Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the nomination of Thomas Farr to serve as a district judge for the Eastern District of the great State of North Carolina.

Over the past year, I have joined many of my colleagues in the Senate, my esteemed colleagues in the House, and really people from all across the country who have been speaking out about Mr. Farr's troubling record.

We see many district court judges come before the U.S. Senate, but I think none has triggered this kind of tumult, this kind of frustration, and this kind of outcry.

We have seen an outpouring of advocacy and activism that is now coming around this nomination, but this nomination--and the energy and advocacy of Americans speaking out against it--is, frankly, not about politics. It is not about partisanship. It is about something deeper than just left or right. This is about right or wrong.

We are a nation of people who I believe have so much more in common than we have apart. The lines that divide us are nowhere near as strong as the ties that bind us. What binds us? We are bound together not because of many of the more obvious historically held things that hold people together. It is not our language or our religion or our race that holds this Nation and her people together. We are bound to one another because of the ideals we share. We say them in our anthem. We say them in our salute and in our pledge. We know we are a nation of principles and ideals.

Some of the most fundamental of those principles, the most sacrosanct of those ideals we share are about and surrounding that right to vote; that every American has the right to vote. When you enter that ballot box, whether you are the richest person in this country or a working- class person from New Jersey, you are equal in that ballot box. You all have that right to vote. That is what makes this a great republic. That is what makes us a great democracy; that your vote will be equally counted and treated equally under the law.

Throughout our history, greater Americans have fought to secure these fundamental rights for us. From Seneca Falls to the Edmund Pettus Bridge, Americans have stood and fought and marched and sweated and bled for this right to vote, for suffrage, for universal voting rights.

There have been debates on this floor advancing legislation that has secured those rights amongst men and women, further advancing that truth about our country that we will be a democracy where every vote will be counted, where every person will be treated equally in their right to vote.

Americans from all backgrounds--multiracial, multiethnic coalitions-- struggled together for these rights and fought together to make them real, but this nomination now stands in direct contrast to that legacy of common sacrifice and common struggle, of that legacy to push for equality.

The facts in this nomination are clear, and they again have nothing to do with partisanship but do indicate a very clear pattern of time and again that Mr. Farr has worked to advance a very specific, very anti-democratic agenda, one that is aimed at turning back the clock, in eroding very critical voting rights.

We know for a fact that in 1984, Mr. Farr managed the so-called ballot security program for the reelection campaign of Senator Jesse Helms that targeted and attempted to suppress the votes of Black North Carolinians.

We know that in 1990, Mr. Farr participated in a so-called ballot security meeting just days before the Helms campaign infamously and notoriously sent tens of thousands of postcards targeting Black North Carolinian votes, suggesting that they were not only not eligible to vote but threatened criminal prosecution if they did. This is not left or right. Republicans and Democrats criticized, decried that method of voter suppression.

Mr. Farr has repeatedly claimed that he had no knowledge of the mailing until he was contacted after the fact for legal advice, but I am deeply troubled that despite being given multiple opportunities, Mr. Farr has failed to be completely honest with the Senate about his record.

When Senator Feinstein from California asked Mr. Farr: ``Did you ever participate in any meetings in which the postcards were discussed before they were sent,'' he replied unequivocally and simply: ``No.'' But according to a breaking story published by the Washington Post within the last hour, we know that ``during the meeting, participants also reviewed the Helms campaign's 1984 ballot security effort Farr had coordinated `with an eye toward the activities that should be undertaken in 1990.'''

The evidence that just came out from the Washington Post again casts a shadow over the truthfulness and the honesty of Mr. Farr about his participation in that meeting and the voter suppression efforts.

Again, Mr. Farr misrepresented the context of this meeting in his responses to me both in December of 2017 and January of this year.

Finally, we also know that in 2016, Mr. Farr lost one of his biggest cases, defending North Carolina's notorious and discriminatory voter ID law--a law that he helped write because the court found it would target Black North Carolinians ``with almost surgical precision''--target those North Carolinians to be disenfranchised from their right to vote.

Time and again, Mr. Farr has worked to advance an agenda aimed at turning back the clock on our democratic advancements, on our common ideals, the commonsense fairness that in this country every vote counts, every person has the right to vote. Time and again, in this process, Mr. Farr has offered misleading and incomplete testimony regarding his record and his work.

This is a body that has shown, in its history, the capability to work together in a bipartisan way to protect the right to vote. This body is the one that passed one of the most important pieces of legislation in our history, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but the weight of history isn't just on this body in this moment because it still weighs heavily on so many voters in North Carolina who remember receiving one of those postcards from Jesse Helms in 1984, at the direction of Mr. Farr and others, and who may have received another postcard from the Helms campaign in 1990, threatening Federal prosecution if they exercised their right to vote.

It is those people in the Eastern District right now who feel the weight, the pushback on historical advancements, who are watching this body now. Those voters who got those postcards didn't get them because the Helms campaign or Mr. Farr saw value in their vote; they received them because the Helms campaign and Mr. Farr were trying to

suppress it. That is anti-democratic. That is an affront to our history.

Confirming the person responsible for managing and defending those tactics, who was involved in them, who has misrepresented that fact pattern to this body, wouldn't just be a disservice to North Carolinians, wouldn't just be a disservice to those Americans who received those postcards, it would be a betrayal of the work of generations of Americans from all backgrounds, all races, all religions, a multitude of parties--all of those Americans who joined in that common pursuit in this country to stand up for the right to vote.

This is not right or left. This is about whether we move forward or back, and forward we have moved: countless generations, people from different backgrounds standing together, working together, sweating together, bleeding together, marching together, marching feet in the suffrage movement, marching feet in the voting rights movement, marching feet across this country, from protestors like Alice Paul marching in front of the White House to protestors marching through the South, through Alabama, across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, every generation marching forward.

This nomination now represents a moment in history, not right or left, but will we continue to march forward? If this body confirms Mr. Farr, it will not be forward-marching. It will be a step backward in the wrong direction, against the historical tide and currents that have gotten us to this wonderful moment together.

Let us again stand together in a bipartisan way and say: We will not be turned around; that we will not go backward; that we believe, when it comes to the sacrosanct rights of the Nation, that we will always fight to make sure the right to vote is secure, and we have the truth of this country and will go marching on.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first of all, I want to give gratitude to both of the Senators who spoke before me, my friend Senator Coons and my friend Senator Jeff Flake. I want to especially thank Jeff Flake for his willingness not just to lead with words but to make a commitment on the Senate floor that he will not be voting on judicial appointments until this is brought to a vote.

Senator Flake and Senator Coons have said pretty much all of what I was going to say. Perhaps just very succinctly and very candidly, I want to reiterate this moment we are in and the gravity of the moment we are in. This bill is not a partisan piece of legislation. It comes from a bipartisan effort. It started many months ago, when Senator Graham and I started talking and Senator Tillis and Senator Coons started talking many months ago, not just for this moment in history but also understanding that we have a flaw in our system that does not have an appropriate check and balance on a Presidential power that can put them in a position where they are not subject to the laws of our land.

This Special Counsel and Independence Integrity Act came from a bipartisan effort to try to make sure that we have appropriate checks and balances to prevent a constitutional crisis. It is actually a forward-thinking bill, understanding that we should not be reactive in the cause of our democracy but proactive in preventing and securing the great Nation and our laws and our rules that we all cherish.

We see a bipartisan bill worked on, crafted, compromised, brought to committee, be voted out of committee, and languish now without a vote, and I agree with Senator Coons that it would get more than 60 votes and would provide a reasonable check and balance. This is a bill that is important for history, but the urgency of this moment Senator Coons has already gone over.

We now have the firing of Jeff Sessions, and Jeff Sessions was said to be fired by a President who literally said: ``I would not have hired you if I thought you were going to recuse yourself.'' He was replaced with a person--and Senator Coons has read the quotes--who talked about this investigation and what he would like to do. He called it a witch hunt, and he compromised himself now in the position he is in. The idea that the integrity of this investigation and the idea that the urgency of this investigation will continue under his leadership are in question. That is why this bill is necessary.

More than that, we are a nation that has been, is, and will be under attack. All of our intelligence agencies have a consensus on the conclusion that our democracy is under attack.

We need to understand what happened, what is happening, how to prevent it from happening again, and hold those people accountable.

This investigation has led to numerous guilty pleas. This investigation has led to numerous indictments, and it should be able to run its course without interference.

So I will conclude by saying that there is urgency in our country to uphold an ideal and a principle that no one, not a Congress person, not a Senator, not a mayor, not a Governor, not the President of the United States--no one in this country is above the law.

There is ample evidence of this body taking reasonable, measured, bipartisan actions to make sure we have the balanced government that was designed and intended by our Founders. This is a reasonable, modest check and balance on Presidential power to ensure that no one, including the President of the United States, is above the law.

I am deeply grateful for Senator Coons, Senator Tillis, Senator Graham, and especially for the leadership shown right now by Senator Flake in this important moment to avoid a constitutional crisis.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 224, on the motion to invoke cloture on the House message to accompany S. 3021.

On vote No. 224, had I been present, I would have voted yea.

Mr. President, on September 16, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford publicly came forward to share that Brett Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when they were in high school. This was a remarkably courageous act. It was one that she hesitated to do. It was something that she struggled with, but she said time and again that she believed it was her civic duty and her sense of citizenship--that act of grace, that feeling that you have a commitment to country, to causes larger than yourself. She put herself forward. She said she was terrified to do so. She said she feared for what the impact would be on her family.

Indeed, the impact on her family was terrifying. She endured hatred and vile poured out to her--death threats. She had to leave her family home and split her family up at times. She had to engage security for her own protection.

When Dr. Ford came before the Judiciary Committee to testify, she reiterated that she was afraid. She reiterated how terrified she was, but she stated again and again this ideal of patriotic duty and civic responsibility because she believed that there is something about our institutions that is sacred and that for the highest Court in the land, there could be millions of qualified people in America, thousands of folks. Indeed, the President's list itself has dozens of folks. She said that this person who sexually assaulted her should not go on the highest Court in the land for a lifetime appointment.

So she sat before us in the face of endless harassment, with glaring public scrutiny into all aspects of her life and the threats against her family. Dr. Ford gave testimony that was powerful and that, to many, was jarring. She talked about her private truth, her experience, and how it affected her life.

She said again and again that she wanted to be helpful to the committee.

She treated every member of the committee on the Republican side and the Democratic side with respect. She extended them grace. She was cross-examined by a prosecutor for the Republicans. She engaged with that prosecutor with a sense of decency and honor. She didn't stretch the truth or try to dodge questions. She spoke honestly and candidly and from her heart. She shared details that she said had been seared into her memory.

She talked about the narrow set of stairs in that house that she climbed to use the restroom. She talked about being pushed from behind into a bedroom. She talked about the music being turned up louder as she struggled. She talked about Brett Kavanaugh on top of her, hand over her mouth, trying to stop her as she yelled for help. She said she thought she was going to be raped. She said she thought she might be accidentally killed.

There was Mark Judge, a person she identified, watching, refusing to help her. Both Mark and Brett were laughing. Dr. Ford described that laughter as searing into her memory. She talked about it as being indelible. She told us she would never forget, and that she would ``never forget the uproarious laughter between the two and their having fun at my expense.''

I believe her. I believe Dr. Ford. I still believe her, and many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle spoke up, calling Dr. Ford's testimony credible. Many have said they believe her or, at least, that they believe someone assaulted her. They gave credence to the power of that experience--an experience that reflects that of many people who experience trauma. You don't remember it like a video recording, but there are moments that are seared into your mind. Her experience was consistent with people who have experienced trauma. Even though the Senate hearing would not allow experts to come in, we all know enough now to know that the way she described her experiences and the things she remembered all spoke to the ability of a courageous American doing their civic duty.

I was surprised that even the President of the United States called her sincere and called her testimony compelling. That was until he stood at a rally and mocked her. The President of the United States, the most powerful person in the country--perhaps the most powerful person in the world--mocked her and got uproarious laughter. The same thing that was seared in her memory: People were laughing at her. The President ignited that in a crowd and made her again the focus of laughter and mocking.

To this body that I revere, this body that I love; to my colleagues, whom I respect, on both sides of the aisle; to this body that was designed to be the world's most deliberative body; to this body that was designed to be thoughtful, to take the time to analyze, the question is this: We heard words about her testimony, but what followed those words? Were they like dust in the wind or were they substantive words that cause us to believe her, admiring and honoring her courage for coming forward? Did we treat her that way?

Well, if they did believe her, if they did honor her words and her courage and the risk she took, then this body and the Judiciary Committee, of which I am a part, would have insisted on a full, fair, thorough, and complete FBI investigation that included the many witnesses who stepped forward who could have corroborated her testimony and could have contradicted Judge Kavanaugh's testimony. This body would have insisted that we take the time to do a thorough investigation because it is not just about Dr. Ford. There are millions of survivors, women and men, watching how this body will deal with the seriousness of sexual assault.

Will we listen to survivors? Will we honor them enough to fully investigate their charges? These are not just charges alone. These are charges against someone who is up for one of the most important positions in our Nation--a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

No, they did not honor them. If they had honored them, they would have insisted on a full FBI investigation. Indeed, when another survivor, Ms. Ramirez, came forward, talking about her incident with Judge Kavanaugh during college days--when Judge Kavanaugh diminished his drinking, evasively talked about his drinking--classmate after classmate, after his testimony, came forward and said he was lying and he was misleading. Republican and Democratic classmates were offended by the way he talked about his behavior. It was in those college days that Ms. Ramirez said Judge Kavanaugh exposed himself to her. She identified 20 witnesses that were either eyewitnesses or could have corroborated the evidence.

She talked in detail about who could have substantiated her claims about the kind of drunkenness that we heard in public statements from his friends, which seemed consistent and seemed to implicate the truthfulness of someone who was going to the highest Court. Did we honor that woman? Did we honor that survivor by doing an investigation, by going to and at least talking to the 20 witnesses that she put forward--another woman who is being mocked, another woman who is a victim of hate being spewed at her, belittling her? Did we honor a survivor and simply listen and interview the 20 people she said could have proved the factual nature of her allegation?

No, we didn't. We didn't honor a survivor. We didn't listen to a survivor. We didn't take the time in the world's most deliberative body to listen to a woman's claims and take the steps to see if they were true or not.

This is what to me is so deeply offensive. It is that you have two women who come forward making claims that even the President said, at first, seemed sincere and compelling, but we didn't take the next step to fully investigate their claims so that we could know what the facts are.

The truth is something that the American public deserves. An investigation that gets to the truth is something that the American public deserves, that Dr. Ford deserves, that Ms. Ramirez deserves, and that even Brett Kavanaugh deserves--to let the truth come out. But this FBI investigation was part of a larger sham.

People on the right, colleagues of mine, accused Dr. Ford, with her sincere testimony--they accused her of being part of a coordinated, partisan smear campaign. Think about that. She told her husband in 2012 about the attack. Was she somehow coordinating with Democrats back in 2012 before Judge Kavanaugh was anywhere near being on the Supreme Court? No.

She talked about it with her therapist. She talked about it with her husband. She said it was Brett Kavanaugh years before Brett Kavanaugh was even on a list of consideration by the President.

In 2013, she discussed the assault again in an individual therapy session. In that same year, she told a close friend that she had been assaulted as a teenager while she was trapped in the room with two drunken boys. That was not a coordinated, partisan attack back in 2013.

In 2016, she told another friend she had been sexually assaulted in high school by someone who went on to become a Federal judge. In 2017, she told yet another friend about the assault. She told each of these three friends that a person who had assaulted her had become a Federal judge. This does not sound like some kind of partisan smear tactics; this sounds like a woman who has been telling the truth for years about Brett Kavanaugh.

The least this body could do is pause for a moment and not do a sham FBI investigation where they talk to just a handful of people but do a full FBI investigation, because these charges are serious.

Meanwhile, millions of Americans--survivors themselves and others-- are watching to see how we deal with something that the Centers for Disease Control says happens to one out of every three women in America. How do we deal with those charges? It happens to one out of every six men in America. How do we deal with those charges? When a survivor comes forward, how does the world's most deliberative body honor that?

What we are seeing here is a coordinated, partisan effort to put blinders on, to not seek the truth, and to rush this to tomorrow to a final vote.

Long before Dr. Ford's bravery, I was one of those Democrats, one of those Senators, one of those Americans who expressed their sincere and deeply held concerns about Judge Kavanaugh's

record. I said early that I would not support him. I opposed his nomination. Then, I opposed his nomination because I was deeply concerned that we have a President of the United States who is the subject of a criminal investigation, and that President picked the one person from his Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society list who had a view of Presidential power that I believed would give that President immunity should issues relating to that investigation come before the Supreme Court.

I am deeply troubled about his views on women's right to make their own medical decisions. I am troubled about his views on workers' rights to organize, on voting rights, on civil rights, and on the principle of equal justice under the law. I am concerned about things that he said about foreign dark money influencing our campaigns. His record demonstrated very clearly to me that, if confirmed to the Supreme Court, Judge Kavanaugh would continue to prioritize the interests of the powerful few over the rights of everyday Americans and that we would see an erosion of individual rights in this country. But I still believed we needed to have a fair and thorough vetting of this nominee consistent with our constitutional obligations and that it would eventually get to the floor and we would have our vote.

In the many weeks leading up to Judge Kavanaugh's hearing before the Judiciary Committee, many Democratic colleagues and I pushed for the same kind of transparency and a process. Even if we knew where we were going to go, the process should have been fair. The process should have been bipartisan.

The Judiciary Committee has a long history of the majority and minority working together to set ground rules for the committee process. I watched the Judiciary Committee for many years before I came to this body. It was the No. 1 committee I wanted to be on 5 years ago when I came to the Senate. There are legends still on that committee, statesmen on both sides of the aisle, men I respect. But this process from the very beginning has been a sham. It has undermined the ability of Senators to perform our constitutional duty to advise and consent on the nominee because of the withholding of critical information that I believe is absolutely necessary to evaluate someone.

This constitutional duty means that we should have a process that allows transparency into that person's record. The public has a right to know who the individual is that we are voting on tomorrow, what their record is. The public has a right to know. Why would we hide their record from public scrutiny?

Step 1 of the sham was the Republican majority's refusal to request any records from Judge Kavanaugh's time as Staff Secretary to President George Bush. Zero records were requested whatsoever. Brett Kavanaugh himself held that position for 3 years. He called those 3 years of his year the ``most interesting and most formative years'' of his career, the most interesting and formative in shaping his approach to serving as a judge and during which he presumably advised the President on everything from national security policy to a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriages. So many critical issues that are germane to his job and his experience and the formation of his ideals were happening during those times. But they said we could see nothing from his record, even things that are not classified, not national security, things that would give us a better window into who he is.

Step 2 of the sham was to create a wholly unaccountable process for the fraction of the White House records that the Republican majority did request from Kavanaugh's time in the White House Counsel's Office. This process was essentially made up. It had no reflection on the history of his body of work--no reflection at all.

What happened was they put into place a practice where a private lawyer, Bill Burck--who happens to be a longtime political operative, who was a former deputy to Brett Kavanaugh himself when he was Staff Secretary--was put into part of the process as a choke hold on documents getting to Senators for our evaluation. Most of the documents of this candidate's work product have not been seen by any Senator here. In fact, about 90 percent of his relevant work experience, his relevant work product, has not been reviewed by any Senator here.

Imagine hiring somebody whose resume you have only seen 10 percent of because 90 percent is obscured. Most of the folks here wouldn't hire an intern in their office if somebody was hiding 90 percent of their resume.

Then there is step 3 of the sham. In conjunction with Mr. Burck, the committee chairman designated 186,000 pages something that was new called ``committee confidential'' in order to hide them from the public because they might harm the nomination. Imagine this: With the public having a right to know, the public needing transparency, now they are hiding yet again, under the name ``committee confidential,'' critical documents. They withheld 102,000 pages from the committee altogether, threatening to invoke some nebulous constitutional privilege. As a result, today, just hours before the final vote, only 7 percent of Kavanaugh's record from the Bush White House has been released to Senators. We are making a decision knowing only 7 percent of his work product.

When women's rights, workers' rights, LGBTQ rights, voting rights, and affordable healthcare are all in the balance, we know so little about this candidate. Because of all that is at stake, several colleagues and I made a decision to release those documents, but it was still just a fraction.

Meanwhile, Judge Kavanaugh's initial testimony before the Judiciary Committee raised my concern because he continued to evade questions, refused to answer our questions.

After Dr. Blasey Ford came forward, he gave his testimony, and I was stunned. You see, at Judge Kavanaugh's initial hearing in early September, he testified that he wanted to stay ``three zip codes away from politics.'' He insisted that the Supreme Court must never--I emphasize that word--never be viewed as a partisan institution. But when he came before the Judiciary Committee again last week, Judge Kavanaugh jettisoned his own advice, his own belief in judicial temperament, his own belief in how a judge should behave and be nonpartisan, and he leveled blatantly political accusations. He said that the allegations against him were nothing more than ``an orchestrated political hit,'' even speculating that they were motivated by ``a revenge on behalf of the Clintons.'' He cast blame on outside, leftwing opposition groups. He told the Democrats who were questioning him that the hearings had been ``an embarrassment.'' He was belligerent. He was evasive. At times, he was outright deceptive, and at times, he was deeply disrespectful to my Senate colleagues. He displayed the type of fierce partisanship that no American should ever want to see in a Federal judge. He went on to say almost as a menacing threat that ``what goes around, comes around.''

Is this someone who can sit on the highest Court in the land, where political issues might come before him? Has he not already revealed himself to be deeply partisan? Has he not already revealed himself to have a deep-seeded anger toward people of certain political stripe? Is this someone who shows the kind of judicial temperament, not for a district court, not for a circuit court, but for the highest Court in the land, the Court of last resort?

He didn't say all of this in response to questions. These weren't off-the-cuff comments. This was part of his prepared testimony. Those quotes were in his prepared testimony.

In another instance during his testimony, he warned that ``this is a circus.'' He said, ``The consequences will extend long past my nomination. The consequences will be with us for decades.''

That is how I want to end. What are the consequences for a sham process, for a sham FBI investigation? What are the consequences in relation to women who came forward before the world's most deliberative body with credible accusations of sexual misconduct, of sexual assault, of sexual violence? What are the consequences to a body that runs a partisan process, that ignores the truth, that shields relevant aspects of his record--90 percent--from the public? What are the consequences as they rush to the Senate floor hoping nobody knows the truth and ignoring investigating some of the most serious charges that could be leveled against

someone--charges of violence, charges of assault? What are the consequences for us in this body behaving in this way? What are the consequences for Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who has forever altered her life for her civic duty, for her patriotism, for her love of country? She sacrificed to come forward, and how do we treat her?

This has been an emotional week for so many. I have seen and heard and witnessed the pain and the trauma that has been dredged up. I have heard from some of my colleagues in private meetings about dozens of people coming forward to them, having never told people about their sexual assault, and now they come and tell their Senator, hoping that their story and that their pain that they haven't even shared with their spouse will somehow make a difference in the larger story of our country, will somehow make a difference at this moment when two women are not being listened to and when their stories are not getting worthy recognition, worthy investigation. I heard colleague after colleague tell me the stories, the painful stories.

I heard them myself from friends of mine who I never knew had been assaulted. I never knew of their pain, never knew of their trauma. But at this moment in American history, they felt they had to come forward. They had to tell their truth, like Christine Blasey Ford, like Ms. Ramirez. They felt now was the time to speak up and stop this Nation from making a mistake and try to stop the injustice and try to end a national nightmare where one out of three women is assaulted and most of them don't feel comfortable coming forward. They don't feel safe coming forward. They feel that if they come forward, they will be maligned, hated, disrespected, disregarded; that their charges will be swept under the rug; that their charges will be ignored. Yet a chorus of women and men all across this country have been telling their stories, screaming at this Nation, hoping the national conversation will shift in this country from abusing those who have been abused to elevating truth again.

This body has had a test, and we are failing that test. This body has had a chance. This body has had a responsibility, and we have surrendered that responsibility. So tomorrow we vote. It seems like the die is cast.

I heard there were celebrations and cheering in the White House. And in the last few hours, I also heard the pain and the anguish and the hurt, and I have heard the tears. It seems so unjust. It seems so unfair that two courageous women came forward to this body, and we couldn't even investigate their claims. We couldn't even take time to talk to witnesses. A lot of folks are now asking me: What now?

I want to conclude by reading some words from another painful period where people didn't know what this body would do. There was injustice in this land. People didn't know what this body would do. Hundreds of thousands came forward to march and to protest and to sit in. They didn't know what this body would do, but they stood anyway and they fought anyway. Sometimes they were beaten. In one case, on a bridge in Alabama, they were beaten and bloodied. One of my colleagues in the other Chamber, John Lewis, had his head split open. They eventually got over that bridge and got to Montgomery, and a man named King gave this speech to those people who were tempted to surrender to cynicism in that time. He gave this speech to those people who wanted to give up. He gave this speech to those people who were hurting. This is what he said:

I know you're asking today, ``How long will it take?

Somebody's asking, ``How long will prejudice blind the

visions of men, darken their understanding, and drive bright-

eyed wisdom from her sacred throne?'' Somebody's asking,

``When will wounded justice, lying in prostrate on the

streets . . . be lifted from this dust of shame to reign

supreme among the children of men?'' Somebody's asking,

``When will the radiant star of hope be plunged against the

nocturnal bosom of this lonely night, plucked from the weary

soul with chains of fear and the manacles of death? How long

will justice be crucified, and truth bear it?''

I come to say to you this afternoon, however difficult the

moment, however frustrating the hour, it will not be long,

because ``truth crushed to the earth will rise again.''

How long? Not long, because ``no lie can live forever.''

How long? Not long, because ``you shall reap what you

sow.''

How long? Not long, because the arc of the moral universe

is long, but it bends toward justice.

I say to every American who is hurting tonight, every American who is angry tonight, tomorrow we face a defeat, but we shall not be defeated. Tomorrow, it may seem like a loss, but all hope is not lost.

I have faith in us as a country. I know it has been a long journey. I know we have suffered much, but I have a faith in this country that is abiding and cannot be destroyed because we are a nation that always finds a way to move forward, to learn, to grow. What is dependent upon us doing that is for us to never ever give up. Never give up.

The days ahead will be difficult. It will not be easy, but I have faith in America. We will learn. We will grow. We will get better. We will come together if we never give up.

Tomorrow, the vote may be what it is. The die may be cast, but I will never give up on this country. I will never give up on women. I will never give up on the ideals and principles we all swear an oath to that this Nation, one day, truly will be a nation of liberty and justice for all.

Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that two members of my staff, Sophia Brill and Daniel Schuker, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the postcloture time on the nomination.

Madam President, I rise today to talk about the farm bill. I want to start by thanking Senators Roberts and Stabenow for making this farm bill a model of bipartisanship.

I have lived in a community in Newark for the last two-plus decades that most folks would not associate with a farm bill. The truth is, the issue we are grappling with in this bill affect all of our American communities--suburban, urban, and rural alike.

Folks in my community have borne the burden of horrific environmental injustices for decades--from toxins that poisoned our river, to lead in our soil, to pollutants in the air. Families in my city cannot plant crops in their soil because huge swaths of my city in many areas are toxic. We also have food deserts that exist in communities like mine, where people don't have access to healthy foods.

I have also visited rural areas of our country that endure the same kinds of injustices. I have met families who cannot open their windows because industrial farming operations are spraying waste into the surrounding air. Families can't hang their clothes outside, they can't run their air-conditioning, and they can't plant in their soil because of the way we do factory farming.

The truth is, pollution and environmental degradation at the local scale, in communities like mine and many of the communities I visited, are real for folks all across this country. It is real for rural folks; it is real for urban folks; and it is real for suburban folks. It has caused the same misaligned incentives that are also contributing to the much larger scale problem of climate change. Just like local-scale pollution--toxins--in communities like mine and others, global climate change is very real and cannot be ignored because of its impacts on folks all over our country, particularly on those in vulnerable communities.

So I will take a few moments to talk about these kinds of pollutants and to talk about climate change, which is closely intertwined with issues within the farm bill, even if it doesn't appear to be so at first glance.

The numbers on what is happening to our climate are clear. We know that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are higher now than they have been at any point in recorded history and that our global carbon emissions are still rising.

Sixteen of the seventeen warmest years on record in history have all occurred in the 21st century, and if nothing changes, we are headed for 3 degrees Celsius of warming by 2100, which would cause catastrophic changes in many parts of the world and in many parts of the United States of America. Hurricanes in the North Atlantic will actually continue to become stronger and more intense and potentially more devastating. Drought and heat waves out West will become ever more frequent, and parts of the southwestern United States could see temperatures above 100 degrees for one-third of the year.

All of the extreme weather will have a dramatic impact on our farmers. Climate change is real for American family farmers even now. Some U.S. crop yields are expected to drop significantly with climate change, and estimates suggest that under a ``business

as usual'' emissions scenario, yields of wheat and soybeans and corn could fall by 20 to 50 percent by the end of this century.

Just as climate change impacts our agricultural system, our agricultural system also impacts the climate. Although it is often not discussed in the same breath as transportation or power generation, the global agricultural industry is, actually, one of the largest contributors to climate change. Some estimates suggest that up to one- third of our global greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture, and these numbers are projected to grow and grow and grow as people's diets from around the world continue to change. In fact, as China and India and parts of Africa move to a Western diet, our globe simply cannot sustain that impact. As people shift to our diet, global agricultural emissions are projected to rise another 80 percent by 2050 alone. This is huge. This is unsustainable.

Industrial animal agriculture, in particular, is especially harmful to the climate. This factory farming is having a tremendous impact on our climate. Globally, livestock production alone accounts for nearly 15 percent of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, which is greater than the total greenhouse gas emissions for the entire global transportation sector. It is a fact.

We have all of the tools we need to tackle the dual challenge of climate change and environmental degradation, but in order to solve these problems, we must address the impacts of this consolidating global industrial farming system. This system is having an impact on our climate and environment. The farm bill should find ways to reduce the pollution, to reduce the impact, to reduce the environmentally devastating impact it is having on our country. The 2018 Senate farm bill takes some small steps in the right direction.

The farm bill grows the overall funding for agricultural conservation practices. It encourages farmers to plant cover crops, which improve soil and water quality. The farm bill also helps to drive climate-smart agriculture with several initiatives to keep carbon stored in our soils and in our forests. Yet what we really need is a fundamental shift in some of the major elements of our food system, shifts that, actually, can improve health and well-being and improve our Nation as a whole.

We need to emphasize local farm economies, where food is produced in a way that minimally impacts the environment and, actually, empowers our small- and medium-sized farmers. We also need to grow more of our produce by using organic and regenerative methods.

We need to put limits on the ability of major agricultural corporations, which are growing in size, to consolidate--to merge--and dictate the market. These corporate agricultural institutions that are growing so large and so powerful are dictating practices that are contrary to our very idea of farming in our country, whereby small- and medium-sized farmers who engage in practices that are more sustainable are being overrun by these large factory farms. We need to protect small family farmers from being squeezed out of business.

I am a New Jersey Senator, but I have been meeting farmers from all over our country who have told me the painful stories of what we are allowing to happen as our country is being gutted out of our traditional farmers by these big agribusinesses.

Consolidation in the agricultural industry is threatening the American farmer. The top four grain companies today control 90 percent of the global grain trade, and just four companies now control 60 percent of the poultry market. While giant agribusinesses are posting record earnings, our farmers--our American farmers--are facing desperate times. A farmer's share of every retail dollar has plummeted from 41 percent in 1950 to, approximately, 15 percent today. Many of these large corporate agricultural companies--some of them are not even American-owned--are continuing to punish America's small farmers by shrinking their margins, driving them out of business, and undermining what is an American way of life.

This consolidation must stop. I am working on a new bill that would help address this challenge, but for the farm bill that is before us, I will speak now about three amendments that I have filed.

First, I will talk about the amendment that Senator Lee and Senator Hassan and I have filed--a bipartisan amendment that would make much needed reforms to our checkoff programs.

Checkoff programs collect fees which amount to their being a tax on all farmers. They collect these fees from producers of particular agricultural commodities. They are supposed to use these fees that are collected from farmers to promote and do research on that particular commodity. Unfortunately, we have seen some of these checkoff programs plagued by conflicts of interest--people who are engaging in anti- competitive behavior and funneling dollars to trade associations that only represent a sliver of the farmers who are required to pay into the checkoff programs. As one would imagine, those farmers who get the benefit are the big agribusinesses, often to the detriment of our small- and medium-sized farmers. Let me give you some examples.

We know, for example, in 2015, that documents obtained from requests under the Freedom of Information Act showed that the American Egg Board illegally used checkoff dollars to attempt to halt the sales of an egg- free mayonnaise product. Talk about anti-competitive activities.

In 2016, it was discovered that the Oklahoma Beef Council lost 2.6 million checkoff dollars to embezzlement by a staff member who wrote over 790 fraudulent checks to herself during a 10-year period.

In 2017, it came to light that the USDA had failed for more than 4 years to publish legally required annual financial reports on the $400 million per year dairy checkoff program.

This year, 2018, a Federal court ruled that the USDA had unlawfully approved the spending of $60 million of hog farmers' checkoff money on a defunct promotional campaign.

So this amendment I am leading with Senator Lee and Senator Hassan would make some commonsense reforms to the checkoff program in order to stop these abuses. Frankly, I don't see how anyone could argue against what are very commonsense, moderate reforms to the checkoff program so as to create fairness and transparency and actually stop and prohibit these conflicts of interest. That is what the amendment would do-- prohibit conflicts of interest.

The amendment would require more transparency and mandate that the USDA publish budgets and expenditures that the USDA approves.

The amendment would prohibit anti-competitive behavior, such as we saw from the American Egg Board in its attacking of a startup company that it viewed as a threat. The language from the emails was actually stunning--about working to kill a business.

The amendment would prohibit checkoff boards from contracting with entities that engage in ag lobbying. I am one of those people. We have enough lobbyists here in DC, so I hope that this bipartisan amendment to implement commonsense reforms will get a vote and that it will receive the bipartisan support it needs to pass.

There are two other amendments I have filed that I would like to discuss that would help to protect contract farmers. They are the salt of the Earth. These farmers are Americans, many of whom have been on their land for generations, and what is happening now is unacceptable.

The first amendment I am filing to protect contract farmers would prohibit retaliation against these farmers by the large integrators, like Smithfield and Tyson.

As our agricultural markets have become more and more corporate- concentrated, the rights and bargaining power of our family farmers have diminished dramatically. The traditional model of independent farmers selling to independent processors has shifted toward one of contract production, particularly in the livestock and poultry sectors. Farmers now go into debt in excess of $1 million to help build the facilities on their farms in order to get into this new contract production and often put their farms and their homes up as collateral.

For the majority of contract farmers, the large corporate integrator with which one must contract is either the

only company or one of two companies in a farmer's area. These farmers simply don't have the option of shifting to other buyers. Under these new circumstances of consolidated corporate, major agribusinesses, contract farmers--small farmers, small business people--are left incredibly vulnerable to retaliation by these big corporate agribusinesses. At least one--Smithfield, for example--is not even an American company. It is a Chinese company.

Recently, I had some contract farmers come to my office to meet with me. These farmers were terrified of coming to DC and actually talking to Members of Congress and Senators. They were terrified that the integrators they contract with might find out that they were talking to us and raising legitimate concerns about the abuses they were suffering.

This is the United States of America. We are making our farmers, our small business people, afraid of even talking about the abuses they are suffering from these massive, multinational agricultural corporations. Our contract farmers should not have to live like this. They should not have to be afraid that they will be retaliated against for engaging in lawful activities like speaking with Members of Congress or the USDA or for joining together in producer associations. James Madison's Federalist No. 50 talks about this idea of free association. Yet these contract farmers are afraid of doing that.

The second amendment I am filing to help contract farmers would require transparency in how these large corporate integrators calculate the payments they make to contract farmers. The payment mechanisms that are used by poultry companies and meat packers to pay livestock and poultry farmers are deliberately opaque. It is deliberately difficult to understand how those payments are made. Not only does this lack of transparency make it difficult for farmers to make wise business decisions, but it allows integrators to manipulate the farmers' compensation. It is a practice that is despicable. It is not the free, open, and transparent market we all claim to have in the United States. These are large, concentrated, massive corporations manipulating local contract farmers in our communities for nefarious purposes.

My amendment would simply require poultry companies, swine contractors, and meat packers to provide farmers with the relevant statistical information and data used to calculate their compensation. This is clear. You shouldn't do these things to squeeze or retaliate or pit farmers against each other. These are businesses. Have some transparency about the data so businesses can make sound decisions.

When President Obama left office, the USDA would have proposed rules that would have prohibited this kind of retaliation from these large corporate entities. They would prohibit retaliation by integrating and requiring more transparency in payments to contract farmers. We were moving in the right direction. Unfortunately, under this administration, when they came in, they killed these GIPSA rules, once again siding with big agribusinesses, some of which are these foreign- owned companies that are coming in and rendering our contract farmers and our small family businesses into what has been compared to sharecropping.

The dignity of these small businesses, the humanity, the American tradition of farming is being eroded and undermined by these massive corporations, many of them foreign-owned. They are attacking our way of life. They are attacking one of the most dignified professions in America, which is small farming. It is outrageous and unacceptable what is going on to contract farmers across our country.

These two amendments would reverse the Trump administration's rollback of these important protections for our small contract farmers. I urge, with all of my heart, my colleagues to support these two amendments to be with the small farmers of America, to be with these people who are now struggling with mortgages and facing bankruptcy, who are now suffering because of these large corporations that are making their lives so difficult, that are undermining what has been the American way for centuries.

I conclude by speaking about the importance of SNAP and SNAP assistance for the food insecure. I was relieved. I actually rejoiced to see that the Senate farm bill does not cut SNAP funding.

In 2014, I voted against the farm bill because it contained more than $8 billion in cuts to SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. It disproportionately helps people in my State of New Jersey, so the cuts disproportionately impacted my State. The truth is, at a time when we continue to heavily subsidize these large agribusinesses, I say very purposely that there is still corporate welfare in our farm bill. We should not force struggling families, seniors, and disabled citizens, working Americans to make sacrifices they can't afford. At the end of the day, this program aims to feed our country's most vulnerable population, with more than half of SNAP recipients being children and seniors. I repeat that. More than half of SNAP's benefits are for our kids and our elderly.

In my home State of New Jersey, approximately 142,000 senior citizens and 113,000 disabled residents receive SNAP. SNAP helps a cross-section of Americans in all ethnic groups. SNAP helps folks in our cities, towns, suburbs, and rural communities alike, and SNAP feeds our family farmers who too often rely on food assistance to feed themselves and their families while producing the food we eat. The irony of that is unacceptable. SNAP feeds our childcare workers, our healthcare providers, and our veterans. SNAP feeds those who are in between jobs or who have three jobs and are still struggling to make ends meet.

I am glad to see the Senate bill has rejected the damaging and destructive SNAP cuts in the partisan House farm bill because, the truth is, at a time when over 13 million children in our country-- please understand, the children in America, a global, knowledge-based society, the greatest natural resource a country has is not coal, oil or gas, but the genius of our children, and young minds need proper nutrition. At a time when 13 million children in our country face food insecurity, what we need to be doing is funding programs like SNAP--not funding them less but actually funding them more.

SNAP plays a critical role in making sure children are able to focus in a classroom and not be distracted about where their next meal is coming from or the hunger pains they are feeling.

I live in a low-income community. I am a Senator who lives in a community where, according to the last census, the median income is $14,000 per household. I see my neighbors, working folk, working full- time jobs and still not making ends meet. When I go to my local bodega, I see people use programs like SNAP. God bless America, if we are not going to raise the minimum wage so people who work a full-time job in this country don't have to still live in poverty, we should not be cutting programs that are essential to helping families meet their nutritional needs. I see this at the end of the month when SNAP benefits are running out. One study shows that calories fall by up to 25 percent--the intake of calories for folks on food stamps--from the beginning of the month to the end. Families struggle. Kids struggle when there is less food in the house, when they go to school hungry. What does that do to cultivate that genius?

That is why we should be passing the SNAP for Kids Act of 2018 introduced by my friend and colleague Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. If we are serious about helping our communities and making sure every child, every adult, every senior citizen has access to their next meal, this legislation is important.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two members of my staff, Lauren Tavar and Ariana Spawn, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the consideration of the farm bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the humanitarian crisis that we are facing at this moment in our country. It is a moral crisis. It is a crisis that didn't come about by some natural disaster; it has been manufactured by the actions of the Trump administration and the actions of our President.

Since this past April, over 2,700 children--some of them just infants--have been forcibly separated from their parents. That is about 45 children every single day. These children have been ripped from the arms of their parents, in some cases literally. These children have been imprisoned or deported, and at this very moment, many of these children are being warehoused. Some of them are put in what amount to cages, and some of them are being covered with thin, tinfoil-like blankets that we see handed out to marathon runners.

I know these children are experiencing great fear, great trauma, wondering where their parents are, wondering what will happen to them, confused, feeling isolated and alone. They

are wondering if they did something wrong, and they are wondering what they did to deserve this. But more than that, we know these children are enduring psychological damage, which is literally having a physical effect on their brains. Pediatricians and researchers know trauma like this creates toxic stress. These children are enduring things that affect the development of their brains and their life's well-being. The research is clear. They found that separating children from parents literally changes the makeup of their brains--this level of cortisol, this level of trauma. One pediatric expert called the effect of this kind of family separation ``catastrophic'' on those children.

At this very moment, so many Americans, these children, and others are wondering what happened to the America that we believe in, that we know, and that we hale. What is happening to this Nation that has for so long been a symbol of hope, a symbol of opportunity? How can we be seeing an America and how can they be experiencing an America that is so different from what we say we are? Well, the answer to the question, unfortunately, is painful, and it is direct.

A little over 2 months ago, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, and President Donald Trump made the decision to institute what they are calling a zero tolerance policy when it comes to individuals and families who cross the southern border without documentation or authorization. The policy dictates that any adult who illegally crosses the southern border will be subject to Federal prosecution and therefore placed in Federal custody.

When the Trump administration instituted this policy, they knew exactly what they were doing. They were concerned, probably, with the fallout--what this might mean, what people might say--but they clearly knew, consciously knew what would happen because any accompanying children could not be placed in criminal detention facilities with their parents once their parents were charged and detained. The families would be separated. The forced separation of children and families was not an unintended consequence of the Trump administration policy; it was and is a purposeful decision done with full consciousness of the impact on families and children.

As news reports and photos of this inhumane policy that is shocking the consciousness of Americans--not left or right, not Republican or Democrat; it is shocking the consciousness of America--as images of these actions have spread over the past several days, we have seen the President and members of the administration try to distance themselves from the very policy they created. They have even gone so far--and it is not shocking at this point, but to hear the President out-and-out lie and try to blame Democrats in Congress, try to blame a Federal law, try to blame anything and not accept responsibility, when clearly, as my colleague Lindsey Graham has said, this is something that didn't come about from this body--this didn't come about because of some Democrats. Chuck Schumer didn't do this. Nancy Pelosi didn't do this. This was a decision made by our President that he could stop right now, as Senator Graham said, with a phone call.

So let's be clear about something. This is a policy. This is a decision. This is a President who is assaulting--it is moral vandalism--the values, the common decency of our country, the ideals we hold dear. This is being carried out by Trump administration officials--something that can be reversed with a phone call.

So this moment really is a moment of moral reckoning in the United States of America. It is a low point. It is a heartbreaking point. I am one of those people who believe that if this country hasn't broken your heart, you probably don't love her enough. This is one of those moments, as we have seen in the past, where we will be judged. How we react in this moral moment--future generations will look back at this crossroads of conscience in the same way we look back at some of the most shameful chapters, shameful moments in our history. They will look back and see what we did, what we said, how we acted, how we stood up, how we fought, how we demanded during this time.

Today, we look back at the horrors of slavery and the shame of that time and the way that purposefully fracturing families was used to terrorize and subjugate Black Americans, how children were torn from the mothers and sold away, how wives and husbands were violently separated. We know these acts were not just financial decisions on the part of slave owners. It was deeper than that. It was this idea of subjugating, this idea of dehumanizing, this idea that if you so demonize people and dehumanize them, it makes it easier to victimize those folks, to assault their dignity, unconscious of the fact that when you assault the dignity of others, you assault the dignity of yourself.

Today, we look back with shame and regret at the practice of the internment of Japanese Americans, the out-and-out violation of our values and ideals as a country. Our fellow Americans--over 120,000 men, women, and children--were forcibly removed from their homes and put into detainment and internment camps.

Today, we look back with deep shame and regret at how Jewish refugees fleeing from the Holocaust were turned away from our shores, many who were sent back to Germany and killed by the Nazis.

Today, we look back with shame at the way Native American families were separated, their children taken and sent to boarding schools where they were stripped of their language and stripped of their culture.

These were moral moments in our past. Do you know what? We tell ourselves that if we were in those moments, if we were in those times, maybe we would have stood up, and so many people of good faith and of every background did stand up in those times. We think to ourselves that if we were there in those moments, we would have done something, we would have acted. We are at that moment, and we are at a defining moment in our history. We are at a moral crossroads. We are at a point where our Nation's character is being revealed.

When we look at history, we have seen the ways we have made mistakes, but we have also seen the truth of our Nation in those periods, the ideals that we have professed since our founding, the ideals that generations of Americans have tried to make more real, more perfect, more established in this Nation. We see in the history how generations past--Black, White, Christian, Jewish, folks from all different backgrounds, men and women--stood up and did the right thing. They were insistent that this Nation should be different.

We were not founded as a country because we all pray alike or because we all look alike or because we are all the same race. No. We always strove to be different as a nation, that we would be a nation of ideals and values, that we would be a nation bigger than the racial or religious lives that divide men and women, that we would have unifying ideals and principles, and that we in America would be a light unto nations.

We have seen this Nation do it right and live up to those ideals with Hungarian refugees, Cuban refugees, Chinese refugees, and Haitian refugees, who all fled and found a safe haven here in the United States of America. Look at the waves of Irish who came to our shores to escape famine. Look at the waves of folks who have escaped oppression.

When we were at our best, we were a light unto nations--of hope, of integrity, of honesty, of honor. We are a nation of refugees. We are a nation of immigrants. We are a nation of exiles. We are a nation of ancestors of former slaves. We are not our particularistic parts, but we are a profound sum of those parts. We have made mistakes, but we have answered the question of who we are by showing our values, and that is why the United States has become known throughout the planet Earth as that beacon of light and hope.

I have traveled around the globe with the privileges of a Senator, and I see the way people look at this country. I see the way people try to model their behavior after ours. I see the way we talk about democratic ideals, democratic principles, how we try to talk about human rights, how we talk about human decency, and how we are held up as the model.

This is why Americans from across the aisle, across religions, across political affiliations, from across the country are speaking out. I have seen conservative Christian evangelicals, conservative Catholics, and Republican colleagues of mine stand up and speak the moral truth about our Nation that this behavior is un-American. They speak with a chorus of conviction, telling the one man who has the immediate power to change this, the one man who did this, to stop his actions, to restore honor, to correct this wrong.

I am proud to see Democrats and Republicans, progressives and conservatives speaking out against the moral vandalism that is not just degrading the dignity and humanity of the migrants at our border, but it is assaulting the dignity and humanity of America--the people of this country speaking out in one voice, one people understanding that we have one destiny, understanding that we share common values, and understanding that this is a time when we can't be silent. The opposite of justice is not injustice; it often is inaction. It is silence, it is apathy, and it is indifference.

We must call on our President to end this. If he refuses, then we have an obligation here in Congress. We have the power; we can and must act to stop this inhumane, immoral, and un-American practice. We could vote today on a bill, the Keep Families Together Act, which has the support of 47 Democratic Senators and 2 Independents--49 Members of this body. It would prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from separating children from their parents unless there are extraordinary circumstances. The bill is common sense. It is a moderate proposal. It is literally the least Congress can do to prevent this crisis from continuing.

Yes, we need to secure our borders. Yes, we need to uphold our just laws. But separating families and imprisoning children are not how we do that. We need to protect our borders, but we also need to reflect our values, to protect our values, to affirm the character of this country. We need to protect and secure the ideals of a nation we have all stood for. In this moral moment in our Nation's history, that means protecting and standing up for the dignity and humanity of these children.

I say again, future generations will look back at this moment, at this crisis of conscience, and they will see what has already happened. They will see this as a low moment, and they will wonder what we did during this time.

History does have its eyes on us, but we have a chance right now to show them what we did, to let them see, when our morals have been tested, how we responded. They will look to see what people in this country did when people were having their values violated and their ideals and the dignity of their children and families assaulted. They will look to see what we did. They will look to see if we are silent or if we speak up--if we are indifferent or if we act. Do we indulge in apathy or have we become activists? They will look to see whether we fought for the ideals that made this Nation what I believe it is, which is, as Elijah called for the State of Israel, to be a light unto nations. That is the America I believe in. That is the America I know.

We look back on the low of when women were being denied the vote, and we see a multiracial, multiethnic coalition--everyone from Frederick Douglass to Susan B. Anthony--come together and build a movement that propelled this government to act, and women were granted the right to vote.

We look back on the low of segregation and how a multiracial coalition of Americans came together, worked together, fought together, stood together, sacrificed together, and some died together to advance the cause of civil rights.

We look back at the Japanese internment, and we see how people, regardless of their background in America, regardless of their political party, came together to redress this wrong. In 1988, we saw a Republican President, Ronald Reagan, who responded by signing the Civil Liberties Act into law and working to right the wrong of Japanese internment.

Future generations will look back on this moment. They will look to see whether we affirmed that in America we don't injure and imprison children; we protect them. They will look back to see that in America we don't abuse rights; we protect them. They will look back at America to see if we are called to be a nation, truly, that works to defend human rights at home and abroad, not violate them in our own backyard.

This isn't an injustice that needs to take decades, years, or even months to correct. President Trump must, can, and should end this immoral policy today. If he refuses to act, this body will be judged. Congress can vote today on the Keep Families Together Act, and we must act. We must do something; we must stand for something or the dignity and the humanity that will be assaulted will not be those of children on our border. It will be damaging to the dignity and the humanity of us all.

For the sake of our values, for the sake of our Nation, I urge my colleagues to act.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor Juneteenth Independence Day, a day that commemorates June 19, 1865, as the date on which slavery came to an end in the United States. On this day, over 150 years ago, and over 2 and half years after President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, Texas became the final State where the abolishment of slavery took effect.

On this day, we must confront the ugly parts of our history and honor the slaves who suffered and died under a repressive regime. We must also pay tribute to all those who had the strength

and conviction to fight to end slavery and keep our Union together.

Juneteenth Independence Day is also an important moment to recognize how far we have come and take note of how far we have yet to go. At the time the Constitution was drafted, Native Americans were referred to as savages, African Americans were fractions of human beings, and women were not referred to at all. The genius of our Constitution wasn't its perfection, but rather that it inspired each generation to expand the concepts of liberty and freedom and make our Nation's promise real for more and more people. We must not rest until that liberty and freedom is real for all people, and this Juneteenth let us all recommit to helping our country live up to its fundamental promise and highest ideals.

Mr. Chairman, I will yield to you under almost every circumstance.

Madam President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the nomination of Kenneth Marcus to serve as the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the Department of Education. One of the most critical functions of the Department of Education is the role in enforcing Federal civil rights and upholding the protection of students' civil rights in schools.

The Office for Civil Rights within the Department of Education is a particularly important instrument in enforcing civil rights in schools, protecting those precious rights of our children, and ensuring that schools provide students with access to equal educational opportunities and a nondiscriminatory environment in which to learn. It is an idea we have in our country that it is fundamental that we have a level playing field and abundant opportunity for all kids, no matter what their background is.

The continued need for this office is clear. In fact, during the Obama administration, the Office for Civil Rights and the Department of Education handled 76,000 complaints over 8 years and issued dozens of policy guidance documents to help schools better protect and preserve civil rights of students.

In the last year alone, or year and a half, we have seen what is clearly an abdication of this leadership in the Trump administration and what that has meant for the protection of civil rights for our country's children and for our country's students. We have seen an Office for Civil Rights that has rolled back protections for LGBTQ students, an office that has rolled back protections for students with disabilities, and an office that is set on gutting the very mission of the office itself, which is to protect all of our students from discrimination and empower them with equal opportunities to succeed.

The confirmation of Kenneth Marcus would be another blow to the civil rights of our students. Mr. Marcus is someone who, in his record and in his testimony to my colleagues on the Senate HELP Committee, has demonstrated that he possesses at best a disturbing apathy and at worst a wanton disregard for the importance, if not urgency, of protecting the rights of our kids in school.

When Mr. Marcus was asked by Senator Murray to name an example of something--anything--that Donald Trump had said or done when it comes to discrimination or civil rights that he disagrees with, and Mr. Marcus could not name any area of disagreement. He couldn't find a single disagreement in the way that Donald Trump demeaned Americans with disabilities or how the President has spoken about Mexicans or even the way the President has issued policies that attack the rights of Muslims or the rights of LGBTQ Americans. There was no disagreement mentioned whatsoever.

When he was asked during his confirmation hearing if as Assistant Secretary he would intervene in an instance where Black students in a school district were receiving lower quality teachers, fewer books, fewer AP classes, and fewer educational resources than White students, one would expect his answer to have been: Yes, I would intervene. Yes, I would stand up for equality. Instead, Mr. Marcus refused to say that he would step in in such a hypothetical circumstance.

When Senator Murphy asked about disparities in school districts that were suspending or expelling five times as many Black students for the same set of behaviors compared to White students, instead of just saying the obvious thing--that this is wrong, that the same behavior necessitates the same disciplinary action--instead of saying something as simple as that, Mr. Marcus went on to say this:

``I believe that disparities of that size are grounds for

concern, but my experience says that one needs to approach

each compliant, or compliance review, with an open mind and a

sense of fairness to find out what the answers are. I will

tell you that I have seen what appeared to be inexcusable

disparities that were the result of paperwork errors, they

just got the numbers wrong.''

I don't know how much of the data on this issue of disciplinary inequality Mr. Marcus has seen, but it is abundantly clear that for someone who wants to be in this position, they should understand the crisis we have with discipline in this country. The data has shown that even in preschool--from the age of 4 years old--Black preschool kids are 3.6 times more likely to receive an out-of-school suspension than White preschool kids. Again, that is also for the same infraction.

This is not about getting the numbers wrong. This is about being aware of a problem we have in this country that fuels the school-to- prison pipeline. It is a problem that is so severe that I fought in a bipartisan way to get an amendment about school expulsions in the Every Student Succeeds Act. This is a problem that is so severe that in 2014 the Department of Education issued guidance clarifying that schools must administer discipline without discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. The guidance provided important information and support for schools to create a safer, more inclusive environment. We know this problem is not going away, because just last month a new report from the Government Accountability Office concluded that Black students, boys, and

students with disabilities were still significantly overrepresented in disciplinary action.

What we need is a Department of Education that is going to stand up for kids on problems that we know exist. I was stunned that this is a candidate who doesn't even acknowledge the urgency in protecting LGBTQ kids. And at a time of such crisis, Secretary Betsy DeVos continues to fail to protect the rights of all of our students, just this week, she called discrimination against LGBTQ students in schools ``an issue for Congress and the courts to settle,'' abdicating any responsibility.

That is unacceptable, and I don't understand. We have children who are literally under attack. We face a crisis in this country when it comes to LGBTQ youth. This is not an argument over facts. The facts are clear: LGBT youths face a stunning level of prejudice and discrimination inside and outside of schools, starting at a young age. We know that LGBT youths are two times more likely than their heterosexual peers to be physically assaulted in school. LGBT youths are four times as likely to attempt suicide.

According to the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 34 percent of gay and lesbian youth students were bullied on school property, and 13 percent report not going to school because of fear for their safety. This kind of harassment has no place in our classrooms or schools or anywhere in the United States. It is far too common, from discriminating disciplinary practice to physical violence against our kids, and we have work to do in this country to keep all children safe, to treat all children equally, to give every kid a fair shot in schools to make it and thrive. Yet we are trying to elevate someone to one of the most significant positions in our land to protect children who has a disregard and an apathy toward the compelling and continuing problems in our schools.

When I think about the role of the Federal Government in protecting children, I think about a picture that, as soon as I walk out of my office, the picture is there, and it is that picture from Norman Rockwell of Ruby Bridges trying to walk to school, at the age of 6, to become the first Black child to attend a White elementary school in the South. The photo of her--and the famous painting--is jarring when you see it. It is a reminder to me every day when I leave my office about the roles and responsibilities we have in this body. The hate that was being spewed on her--Ruby Bridges--was plainly evident.

I am telling you, if you visit schools right now and talk to some of our children who are being bullied and intimidated, they can speak to that kind of hate as well. You can still feel the pain and hatred echoing from our past, and you can see it. You can see it echoing in our present. She was determined, and, most importantly, she was not alone. At the age of 6, walking to school, Ruby Bridges walked not alone but, as Norman Rockwell's picture captures, she walked with Federal Marshals, and they stood with her. She was not alone. She had government folks who said: Your rights are my rights. Your future is my future. We pledge an oath to be a nation of liberty and nation not for some but for all--that ``injustice anywhere,'' as King said, ``is a threat to justice everywhere.''

The Federal Government alone is not enough to educate our kids. It is about local communities that keep them safe. It is about those soccer coaches. It is about the drama teacher. It is about the English teacher. It is about the love and the kindness and the nurturing environment that is the common standard in all of our schools in America in every State. We have seen from history that there is a role for us to play in keeping folks safe. There are aberrations in our country where hatred still thrives, where discrimination still exists, where there is a role for us to play, and we can't surrender that role.

We can't retreat from our vigilance in protecting every child in America. That is why the Office for Civil Rights and the Department of Education are so critical and must be led by someone who understands our history and understands the urgent work that still needs to be done. We need a person in this role who is committed to every single child no matter who they are and a person who sees within that child their truth, their divinity, their limitless potential, their promise, and how we as a nation need them to succeed.

We have a long way to go. There is work still to do. Children in this country who are hurting now need champions in positions of high office. That is why I oppose the nomination of Mr. Marcus. He is not the person, by his own testimony, who sees our children, who will protect all of our children, who understands their crises, and hears their cries. I will be voting against his nomination.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the votes on S. Con. Res. 36, 5-year balanced budget. Had I been present, I would have voted nay on S. Con. Res. 36, 5-year balanced budget.

Mr. President, today, during National Police Week, I wish to recognize and honor the men and women who serve as New Jersey's police officers and law enforcement officials. We owe a great debt of gratitude to the professionals working in law enforcement who risk their lives each and every day for the safety of all New Jerseyans. These American heroes answer the call when we need them the most, and we stand together as a grateful nation in saying thank you.

Established by a joint resolution of Congress, National Police Week devotes special appreciation to those members of law enforcement who have lost their lives in the line of duty for the safety and protection of the people they serve. In a proclamation issued 56 years ago, President John F. Kennedy recognized the national importance of honoring our law enforcement professionals by designating the 15th of May as Peace Officers Memorial Day and the week in which that date falls as National Police Week.

Today I want to pay special homage to New Jersey's fallen police officers. These heroes made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our State. Though they are no longer with us, we stand proud and united knowing that they continue to be commemorated by their fellow New Jerseyans and by their fellow brothers and sisters in blue. Their courage, spirit of service, and commitment has allowed the people of New Jersey to be safe and secure. For their service and their sacrifice, we are eternally grateful.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the votes on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 690, the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 729, and the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 777.

On vote No. 89, had I been present, I would have voted nay on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 690.

On vote No. 90, had I been present, I would have voted nay on the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 729.

On vote No. 91, had I been present, I would have voted nay on the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 777.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues in advance of today's Congressional Review Act vote. I want to be clear about something. We are here today for a CRA vote, or a Congressional Review Act vote, that is on agency guidance--not a rule but an agency guidance from 2013--that seeks to protect consumers from discrimination.

CRAs are rule rollbacks. They are rolling back rules. They are not, though, meant to apply to years-old guidance from Federal agencies.

Today's vote is actually a radical departure of longstanding norms and statutory interpretation that will change the scope of the Congressional Review Act. What, then, could possibly be so important and so urgent that today we would break from longstanding tradition and demand a vote on something that could set an entirely new precedent for this body?

What is the guidance--not rule--that the Trump administration and Republican leadership of this body are going so far out of their way to undo? What this guidance does, very simply and very clearly, is to try to prevent discrimination in purchasing.

In 2013, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau put this guidance in place in response to, unfortunately, widespread and well-documented persistent discrimination against Americans of color when financing the purchase of a car. The guidance did nothing more than remind indirect auto lenders that they were liable under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act for pricing disparities caused by markup in compensation policies. It offered concrete steps to those auto dealers that they could use to ensure compliance and support for fair lending.

Auto lending is the third most common source of debt for all Americans. We know that the way the established financing model works too often leaves space for implicit racial bias and leaves space for discrimination against Americans of color.

We know from studies that Americans of color who have better credit and who go in to try to purchase and finance a car, compared to White Americans with worse credit, will often get higher interest rates and worse terms on their loans set by auto dealers. In fact, in one specific study conducted by the National Fair Housing Alliance, they paired White Americans and people of color to visit auto dealerships and shop for the same car within 24 hours of each other. Unfortunately, and surprisingly--or maybe not to some--in most cases the applicant who was a person of color, despite having better credit and less debt, was offered higher cost financing options than the less-qualified White applicant. This is a practice that no one can support. This is a practice that most Americans think is outrageous. It is clearly wrong, and we should address it.

But we also know that, unfortunately, this kind of discrimination isn't unique to the auto industry. There are many areas of American lives where people of color, under the same circumstances, are often paying more. We know that implicit racial bias exists across sectors and industries and is a persistent issue causing people of color to have higher costs of living and to pay more.

Take the three largest lending markets: mortgages, student loans, and auto loans. We know discrimination persists in mortgage lending. A recent report by the Center for Investigative Reporting analyzed 31 million mortgage records from 2015 and 2016--just a couple of years ago. They found that people of color were much more likely to be denied a conventional mortgage than White applicants, even after controlling for economic and social factors, including applicants' income, the size of the loan they sought, and the neighborhood where they wanted to buy.

Look at student loans. For-profit colleges disproportionately enroll students of color and saddle them often with unaffordable student loans, while offering little in the way of value in exchange.

Look at payday loans. Study after study shows that payday lenders concentrate themselves in communities of color where they prey upon financially distressed, low-income people and make a bad financial situation markedly worse.

In 2018 we should all agree that we should be doing everything we can to protect against this kind of discrimination. When you test, time and again, better qualified loan applicants walking in and, within 24 hours, less qualified applicants walking in, as well, and they get the better loan deal, the only difference is the color of their skin. This is unacceptable in an America that believes in fairness.

We should, in a very light touch, do something about that. That is what this advice did. This advisory simply said: Hey, auto lenders, here are some steps you can take to address this issue.

The study I referenced of sending in a Black couple followed by a White couple is something that hits home for me very personally. My family, in the 1960s, was part of a similar situation. In this case, it was buying the home that I grew up in. In 1969, just 1 year after the passage of the Fair Housing Act, when my parents were trying to find a home in New Jersey, they encountered an illegal practice known as real estate steering, or trying to keep Black families like mine out of White

neighborhoods. Their bids on homes were routinely rejected in favor of White couples.

Eventually, my parents went to seek the help of a group of housing activists--volunteer lawyers, Black folks, White folks, Christian folks, Jewish folks--all part of a group in New Jersey called the Fair Housing Council. Together, they set up a sting operation where my parents went in and they were told, unfortunately, that the house they were looking at that they loved was no longer for sale. Then a volunteer White couple came right behind them and put an offer on the house, and it was accepted. Papers were drawn up. Then, on the day of the closing, the White couple didn't show up; my dad and his lawyer did. The real estate agent knew what he was doing was illegal.

First, he didn't accept it. He actually got angry. In fact, he got up and punched my dad's lawyer in the face and sicced the dog on my dad. A melee broke out. At the end, he was pleading with my father not to move into the neighborhood. He said crazy things like: Your people will not be happy here. Now, this is saying that the neighborhood didn't have things like ``my people,'' but in this country, we are all one people, one Nation, united, and indivisible. There shouldn't be different rules, different laws, and different treatment based on the color of our skin. I can't believe we are talking about this in 2018.

My family, thank God, moved into that house. I grew up in that hometown--a nurturing community, an incredible community that welcomed me and nurtured my brother and me. I am here today because of that kind of activism and people willing to stand up and say something basic and simple: You should not discriminate on the basis of the color of someone's skin.

Part of the reason I grew up where I was is because there was a law that was on my family's side and passed by this body--the Fair Housing Act. I am proud that for years, we Republicans and Democrats have stood up for this basic principle, this basic ideal. An even bigger part of the success of my family and my life is because there were people who didn't just celebrate the passage of a law, didn't just say their work was done, but they remained vigilant, active, and attentive in making sure the law was made real and practiced. They knew protecting America's civil rights was not a one-and-done endeavor but required constant vigilance.

The fact is, we have so much work left to do in this country that it is frustrating. We have a lot of work to do controlling the impact of implicit racial bias. We have people--courageous police officers, courageous activists, and police leadership--talking about the presence of implicit racial bias. I have been pleased that even Republican judges who are nominated, whom I get to interview on the Judiciary Committee, speak to the presence of implicit racial bias in the criminal justice system that often results with people who are charged with a crime, the same circumstances, getting longer sentences just because of the color of their skin.

This is not a partisan issue. This is us working against these issues and these factors of American life and making sure the basic ideal of fairness in American society is upheld. Outside of this body, American people know how implicit racial bias seeps into our criminal justice system, into our workplaces, and into our schools. The question is, What are we going to do about it? Why are we today going out of our way, possibly creating an entirely new congressional precedent, changing advisories into rules that can then be rolled back--why are we doing this on this issue, to roll back guidance that reflects something most of us should be able to agree on?

When an American goes in to buy a car and gets that car financed, the loan terms they get should be based on their creditworthiness--the amount of debt they have--not the color of their skin.

When we have comprehensive studies, empirical tests of literally sending in couples to go buy cars, why are we rolling back guidance that gives suggestions to auto dealers about how to control this? Why would this body, with the history of trying to address racial injustice, roll back a rule that is trying to address and control this practice in auto lending?

If you live in communities like mine, having to pay hundreds extra or $1,000 extra for a car, in a family making $20,000 or $30,000 a year, struggling for that moment that we all know, when you get your car, you get your keys, why should they have to pay more and have it impact on their home, their well-being, their finances, their college savings, and their ability to pay their mortgage? It is unfair. Based on what? Their skin color.

Rolling back this guidance has nothing to do with trimming bureaucracy. It is guidance. It will not help consumers. It will not help Americans of color. It will not help the ideals we swear an oath to--justice for all--and it is certainly not going to help our country to just be a place where working stiffs can get a fair shot at things we think of as the American dream: owning your home, sending your kids to college, and having a car.

At a time when the rest of the country seems to be paying closer attention to issues of discrimination, when we see anti-Semitism on the rise, greater attacks on Muslim Americans, at a time when we are looking at racial issues, why are we doing this now or at any time?

By passing this measure, we will be sending a message to millions of Americans that this body isn't just willfully out of touch but that we are going out of our way to create an environment where this practice is going to thrive, where the practice and the perpetration of discrimination against Americans of color persists in our country.

We should be beyond this. This is a chance, today, where we can make a difference. It may not seem big. We can send a message that these kinds of practices will not be tolerated. We can send a message that every American matters to this body. We can send a message that discrimination and prejudice, implicit or not, will not be tolerated on this soil.

I ask my colleagues, I beseech my colleagues, in the name of an American who is here today because of the Fair Housing Act, because of tests like this, where White couples have said--Black couples have said, ``I am here because of this history,'' why would we turn our backs on that kind of progress and not stand up for basic American fairness?

Thank you.

I thank the Senator. I thank him for modeling that very character to me every day that I serve with him.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 50th anniversary of the Fair Housing Act. On this day in 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law groundbreaking legislation to protect Americans from housing discrimination and uphold the values of fairness and equality under the law.

Prior to the passage of the law and its subsequent amendments, it was legal for Americans to be denied access to housing based on their race, color, national origin, religion, gender, disability, or familial status. African-American soldiers returning from fighting for their country on foreign shores would come home to find that they couldn't purchase a house in certain neighborhoods because of the color of their skin. The Fair Housing Act was a bold commitment to eradicating this kind of discrimination, which still continues to this day.

When my own parents moved to New Jersey, illegal racial real estate steering efforts nearly kept them from buying a house in an all-White neighborhood. It took a sting operation coordinated by the local Fair Housing Council with a White couple posing as my parents to break the cycle of segregation in the town in which I would eventually grow up. The Fair Housing Act empowered my parents and their advocates and lawyers to press for their right to fair and quality housing, and it stands today as one of the seminal pieces of legislation passed in our country's history.

Today, as we recognize the 50th anniversary of the Fair Housing Act, we remember that this landmark civil rights law was not meant to be the end of our efforts to make housing in this country more fair and more just, but just the beginning.

We know we have so much work left to do when it comes to expanding access to affordable, safe, and fair housing in America, and we must remain committed to protecting and expanding on the progress made 50 years ago today by the Fair Housing Act.

Thank you.