S. Government. They are 2 of the 42,300 workers who are currently being furloughed in California. I don't know which of them are Democrats or Republicans, and it doesn't matter. What matters is the people who are being hurt and the critical government functions that are going undone. They are the TSA agents who protect our flights and the air traffic controllers who help to land our planes. They are park rangers and FBI agents and Coast Guard members. They inspect our food and provide loans to our farmers. They conduct lifesaving research. Right now, though, they are being told to pay their bills by babysitting or selling their belongings on craigslist. These Americans need their government to do its job. They don't need a wall. They need paychecks. Congress is a coequal branch of government. We don't need a permission slip before we can vote on a bill. On behalf of Trisha and hundreds of thousands of Americans like her, let's take up the legislation that we have already approved. Let's send it to the President, and let's end this pointless shutdown as soon as possible--right away, now. I yield back my time.

Ms. HARRIS

Ms. HARRIS. Madam President, over 2 months ago, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously voted to advance the Justice for Victims of Lynching Act of 2018, which I introduced proudly with Senators Booker and Scott. This is a historic piece of legislation that would criminalize lynching, attempts to lynch, and conspiracy to lynch, for the first time in America's history. Lynching is a part of the dark and despicable aspect of our country's history that followed slavery and outrageously continued unabated in our country. According to the Equal Justice Initiative, lynching was used as an instrument of terror and intimidation 4,084 times during the late 19th and 20th centuries. These lynchings were needless and horrendous acts of violence motivated by racism. We must acknowledge that fact, lest it be repeated. Lynching is a crime committed against innocent people. These crimes should have been prosecuted. There were victims who should have received justice, but they did not. With this bill we are finally able to change that and correct a burden on our history as a country. We finally have a chance to speak the truth about our past and make clear that these hateful acts should never happen again without serious, severe, and swift consequence and accountability. From 1882 to 1986, the U.S. Congress failed to pass anti-lynching legislation when it had an opportunity 200 times. We now have an opportunity to pass this bill and to offer some long overdue justice and recognition to the victims of lynching and their families-- recognition that these are crimes for which there should be severe consequence and accountability. I now yield to my friend, the Senator from the great State of New Jersey, Cory Booker.

Ms. HARRIS. Madam President, I thank my friend Senator Booker. It is truly an honor to be on the floor of the Senate with my colleague and friend proposing this legislation. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 3178 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Ms. HARRIS. I further ask unanimous consent that the substitute amendment be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time.

Ms. HARRIS. I know of no further debate on the bill.

Ms. HARRIS. I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Ms. HARRIS. Madam President, I want to thank our colleagues for this incredibly important act of bipartisanship in the U.S. Congress. Thank you, Madam President.

Ms. HARRIS

Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Thomas Dotstry, a fellow in my office, be given floor privileges for the remainder of the 115th Congress.

Ms. HARRIS

Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, it is with gratitude that I rise today to acknowledge Arturo S. Rodriguez for his 45 years of leadership and commitment to protecting and advancing the civil, political, and economic rights of farm workers, most notably as president of the United Farm Workers of America, or UFW. Born the grandson of a cattle farmer in San Antonio, TX, in 1949, Arturo first learned of Cesar E. Chavez and California's farm worker movement in 1966. His passion for civil rights and social justice motivated him to become an active farm worker supporter as a student at Saint Mary's University, where he would later graduate in 1971 with a degree in sociology. After receiving a master's degree in social work from the University of Michigan in 1973, Arturo joined the farm worker movement full-time, working with Chavez for the next two decades to develop and train new organizers, manage UFW industry organizing campaigns, and oversee national boycott strategies that would increase wages and improve working conditions. Following Chavez's passing in 1993, Arturo became the second president of the UFW and committed himself to fulfilling Chavez's legacy of creating a more just and equitable food system that treated farm workers with the dignity and respect they deserved. Arturo's presidency has been nothing short of extraordinary. Under his leadership, farm worker wages have risen to an average of $13.18 an hour, above State and Federal minimum wage laws. Arturo established industry-wide organizing campaigns resulting in 80 percent of the mushroom, rose, and strawberry workers now represented by a union contract. He held employers accountable for wage and hour laws, winning millions of dollars for workers in back wages and overtime pay. He won historic State legislation to provide overtime pay to farm workers and protect them from heat exposure. As president of the largest and most active farm worker movement in the Nation, Arturo has also pushed a national agenda for immigrant and workers' rights. He led negotiations with major agricultural associations to develop the agricultural provisions in the Senate's comprehensive immigration reform bill passed in 2013. He and the UFW worked closely with the Obama White House to secure protections for farm workers from the harmful effects of pesticides, in addition to protections for children and parents as part of President Obama's immigration Executive actions. I was honored to work closely with him as a newly elected Member of the Senate to introduce the Fairness for Farm Workers Act, S. 3131, to strengthen critical Federal protections for farm workers as they face long hours and exposure to harsh working conditions. Arturo's legacy represents the best of who we are as a nation. His unwavering commitment to bettering the lives of the most vulnerable epitomizes the kind of servant leader we should all strive to be. His contributions to the farm worker movement and our Nation will have a lasting impact for generations to come.

Ms. HARRIS

Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, today I wish to express my deepest appreciation to Governor Edmund G. ``Jerry'' Brown, Jr., for his nearly 50 years of committed public service to the people of California. The son of a former California Governor, Jerry was born in San Francisco in 1938 to Pat Brown and Bernice Layne. He graduated from the University of California, Berkeley in 1961 before earning his law degree from Yale University in 1964. He began his statewide career in public service in 1970 after winning his first election as California secretary of state. In 1974, Jerry became Governor of California for the first time, implementing an agenda that epitomizes the essence of California values. He helped create millions of jobs and strengthened the environment. He passed the Agricultural Labor Relations Act and led the cause for the introduction of government funding in renewable energy research. After 8 years in office, Jerry had a distinguished law career, ran for Federal office on a platform dedicated to empowering communities and affecting change, and served as chairman of the California Democratic Party. He reentered public life in 1998, this time as mayor of the great city of Oakland, my hometown. As mayor, Jerry worked diligently to revitalize downtown Oakland, reduce crime, and expand educational opportunities. In 2006, he became California attorney general and prioritized consumer protection, environmental protection, and combating the underground economy. Finally, in 2011, Mr. Brown returned to the Governor's seat where his record can only be described as extraordinary. Jerry has brought California's unemployment rate to record lows, expanded health coverage to millions in the wake of the Affordable Care Act, and established groundbreaking policies to combat climate change that have inspired our Nation and the world. Before joining the U.S. Senate, I worked with Jerry for 6 years as attorney general of California, during which we tackled an economic and housing crisis of epic proportions and fought to protect the privacy and cyber security of California's residents and businesses. Since joining the U.S. Senate, Jerry, Senator Feinstein, and I have worked together to bring critical aid to those affected by the deadly wildfires that have ravaged our State. I am incredibly grateful for the opportunity to honor Governor Brown's leadership and achievements today on the Senate Floor. His ability to bring sweeping change to improve the lives of the people he serves and the communities he governs is truly inspiring. His unwavering commitment to the people of California and vision for a more perfect union will long be remembered and cherished in the pages of history.

Ms. HARRIS

Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, a key component of our democracy is access to the ballot. The Supreme Court acknowledged in Reynolds v. Sims that ``the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society. Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized.'' I always say that your voice is your vote and your vote is your voice. In the recent midterm elections, we saw that there are still powerful forces in our country willing to go to incredible lengths to deny Americans their right to vote. It is indeed outrageous that some voters in Georgia had to wait 4 hours to vote, and a candidate for Governor was the one responsible for overseeing his own election; that Native Americans and their IDs were not accepted at polling places in North Dakota; that nearly 20 percent of North Carolina early voting locations were closed this year. Five years ago, in Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act. Congress is the only body that has authority to restore and should therefore be taking steps to restore and strengthen the Voting Rights Act and to expand early voting and automatic voter registration. Why? Because the more people who can readily participate in our democracy, the more our government will be responsive to the people we are elected to represent. Yet, instead of Congress acting to strengthen access to the ballot, the Senate is considering Thomas Farr for a lifetime appointment to the District Court of the Eastern District of North Carolina--a nominee who has consistently and for decades put limits on the ability of Americans to exercise their constitutional right to vote. Just look at the facts. Mr. Farr actually defended North Carolina's 2013 voting restrictions law--a law that would have required photo IDs, which disproportionately impacted Black voters. At the same time, they prohibited certain IDs, such as student IDs or public employee IDs. This law also reduced same- day registration and early voting--a law that was so clearly unconstitutional that the Fourth Circuit described the law as targeting Black voters with ``almost surgical precision.'' The Fourth Circuit went on to call it ``the most restrictive voting law North Carolina has seen since the era of Jim Crow.'' The facts also include that Mr. Farr represented the North Carolina Legislature in multiple challenges to its 2011 congressional and legislative redistricting. This was an attempt to draw congressional boundaries in ways that disadvantaged Black voters for partisan gain. Those maps were later struck down as unconstitutional and racially discriminatory. Mr. Farr has also repeatedly represented powerful employers against the rights of workers and customers to be treated equally. For example, he represented a rental car company that allegedly imposed additional requirements on Black customers. He also represented a pharmaceutical company against allegations of gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. To be clear, attorneys are not charged--nor should they be--with the views of their clients, but when such a significant part of your decades-long record involves defending clients charged with discrimination and defending laws that undermine the right to vote, it is reasonable to question whether that individual can be a fair and impartial judge of similar cases. Mr. Farr's public comments raise questions about his judgment as well. For instance, he has compared the decision upholding the Affordable Care Act to the Dred Scott and Plessy decisions. For a reminder, Dred Scott is a case that said African Americans could not be citizens, and Plessy v. Ferguson upheld the constitutionality of segregation--both now universally considered shameful decisions. The idea that a decision upholding the expansion of healthcare for millions of Americans is remotely comparable to these rulings should be utterly offensive to anyone who knows anything about America's history. These are statements of an ideologue, not someone who understands that their interpretation of these rulings should be something that people will, if they are not careful, rely on. So these are the statements of an ideologue, not an evenhanded and unbiased judge. The people of North Carolina deserve better, and let us be clear about who many of these people are. More than one-quarter of the population covered by the Eastern District is Black--nearly 27 percent. Yet there has never been a Black Federal judge serving the Eastern District of North Carolina in the court's 146-year history. In 2013, President Obama nominated Jennifer May-Parker, an assistant U.S. attorney and chief of the Appellate Division of the U.S. Attorney's Office, and she is Black. She was appointed to this vacancy--a position Senator Burr had previously recommended her for-- but that nomination was blocked. In 2016, President Obama nominated Patricia Timmons-Goodson--a justice who served on the North Carolina Supreme Court--who is also Black. That nomination was also held up. As a result, this is now the longest judicial vacancy in the Federal court system. Instead of two highly qualified women, Senate Republicans want to fill this vacancy with someone who is anathema to so many of our communities and, in particular, communities of color. So I would echo the North Carolina NAACP, which said that ``if this nomination is confirmed, it represents an historic insult to justice and to the people of North Carolina.'' I know there are folks who might consider the odds of stopping this nominee and throw in the towel, but the way I see it, if it is something worth fighting for, it is a fight worth having. If it is something worth fighting for, it is a fight worth having. This fight against Thomas Farr is a fight worth having because Thomas Farr is far from what we should accept in a nominee. I know we can do better, and we must do better. I yield the floor.

Ms. HARRIS

Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my colleagues, the Senators from Washington and Connecticut. I also ask to be notified when we have used 45 minutes of the Democrats' time.

Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, given the serious and troubling allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh, I am deeply disturbed that the Senate is moving forward with this nomination. When it was announced that the FBI could investigate these serious and credible allegations, I had hoped there would be a legitimate investigation. As the former Attorney General of California, I have tremendous, tremendous respect for the sworn law enforcement officers at the FBI. This should have been a search for the truth. They should have been allowed to do their full job, but instead, the White House did not allow it. This was not a search for the truth. Instead, this was about politics and raw power to push through an unfit nominee. I am a former prosecutor. I have led investigations, and I have prosecuted all types of crime--particularly violent crimes, including a specialization in sexual assault cases--as a prosecutor. I have tried these cases in a courtroom. I have spent hours--hours--with assault victims, and I can tell you that when we look at what happened during the course of these days--these few days--in reviewing and giving regard and respect to Dr. Ford, we have fallen short. We have fallen short. Sixty-three percent of sexual assaults are not reported to the police in our country. Delayed reporting is normal. I will tell you that when I was personally prosecuting sexual assault cases, we would be in a courtroom. I would be there as the prosecutor, with the accused, the accused's attorney, a judge, and a courtroom full of prospective jurors, and we would engage in a process called voir dire, where we would talk with prospective jurors to determine if they would be able to sit as a juror and, without bias, listen to the case and then make a determination about the facts and the law. I cannot tell you the number of times, colleagues, that a prospective juror would raise their hand and ask could they quietly speak with me and the defense attorney and the judge in the judge's chambers outside of the courtroom and outside of the sight and the ability for anyone else in the courtroom to hear. We would go into the judge's chambers, and I cannot tell you the number of people who would sit in a chair, and, with tears in their eyes, tell us that they had been a victim of sexual assault and had never told anyone, not even their spouse, but because of what they had experienced, they knew they could not possibly sit in a courtroom and hear the testimony they knew would come related to the charges they knew the case was about. This is an issue that impacts so many Americans, most of whom don't report it and don't tell anyone, and usually when they do, it is because something precipitated the telling of their story that was beyond the time during which they endured the assault itself. Dr. Ford's experience in this regard is no different from the majority of sexual assault victims, and she should be believed. I know what it means to engage in an investigation and a search for the truth, having been a part of investigations to determine what has happened and, in particular, if a crime has occurred. Now, let's be clear about one thing. There has been a lot of conflation around here about the subject and the need for an investigation into Dr. Ford's allegations. Ours was not a search to determine whether a crime occurred. Ours was not a search to determine whether we had enough facts to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime had occurred. No. Ours was an investigation to figure out enough about what happened to determine if Brett Kavanaugh is fit to serve on the highest Court in our land. Is he fit to be a jurist in the place where we have said justice in our country occurs, in the house where we listen to evidence and truth and make determinations based on the veracity and truthfulness of what has occurred? That is our role when it comes to Dr. Ford's allegations, and we fell short. We fell short. We did not do her justice, and we did not do the American people justice. We were given 1 week to investigate. The Republicans said: You will get 1 week. They threw out 1 week--an arbitrary amount of time--and in less than 1 week we were presented with paltry documents. Clearly, when the White House directed the FBI to do its work, it appears from everything I have seen, the FBI was not permitted to look at all of the allegations. That is clear to me. It is clear the White House did not permit the FBI to request Mark Judge's Safeway employment records. It is clear, from everything I have seen, the White House did not permit the FBI to investigate the dishonest testimony of Brett Kavanaugh or to examine and listen to the evidence that would have been provided by a list of over two dozen witnesses who would have been, at the very least, able to corroborate or deny the allegations that were made. This was not a meaningful investigation into the allegations that are before us, and this, most importantly, was not a search for the truth. Media outlets have reported that there are more than 40 people with potential relevant information who are willing to share their information but only 9 people were interviewed. This is a travesty. They did not interview the Georgetown Prep alumni or others from that era who contradict Kavanaugh's testimony. They did not interview Dr. Ford's husband or a number of her friends who she told of the assault before--before--Kavanaugh's nomination. They did not interview the former FBI special agent who conducted Dr. Ford's polygraph. They did not interview Kavanaugh's roommate at Yale who has contradicted Kavanaugh's testimony. They did not interview another one of Kavanaugh's neighbors in the dorm at Yale. They did not interview three of Kavanaugh's friends from Yale who wrote in the Washington Post just last night: Brett also belonged to a Yale senior secret society called Truth and Courage. We believe that Brett neither tells the former nor embodies the latter. They did not interview Dr. Ford at all--they did not interview Dr. Ford at all. They did not give her the ability to speak her truth during the so-called investigation, and they did not interview Judge Kavanaugh about these allegations. This was not a search for the truth. This was not an investigation. This was an abdication of responsibility and duty. This is on the heels of a process that began with hiding more than 90 percent of Judge Kavanaugh's record. We only received approximately 400,000 pages out of an estimated 6.9 million pages of documents. The Republicans have been saying: You should be happy you received thousands of pages of documents because they want us to treat crumbs on the table like it is a feast. These were crumbs on the table compared to the vast amount of information that is available to some about his background. This process has left the American people with more questions than answers. This has not been a search for the truth. The minimum standard for a Supreme Court nominee should be someone who we are confident will demonstrate impartiality, integrity, and truthfulness, but the nominee we are voting on has not demonstrated those qualities. Every American is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, but nobody is entitled to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. I yield to my colleague Senator Murray.

Ms. HARRIS. Senator Murray, you and I have talked about it. We all talked about it. Part of the pain of this process is a real concern that sexual assault victims and survivors may take away from this process that their stories will not be heard or believed. Part of the pain I am taking away from this process is those who have a story to tell or might have been prepared to have the courage to report may decide: Look what happened to Dr. Ford. It doesn't matter. No one will believe me, and why should I go through that? I have to say this. You and I have discussed it, and Senator Blumenthal and I have discussed it together. Part of what we must message--even if our Republican colleagues will not--is to all of the women and men out there who have experienced this: We will hear you. We will see you. We will respect you. We will give you dignity. Speak your truth. Do not be afraid. Do not let this system or any aspect of it bully you into silence. It is critical we talk about this issue. I believe this is an issue right now that is where the issue of domestic violence was about 30 years ago. There was a perception about domestic violence I hope we have gotten beyond. There was a perception about domestic violence: Oh, you know, what happens in the King's castle is the King's business. That is private business. That is not our business. Then we evolved as a society and realized, no, she is walking around with a black eye or a busted lip; that is everybody's business. She deserves to be safe, and we must stand up for her. I believe this is an inflection moment on the issue of sexual assault, and I hope and pray this is a moment where everyone will agree, no one should silently suffer. Let's talk about this. Let's talk about the fact that every 98 seconds in the United States of America, someone is sexually assaulted. Let's talk about the fact that 63 percent of sexual assaults are not reported to the police. Let's talk about the fact, since Dr. Ford had the courage to speak out, one of the biggest national organizations that addresses sexual assault saw a 738-percent increase in the calls they received from survivors of these cases.

Ms. HARRIS. I say to Senator Blumenthal, my response would be no. My response is no, and I will tell you why--because one of the most important qualities of a juror in our system of justice is that they have the ability to receive information without bias, without any interest in the outcome, and Judge Kavanaugh has made it very clear to the American public that he is biased, that he is perceiving information and perceives it through the lens of a partisan and through the lens of the person he has been his entire career, which is a partisan operative. There were moments, perhaps during his initial testimony, where he may have distracted us from that part of his history, where he talked in a calm voice about certain things. He certainly knows case law and talked about it. But when the issues got hot, when it became about fundamental issues, the veneer was stripped away, and Brett Kavanaugh showed us who he really is. On the point of temperament, I think it is important for a number of reasons that the American people really review his testimony during those hearings these last days of this process because what he showed us also are two things in the way that he responded to our colleagues and approached the issue. One, he showed us that he lacks credibility, and I will tell you why I say that. When I was trying cases, I recall an instruction the jury would receive at the close of a case; the judge would give the jury instructions about how they could evaluate--it was a tool to help them evaluate the credibility of a witness, and one of the instructions was that it is relevant and significant for you to analyze the demeanor of this witness toward the proceedings. On this point, let's recall Dr. Ford's demeanor and Judge Kavanaugh's demeanor. Dr. Ford went out of her way to be helpful and truthful. She corrected herself when she thought there was more to offer. She yielded: Would the committee like a break? If so, I will take one. If not, I can keep going. By contrast, Judge Kavanaugh was arrogant, he was aggressive, he was accusatory, and, clearly, he was not in control of himself. But I have to believe he was in control of his words because, as the Senator has pointed out, he told us he wrote his speech the night before. He said: I didn't show my staff. I just wrote these. Well, you know, we often advise people when you are feeling hot about something, write it all out and then sleep on it. Then look at those words the next day, and see if you really want to stand by them. This is a judge who is meticulous, he says, in everything he does. I believe that he wrote those words the night before. I am sure he slept on it. I am sure he looked at those notes again, and he decided that is what he was going with because it wasn't just about the heat of that moment. These are the things he really believes. That is why he said it, so let's believe him at his word. He is a partisan. For that reason, I answer the Senator's question by saying, no, I would not select him to be on a jury.

Ms. HARRIS. I thank my colleagues from Washington and from Connecticut. I agree, we can find a better nominee, and I yield to the Senator from the great State of Virginia.

Ms. HARRIS

Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, our Nation mourns the loss of one of California's greatest civil rights leaders, whose nearly three decades in Congress and many more years in public service helped to shape the lives of countless individuals both at home and abroad. Ron Dellums was born the son of a longshoreman and raised in Oakland, CA, a community he would later come to represent both as a Member of Congress and as mayor. A 1953 graduate of Oakland Technical High School, Ron enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1954, where he served for 2 years, before graduating from San Francisco State College in 1960 with a degree in psychology. Two years later, Ron received a master's degree in social work from the University of California, Berkeley. Immediately following graduate school, Ron immersed himself in public service, first through a series of social work jobs at the California Department of Mental Hygiene, and, eventually, as an elected member of the Berkeley City Council in 1967. As councilman, Ron became an outspoken advocate for historically underrepresented and underserved communities in Berkeley and Oakland, in addition to becoming an anti- war advocate. The convergence of the free speech and anti-war movements in the Bay Area in the 1960s drove Ron to launch a campaign for Congress on a platform for civil and human rights. He was elected to Congress in 1971 as the first African American from northern California. For the next 27 years, Ron waged battle on a number of social issues plaguing distressed communities, including increased funding for education, jobs, housing, healthcare, and combatting infant mortality and lack of access to affordable housing. As the first Black chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Ron forcefully advocated peace through diplomacy and disarmament in the midst of debates on the Vietnam war and excessive military spending. Ron also became a vocal opponent against LGBTQ discrimination in the military. A cofounder of the Congressional Black Caucus, Ron advocated passionately to end American support for the apartheid regime in South Africa, eventually sponsoring legislation to bring forth economic sanctions and divestment by American companies and U.S. citizens. In 1998, Ron left Congress and remained active as a local and national civil rights leader. His departure from public service, however, was short lived, and in 2007, Ron was elected mayor of the city of Oakland in the midst of our Nation's worst economic recession since the Great Depression. As mayor, Ron secured a record number of Federal grants for the city of Oakland, supporting major infrastructure projects, including port developments at the Oakland Army Base and public transportation wins for California's East Bay. Ron was a dear friend, trailblazer, and champion for civil and human rights, whose service and dedication to the United States will forever be cherished and remembered. His legacy will continue to inspire past, present, and future Members of Congress who dare to fight for what is right in the face of political unpopularity and resounding odds. We wish every Californian and those whose lives were touched by Ron peace during this difficult time, especially his wife, Cynthia, and his children, Michael, Pamela, Piper, Brandon, and Erik.

Ms. HARRIS

Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Merkley for bringing us all together to address what is, I think, as my colleague Senator Hassan has said, one of the dark marks in the history of our country. I rise today to call attention to what has clearly been a human rights abuse committed by the U.S. Government, and that is the outrageous and inhumane separation of children from their parents at the border. This morning, thousands of children woke up without their parents, not knowing where they were, not knowing when they would see them again, not knowing the adults who surround them, having no relationship of trust with these people who have removed their ability to be in the arms and embrace of their parents. This is simply inhumane, and it is unacceptable. Even with the Executive order from the President of the United States, that number will be the same tomorrow. Those 2,000-plus children will be in the same situation tomorrow that they were in today and the day before and the day before and the day before that. Over the last few months, the Department of Homeland Security has separated more than 2,000 children from their parents at the border, many of them younger than 4 years old. Let's be clear about what that point is and that moment is in this stage of human development. Age is more than a chronological fact. There are phases of childhood that can never be replaced--phases of childhood that when that child experiences trauma, he or she will have lifelong impact; phases of life during which a child is so innocent and needs love and needs nurturing and needs that love and nurturing from their parents. It cannot be replaced by anyone else, and certainly not by the cage in which they are now being held. So let's look at where we are. It is a child's worst nightmare, a nightmare that is displayed, as my colleagues have discussed, in the stories of a child who was apparently ripped from her mother's breast while being breastfed. There are nightmare stories of a 3-year-old who was torn from the arms of his father and the father being so distraught that he took his own life. We should tell the truth. We have to speak the truth. The American public knows the truth. Let's speak truth here in the U.S. Senate. Let's speak truth as leaders and acknowledge the lifelong consequences of the separation we visited upon these children and their parents. The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics have weighed in on this topic, and what they have said is that family separation in these cases, not as a general matter--it is generally true--but specifically in these cases it will cause lifelong trauma. They have indicated there is empirical evidence of the fact that it is likely to cause significant harm to the brain structure of these children and will affect these children's long- and short-term health. Let's be clear. A society is judged based on how it treats its children. A society is judged based on how it treats the least among us, and we will be judged harshly. History will judge us harshly because of what this administration has done. As I stand here at this moment, hours after the announcement of the Executive order on this issue, I find it shocking that the Executive order fails to acknowledge that over 2,000 children are currently, at this very moment, without their parents. I find it shocking that the Executive order fails to acknowledge, take into account or even concern itself with the fact that tonight there will be over 2,000 children who will go to bed, who will go to sleep without a kiss goodnight from their mother or their father. There are 2,000 children in our country tonight who will go to bed without a hug from their parents. The 2,000 children tonight will go to bed asking: Where is my mommy? Where is my daddy? This is an outrage. It is an outrage--not to mention these children are innocent and have committed no wrongdoing whatsoever. Let's be clear. Thankfully, the American people have been speaking out over these last many weeks, and that is the only reason the administration finally had to acknowledge that politically it could not survive its misdeeds. There has still been no acknowledgment by this administration that it visited this policy upon itself and, after urging from every type of person from every walk of life, still held steadfast in supporting this policy. Then it started to snowball, and they couldn't stand by it any longer, but it was only because of the pressure, only because of the relentless coverage by journalists who went to Texas, who went to California and the activists who stood outside of those detention centers and demanded that there be justice and humanity in this system, and it was because of that activism and because of those people speaking out that finally this administration did what was necessary to end the thing that it started around the separation of these children. But this is not enough. The reality is that there is nothing about this Executive order that addresses those 2,000 children who are currently without their parents. There is nothing about the administration's stated policy as of today that indicates any plan to reunify those children with their parents. Let's look at the effect of this Executive order. The effect is there is still indefinite detention of families in America because of this administration's policy. So now we are going to go from babies in cages to babies with their mommies in cages. Let's be clear about the effect of this Executive order. Millions more taxpayer dollars will be used to expand detention camps on top of the billions of taxpayer dollars that have already poured into this detention system. Let's be clear about the effect of this Executive order. The so- called zero tolerance policy that created this problem in the first place is still in effect. It is still in effect. Let's be clear about this Executive order. The effect is to suggest that a mother fleeing the murder capital of the world--which is what the zero tolerance policy suggests--that a mother fleeing with her child from the murder capital of the world should be treated as being a threat to our safety that is equal to being a member of a transnational criminal organization. As a prosecutor for most of my adult life, I find that absolutely disingenuous and absolutely wrong on a moral level, on an ethical level, and devoid of any reference to real fact. But I am not surprised, given the administration's track record on this issue. If you look at what has been coming out of this administration in terms of its policies, it paints a constellation of attacks on immigrant women, immigrant children, and immigrant families. Let's look at the constellation before us and what has been going on. Let's just look at how this administration has changed the policies about detention of pregnant women. Before this administration acted on this subject, it was the policy of the U.S. Government to place pregnant women in the least restrictive place, where they could be able to get the kind of prenatal care they so desperately need and deserve. This administration rolled back those protections of pregnant women. Let's look; there used to be a policy that gave a presumption that pregnant women would not even be detained and should be in less restrictive situations, but this administration changed that policy. Let's look at how the Office of the Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office have raised serious concerns about oversight and conditions in the detention facilities. There is nothing about this Executive order that addresses those concerns. Let's look at a complaint filed just last year by numerous organizations, such as the Women's Refugee Commission, that documents insufficient medical care and inhumane conditions for pregnant women in ICE custody--all of which is why I have been proud to work with Representative Jayapal to introduce the DONE Act, which will slash ICE detention beds by using alternatives to detention and would increase badly needed oversight of these facilities. Let's look at another policy. There are reports that the Department of Homeland Security is looking at decreasing the standard of care for children in detention facilities--decreasing the standard of care. These standards govern the types of meals that a child must eat in order to be healthy. These standards govern the kind of recreation a child should receive, again, in order to be healthy, and just this past month, the Attorney General of the United States announced a decision that makes it nearly impossible for victims of domestic violence, over 90 percent of whom are women, to seek asylum in the United States. Let's look at one final policy that makes this administration's priorities around children very clear--the fact that they have ended DACA. We have talked about this extensively. We have talked about how the American Government made a promise to these Dreamers, these young people, and this administration has failed to keep that promise. So what we see is an administration that is engaged in an act of complete hypocrisy, pretending to care about families and children, when in fact, they have a track record of policies that are specifically damaging to families, women, and children. In conclusion, there is no medical or logical reason that dictates or requires this administration to detain more pregnant women, and it has to stop. There is no evidence that says you should reduce care for children in detention facilities. That has to stop. There is no reason not to have a plan to reunify the 2,300 children who will go to sleep tonight torn from their parents and alone. There is no reason, and it has to stop. This is not reflective of who we are as a country. We are better than this. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. HARRIS

Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, California and the nation lost a trailblazer and a war hero. Mr. Eddie Fung served our country bravely throughout his tour with the Army National Guard as part of the 2nd Battalion, 131st Field Artillery of the 36th Infantry Division, including 3\1/2\ years in a Japanese prisoners of war camp. Mr. Fung will be buried with full military honors at Cypress Lawn Memorial Park in Colma, CA, on June 20, 2018. Born in San Francisco in 1922, Eddie left home at 16 to become a cowboy in Texas. He joined the National Guard at 17, and his unit was activated in November 1941 as part of the 2nd Battalion, 131st Field Artillery of the 36th Infantry Division that was sent to Java, now part of Indonesia, to fight the invading Japanese in the early months of WWII. Eddie became the only Chinese-American soldier captured by Imperial Japan during World War II. His battalion was known as the Lost Battalion, as it was not until near the end of the war that there was any news of what happened to the men. Of the 558 men and officers who landed on Java on January 11, 1942, 534 became prisoners of war, POWs. Ninety-nine were sent to Japan to be slave laborers at Japanese factories and mines, and 435, including Eddie, were sent to work on the Thai-Burma ``Death'' Railway that was made famous by the film ``The Bridge on the River Kwai.'' Eddie endured nearly 4 years of grueling work, near-starvation, beatings, and tropical diseases as he worked on the infamous railroad project that resulted in the loss of over 12,000 Allied POW and 70,000 Asian lives. Eighty-nine of the men from the battalion died in captivity. Although Eddie said his capture was a defining moment in his life, the horrific experience is just one aspect of his long and rich life. It includes his Chinese-American upbringing and his life after the war, when he studied chemistry at Stanford University on the GI bill. He also worked as a metallurgist at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and became a Tai Chi master after retirement. As he concluded in his autobiography, ``The Adventures of Eddie Fung: Chinatown Kid, Texas Cowboy, Prisoner of War,'' University of Washington Press: ``Taking my life as a whole, I've had many more good days than I've had bad ones. But even the bad days serve a purpose. They remind me of how good I have it now, in the sense that if you have never known hunger, you will not appreciate food; if you have never been enslaved, you will not appreciate what it means to be free.'' Eddie Fung is a hero and a role model, and we will miss his vibrant spirit. The thoughts of San Franciscans and Californians are with his wife, Judy Yung of Santa Cruz.

Ms. HARRIS

Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, Californians and San Franciscans have lost a fearless advocate for racial and economic equality who became the first African-American president of San Francisco's board of supervisors. Ms. Doris Ward was elected to the board of supervisors and was sworn in on January 8, 1980. In 1991, Ms. Ward became the first Black woman to serve as board president. Ms. Ward was a trailblazer from her earliest days. She attended an integrated school from kindergarten through 12th grade. She went on to earn her bachelor's and master's degrees in education at Indiana University. Later she earned a master's degree in counseling from San Francisco State University and a doctorate in education from U.C. Berkeley. Ms. Ward was active in the civil rights movement and participated in sit-ins at bars and other public areas in Indiana. Ms. Ward began her career as a teacher in Gary, IN, her hometown, before joining the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP, in Indianapolis. During her time at the NAACP in the late 1960s, Ms. Ward cemented her role as a leader for civil rights and social justice by opposing the Ku Klux Klan and other forms of racism and discrimination before moving to California. Ms. Ward started her political career in 1972, after moving to San Francisco, when she became a trustee for the city's community college district prior to joining the board of supervisors. Ms. Ward was a friend, mentor, and we will miss her vibrant spirit. The thoughts of San Franciscans and Californians are with Ms. Ward's sister, Debra Floyd, of Washington, DC, her family, city leaders, and the people of San Francisco during this time.

Ms. HARRIS

Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Gillibrand, we rise to request that, for the 4th year in a row, the U.S. Government officially recognize the last week in March as the Week on the Status of Black Women. During the week of March 26, 2018, as part of Women's History Month and in honor of the UN International Decade for People of African Descent, several leading social justice organizations will be holding events across the country to honor Black women's momentous contributions to our country and to shed light on the struggles Black women continue to face in American society. Black women have long gone above and beyond the call of duty in their contributions to American civic society, particularly when it comes to voter turnout and political participation. They have routinely stepped up as leaders and bulwarks in their communities, sacrificing their own health and time for the betterment of others. Even in the face of grave oppression dating back to our Nation's origins, Black women have continued to stand strong and contribute to the well-being of families, communities, the economy, and our country as a whole. A recognition of the Week on the Status of Black Women would send a critical message that the government wishes to elevate Black women's role in history and contemporary society and recognizes the unique struggles they continue to experience today. Black women have played a critical role in this Nation's history and evolution, often with little thanks or recognition. Harriet Tubman escaped slavery and bravely returned to the enslaved South over a dozen times to herald her people to freedom on the Underground Railroad. She served in the Union army as a spy, a medic, and the first woman ever to lead an armed expedition; yet despite this immense service to our country, we are still debating her recognition on our currency. A century later, Rosa Parks resisted the continued oppression and marginalization of her people. Before she was the face and organizational leader of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, she led campaigns against the sexual harassment and assault of Black women. The Week on the Status of Black Women offers us a chance to honor and uplift the sacrifices of Black women such as Harriet Tubman and Rosa Parks, who gave us so much and received so little in return. It gives us an opportunity to add new names to celebrate to this list, for contributions that build the future as much as they ground the past. This week of recognition honors so many of whom we are proud, an infinite list at which we can only hint. It includes those hidden figures who did the math to get us to the stars--Katherine Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan, Mary Jackson, and Dr. Christine Darden--and the interstellar figures who have actually been there, like Dr. Mae Jemmison, the first African-American woman astronaut to travel in space; those consciousness raisers who provoked thought and progress in a country that needed to catch up with them, like Pauli Murray, who graduated first in her class from Howard Law and offered up the visionary arguments that won Brown v. Board of Education, and Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, who has issued an international invitation to embrace feminism; those courageous testifiers who spoke out with such foresight, from Anita Hill's willingness to speak her own truth to power, to Tarana Burke, whose compassionate decision to say ``Me Too'' inspired and named a movement that is changing the world; those athletes and artists who inspire us with their unprecedented feats and the lyricism of their movement, from American Ballet Theater's principal dancer Misty Copeland to America's swiftest young icon on ice, Maame Biney; and those who hold and disseminate knowledge, expanding our horizons and our minds, like Monica Drake, who last year became the first African-American woman on the New York Times' print masthead, and Carla Hayden, a visionary librarian who is the first woman and first African American to lead the Library of Congress, the largest library in the world. We celebrate that this momentous week gives us an opportunity to both enrich the historical record, and to enliven our future possibilities. We know that raising the stories of Black women in every walk of life teaches little girls to see themselves in all their full and powerful potential. As we anticipate the future, we must also stand to recognize that, while Black women have dedicated themselves to bettering our country, they continue to face countless barriers to full inclusion and equality in American society. Black women are disproportionately subject to compromising health conditions, such as poor-quality environments in impoverished neighborhoods, food deserts, and a lack of access to basic healthcare--conditions that make them more susceptible to life- threatening diseases such as HIV and heart disease and which often make highly treatable illnesses, like breast cancer, lethal. Single Black women's median wealth is just $100, while single White women have a median wealth of $41,000; and White households have a median wealth of 13 times more than Black households. Even more alarming, around half of single Black women have zero or negative wealth, meaning their debt equals or exceeds their assets. On average, Black women workers are paid only 67 cents on the dollar relative to White non-Hispanic men, even after controlling for education, years of experience, and location. Further, while Black women, especially trans Black women, are exceptionally vulnerable to violence, both at the hands of the state and at the hands of intimate partners, often they are not listened to or believed when they speak out. On all these fronts, we can and must do better, and we will. In conjunction with the congressional declaration, a coalition of organizations advocating for the well-being of women and communities of color will partner to elevate the stories, histories, and realities of Black women's lives through a series of events entitled ``Her Dream Deferred''. These events will address a number of issues facing Black women today, including maternal mortality, sexual assault and harassment, political participation, and police violence through artistic expression and academic fora. Exploring these issues and acknowledging the centrality of Black women to our history and social fabric, along with recognizing the uniquely gendered and racialized inequities they face, is critical as we seek to extend equal rights to all Americans. We hope and request that this year will be a continuation of years past in celebration and recognition of Black women through the Week on the Status of Black Women. Thank you.

Ms. HARRIS

Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my colleague, the senior Senator from California.

Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, Californians and San Franciscans have lost a tireless champion for diversity, equity, and inclusion. Mayor Edwin M. Lee was the son of Chinese immigrants and the city's first Asian- American mayor. Mayor Lee grew up in public housing and moved from Seattle to the Bay Area to attend law school at UC Berkeley in the mid- 1970s. As a former civil rights attorney, Mayor Lee began his career in public service fighting for fair housing and went on to serve in five different city departments under four mayors before becoming mayor himself. As mayor of one of America's largest cities, Mayor Lee worked hard to transform San Francisco into a hub for innovation and technology while still upholding the city's longstanding values of equity and justice.

Ms. HARRIS. For 65 remarkable years, Mayor Lee demonstrated to all those he worked with, knew, and came to serve that through humble and steadfast leadership each one of us can create a more inclusive and just community for future generations.

Ms. HARRIS

Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, I would like to thank the senior Senator from Illinois. Senator Durbin has been a longstanding leader in this Chamber and in our country on this issue, and I can't thank him enough for all he does so tirelessly. I see his work behind closed doors, and I know his passion and personal commitment to this issue. I thank the Senator from Illinois. Mr. President, on February 16 of this year, which was 292 days ago, I offered my maiden speech as a new Member of the U.S. Senate. The subject of the speech was immigration--in particular, an emphasis on DACA and the Dreamers. Here we are 292 days later, and we have failed to move forward in any substantial or substantive way in bringing relief to these Dreamers who have qualified for DACA status. So we stand here, these 292 days later, talking about an issue that we must ultimately, and before the end of this year, resolve. Let's also be clear that 3 months ago today, on September 5 of this year, the administration arbitrarily, recklessly, and cruelly ended DACA--the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program. DACA allowed young immigrants who were brought here by their parents to live and work in this country without fear that they would be deported. Later this week, on Friday, December 8, funding for the government runs out. I have been clear, along with my friend from Illinois and several other colleagues, that any bill that funds the government must also include a fix for DACA. I want to talk with you about why I believe it is important that we resolve this issue. I do believe there is a lot of misinformation out there. I think it is important that we as policymakers, as leaders in our country, craft and create public policy based on facts, not on misinformation and certainly not fear. Let's begin by being very clear. The decision to rescind DACA is part of a much broader and troubling attempt to remake the demographics of the country by cracking down on immigrants. We have an administration that has ignited anti-immigrant sentiment, characterizing immigrants as rapists and murderers and people who are going to steal your jobs. We have an administration that has implemented an aggressive anti- immigrant agenda. This administration has called for a border wall that could cost up to $70 billion. They have implemented Muslim bans which severely restrict immigration from six Muslim-majority countries. They have requested 10,000 new ICE agents and 5,000 new Border Patrol agents when they have not given the resources to be able to fill all the vacant positions they now have. They have ended the protected immigration status, known as TPS, for Haitians and Nicaraguans who fled disasters and may crack down on the protective status on Salvadorans as well. They are seeking to lower the refugee cap from 110,000 to 45,000 at a time when we have seen an increase in the worldwide number of refugees who are in crisis. This is the lowest number ever in the history of this country--actually, since 1980. Gen. John Kelly, the President's Chief of Staff and former Homeland Security Secretary, said that he wishes the number of refugees we would admit into our country were between zero and one. I want to be clear. I have an incredible amount of respect for the men and women of the Department of Homeland Security, who each day leave their homes, committed to doing the work of keeping our homeland secure. It is noble and important work, and their mission is critical. I believe the vast majority of those frontline agents are doing their jobs honorably and effectively, but it is troubling when the White House has encouraged frontline agents to ``take the shackles off.'' In fact, the Acting ICE Director has said: If you're an immigrant in this country illegally . . . you should be uncomfortable. You should look over your shoulder. When you look at these independent acts, there is a clear constellation that has formed. This enforcement surge is a barely disguised purge. This is not leadership. Leaders should not be in the business of inciting fear and sowing hate and division. Instead, leaders should be about creating smart public policy based on facts. So here are some of the facts. It is a fact that there are 700,000 DACA recipients, 200,000 of whom are in California alone. It is a fact that the Dreamers have been extensively vetted before they have qualified for DACA. They have gone through a process. They have turned over copious amounts of paperwork with incredible detail. They have gone through background checks. They have given personal information about the circumstances of their arrivals. They have answered questions that seek to figure out whether they have committed crimes. If they applied and they received DACA status, we determined that they were not threats in that regard to our public safety. We asked questions that sought to figure out if they have graduated high school. Are they living lawful and productive lives? It is only when they cleared that extensive vetting that they qualified for DACA status and received DACA status. Let's be clear. These Dreamers who receive DACA status study in our colleges, serve in our military, and work in Fortune 100 companies. They are contributing to our economy in a way that we all are benefiting. If DACA recipients were to be deported, it is estimated that California would lose $11 billion a year. The U.S. economy as a whole would lose an estimated $460 billion over a decade. It is also a fact that these young people have stood in classrooms and stood in line in many places and have placed their hands over their hearts, pledging allegiance to the flag of the United States--a flag that many of us wear on our lapels, a flag that represents the best of what we are in terms of the ideals upon which we were founded. We must be true to those ideals and consistent in the way that we approach so many issues as applied to this issue about what we do with these DACA kids. We must keep our word and our promise to them and guarantee what we promised, which is that we would not share their personal information with ICE and that they would not be deported if they continued to follow the rules. In my experience, it is also true that many who have opinions or who have expressed opinions or who have the opportunity to make decisions about this issue have never met a Dreamer. We cannot fault them, but what we can ask is that those who have the power to make a decision on this issue make it their business and make an effort to really understand who we are talking about. Senator Durbin talked about it, and Senator Carper talked about it. My colleagues will be talking about who these Dreamers are, who these young people are. I have to say that I have been a bit troubled when I have had this conversation. I remember when I had a conversation many months ago with the then-nominee to head up the Department of Homeland Security, Gen. John Kelly. I asked him if he had ever met a Dreamer, and he said that he had not. When I asked him if I could arrange a meeting, he then went on to say: How about if I could take a meeting, instead, with their representatives? That is disheartening. Before our colleagues make a decision about where they stand on this policy, I believe that it is only fair--it is only the right thing to do--that they make an effort to sit down and talk with Dreamers and get to understand who they are, the circumstances of their arrivals, and how they are contributing to our country. There are going to be hundreds of Dreamers here tomorrow on Capitol Hill. I want to thank them for their leadership and their tireless advocacy because their stories will change hearts and minds. Let me just speak of a few. My colleagues have shared some; I will share some others. I met Yuriana Aguilar, whom I took to the President's joint session address this February. Her parents brought her here from Mexico when she was just 5 years old. She grew up in Fresno, CA. She attended public schools, and she attended UC Merced. She was the first DACA recipient to earn a Ph.D. and now is a biomedical researcher in Chicago who is focused on the human heart. She is doing everything that she can to improve the condition and the lives of the people in our country because of the work she has done and the research she has done. I met Eric Yang, who came from South Korea. He grew up in Irvine, CA, and is now studying business economics at UC Irvine, where he works to help other students. My husband and I recently attended a play in Los Angeles. It is a great program at which there is free entertainment in the community park, and families show up and have a wonderful evening outdoors with each other in fellowship. I met a young woman who came up to me. She was with a group of friends. Her friends said: Tell her. Tell her. I looked at this young woman. She looked as if she was about maybe 19 years old. I said: Tell me what? Tell me what is going on. She looked at me, and she spoke so quietly that I didn't hear what she had said, so I asked her to repeat herself. She looked at me, and she started crying. She said: I am DACA. She was trembling as she cried, absolutely in fear of what her future may hold. I suggest that before we take a position on this issue, we take a moment, each one of us as colleagues and each one of us as individuals, to see these young people, to truly see them--to see them not through a lens that is about partisanship or politics, not through a lens that is ideological, but based on who they really are and the practical realities of the lives they lived that brought them to this country, the circumstances that brought them to this country, and the lives they are living every day now. These are incredible young people who are doing everything that we hope and pray will epitomize the American dream--work hard, be respectful, play by the rules, contribute to your community, have dreams and aspirations about how you can be productive. That is who these young people are. Let's reject the fearmongering. Let's also understand that this is an imminent issue and that this is something we must address immediately. Let's agree that each day in the lives of these young people is a very long time. Each day that they go to sleep at night and are worried about a knock on the door at midnight that might tear them away from their families is a very long time. Let's not wait. Let's not wait to help them. Let's reject those folks who say that there is no crisis, the folks who say that this is not an emergency. Let's understand that for these 700,000 Dreamers who cannot concentrate at school or at work and who are terrified of that midnight knock, this is an emergency. Let's think about the classmates and the coworkers and our neighbors and family members who have these children who are terrified that this protected status will be stripped and taken away. For them, this is an emergency. Let's think about the 122 Dreamers who are losing their DACA status every single day, 851 of them every week, over 11,000 of them since September. Let's agree that this is a crisis, that this is an emergency. It has been 91 days since this administration ended DACA, and we cannot wait a single day longer. Let's reject the fearmongering. Let's find a bipartisan consensus to act in the way that we know we should and can. Let's put the Dream Act to a vote today. I believe it could pass and would pass if everyone looked in their hearts and looked at the facts. Today, 35 House Republicans signed a letter, writing that they want a DACA fix before the end of the year. It included Members from California and Texas and Florida and Utah and Pennsylvania and New York. Earlier today, my colleague, the junior Senator from Arizona, said: We don't need to make a statement. We need to make a law. I could not agree more. Let's give these Dreamers a future. I yield the floor.