mr. nelson: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, i ask consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. nelson: mr. president, i ask for a moment of silence for the victims of the shooting in florida. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate will observe a moment of silence for the victims of the florida school shooting. mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, those

were all our children. thoalings of us who -- those of us who are parents, you can imagine the parents of those children wondering what else can be done. because yesterday a former student at marjory stoneman douglas high school in northern broward county, parkland, florida, walked on to the campus with a gas mask, smoke grenades, and carrying an ar-15 assault rifle. he pulled the fire alarm. he waited for the students to come out into the hallway and he

opened fire. and as a result, 14 families are grieving. their worst fears have become reality, and more than a dozen other students who were injured, they're in the hospital and some of them in critical condition. at some point we've got to say enough is enough. at some point we as a society have got to come together and put a stop to this. this senator grew up on a ranch. i have hunted all my life. i have had guns all my life. i still hunt with my son. but an ar-15 is not for hunting.

it's for killing. but despite these horrific events that are occurring over and over, these tragedies have led so many of us to come right here to this floor and to beg our colleagues to take commonsense actions that we all know will help protect our children and our fellow citizens from these kind of tragedies. and we get nowhere. so when is enough going to be enough? sandy hook elementary, 20 students killed. that wasn't enough. the pulse nightclub in orlando,

49 people killed, a terrorist. that wasn't enough. las vegas, 58 people killed, that wasn't enough. or just a year ago in the same county as the parkland murders, broward county, fort lauderdale airport, five people killed. that wasn't enough. now this high school, 17 killed, some as young as 14 years old. so when is enough going to be enough. this senator has spoken to local officials on the ground. i've spoken to the superintendent of the schools who in his own way is going through the grieving process.

i've spoken to the f.b.i. i've spoken to the sheriff's department to make sure that they have everything they need but when i finish talking to these folks and as we get through with the dreamer legislation today, i'm headed down there and when i go to the hospital and see the families and see the hospital victims, all i can thank is how many more times are we going to have to go through this and those families are going to say to me, when is enough enough? to those who say now that it's not the time to talk about gun violence because it's too soon, we don't want to politicize right after a tragedy, that's

what is said over and over. then i would ask when is the time? if now is not the right time, when is the right time? after the next shooting? or after the one that's going to come after that? because these are not going to stop unless we change ourselves as a culture. how many more times do we have to do this? how many more folks have to die? when is enough going to be enough. so let's don't hide from it. let's have a conversation about this right now, not just about mental illness and that's part of it, not just about protection at our schools and that's part

of it. let's get to the root cause. let's come together and help end this violence. let's talk about that 19-year-old carrying an ar-15. let's do what needs to be done and let's get these assault weapons off our streets. let's accomplish something on background checks. my state passed a constitutional amendment, florida, 1998. background checks have to be done in the purchase of a gun. it's never been implemented totally and it's never been enforced. a simple background check.

the terrorist that killed 49 in orlando at the pulse nightclub, he had been on the terrorist watch list. if we'd have had a background check there, he wasn't on it but maybe in a background check, we ought to include those who had been on a terrorist watch list. let's have a conversation about this. oh, and do you remember a couple of years ago there was a proposal on the floor that if you're on the terrorist watch list, you can't buy a gun. that's pretty common sense. we won't let them get on an airplane because we don't want them taking down a commercial airliner.

but they don't have a restriction of buying a gun. so let's get at the root cause of this issue. let's do what we all know needs to be done. and let's do it now, not later. let's just not talk about it. let's do something about it. let's make what happened at marjory stoneman douglas high school a pivotal moment in this country's history, not because it was one of the largest mass shootings but hopefully because it was the last. it's with a heavy heart, madam president, i yield the floor.

mr. rubio: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: madam president, i join my colleague, the senior senator from florida here today with a broken heart as i do most of the nation would join us in the events of yesterday. and there, indeed, was a time in the history of our country where after an event such as this, there was a mourning period that followed with a policy debate. but today that time is interrelated and intermixed. i don't blame it. i'm not upset about it. in fact, i think there's just

been too many of these now. and that's why we continue to face this. we continue to face these. i think it is a legitimate thing to say that even as we mourn, we have an obligation to ask ourselves, is there something we could have done or should do to ensure that we don't see these things happening. it's clichest to say but i think it's important to say that. i'm the father of two young ladies who happen to be in high school. i cannot imagine but i can only envision what it would be like if one day here walking through the capitol i get a text or one of those news alerts that says there's been a shooting in the high school that they attend. and i can only imagine how fearful it would be when suddenly those texts are not being answered and those calls are not being returned.

i thought about that last night and what it must feel like to be one of those parents at the hotel waiting for word because you haven't heard from your children in hours or how painful it must have been to those whose job it was to go to these parents and inform them that their child who they had sent off to school in the morning, perhaps just weeks away from graduation, that their life had ended senselessly in an event such as this. and because of what happened yesterday and because it's happened so often, people from across the political spectrum are arguing there's got to be something we can do. you have to be able to do something. and i agree with that sentiment. i understand it. and i would add, though, if we do something, it should be something that works. and the struggle up to this point has been that most of the proposals that have been offered would not have prevented not

just yesterday's tragedy but any of those in recent history. and i'm going to say now what i'm going to really emphasize at the enders just because these proposals would not have prevented these does not mean that we, therefore, just raise our hands and say, therefore, there's nothing we can do. it is a tough issue because it is part of the reason why it is so hard to prevent these. it's because if someone decides that they are going to take it upon themselves to kill people, whether it's a political assassination of one person or the mass killing of many, if one person decides to do it and they're committed to that task, it is a very difficult thing to stop, but that again does not mean we should not try to prevent as many of them as we can. perhaps the answer on how to prevent them begins by asking ourselves what do these things have in common?

they have two things in common. the first is every single one of them was premeditated and planned. none of these shootings were an act of passion or someone got up in the morning, was upset and decided to do something out of rage. they all involved careful planning and premeditation. they deliberately took steps to get the guns, the weapons, the ammunition that they needed. in many cases they carefully studied the outline of the target which they were going to go after. they specific planned soft targets. there's evidence of that in this case. and they planned to maximize the loss of life. they acquired the weapon they needed and they used tactics that they needed to kill as many people as they could. by the way, because of that premeditation and planning is one of the reasons why these laws that have been proposed wouldn't have prevented them. because when someone is planning and premeditating ante be -- an attack, they will figure out a

way to evade those laws or quite frankly to comply with them in order to get around it. that may be an argument for new laws of a different kind but it's what makes it hard though not impossible. the second thing they have in common is that almost all of these attacks were preceded by clear signs of what was to come. a cursory review this morning of just a handful of the recent cases points that out. we are all familiar with the loss of life of over 20 people at a texas church not long ago. this is a case of a killer whose wife said that he tried to kill her, an individual was arrested and convicted for domestic violence, which was unfortunately never reported to the background check system, an individual who escaped a mental health facility who was caught sneaking guns onto an air force base while on active duty, who was discharged from the military for bad conduct, who had social media posts that bragged about

buying dogs to shoot them and actually expressed admiration for the south carolina killer in that church killing a few years ago. an individual who was actually charged with animal mistreatment just a few years earlier. in sandy hook, we know that the killer had a spread sheet with details of the previous school shootings. there was also an individual whose mental state was rapidly deteriorating to the point where he spoke to no one but his mother who he ultimately killed before carrying out the horrific massacre, but someone who was isolated in the room all day, largely playing video games. the pulse attack which was precipitated and inspired by an adherence to a jihadist ideology. senator nelson has already pointed out this individual not once but twice had been on the radar screen of the f.b.i. and both times had been cleared. they interviewed him, they asked him questions. he didn't meet the standard for staying on the list, and he came

off. we are still learning facts about yesterday's killer. unlike these others, we may learn more because he was apprehended alive, and authorities have had an opportunity to question him, and that will continue, but here's what we know. we know he was expelled from school for behavior that often -- that the administrators thought was dangerous. we know that from press accounts now, both teachers and students did not act surprised that he was the assailant. in fact, many of them said that there was a running joke, obviously not a joke anymore, that one day he would do something like this. we know that the media and others have discovered social media posts which are in hindsight deeply disturbing as they point to glorification of gun violence and murder and animal cruelty even apparently. we saw reports this morning of a post on youtube a year ago where he posted that he wanted to be a school shooter. this was alerted to the f.b.i. who had followed up, by the way,

in an interview with that person who alerted them. they all have this premeditation in common. we sit here in hindsight and see all of these little points and say taken together, these are warning signs. the problem is they're not taken together. because the people who might have known about him being expelled might not have known about the social media posts. and the people who knew about the social media posts may not have known about what he wrote on youtube. and the people who knew about the youtube may not have known about the fact that police have been called several times for different reasons and so forth. and so, hence, the choolg for why it's so hard to find something that works. and there are a lot of proposals. i will share the ones because i have heard them before and i will hear them today. i am not diminishing them. i don't want this to be taken as because it won't work, i don't want to hear your argument. i understand. i really do. you read in the newspaper that they used a certain kind of gun

and therefore let's make it harder to get those kinds of guns. i don't have some sort of de facto religious objection to that or some ideological commitment to that per se. there is all kinds of guns that are outlawed and weaponry that's outlawed and/or special category. the problem is we did that once, and it didn't work for a lot of reasons. one of them is there is already millions of these on the street. those things, they last 100 years. and so you could pass a law that makes it hard to get this kind of gun in a new condition, but you're going to struggle to keep it out of the hands of someone who has decided that's what they want to use because there are so many of them out there already that would be grandfathered in. you can do a background check. the truth is in almost all these cases i cited, the individual either erroneously passed a background check or would have passed it or did.

again, even if they couldn't pass the background check, then they could go -- they could buy them the way ms-13 does and other gangs and other street elements do, from the black market. again, not because we shouldn't have a background check. i'm just trying to be clear and honest here. if someone has decided i'm going to commit this crime, they will find a way to get the gun to do it. that doesn't mean you shouldn't have a law that makes it harder. it just means understand to be honest it isn't going to stop this from happening. you could still pass the law, per se, but you're still going to have these horrible attacks. and that's why i do think that in some circles, it isn't fair or right to create this impression that somehow this attack happened yesterday because there is some law out there that we could have passed to prevent it, for if there was such a law that would have prevented yesterday, i think a lot of people would have supported it. but i also want to be honest to

people who share my point of view on these issues. i think it's also wrong to say that there is nothing we can do. and i would admit that perhaps even i in the past in the way i have addressed this issue or spoken about it may have come off as dismissive, with the argument that since none of these laws would have worked, there is just nothing we can do, and we'll just have to deal with it. just because i don't have a quick or easy answer for how to prevent these doesn't mean that we don't have an obligation to try and find one. and by finding one, i don't mean a quick and easy answer. i mean an answer that would work. when i took office here, i swore to uphold the constitution of the united states. every element of it. i didn't write the constitution, but i agree with it and i support it. the second amendment's in the constitution. you can debate what the out lines of the second -- outlines

of the second amendment are or how far it goes, but it's in there. and i happen to support it. and i happen to oftentimes point to the second amendment and say it's the second amendment, right after free speech, which tells you how important it was to those who wrote those words. i still believe every bit of that. but i also recognize that if it's fair to say that the second amendment is so important -- and i want to reiterate it is -- because of how high up it is in the ranking from first to second. it's the second one. then i have to recognize that there is part of the constitution that was written even before the second amendment, and it's the preamble, and that preamble lays out why we have a constitution and ultimately why we have a government, and in it says that two of the reasons why we have a government and therefore two of the reasons why we have a senate is to ensure domestic

tranquility and to promote the general welfare. and these school shootings and mass shootings and murders that we are seeing now an an accelerated pace, these things are by definition a threat to our domestic tranquility and a threat to our general welfare. the murder of children in schools, the murder of moviegoers, the murder of people at a church, the murder of people at a dance club on a saturday night, these are all places where we should be enjoying the general welfare and the domestic tranquility. and so even as we recognize it, the second amendment gives americans the right to bear arms and protect themselves, a right that i strongly support and will continue to support, we must also recognize that same constitution places upon this government an obligation to ensure domestic tranquility and

promote general welfare. and we must confront the fact that over the last 20 years, these attacks have accelerated, and we must recognize the evidence that they are not isolated from one another. they are building upon one another. we must recognize the scary reality that even as a nation mourns and as parents grieve, it is a high probability if not certainty that somewhere in america right now, some equally troubled and deranged violent individual is reading and watching coverage of this attack and gaining from it not sorrow but inspiration. that even as we speak here now, even as we stand here in mourning and even as the days go by, there are probably some people out there who are going to try to do this because of what happened yesterday. that is a frightening thought, but it is a reality.

and it challenges us to find an answer to a very difficult issue. how do we take all of this bits and pieces of information out there, how do we in this society confront someone who does things that in another era we would say, well, they're just a strange person, they're just weird, they're just going through a phase? we can't do it anymore. there is no longer such a thing as just an innocent posting online that you just look at and say that's just them, they are just strange, they don't mean anything by it or they're harmless. we cannot assume that anymore. none of us. how do we create a system where all of these disconnected pieces and bits of data could somehow be tied together so that whenever it was that this killer got a hold of these weapons and proceeded before conducting this attack, someone would say hold on a second, this person is the person who got expelled from

school, who had these social media posts, who said he wanted to be a school shooter, who has had an adoptive mother passed away in november, who is now living isolated, who the students all suspected him of being a person who could one day be violent, how do you take these bits and pieces of information and turn them into a usable source of data that perhaps either prevents the acquisition of a weapon or -- or preferably intervenes in that person's life before they carry this out? if anyone here tells you that they have that one figured out, they're not being honest. this is hard, but we need to do it. we need to somehow figure it out because it goes to the very core of why we exist to begin with. there is no greater obligation of our government than to keep our people safe, from threats both foreign and domestic, and

we must acknowledge that this is a threat, that for whatever reason we now live in a society where someone at 19 years of age and the freest and -- in the freest and the most prosperous nation in all of human history has decided to take it upon themselves to take the lives of 17 individuals and severely injure 14 others, and actually probably tried to kill even more. what is happening in our country and our culture and our society? and if there is something to be done with our laws, we should do that, too. i'm not saying don't focus on the gun part. we also have to focus on the violence part, for to talk about gun violence requires you to talk about both, and the violence part is the one that goes well beyond an easy government solution and entails all kinds of different aspects of modern life that we are still

grappling with. and so i hope that we can start to figure it out. i haven't had the time, frankly, in less than 18 hours to bring to the floor a proposal for how we move forward or what the forum would be for this conversation to even begin, but i know that we can no longer just chalk it up to isolated instances, because it's happened too often, and sadly i believe will happen again until we confront it and try to solve it, and i hope that we will, and i believe that we can. i believe that we must. whereas i said at the outset and i will say at the conclusion, it goes to the core of why we even exist to begin with. keeping our people safe. no matter how new, how different, or how unique the threat may be.

madam president, i yield the floor. mr. wyden: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president, right now, an estimated 700,000 dreamers face the very real threat that they may be ripped from the only lives and the only country they have ever known. these are young people who have grown up in america. they go to school here. they work hard here. often they work at multiple

jobs. they get terrific grades. they give back to their communities. they have done everything right. i have met with them at home. my colleague senator berkley and i have met with pane of them at joint meetings. and a number of them just say point blank we'd like to serve america. we believe in america. that's all -- they want to serve in the military. they want to do police work. they want to be first responders. and in fact to earn their daca status, they had to come forward, give their information to our government, and then submit to a background check. now they're living under this

cloud of uncertainty because the president on his own stamped an expiration date on the daca program. so what i want to do for a few minutes is talk about these terrific young people, these special young people, the dreamers and what they contribute to our country. i was very pleased recently to have esley bacero to join me at this year's state of the union speech because in my view, he and his younger brother kevin embody the very best about our country. esley come to oregon when he was 8 months old.

he got his first job before he was 10 in order to support his family. and i'm going to talk a little bit about these two terrific young people because literally, for years now, each of them would take turns working to support the other so that between them they were always saying we want to do it the american way. we want to do it by dint of hard work and thrift. and this spirit we have in this country where if you work hard, there aren't any limits to what you can achieve, two very, very special young men. esley wanted to get a higher education so his younger brother put in the sweat equity to make it happen.

kevin who is a u.s. citizen worked more than 80 hours a week after he graduated from high school to help pay for esley to ge to lane -- go to lane community college in eugene. let me repeat that. kevin, a u.s. citizen, worked in our office as well, worked more than 80 hours a week after he got out of high school because he said i want to help my brother get ahead. esley has now built a real professional career. he's a visual effects artist in portland. so he's turned around and he's stepping up to help pay for kevin's college education. so we've got these two remarkable brothers who now year

after year either were working or going to school in order to help each other get ahead in the way that we hoped young people will do. by dint of hard work and discipline and supporting each other. their brothers -- they're brothers, and they have been in each other's corner and supportive of their families their whole lives. we need more people in america like the bacero brothers. they are not alone. another of oregon's estimated 11,000 dreamers is a young man named daniel kim. he immigrated legally to beaverton, oregon from south korea, but he learned that his immigration lawyer never filed the paperwork needed to get

permanent legal status. so without this information, he found, really very abruptly, that he was considered undocumented. thanks to daca and a special military recruitment program, daniel had the opportunity to serve our country. he sees -- he seized the opportunity and joined the united states army, the first chance he got. i will tell you, madam president, i just find it painful to hear the disparaging talk about immigrants. and unfortunately the president uses that kind of language too often. maybe it's easy for people in

washington, d.c. to forget these debates are about real people. they aren't just about acronyms and numbers. daniel and esley are the type of young people this debate is about. a soldier on the front lines defending our country. a young man working hard at home in oregon supporting his family. these are the young people whose lives have been turned down -- turned upside down by a presidential decision. and they are just pawns in this raging political battle. young people like esley and daniel signed up for daca so they could work and get back to the country. dreamers are integral parts of their communities. they pitch in and help those communities grow. if all daca recipients lost their protections, it would be a massive economic hit to our country.

$280 billion lost. so even going beyond the humanitarian impact of breaking up families, that's what daca recipients mean from a dollars and cents standpoint. the crisis dreamers are facing did begin last year when the president made the decision to terminate the program. senators from both parties have now been working to fix it. time after time senators have brought bipartisan ideas forward and i'd like to note at this point senator schumer went to the president and put the border wall on the table for discussion making it clear that this was something that he didn't support

but he would put it out there just to try to generate some goodwill and try to find a way to get folks working together. so throughout this discussion, sometimes it seems that the president just won't take yes for an answer. so senators from both sides keep working in the best tradition of this body. and on the health care front, we sure showed here recently what could be done when there was bipartisanship and senators working together. he sits right over there, chairman hatch of the finance committee. he and i worked together. i'm the ranking democrat on the committee. we now have a ten-year authorization of the children's health insurance program. nobody would have ever imagined that a year and a half ago. we have made a transformative set of changes in medicare to

update the medicare guarantee to cover chronic illness, cancer, and diabetes and heart disease and strokes for most of the health care spending. we got that done. and the biggest change in child welfare policy, an approach democrats and republicans have been dreaming about for 30 years. i bring it up only by way of saying bipartisanship can break out here in the united states senate. and right now, right now as i am on the floor, i know we still have a big group of democrats and republicans who are saying that this is too important to just have another political food fight. they are working on a compromise

plan, democrats and republicans, that would bring this daca crisis to a close, invest in border security, make some changes to our legal immigration system, and particularly do justice to the dreamers, like young esley bacero. now, the reality is, madam president, when you're doing something like that, it's pretty obvious nobody gets the bill they would have written. nobody gets the bill that they would have written. if they go back to their office and take out a sheet of paper and go right down from a to z. but that's pretty much what you

have to recognize if you're going to find some common ground. that's how the bipartisan process is supposed to work. madam president, colleagues, bipartisanship is not about taking each other's dumb ideas. anybody can do that. bipartisanship is about taking each other's good ideas. and that's what we've got a big group of senators, democrats and republicans, working together to do on this issue. now, unfortunately, it seems that recent reports indicate that the president and his team are working to derail this bipartisan solution. they are insisting on some kind of approach that will make radical changes to the legal

immigration system, for example. i just want to note for a second, madam president, this is very important in the wyden household. my parents fled the nazis in the 1930's. not all got out. my dad basically talked his way into the army. they weren't all that interested in my dad. he was overweight. he had health problems. but my dad convinced him that he was a german kid and he could drop propaganda pamphlets. he could write propaganda pamphlets in german that we would drop on the nazis telling them they were going to die and they were going to freeze. my dad was the most patriotic person i ever met. we're better because of legal immigration in this country. and yet in order to get this compromise, we have now seen

proposals to radically change the legal immigration system. and i see my colleague, an outstanding member of the finance committee who knows so much about these immigration issues on the floor. i look forward to his remarks. but the fact is, the president is demanding san approach that goes way beyond -- is demanding an poach that goes way beyond daca and border security, which are two natural kind of book ends for bipartisanship and it's where this debate began. unfortunately, what the president is really pushing breaks up families, severely cuts back legal immigration which i just noted i've seen why legal immigration makes our country better and stronger.

and what the president is talking about would do on top of all this enormous economic -- it's certainly not going to get the votes here in the senate to proceed to 60 votes. the bipartisan solution that both sides have worked hard together on is the best opportunity the chamber has to end the daca crisis. the senate really cannot come up with sustainable solutions when you just play to those who take the most extreme views. you can't get a sustainable solution. by the way, that's how debates in the united states senate are supposed to work. two parties, hand in hand bringing their ideas forward, finding solutions both sides can agree on. and that's why i mentioned chairman hatch and finally

getting major health reforms recently that people never dreamed are possible. on this debate at hand, the question of justice for the dreamers and reasonable border security, two book ends that i happen to think could fit and produce principled bipartisanship through this group of senators that are working together, this is our opportunity. and millions of families across the country are following this debate and they are hoping to get some good news on this issue where there has been gridlock for so long. passing the bipartisan proposal is our opportunity to give it to them. this is the time for the congress to come up with a

permanent solution for dreamers. this is not something to be deferred any longer. it is time to act now. i urge my colleagues in the strongest way possible to support the bipartisan proposal democrats and republicans coming together when there's an opportunity to vote on it, which i believe will be shortly. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: madam president, i come to the floor today fully aware that time is running out for america's dreamers. their fates rest in of our vote. in what dr. king called the fierce urgency of now is upon us. if we fail to take action today, the dreams of 800,000 young

people under the deferred action for childhood arrivals, known as daca, and thousands of others like them will turn to nightmares. it is truly a terrifying prospect that dreamers face, the prospect that at any moment after they fall out of status, they could be snatched up by president trump's deportation forces, torn away from their families and sent to countries they consider foreign lands. well, i refuse to be complicit in that nightmare. i refuse to be complicit in the deportation of innocent children. i refuse to be complicit in those studying and working and studying in my home state of new jersey. it is only out of compassion for them and commitment to them that i'm prepared to vote for the bipartisan deal reached last

night, the rounds-king version. let me be very clear. this is not the deal i would have drafted. it is far from the deal i would want. but i know for a fact that it is the only deal with a shot at becoming law. it is the only deal with any hope of earning 60 votes, a simple majority in the house, and maybe the forced signature of donald trump's pen. and therefore it is the only deal with any hope of protecting more than dreamers across america from the president's mass deportation agenda. to my fellow democrats, to my friends and fellow leaders in the hispanic community, to those in the immigration advocacy communities and those in new jersey who have stood by throughout this deal, i will not

sugarcoat this deal. it is not in the fairness that we would want. it is not as fiscally responsible as it should be. to be honest, if my republican colleagues truly wanted to protect america's dreamers in good faith, they would have done so months ago. instead they refused to address this crisis for months. republicans chose to treat dreamers like bargaining chip, pawns that could be used to advance far-right restrictions on lawful family sponsored immigration to the united states and to deliver president trump a big, fat $25 billion kiss in the form of border wall funding. the only thing more per pos perus to ask mexico to pay for the border call is asking the american people to pay $25 billion for a border wall. that is money that could go to repair the crumbling walls in

schools and our infrastructure. that is $25 billion that the american people will have to pay from president trump's broken promise that mexico would pay the bill. i'm not the biggest fan of this deal. it's a bitter pill to swallow. so when i hear my republican colleagues say this legislation isn't tough enough, i encourage them to take a closer look. look at the hard choices that i and others have had to make to support this deal as the most senior -- as the senior senator from new jersey, one of the most ethnically and racially diverse states in america. many of the agreements were supposed to die in the proposal that we and the gang of six brought to the president weeks ago only for him to deny it.

for example, legal permanent residents no loren able to support their adult children to join them in this country. that's not the only hard choice we had to make in order to protect dreamers from deportation. for a while we granted them the opportunity to earn a 12-year pathway to citizenship. we pay a dear price by limiting the right to sponsor the parents they love so dearly. although other u.s. citizen families will be able to do so. i take solace in the possibility that some day in the future congress will return to our american values and stand proudly for the principles of family reunification that have guided immigration policies for the past century, the very family reunification that ultimately allowed donald trump's grandfather to come to the united states and have his prodigy come from there and

ultimately rise to be the president of the united states. i'm going to fight for the parents of dreamers and the comprehensive immigration reform we need when that day comes, but for the moment i'm under no illusionings the -- illusions, the cold, hard reality the cold reality of those young people will be extinguished. to my colleagues, i remind you that legislating is the art of the porl. we are in the -- possible. we are in the minority in both chearms of congress. the -- chambers of congress. we may not enjoy this reality, i certainly don't, but it is a reality nonetheless. in this reality we do not have the power to make anything happen unless we get support from some of our on the other side of the aisle. we have the power to try and stop terrible things from

happening, but we can only make things happen if we have others join us in common cause. so i ask my fellow democrats to please hold the line for the hundreds of thousands of innocent children and bright young people who belong in this country and need our votes to stay in this country. we have to remember that compromise is the oil that keeps the wheel of congress running, and without it, dreamers who have become integral to communities across the nation may very well be forcibly removed. we know they belong here with us, strengthening the diverse threads that bind us together as one people. to my republican colleagues, i ask you to remember the tough concessions we had to make so that dreamers have a chance to earn citizenship in a country they love and the only country they know. i again close by quoting the always relevant and forever wise dr. king who said, we are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today.

we are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. in this unfoaledding -- unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late. my friends, the fierce urgency of now looms over us today. the fate of our dreamers grows more uncertain with each passing second. i, for one, refuse to let their dreams die here on the senate floor. so let's pass the rounds-king amendment and pass it fast. there's no time for further delay. if we want dreamers to have a tomorrow here in this country, then we must act today. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. mr. grassley: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: before i speak on the current issue before the senate, i ask permission to have -- i have six requests for

committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. grassley: i come to the floor now to offer brief remarks on the introduction of the latest so-called bipartisan proposal. there's simply no way to say it but to say it, that this proposal that fails to meet the mark will result in massive amnesty and it will result in a surge of illegal immigration, even encouraging illegal crossing of our borders, and it has absolutely no chance of becoming law because we've been reminded of what the president said he would sign and he has

said that this bill that we're talking about now would not be signed by the president of the united states, it would be vetoed. in my mind, the department of homeland security when they commented on this bill has this one point right. this bill will absolutely destroy our ability, meaning d.h.s.'s ability, to enforce our laws, secure our borders, and consequently then not protect the american people the way that the american people expect our government to do their number one responsibility to protect the american people. it's hard to decide where to start when you dissect this ill-conceived proposal, but to

quote j.r. token, i guess the best place to begin is at the beginning. this proposal claims to have border security measures, but the simple fact is that it doesn't have border security measures. this proposal does something that democrats and republicans agreed last year isn't sufficient border security. and what we all agreed to is that simply throwing money at the border is not border security. so what does that lead you to other than just what you do at the border? everyone in this chamber knows how hard senators cornyn and johnson have worked on border security. their hard work has shown all of us that border security, real border security, isn't just

about infrastructure and money, it's about legal authority policy changes as as well and maybe more important. like it or not, the simple fact is that our current laws contain numerous loopholes that actually prevent our law enforcement officers have apprehending, detaining, and speedily deporting dangerous criminal aliens. professional staffers at the department of homeland security, and i emphasize the words professional staffers, not political appointees, agree we need these authority changes. i ask my colleagues, what's the point of throwing money at the border if sex offenders, terrorists, gang members, child

molesters and war criminals can continue getting into our country? what's the point if we can't actually remove people who are entering illegally? what's the point if americans continue to be victimized by crimes committed by undocumented immigrants? this bipartisan plan falls miserably short of providing real border security and doesn't do anything to make americans safer. worse than the border security problems, this bipartisan plan massively expands the number of individuals who are eligible for citizenship. the way this plan is written more than three million individuals could become eligible for citizenship. and many of these people

wouldn't actually be about the very same people we've been trying to deal with all week, daca and dreamers. the way this bill is written, people as old as 43 could benefit. so i thought when we began this debate that we have been talking about protecting young people. young people, not middle-aged adults. this is clearly beyond the pale, and it's just another example of moving the amnesty yardstick. but the worst thing in this plan, the most egregious thing, is that it effectively suspends immigration enforcement until june, 2018. now, think about that. why would you effectively suspend immigration enforcement

at any time? if my colleagues look at the last page of this amendment, it clearly says that any person who illegally enters our country before the end of june, 2018, then you will never be a priority for deportation. think of the invitation that comes for people between now and june 30 to get to this country because you won't be a priority for deportation. isn't that quite an invitation to violate our laws, to violate our sovereignty? i can't imagine that people in the states of montana and north dakota and south dakota, maybe any state, for that matter, but particularly in some of these really conservative states that we have, that they would be

thinking about voting for something that would be actually inviting people to this country because you won't be a priority for deportation. so let me -- let that point sink in. the authors of this plan are telling everyone in the world, not just south of our border, no matter who they are, what they have done, that if they get here before june, they will never be an enforcement priority. isn't that immigration madness? i can't, for the life of me, understand why my colleagues would want to end immigration enforcement. what justification do they have? i would urge them if they got a justification, please come to the floor and please explain to the american people why you want people who aren't already here

to come illegally. what could be the reason for that? so, mr. president, i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. it just isn't serious. it will totally undermine our nation's border security and immigration law. this should not pass. i hope it doesn't pass. the president's proposed a veto. for the people that introduced it, it's a good bill, but are you interested in just a good bill or are you interested in getting a law passed? that takes 60 in the senate, takes a majority in the house, and it takes a presidential signature. i hope that you're serious about working for things that actually become law. that's what we have promised the dreamers, and that's what we can deliver if we get those 60 votes, and we can do it in a way

that is sound immigration policy, not something that's going to encourage more people to cross our borders without documentation. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. gardner: thank you, mr. president. yesterday, america witnessed another great tragedy in the state of florida, and of course our soul aches with what must be unimaginable grief. as we turn to comfort those who lost so much in florida, i come to the floor of the senate again for the third time in a little more than a month to share in the grief of colorado as well, to honor the life and legacy of a fallen colorado sheriff's deputy. el paso county sheriff's deputy mica flick was shot and killed last week while investigating a stolen car when he threw himself in front of his fellow officers to shield them from gunfire.

sheriff's deputy scott stone, sheriff sergeant jacob abenshine and colorado springs police officer marcus yunez, along with a bystander, were also wounded in this attack. a total of 10 law enforcement officers in colorado, 10 law enforcement officers in colorado have been wounded or killed since december 31. on january 24, adams county sheriff's deputy gumm was fatally wounded. another assault on law enforcement officers on new year's eve in douglas county resulted in the death of jefferson county sheriff's deputy parrish and wounded four other law enforcement officers. these three attacks have left four children without fathers and countless loved ones whose loss they will never forget. mica flick was killed on his 11th anniversary watt el paso county sheriffs deputy department. he leaves behind a wife and 7-year-old twins. micah was a hero.

he was remembered by his brother-in-law as someone who never wanted to do anything else but to protect this community. his fellow sheriff's deputies would always tease him that he was the poster boy of the sheriff's office. mich's wife rachel captured her husband's heroism perfectly when she explained how she would always tell him to just do his job and not be a hero but understand that was not in his d.n.a. micah was a hero, and he couldn't help it, she said. micah's fellow deputy was wounded in the attack. it confirmed micah's heroism. deputy stone told sheriff bill elder, micah saved my life, and i will be forever grateful. micah was a hero that day, and no one will ever forget that. unfortunately, i have come to this chamber far too many times just this year to honor a fallen colorado law enforcement officer, repeat the words for the third time of lieutenant colonel dave grossman who wrote that american law enforcement is the loyal and brave sheep dog,

always standing watch for the wolf that lurks in the dark. we owe so much to micah and his brothers and sisters in blue that protect our communities each and every day. i know that all of our families together sleep better at night knowing these heroes are out protecting every single one of us. thank you, micah, for answering the call. you protected your community, you saved your fellow officers. you're a hero, and i along with coloradans across the state are forever grateful. and like your fellow officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice, we will remember your heroism for eternity and honor you and your family for your sacrifice. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cotton: mr. president, i want to speak today about the so-called shiewrm amendment -- schumer amendment.

abraham lincoln said if you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have, five? no, four. in the same way you can call a bill bipartisan because there are some republicans on that bill and if the republicans would simply acquiesce to the democrat position it is a democratic bill. calling it bipartisan doesn't make it so. let's walk through a few of the weaknesses of this bill. so, first, the enforcement holiday for illegal immigration. it declares to anyone worldwide if you get to the united states in the next four months before june 30, 2018, the department of homeland security will not enforce any laws against you. it was handwritten last night. i suspect some of my colleagues on this bill didn't even know this change was made. it used to be january 1, 2018,

and you had to be present for at least five and a half years. that's not great but it's better than any a perspective enforcement holiday. it says if you get to this country illegally in the next four months, we will not make you an enforcement priority. if you get here by june 30, under this amendment, d.h.s. will not enforce its laws against you. the president has been extraordinary -- he didn't say legal status. he said citizenship. he said a full opportunity for citizenship for 1 pointle million -- 1.8 million people who are not just enrolled in the program but eligible for the program had they enrolled. this amendment would expand that

almost 3 million to 4 million people by lifting the age limits, by lifting the age caps, a vast amnesty just among those younger people of a quarter of the people in this country illegally. third, it gets worse than that. the entire rationale of the daca program is that children all not pay for the sins of their parents. how about parents pay for the sins of the parents? this bill would allow the effective legalization of the very parents who created this problem in the first place. now, the sponsors of this say no, no, we prohibit the parents from getting legal status. let's look at how they do that. they say that no person can receive legal status if the department of homeland security can show they knowingly assisted the entry of a minor in this country. now, tell me how the department of homeland security is supposed to make that showing? how are they supposed to go back 10, 15, 20, 25 years and show

that this illegal immigrant knowingly brought that person into this country. it's preposterous. it's the exact reason why so many immigration bills have failed for so many years in this body. because the democrats write bills they claim does one thing and in reality it does the exact opposite thing. the exact opposite thing. fourth, they say that it reforms chain migration or at least makes a downpayment on it. here's what it actually does. it briefly, briefly delays a tiny, tiny class of persons from being sponsored by newly legalized immigrants. only about 25,000 per year of the adult children of green card holders. it takes those and applies them to other adult children, and when those immigrants become a citizen, guess what? they get to sponsor their adult

children again. so it makes not a single change to the chain migration which is responsible for so much of the unskilled and low-skilled immigration we've had in this country over the last 40 years. it makes no changes whatsoever to the diversity lottery, not a single one, not a single one, even though every other provision under serious consideration has at least eliminated that lottery and reallocated those green cards towards other purposes, like clearing out that family-based backlog, clearing out the high-skilled backlog. now, some people say that oh, it appropriates $25 billion, $2.5 billion a year for ten years for the border wall. it does no such thing. again, it says one thing, does another. it gives $2.5 billion for the first year. can't be spent on physical barriers. and then every year after that, it makes that money contingent

on a report and a certification by the department of homeland security that is purposefully, purposefully onerous, difficult to achieve, and, therefore, means the money likely will not be available in future years. and, of course, if a democratic president comes into office in the ten years of this bill, we know that his department of homeland security will never submit that report certification, and that money will never be spent. and finally, this amendment has no chance of becoming law, zero chance. it shouldn't pass this chamber to begin with, but even if that were to happen, president trump issued a veto threat just minutes ago. the house of representatives is not going to pass this bill. they probably won't take it up, as they didn't take it up the last time the senate passed a terrible immigration bill. so my friends, this democratic bill deserves to be roundly

defeated. there is one bill that has a chance to pass the house of representatives and get the president's signature, and that is the president's framework proposal, which again in a very generous and humane fashion gives citizenshi citizenship, nt legal status but citizenship to 1.8 million young people who were brought here or came here before the age of accountability. on the other hand, it mitigates the negative consequences of that decision, which we all know will happen, first, to control the increased incentives for illegal immigration. it provides the money and closes the loopholes necessary to secure our southern border. and second, to prevent that newly legalized class of citizens from sponsoring the very parents who created this problem in the fairs place and their siblings and ultimately their grandparents and their aunts and their uncles and their nieces and their nephews, it

ends the practice of chain migration and says american citizens can always sponsor their spouses and minor kids. but anyone else should stand on their own two feet if they want to immigrate to this country. that's what the president said he will sign. that is, therefore, what the house of representatives can pass. that is the bill that should pass today, the bill that is sponsored by chairman grassley of the judiciary committee. mr. president, i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the clerk: the clerk will call the roll.

mrs. ernst: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mrs. ernst: mr. president, i want to take a moment -- excuse me. are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mrs. ernst: mr. president, i ask -- the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. ernst: thank you. mr. president, i want to take a moment to emphasize why the secure and succeed act is the right bill for the senate to pass this week. you see, i chose to join my colleagues who have worked hard on this bill for months for a few important reasons. first, this bill provides a way

forward for our daca recipients. i have said time and again that i appreciate the contributions our daca recipients are making in our communities. they are our friends, our neighbors, and our churchgoers. i support finding them a way forward. our bill does this. it does it in a fair and humane way. but importantly, it also adds strong eligibility requirements to ensure the safety and security of the program and stop future illegal immigration. for instance, it does not reward the parents that came here illegally by giving them any type of lawful status.

and it sets reasonable time limits and restrictions on who can apply. second, it provides immediate and significant investments in our border. we cannot allow this problem to happen again. we have a duty and an obligation to keep our borders secure and our citizens safe. our bill recognizes that spending money on the border without giving law enforcement strong authorities is like buying a boat without an engine. we need both to keep our borders and our communities secure. third, our bill recognizes that you cannot view immigration in a silo. it is a bulky issue that represents many legal, economic,

and security concerns. many of these issues are deeply interes-- deeply interconnected. addressing daca and addressing the border without addressing some of the other issues plaguing our system is a half solution. we must have the president's four principles to make this work. finally, this is the president's plan. the white house has endorsed this proposal. the president's pen is ready to sign it. i urge my colleagues, let's pass the bill that addresses the right issues in this debate and can actually become law. let's pass the secure and

succeed act. thank you, mr. president. i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent notwithstanding rule 22, the cloture motions filed during yesterday's session of the senate ripen at 2:30 p.m. today. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, as today we mourn the loss of