Floor Statements

Mr. President, a key component of our democracy is access to the ballot. The Supreme Court acknowledged in Reynolds v. Sims that ``the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society. Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized.''

I always say that your voice is your vote and your vote is your voice. In the recent midterm elections, we saw that there are still powerful forces in our country willing to go to incredible lengths to deny Americans their right to vote. It is indeed outrageous that some voters in Georgia had to wait 4 hours to vote, and a candidate for Governor was the one responsible for overseeing his own election; that Native Americans and their IDs were not accepted at polling places in North Dakota; that nearly 20 percent of North Carolina early voting locations were closed this year.

Five years ago, in Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act. Congress is the only body that has authority to restore and should therefore be taking steps to restore and strengthen the Voting Rights Act and to expand early voting and automatic voter registration. Why? Because the more people who can readily participate in our democracy, the more our government will be responsive to the people we are elected to represent.

Yet, instead of Congress acting to strengthen access to the ballot, the Senate is considering Thomas Farr for a lifetime appointment to the District Court of the Eastern District of North Carolina--a nominee who has consistently and for decades put limits on the ability of Americans to exercise their constitutional right to vote. Just look at the facts.

Mr. Farr actually defended North Carolina's 2013 voting restrictions law--a law that would have required photo IDs, which disproportionately impacted Black voters. At the same time, they prohibited certain IDs, such as student IDs or public employee IDs. This law also reduced same- day registration and early voting--a law that was so clearly unconstitutional that the Fourth Circuit described the law as targeting Black voters with ``almost surgical precision.'' The Fourth Circuit went on to call it ``the most restrictive voting law North Carolina has seen since the era of Jim Crow.''

The facts also include that Mr. Farr represented the North Carolina Legislature in multiple challenges to its 2011 congressional and legislative redistricting. This was an attempt to draw congressional boundaries in ways that disadvantaged Black voters for partisan gain. Those maps were later struck down as unconstitutional and racially discriminatory.

Mr. Farr has also repeatedly represented powerful employers against the rights of workers and customers to be treated equally. For example, he represented a rental car company that allegedly imposed additional requirements on Black customers. He also represented a pharmaceutical company against allegations of gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation.

To be clear, attorneys are not charged--nor should they be--with the views of their clients, but when such a significant part of your decades-long record involves defending clients charged with discrimination and defending laws that undermine the right to vote, it is reasonable to question whether that individual can be a fair and impartial judge of similar cases.

Mr. Farr's public comments raise questions about his judgment as well. For instance, he has compared the decision upholding the Affordable Care Act to the Dred Scott and Plessy decisions. For a reminder, Dred Scott is a case that said African Americans could not be citizens, and Plessy v. Ferguson upheld the constitutionality of segregation--both now universally considered shameful decisions. The idea that a decision upholding the expansion of healthcare for millions of Americans is remotely comparable to these rulings should be utterly offensive to anyone who knows anything about America's history. These are statements of an ideologue, not someone who understands that their interpretation of these rulings should be something that people will, if they are not careful, rely on. So these are the statements of an ideologue, not an evenhanded and unbiased judge. The people of North Carolina deserve better, and let us be clear about who many of these people are.

More than one-quarter of the population covered by the Eastern District is Black--nearly 27 percent. Yet there has never been a Black Federal judge serving the Eastern District of North Carolina in the court's 146-year history.

In 2013, President Obama nominated Jennifer May-Parker, an assistant U.S. attorney and chief of the Appellate Division of the U.S. Attorney's Office, and she is Black. She was appointed to this vacancy--a position Senator Burr had previously recommended her for-- but that nomination was blocked.

In 2016, President Obama nominated Patricia Timmons-Goodson--a justice who served on the North Carolina Supreme Court--who is also Black. That nomination was also held up.

As a result, this is now the longest judicial vacancy in the Federal court system. Instead of two highly qualified women, Senate Republicans want to fill this vacancy with someone who is anathema to so many of our communities and, in particular, communities of color.

So I would echo the North Carolina NAACP, which said that ``if this nomination is confirmed, it represents an historic insult to justice and to the people of North Carolina.''

I know there are folks who might consider the odds of stopping this

nominee and throw in the towel, but the way I see it, if it is something worth fighting for, it is a fight worth having. If it is something worth fighting for, it is a fight worth having. This fight against Thomas Farr is a fight worth having because Thomas Farr is far from what we should accept in a nominee. I know we can do better, and we must do better.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, given the serious and troubling allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh, I am deeply disturbed that the Senate is moving forward with this nomination.

When it was announced that the FBI could investigate these serious and credible allegations, I had hoped there would be a legitimate investigation. As the former Attorney General of California, I have tremendous, tremendous respect for the sworn law enforcement officers at the FBI. This should have been a search for the truth. They should have been allowed to do their full job, but instead, the White House did not allow it. This was not a search for the truth. Instead, this was about politics and raw power to push through an unfit nominee.

I am a former prosecutor. I have led investigations, and I have prosecuted all types of crime--particularly violent crimes, including a specialization in sexual assault cases--as a prosecutor. I have tried these cases in a courtroom. I have spent hours--hours--with assault victims, and I can tell you that when we look at what happened during the course of these days--these few days--in reviewing and giving regard and respect to Dr. Ford, we have fallen short. We have fallen short.

Sixty-three percent of sexual assaults are not reported to the police in our country. Delayed reporting is normal. I will tell you that when I was personally prosecuting sexual assault cases, we would be in a courtroom. I would be there as the prosecutor, with the accused, the accused's attorney, a judge, and a courtroom full of prospective jurors, and we would engage in a process called voir dire, where we would talk with prospective jurors to determine if they would be able to sit as a juror and, without bias, listen to the case and then make a determination about the facts and the law.

I cannot tell you the number of times, colleagues, that a prospective juror would raise their hand and ask could they quietly speak with me and the defense attorney and the judge in the judge's chambers outside of the courtroom and outside of the sight and the ability for anyone else in the courtroom to hear. We would go into the judge's chambers, and I cannot tell you the number of people who would sit in a chair, and, with tears in their eyes, tell us that they had been a victim of sexual assault and had never told anyone, not even their spouse, but because of what they had experienced, they knew they could not possibly sit in a courtroom and hear the testimony they knew would come related to the charges they knew the case was about.

This is an issue that impacts so many Americans, most of whom don't report it and don't tell anyone, and usually when they do, it is because something precipitated the telling of their story that was beyond the time during which they endured the assault itself.

Dr. Ford's experience in this regard is no different from the majority of sexual assault victims, and she should be believed. I know what it means to engage in an investigation and a search for the truth, having been a part of investigations to determine what has happened and, in particular, if a crime has occurred.

Now, let's be clear about one thing. There has been a lot of conflation around here about the subject and the need for an investigation into Dr. Ford's allegations. Ours was not a search to determine whether a crime occurred. Ours was not a search to determine whether we had enough facts to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime had occurred. No. Ours was an investigation to figure out enough about what happened to determine if Brett Kavanaugh is fit to serve on the highest Court in our land. Is he fit to be a jurist in the place where we have said justice in our country occurs, in the house where we listen to evidence and truth and make determinations based on the veracity and truthfulness of what has occurred? That is our role when it comes to Dr. Ford's allegations, and we fell short. We fell short. We did not do her justice, and we did not do the American people justice.

We were given 1 week to investigate. The Republicans said: You will get 1 week. They threw out 1 week--an arbitrary amount of time--and in less than 1 week we were presented with paltry documents. Clearly, when the White House directed the FBI to do its work, it appears from everything I have seen, the FBI was not permitted to look at all of the allegations. That is clear to me. It is clear the White House did not permit the FBI to request Mark Judge's Safeway employment records. It is clear, from everything I have seen, the White House did not permit the FBI to investigate the dishonest testimony of Brett Kavanaugh or to examine and listen to the evidence that would have been provided by a list of over two dozen witnesses who would have been, at the very least, able to corroborate or deny the allegations that were made. This was not a meaningful investigation into the allegations that are before us, and this, most importantly, was not a search for the truth.

Media outlets have reported that there are more than 40 people with potential relevant information who are willing to share their information but only 9 people were interviewed. This is a travesty. They did not interview the Georgetown Prep alumni or others from that era who contradict Kavanaugh's testimony. They did not interview Dr. Ford's husband or a number of her friends who she told of the assault before--before--Kavanaugh's nomination. They did not interview the former FBI special agent who conducted Dr. Ford's polygraph. They did not interview Kavanaugh's roommate at Yale who has contradicted Kavanaugh's testimony. They did not

interview another one of Kavanaugh's neighbors in the dorm at Yale. They did not interview three of Kavanaugh's friends from Yale who wrote in the Washington Post just last night:

Brett also belonged to a Yale senior secret society called

Truth and Courage. We believe that Brett neither tells the

former nor embodies the latter.

They did not interview Dr. Ford at all--they did not interview Dr. Ford at all. They did not give her the ability to speak her truth during the so-called investigation, and they did not interview Judge Kavanaugh about these allegations.

This was not a search for the truth. This was not an investigation. This was an abdication of responsibility and duty. This is on the heels of a process that began with hiding more than 90 percent of Judge Kavanaugh's record. We only received approximately 400,000 pages out of an estimated 6.9 million pages of documents. The Republicans have been saying: You should be happy you received thousands of pages of documents because they want us to treat crumbs on the table like it is a feast. These were crumbs on the table compared to the vast amount of information that is available to some about his background.

This process has left the American people with more questions than answers. This has not been a search for the truth.

The minimum standard for a Supreme Court nominee should be someone who we are confident will demonstrate impartiality, integrity, and truthfulness, but the nominee we are voting on has not demonstrated those qualities.

Every American is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, but nobody is entitled to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

I yield to my colleague Senator Murray.

Senator Murray, you and I have talked about it. We all talked about it. Part of the pain of this process is a real concern that sexual assault victims and survivors may take away from this process that their stories will not be heard or believed. Part of the pain I am taking away from this process is those who have a story to tell or might have been prepared to have the courage to report may decide: Look what happened to Dr. Ford. It doesn't matter. No one will believe me, and why should I go through that?

I have to say this. You and I have discussed it, and Senator Blumenthal and I have discussed it together. Part of what we must message--even if our Republican colleagues will not--is to all of the women and men out there who have experienced this: We will hear you. We will see you. We will respect you. We will give you dignity. Speak your truth. Do not be afraid. Do not let this system or any aspect of it bully you into silence.

It is critical we talk about this issue. I believe this is an issue right now that is where the issue of domestic violence was about 30 years ago. There was a perception about domestic violence I hope we have gotten beyond. There was a perception about domestic violence: Oh, you know, what happens in the King's castle is the King's business. That is private business. That is not our business.

Then we evolved as a society and realized, no, she is walking around with a black eye or a busted lip; that is everybody's business. She deserves to be safe, and we must stand up for her. I believe this is an inflection moment on the issue of sexual assault, and I hope and pray this is a moment where everyone will agree, no one should silently suffer. Let's talk about this. Let's talk about the fact that every 98 seconds in the United States of America, someone is sexually assaulted. Let's talk about the fact that 63 percent of sexual assaults are not reported to the police. Let's talk about the fact, since Dr. Ford had the courage to speak out, one of the biggest national organizations that addresses sexual assault saw a 738-percent increase in the calls they received from survivors of these cases.

I say to Senator Blumenthal, my response would be no. My response is no, and I will tell you why--because one of the most important qualities of a juror in our system of justice is that they have the ability to receive information without bias, without any interest in the outcome, and Judge Kavanaugh has made it very clear to the American public that he is biased, that he is perceiving information and perceives it through the lens of a partisan and through the lens of the person he has been his entire career, which is a partisan operative.

There were moments, perhaps during his initial testimony, where he may have distracted us from that part of his

history, where he talked in a calm voice about certain things. He certainly knows case law and talked about it. But when the issues got hot, when it became about fundamental issues, the veneer was stripped away, and Brett Kavanaugh showed us who he really is.

On the point of temperament, I think it is important for a number of reasons that the American people really review his testimony during those hearings these last days of this process because what he showed us also are two things in the way that he responded to our colleagues and approached the issue.

One, he showed us that he lacks credibility, and I will tell you why I say that. When I was trying cases, I recall an instruction the jury would receive at the close of a case; the judge would give the jury instructions about how they could evaluate--it was a tool to help them evaluate the credibility of a witness, and one of the instructions was that it is relevant and significant for you to analyze the demeanor of this witness toward the proceedings. On this point, let's recall Dr. Ford's demeanor and Judge Kavanaugh's demeanor.

Dr. Ford went out of her way to be helpful and truthful. She corrected herself when she thought there was more to offer. She yielded: Would the committee like a break? If so, I will take one. If not, I can keep going.

By contrast, Judge Kavanaugh was arrogant, he was aggressive, he was accusatory, and, clearly, he was not in control of himself. But I have to believe he was in control of his words because, as the Senator has pointed out, he told us he wrote his speech the night before. He said: I didn't show my staff. I just wrote these.

Well, you know, we often advise people when you are feeling hot about something, write it all out and then sleep on it. Then look at those words the next day, and see if you really want to stand by them.

This is a judge who is meticulous, he says, in everything he does. I believe that he wrote those words the night before. I am sure he slept on it. I am sure he looked at those notes again, and he decided that is what he was going with because it wasn't just about the heat of that moment. These are the things he really believes. That is why he said it, so let's believe him at his word. He is a partisan.

For that reason, I answer the Senator's question by saying, no, I would not select him to be on a jury.

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

Mr. President, our Nation mourns the loss of one of California's greatest civil rights leaders, whose nearly three decades in Congress and many more years in public service helped to shape the lives of countless individuals both at home and abroad.

Ron Dellums was born the son of a longshoreman and raised in Oakland, CA, a community he would later come to represent both as a Member of Congress and as mayor. A 1953 graduate of Oakland Technical High School, Ron enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1954, where he served for 2 years, before graduating from San Francisco State College in 1960 with a degree in psychology. Two years later, Ron received a master's degree in social work from the University of California, Berkeley.

Immediately following graduate school, Ron immersed himself in public service, first through a series of social work jobs at the California Department of Mental Hygiene, and, eventually, as an elected member of the Berkeley City Council in 1967. As councilman, Ron became an outspoken advocate for historically underrepresented and underserved communities in Berkeley and Oakland, in addition to becoming an anti- war advocate.

The convergence of the free speech and anti-war movements in the Bay Area in the 1960s drove Ron to launch a campaign for Congress on a platform for civil and human rights. He was elected to Congress in 1971 as the first African American from northern California. For the next 27 years, Ron

waged battle on a number of social issues plaguing distressed communities, including increased funding for education, jobs, housing, healthcare, and combatting infant mortality and lack of access to affordable housing.

As the first Black chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Ron forcefully advocated peace through diplomacy and disarmament in the midst of debates on the Vietnam war and excessive military spending. Ron also became a vocal opponent against LGBTQ discrimination in the military. A cofounder of the Congressional Black Caucus, Ron advocated passionately to end American support for the apartheid regime in South Africa, eventually sponsoring legislation to bring forth economic sanctions and divestment by American companies and U.S. citizens.

In 1998, Ron left Congress and remained active as a local and national civil rights leader. His departure from public service, however, was short lived, and in 2007, Ron was elected mayor of the city of Oakland in the midst of our Nation's worst economic recession since the Great Depression. As mayor, Ron secured a record number of Federal grants for the city of Oakland, supporting major infrastructure projects, including port developments at the Oakland Army Base and public transportation wins for California's East Bay.

Ron was a dear friend, trailblazer, and champion for civil and human rights, whose service and dedication to the United States will forever be cherished and remembered. His legacy will continue to inspire past, present, and future Members of Congress who dare to fight for what is right in the face of political unpopularity and resounding odds.

We wish every Californian and those whose lives were touched by Ron peace during this difficult time, especially his wife, Cynthia, and his children, Michael, Pamela, Piper, Brandon, and Erik.

Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Merkley for bringing us all together to address what is, I think, as my colleague Senator Hassan has said, one of the dark marks in the history of our country.

I rise today to call attention to what has clearly been a human rights abuse committed by the U.S. Government, and that is the outrageous and inhumane separation of children from their parents at the border. This morning,

thousands of children woke up without their parents, not knowing where they were, not knowing when they would see them again, not knowing the adults who surround them, having no relationship of trust with these people who have removed their ability to be in the arms and embrace of their parents. This is simply inhumane, and it is unacceptable.

Even with the Executive order from the President of the United States, that number will be the same tomorrow. Those 2,000-plus children will be in the same situation tomorrow that they were in today and the day before and the day before and the day before that.

Over the last few months, the Department of Homeland Security has separated more than 2,000 children from their parents at the border, many of them younger than 4 years old. Let's be clear about what that point is and that moment is in this stage of human development. Age is more than a chronological fact. There are phases of childhood that can never be replaced--phases of childhood that when that child experiences trauma, he or she will have lifelong impact; phases of life during which a child is so innocent and needs love and needs nurturing and needs that love and nurturing from their parents. It cannot be replaced by anyone else, and certainly not by the cage in which they are now being held.

So let's look at where we are. It is a child's worst nightmare, a nightmare that is displayed, as my colleagues have discussed, in the stories of a child who was apparently ripped from her mother's breast while being breastfed. There are nightmare stories of a 3-year-old who was torn from the arms of his father and the father being so distraught that he took his own life.

We should tell the truth. We have to speak the truth. The American public knows the truth. Let's speak truth here in the U.S. Senate. Let's speak truth as leaders and acknowledge the lifelong consequences of the separation we visited upon these children and their parents. The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics have weighed in on this topic, and what they have said is that family separation in these cases, not as a general matter--it is generally true--but specifically in these cases it will cause lifelong trauma. They have indicated there is empirical evidence of the fact that it is likely to cause significant harm to the brain structure of these children and will affect these children's long- and short-term health.

Let's be clear. A society is judged based on how it treats its children. A society is judged based on how it treats the least among us, and we will be judged harshly. History will judge us harshly because of what this administration has done.

As I stand here at this moment, hours after the announcement of the Executive order on this issue, I find it shocking that the Executive order fails to acknowledge that over 2,000 children are currently, at this very moment, without their parents. I find it shocking that the Executive order fails to acknowledge, take into account or even concern itself with the fact that tonight there will be over 2,000 children who will go to bed, who will go to sleep without a kiss goodnight from their mother or their father. There are 2,000 children in our country tonight who will go to bed without a hug from their parents. The 2,000 children tonight will go to bed asking: Where is my mommy? Where is my daddy? This is an outrage.

It is an outrage--not to mention these children are innocent and have committed no wrongdoing whatsoever. Let's be clear.

Thankfully, the American people have been speaking out over these last many weeks, and that is the only reason the administration finally had to acknowledge that politically it could not survive its misdeeds. There has still been no acknowledgment by this administration that it visited this policy upon itself and, after urging from every type of person from every walk of life, still held steadfast in supporting this policy. Then it started to snowball, and they couldn't stand by it any longer, but it was only because of the pressure, only because of the relentless coverage by journalists who went to Texas, who went to California and the activists who stood outside of those detention centers and demanded that there be justice and humanity in this system, and it was because of that activism and because of those people speaking out that finally this administration did what was necessary to end the thing that it started around the separation of these children. But this is not enough.

The reality is that there is nothing about this Executive order that addresses those 2,000 children who are currently without their parents. There is nothing about the administration's stated policy as of today that indicates any plan to reunify those children with their parents.

Let's look at the effect of this Executive order. The effect is there is still indefinite detention of families in America because of this administration's policy. So now we are going to go from babies in cages to babies with their mommies in cages.

Let's be clear about the effect of this Executive order. Millions more taxpayer dollars will be used to expand detention camps on top of the billions of taxpayer dollars that have already poured into this detention system.

Let's be clear about the effect of this Executive order. The so- called zero tolerance policy that created this problem in the first place is still in effect. It is still in effect.

Let's be clear about this Executive order. The effect is to suggest that a mother fleeing the murder capital of the world--which is what the zero tolerance policy suggests--that a mother fleeing with her child from the murder capital of the world should be treated as being a threat to our safety that is equal to being a member of a transnational criminal organization. As a prosecutor for most of my adult life, I find that absolutely disingenuous and absolutely wrong on a moral level, on an ethical level, and devoid of any reference to real fact. But I am not surprised, given the administration's track record on this issue.

If you look at what has been coming out of this administration in terms of its policies, it paints a constellation of attacks on immigrant women, immigrant children, and immigrant families. Let's look at the constellation before us and what has been going on.

Let's just look at how this administration has changed the policies about detention of pregnant women. Before this administration acted on this subject, it was the policy of the U.S. Government to place pregnant women in the least restrictive place, where they could be able to get the kind of prenatal care they so desperately need and deserve. This administration rolled back those protections of pregnant women.

Let's look; there used to be a policy that gave a presumption that pregnant women would not even be detained and should be in less restrictive situations, but this administration changed that policy.

Let's look at how the Office of the Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office have raised serious concerns about oversight and conditions in the detention facilities. There is nothing about this Executive order that addresses those concerns.

Let's look at a complaint filed just last year by numerous organizations, such as the Women's Refugee Commission, that documents insufficient medical care and inhumane conditions for pregnant women in ICE custody--all of which is why I have been proud to work with Representative Jayapal to introduce the DONE Act, which will slash ICE detention beds by using alternatives to detention and would increase badly needed oversight of these facilities.

Let's look at another policy. There are reports that the Department of Homeland Security is looking at decreasing the standard of care for children in detention facilities--decreasing the standard of care. These standards govern the types of meals that a child must eat in order to be healthy. These standards govern the kind of recreation a child should receive, again, in order to be healthy, and just this past month, the Attorney General of the United States announced a decision that makes it nearly impossible for victims of domestic violence, over 90 percent of whom are women, to seek asylum in the United States.

Let's look at one final policy that makes this administration's priorities around children very clear--the fact that they have ended DACA. We have talked about this extensively. We have talked about how the American Government made a promise to these

Dreamers, these young people, and this administration has failed to keep that promise.

So what we see is an administration that is engaged in an act of complete hypocrisy, pretending to care about families and children, when in fact, they have a track record of policies that are specifically damaging to families, women, and children.

In conclusion, there is no medical or logical reason that dictates or requires this administration to detain more pregnant women, and it has to stop. There is no evidence that says you should reduce care for children in detention facilities. That has to stop. There is no reason not to have a plan to reunify the 2,300 children who will go to sleep tonight torn from their parents and alone. There is no reason, and it has to stop. This is not reflective of who we are as a country. We are better than this.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, California and the nation lost a trailblazer and a war hero. Mr. Eddie Fung served our country bravely throughout his tour with the Army National Guard as part of the 2nd Battalion, 131st Field Artillery of the 36th Infantry Division, including 3\1/2\ years in a Japanese prisoners of war camp. Mr. Fung will be buried with full military honors at Cypress Lawn Memorial Park in Colma, CA, on June 20, 2018.

Born in San Francisco in 1922, Eddie left home at 16 to become a cowboy in Texas. He joined the National Guard at 17, and his unit was activated in November 1941 as part of the 2nd Battalion, 131st Field Artillery of the 36th Infantry Division that was sent to Java, now part of Indonesia, to fight the invading Japanese in the early months of

Mr. President, Californians and San Franciscans have lost a fearless advocate for racial and economic equality who became the first African-American president of San Francisco's board of supervisors. Ms. Doris Ward was elected to the board of supervisors and was sworn in on January 8, 1980. In 1991, Ms. Ward became the first Black woman to serve as board president.

Ms. Ward was a trailblazer from her earliest days. She attended an integrated school from kindergarten through 12th grade. She went on to earn her bachelor's and master's degrees in education at Indiana University. Later she earned a master's degree in counseling from San Francisco State University and a doctorate in education from U.C. Berkeley. Ms. Ward was active in the civil rights movement and participated in sit-ins at bars and other public areas in Indiana. Ms. Ward began her career as a teacher in Gary, IN, her hometown, before joining the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP, in Indianapolis.

During her time at the NAACP in the late 1960s, Ms. Ward cemented her role as a leader for civil rights and social justice by opposing the Ku Klux Klan and other forms of racism and discrimination before moving to California.

Ms. Ward started her political career in 1972, after moving to San Francisco, when she became a trustee for the city's community college district prior to joining the board of supervisors.

Ms. Ward was a friend, mentor, and we will miss her vibrant spirit. The thoughts of San Franciscans and Californians are with Ms. Ward's sister, Debra Floyd, of Washington, DC, her family, city leaders, and the people of San Francisco during this time.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Gillibrand, we rise to request that, for the 4th year in a row, the U.S. Government officially recognize the last week in March as the Week on the Status of Black Women. During the week of March 26, 2018, as part of Women's History Month and in honor of the UN International Decade for People of African Descent, several leading social justice organizations will be holding events across the country to honor Black women's momentous contributions to our country and to shed light on the struggles Black women continue to face in American society.

Black women have long gone above and beyond the call of duty in their contributions to American civic society, particularly when it comes to voter turnout and political participation. They have routinely stepped up as leaders and bulwarks in their communities, sacrificing their own health and time for the betterment of others. Even in the face of grave oppression dating back to our Nation's origins, Black women have continued to stand strong and contribute to the well-being of families, communities, the economy, and our country as a whole. A recognition of the Week on the Status of Black Women would send a critical message that the government wishes to elevate Black women's role in history and contemporary society and recognizes the unique struggles they continue to experience today.

Black women have played a critical role in this Nation's history and evolution, often with little thanks or recognition. Harriet Tubman escaped slavery and bravely returned to the enslaved South over a dozen times to herald her people to freedom on the Underground Railroad. She served in the Union army as a spy, a medic, and the first woman ever to lead an armed expedition; yet despite this immense service to our country, we are still debating her recognition on our currency. A century later, Rosa Parks resisted the continued oppression and marginalization of her people. Before she was the face and organizational leader of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, she led campaigns against the sexual harassment and assault of Black women. The Week on the Status of Black Women offers us a chance to honor and uplift the sacrifices of Black women such as Harriet Tubman and Rosa Parks, who gave us so much and received so little in return.

It gives us an opportunity to add new names to celebrate to this list, for contributions that build the future as much as they ground the past. This week of recognition honors so many of whom we are proud, an infinite list at which we can only hint. It includes those hidden figures who did the math to get us to the stars--Katherine Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan, Mary Jackson, and Dr. Christine Darden--and the interstellar figures who have actually been there, like Dr. Mae Jemmison, the first African-American woman astronaut to travel in space; those consciousness raisers who provoked thought and progress in a country that needed to catch up with them, like Pauli Murray, who graduated first in her class from Howard Law and offered up the visionary arguments that won Brown v. Board of Education, and Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, who has issued an international invitation to embrace feminism; those courageous testifiers who spoke out with such foresight, from Anita Hill's willingness to speak her own truth to power, to Tarana Burke, whose compassionate decision to say ``Me Too'' inspired and named a movement that is changing the world; those athletes and artists who inspire us with their unprecedented feats and the lyricism of their movement, from American Ballet Theater's principal dancer Misty Copeland to America's swiftest young icon on ice, Maame Biney; and those who hold and disseminate knowledge, expanding our horizons and our minds, like Monica Drake, who last year became the first African-American woman on the New York Times' print masthead, and Carla Hayden, a visionary librarian who is the first woman and first African American to lead the Library of Congress, the largest library in the world.

We celebrate that this momentous week gives us an opportunity to both enrich the historical record, and to enliven our future possibilities. We know that raising the stories of Black women in every walk of life teaches little girls to see themselves in all their full and powerful potential.

As we anticipate the future, we must also stand to recognize that, while Black women have dedicated themselves to bettering our country, they continue to face countless barriers to full inclusion and equality in American society. Black women are disproportionately subject to compromising health conditions, such as poor-quality environments in impoverished neighborhoods, food deserts, and a lack of access to basic healthcare--conditions that make them more susceptible to life- threatening diseases such as HIV and heart disease and which often make highly treatable illnesses, like breast cancer, lethal. Single Black women's median wealth is just $100, while single White women have a median wealth of $41,000; and White households have a median wealth of 13 times more than Black households. Even more alarming, around half of single Black women have zero or negative wealth, meaning their debt equals or exceeds their assets. On average, Black women workers are paid only 67 cents on the dollar relative to White non-Hispanic men, even after controlling for education, years of experience, and location.

Further, while Black women, especially trans Black women, are exceptionally vulnerable to violence, both at the hands of the state and at the hands of intimate partners, often they are not listened to or believed when they speak out. On all these fronts, we can and must do better, and we will.

In conjunction with the congressional declaration, a coalition of organizations advocating for the well-being of women and communities of color will partner to elevate the stories, histories, and realities of Black women's lives through a series of events entitled ``Her Dream Deferred''. These events will address a number of issues facing Black women today, including maternal mortality, sexual assault and harassment, political participation, and police violence through artistic expression and academic fora.

Exploring these issues and acknowledging the centrality of Black women to our history and social fabric, along with recognizing the uniquely gendered and racialized inequities they face, is critical as we seek to extend equal rights to all Americans. We hope and request that this year will be a continuation of years past in celebration and recognition of Black women through the Week on the Status of Black Women.

Thank you.

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

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

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

Mr. President, I would like to thank the senior Senator from Illinois. Senator Durbin has been a longstanding leader in this Chamber and in our country on this issue, and I can't thank him enough for all he does so tirelessly. I see his work behind closed doors, and I know his passion and personal commitment to this issue. I thank the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. President, on February 16 of this year, which was 292 days ago, I offered my maiden speech as a new Member of the U.S. Senate. The subject of the speech was immigration--in particular, an emphasis on DACA and the Dreamers. Here we are 292 days later, and we have failed to move forward in any substantial or substantive way in bringing relief to these Dreamers who have qualified for DACA status. So we stand here, these 292 days later, talking about an issue that we must ultimately, and before the end of this year, resolve.

Let's also be clear that 3 months ago today, on September 5 of this year, the administration arbitrarily, recklessly, and cruelly ended DACA--the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program. DACA allowed young immigrants who were brought here by their parents to live and work in this country without fear that they would be deported. Later this week, on Friday, December 8, funding for the government runs out. I have been clear, along with my friend from Illinois and several other colleagues, that any bill that funds the government must also include a fix for DACA.

I want to talk with you about why I believe it is important that we resolve this issue. I do believe there is a lot of misinformation out there. I think it is important that we as policymakers, as leaders in our country, craft and create public policy based on facts, not on misinformation and certainly not fear.

Let's begin by being very clear. The decision to rescind DACA is part of a much broader and troubling attempt to remake the demographics of the country by cracking down on immigrants. We have an administration that has ignited anti-immigrant sentiment, characterizing immigrants as rapists and murderers and people who are going to steal your jobs. We have an administration that has implemented an aggressive anti- immigrant agenda. This administration has called for a border wall that could cost up to $70 billion. They have implemented Muslim bans which severely restrict immigration from six Muslim-majority countries. They have requested 10,000 new ICE agents and 5,000 new Border Patrol agents when they have not given the resources to be able to fill all the vacant positions they now have. They have ended the protected immigration status, known as TPS, for Haitians and Nicaraguans who fled disasters and may crack down on the protective status on Salvadorans as well. They are seeking to lower the refugee cap from 110,000 to 45,000 at a time when we have seen an increase in the worldwide number of refugees who are in crisis. This is the lowest number ever in the history of this country--actually, since 1980. Gen. John Kelly, the President's Chief of Staff and former Homeland Security Secretary, said that he wishes the number of refugees we would admit into our country were between zero and one.

I want to be clear. I have an incredible amount of respect for the men and women of the Department of Homeland Security, who each day leave their homes, committed to doing the work of keeping our homeland secure. It is noble and important work, and their mission is critical. I believe the vast majority of those frontline agents are doing their jobs honorably and effectively, but it is troubling when the White House has encouraged frontline agents to ``take the shackles off.'' In fact, the Acting ICE Director has said:

If you're an immigrant in this country illegally . . . you

should be uncomfortable. You should look over your shoulder.

When you look at these independent acts, there is a clear constellation that has formed. This enforcement surge is a barely disguised purge. This is not leadership. Leaders should not be in the business of inciting fear and sowing hate and division. Instead, leaders should be about creating smart public policy based on facts. So here are some of the facts.

It is a fact that there are 700,000 DACA recipients, 200,000 of whom are in California alone.

It is a fact that the Dreamers have been extensively vetted before they have qualified for DACA. They have gone through a process. They have turned over copious amounts of paperwork with incredible detail. They have gone through background checks. They have given personal information about the circumstances of their arrivals. They have answered questions that seek to figure out whether they have committed crimes. If they applied and they received DACA status, we determined that they were not threats in that regard to our public safety. We asked questions that sought to figure out if they have graduated high school. Are they living lawful and productive lives? It is only when they cleared that extensive vetting that they qualified for DACA status and received DACA status.

Let's be clear. These Dreamers who receive DACA status study in our colleges, serve in our military, and work in Fortune 100 companies. They are contributing to our economy in a way that we all are benefiting. If DACA recipients were to be deported, it is estimated that California would lose $11 billion a year. The U.S. economy as a whole would lose an estimated $460 billion over a decade.

It is also a fact that these young people have stood in classrooms and stood in line in many places and have placed their hands over their hearts, pledging allegiance to the flag of the United States--a flag that many of us wear on our lapels, a flag that represents the best of what we are in terms of the ideals upon which we were founded. We must be true to those ideals and consistent in the way that we approach so many issues as applied to this issue about what we do with these DACA kids. We must keep our word and our promise to them and guarantee what we promised, which is that we would not share their personal information with ICE and that they would not be deported if they continued to follow the rules.

In my experience, it is also true that many who have opinions or who have expressed opinions or who have the opportunity to make decisions about this issue have never met a Dreamer. We cannot fault them, but what we can ask is that those who have the power to make a decision on this issue make it their business and make an effort to really understand who we are talking about. Senator Durbin talked about it, and Senator Carper talked about it. My colleagues will be talking about who these Dreamers are, who these young people are.

I have to say that I have been a bit troubled when I have had this conversation. I remember when I had a conversation many months ago with the then-nominee to head up the Department of Homeland Security, Gen. John Kelly. I asked him if he had ever

met a Dreamer, and he said that he had not. When I asked him if I could arrange a meeting, he then went on to say: How about if I could take a meeting, instead, with their representatives? That is disheartening.

Before our colleagues make a decision about where they stand on this policy, I believe that it is only fair--it is only the right thing to do--that they make an effort to sit down and talk with Dreamers and get to understand who they are, the circumstances of their arrivals, and how they are contributing to our country.

There are going to be hundreds of Dreamers here tomorrow on Capitol Hill. I want to thank them for their leadership and their tireless advocacy because their stories will change hearts and minds. Let me just speak of a few. My colleagues have shared some; I will share some others.

I met Yuriana Aguilar, whom I took to the President's joint session address this February. Her parents brought her here from Mexico when she was just 5 years old. She grew up in Fresno, CA. She attended public schools, and she attended UC Merced. She was the first DACA recipient to earn a Ph.D. and now is a biomedical researcher in Chicago who is focused on the human heart. She is doing everything that she can to improve the condition and the lives of the people in our country because of the work she has done and the research she has done.

I met Eric Yang, who came from South Korea. He grew up in Irvine, CA, and is now studying business economics at UC Irvine, where he works to help other students.

My husband and I recently attended a play in Los Angeles. It is a great program at which there is free entertainment in the community park, and families show up and have a wonderful evening outdoors with each other in fellowship. I met a young woman who came up to me. She was with a group of friends.

Her friends said: Tell her. Tell her.

I looked at this young woman. She looked as if she was about maybe 19 years old.

I said: Tell me what? Tell me what is going on.

She looked at me, and she spoke so quietly that I didn't hear what she had said, so I asked her to repeat herself. She looked at me, and she started crying.

She said: I am DACA.

She was trembling as she cried, absolutely in fear of what her future may hold.

I suggest that before we take a position on this issue, we take a moment, each one of us as colleagues and each one of us as individuals, to see these young people, to truly see them--to see them not through a lens that is about partisanship or politics, not through a lens that is ideological, but based on who they really are and the practical realities of the lives they lived that brought them to this country, the circumstances that brought them to this country, and the lives they are living every day now.

These are incredible young people who are doing everything that we hope and pray will epitomize the American dream--work hard, be respectful, play by the rules, contribute to your community, have dreams and aspirations about how you can be productive. That is who these young people are.

Let's reject the fearmongering. Let's also understand that this is an imminent issue and that this is something we must address immediately. Let's agree that each day in the lives of these young people is a very long time. Each day that they go to sleep at night and are worried about a knock on the door at midnight that might tear them away from their families is a very long time. Let's not wait. Let's not wait to help them.

Let's reject those folks who say that there is no crisis, the folks who say that this is not an emergency. Let's understand that for these 700,000 Dreamers who cannot concentrate at school or at work and who are terrified of that midnight knock, this is an emergency. Let's think about the classmates and the coworkers and our neighbors and family members who have these children who are terrified that this protected status will be stripped and taken away. For them, this is an emergency.

Let's think about the 122 Dreamers who are losing their DACA status every single day, 851 of them every week, over 11,000 of them since September. Let's agree that this is a crisis, that this is an emergency. It has been 91 days since this administration ended DACA, and we cannot wait a single day longer.

Let's reject the fearmongering. Let's find a bipartisan consensus to act in the way that we know we should and can. Let's put the Dream Act to a vote today. I believe it could pass and would pass if everyone looked in their hearts and looked at the facts.

Today, 35 House Republicans signed a letter, writing that they want a DACA fix before the end of the year. It included Members from California and Texas and Florida and Utah and Pennsylvania and New York. Earlier today, my colleague, the junior Senator from Arizona, said:

We don't need to make a statement. We need to make a law.

I could not agree more. Let's give these Dreamers a future.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my motions to commit be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I thank the minority leader, Senator Schumer, for his words of emphasis on the need to ensure that not only do our fellow Americans in Florida and Texas receive the relief they so dearly and sorely need but also that our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, as well, receive the relief

they need and receive the priority they deserve.

California has been devastated, frankly, by the wildfires that we have just experienced. Ten days ago, I was in Santa Rosa, CA, and witnessed firsthand the devastation that took place throughout that region and, in particular, in Coffey Park.

I met with evacuees. I met with firefighters. I met with community leaders, elected leaders, and others who traveled to that area out of concern and with a desire to help. I met county supervisors, and for two of them in particular, Supervisors Gore and Gorin, their entire districts were on fire. One of the supervisors even lost her own home. Yet they were leading the charge in the recovery efforts and doing so in such a selfless way and with such courage.

Entire communities were devastated, and people have lost everything and are still suffering to an incredible extent because of the loss they have experienced and the fact that they have not been resettled.

My heart breaks, as I know all of us feel for the 42 people and their families whose lives were ended in these fires. There were 42 people in this region who lost their lives. In addition, more than 8,400 homes and buildings were destroyed. For example, in Santa Rosa, 5 percent of the entire housing stock is gone. Many of the folks in these neighborhoods are middle-class families--working families. They are plumbers and teachers and first responders who were barely able to meet their mortgage. The fires have scorched more than 245,000 acres, and 100,000 Californians were forced to evacuate.

I must tell you, I am in awe of the work of the firefighters and first responders who fought tirelessly day and night. I heard stories of firefighters who worked 80 hours straight to do the work of evacuation, ensuring that no lives were lost and no lives were in peril. I am in awe of their work.

I met a firefighter. His first name is Paul, who, when I met him, was finally taking a moment of rest from the firefighting he had been doing. He was wearing sweatpants and a sweatshirt and flip-flops he borrowed from another firefighter because he lost his home and everything he had. Yet there he was on the frontlines fighting to make sure no other Californians, no other people faced the kind of devastation he faced.

There were more than 11,000 total firefighters who went to the fire. Some were from other States and even other countries. They deserve our thanks. I stand here in the U.S. Senate to thank them for the work they did, coming to California and helping us deal with this crisis.

First responders and medical professionals did important work as well. Fifty-one doctors from Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital who lost their homes and possessions still stayed overtime to help crowded emergency rooms full of patients. I am uplifted by what I know, and the world now sees, which is the character of Californians. People rushed to help the elderly in nursing homes evacuate. I heard the story of a doctor who used his motorcycle to save newborn babies from a neonatal unit.

Now these folks need our help. Senator Feinstein and I will continue to demand FEMA resources, which include the need for housing, individual assistance, transportation, and water infrastructure. We need to make sure all Californians, regardless of status, can get help at the shelters.

I spoke with DHS Acting Secretary Elaine Duke and confirmed that ICE will suspend immigration enforcement in the area until further notice. It is our belief, and it is our understanding as Californians, that notice will be clear as to when this effort will end, in terms of not enforcing immigration. We want to be clear when it is going to start so we can tell Californians because right now they are trusting DHS's word that this immigration enforcement has been suspended. We are told that FEMA, through Elaine Duke, will also support emergency packages that provide disaster relief for the hurricanes in Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

California is resilient and will rebuild, but we need help. More than 12,000 constituents have contacted our office, and we will continue to work with FEMA, HUD, the Small Business Administration, and the USDA to ensure that those affected in my State will get all the relief that is necessary.

Congress needs to fund programs like community development block grants and section 8 housing to help provide affordable housing for low- and middle-class residents. They need the help to find affordable housing. California is facing an affordable housing crisis like many other States in our country, and this is something that has been highlighted by the devastation these various States and territories have experienced recently, but it is an ongoing issue we must deal with.

We cannot stop there. We need larger supplemental emergency packages that include helping California. This has to be a long-term commitment. California is experiencing the worst fires in history, and they are becoming more frequent. In the 1980s, fires burned and wildfires burned under 25 acres, on average. Now typical wildfires will burn over 100 acres. California's 2017 fire season has not yet ended, and it has already burned more acres than the average for the past 5 years. In Southern California, from Kern County to San Diego, red flag warnings are occurring as we speak. There are currently up to 55 mile-an-hour winds and warm, dry weather, with no humidity or very little humidity. These are the conditions that were at play during the most recent wildfire crisis.

We must also look at the future and how we can prevent wildfires from reaching this magnitude as we go forward. We must pass the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act.

Today, over half of the U.S. Forest Service budget is dedicated to combating wildfires, compared to just 13 percent of the budget in 1993. The wildfires are treated differently than floods or hurricanes. The Forest Service is not allowed to use general disaster relief funds at FEMA, and that makes no sense.

Prevention is cheaper than reaction. The U.S. Forest Service estimated that there are 6.3 billion dead trees in the Western States. Removing them would improve safety by mitigating wildfires. Also, it would have an economic benefit and create jobs. There are certain bills, and the bill I mentioned, that will help achieve this because it will allow the Forest Service to dedicate part of the budget to forest management and not just reacting.

We must listen to the experts. For example, CAL FIRE agrees. Too often, States are picking up the bill for prevention in forest management, and we should make it very clear that fires are not partisan. This bill I mentioned, the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act, is a bipartisan bill, and it should be inserted cleanly into the next supplemental emergency package.

Finally, let's recognize the connection between these disasters and climate change. California is leading the way and preparing for increasing wildfires, but the Federal Government needs to do its part. Natural disasters from fires to hurricanes, to floods do not discriminate by region or by party. We must help each other when these travesties hit, but also we must prepare for the future.

In closing, I would suggest and urge our colleagues to pass the supplemental bill and future emergency resources, ensure that Federal agencies deliver prompt help on the ground, and pass the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this healthcare bill will affect over 5 million Californians. That is why it is so important that this bill goes to the

committees that are in charge of healthcare. It is so that it can get a hearing and members can discuss it and consider changes, and so that the public can understand what is in it. Any bill that is going to bypass our normal floor procedures and be voted on with only one party being heard and being on board should at least go through committee and have an open hearing process.

The Democrats introduced a bill to change our process in order to say exactly that any bill that gets the expedited, simple majority reconciliation process of passing the Senate has to at least go through committee and have a hearing.

I now ask my colleagues to agree to immediately consider that bill so that we can fix this process before this healthcare bill comes to the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Budget be discharged from further consideration of S. 1376 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, Senator Carper talked about Tanzania. It reminds me of a greeting I have often heard from people who live in various African countries. When you meet someone for the first time, instead of what we would normally say--``Pleased to meet you''--the greeting is ``I see you.'' I see you. I think that really is part of our concern here: Do we see the people who will be impacted in the way they are actually living their lives, and do we understand, if we see them, that this bill will not be in their best interests?

Right now, for example, we know 13 Senators--all Republicans--are crafting a bill. This bill would restructure our Nation's entire healthcare system, which, when we add up what Americans spend on hospitals, doctors, prescription drugs, and all the rest, we understand it makes up one-sixth of our economy. It would affect the lives of everyone--our parents, grandparents, those who are in need of caregiving, our children struggling with asthma or opioid abuse, our spouses, who may be battling cancer.

What is equally distressing is that this bill is being written in secret. The chairman of the Finance Committee says he has not seen the bill. The Secretary of Health and Human Services says he has not seen the bill. The American people, the people we all represent, have certainly not seen the bill.

I think the American people deserve better. This bill is being written entirely along partisan lines without any attempt to bring Democrats on board, and the American people deserve better. This bill is being written and rushed through the Senate with hardly any time to debate the cost or the details of this proposal, and the American people deserve better.

I remember when our colleagues across the aisle said the Affordable Care Act was being rammed down the American people's throats in the middle of the night. The ACA, in fact, went through 106 public hearings. It incorporated more than 170 Republican amendments. The whole process took an entire year. But this healthcare plan involves no hearings, no bill text, and no transparency at all.

As Senators, we were sent here to represent the American people. We answer to the American people.

Why are my colleagues from across the aisle trying to put one over on the American people? I have met folks all across California and this country, and they see what is happening. They know that if this bill were as wonderful as its proponents would like us to believe, it would be out in the open.

The American people deserve greater transparency. Even though the authors of this proposal have tried to conceal the details of their plan, we know enough to know this bill would be nothing short of a disaster. We know because we have been told it is about 80 percent the same as the bill that was passed by the House--a bill so catastrophic that even the President of the United States who hailed its passage now calls it ``mean.''

We know it would throw 23 million Americans off their health insurance within a decade, including putting 4 to 5 million Californians at risk of losing coverage. We know it would raise costs for middle-class families and seniors. In every county of California, average monthly premium costs would go up while financial support to pay premiums would fall.

We know it would put Americans with preexisting conditions at risk and leave people who need maternity care or opioid treatment without coverage or force them to pay huge out-of-pocket costs. We know it would cut about $834 billion from Medicaid, which means less money for families to pay for nursing homes, to support children with special needs, or to treat substance abuse. We need the Affordable Care Act to be in place, in a way that we fix what is wrong, but we mend what is broken and not repeal it altogether.

I recently visited a really remarkable treatment clinic in Los Angeles. It is called the Martin Luther King Jr. Outpatient Center. Everyone from the doctors to the patients can tell you that when 4,600 Californians are dying every year from substance abuse and opioid overdoses, it is wrong and irrational to cut Medicaid.

It really makes you wonder why anyone would support this bill. How does this bill help real people with real challenges?

At a healthcare rally in Los Angeles in January, I met a woman named Tonia. Before the ACA, she had signed up for insurance just long enough to see a doctor, have a few tests done, and fill a prescription. Then she would realize she couldn't pay and couldn't afford to pay for the insurance beyond that. She said:

It's the worst feeling in the world to have to tell your

doctor--who is trying to make you well--that you cannot

afford the treatment prescribed.

Tonia told me:

Before the Affordable Care Act, living without health

coverage was a nightmare in this country.

She went on to say:

But that has all changed, and thanks to the ACA I can now

see a doctor when I need to, monitor my condition, and stay

healthy so that I can keep working and contribute to our

nation's economy. If the Republicans in Congress repeal the

law, I don't know what I will do.

I ask, How does the Republican healthcare plan help Tonia?

Another woman, Krista, told me:

I am married with four children, one of whom is a 10-year-

old type one diabetic. He requires daily active insulin

management to stay alive--24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

She went on to say:

Healthcare is not optional for us; even with health

insurance, diabetes management is the type of thing that can

bankrupt you. Without health insurance, I can't imagine. ACA

is a huge relief for my family.

I ask, How does this bill help Krista and her family?

Then, there is Rhett, in Marin County. More than 7 years ago, he was diagnosed with leukemia. Rhett is 9 years old. He says:

Cancer cells are the bad guys.

This is what he wrote me.

For 3\1/2\ years I took chemo to get the bad guys out. I

had more than one thousand doses of chemotherapy. . . . My

parents had to tell my sister that I might die of cancer.

And then he went on to write:

Thanks to my doctors and nurses, my family and friends, my

church and my community, and the Affordable Care Act . . .

now I'm Gone-with-the-Cancer. I have a pre-existing

condition. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, my parents

don't worry about losing coverage.

A 9-year-old Rhett is showing us the way. How does this bill help Rhett?

I don't know the party affiliation of any of these folks. I don't know if they are Democrats. I don't know if they are Republicans. I don't know if they are Independents. I don't know if they are members of the Green Party. I am not asking them those questions. I am asking them: How are you doing? What is helping you? What do you need? How will this impact you?

I know I am one of two Senators whom they have. When it comes to their needs and their need to be represented in the U.S. Congress and their need to be heard and their need to be seen, party affiliation should not matter. What should matter are the needs of the American people.

Regardless of whom they vote for in a partisan election, I am certain of this. This healthcare plan that is being proposed by my colleagues from across the aisle will not solve their problems. It will only create more problems and potentially devastate people's lives.

To my colleagues I say, this shouldn't be a matter of supporting this bill automatically if you are a Republican or objecting just because you are a Democrat; this is about what is right and what is wrong.

If you know this bill is bad, stand up and stop it. Speak that truth. Now is not the time to keep quiet and hope nobody notices. Forget the politics. Forget partisan pressure and talk radio and primary ads. Instead, just listen to the voices of the American people, not just in California but in Nevada, in Arizona, in Ohio, in Alaska, in Maine, in Pennsylvania, in West Virginia because they have made themselves overwhelmingly clear. Only 20 percent of Americans support this bill.

A majority opposes it in every State in this country. It is the least popular piece of legislation in modern history. I am asking you to think about the American people. I am asking you to think about Tonia. Think about Krista. Think about Rhett living with leukemia since he was just 2\1/2\ years old, undergoing 2\1/2\-hour infusions every night with such incredible bravery.

Let the determination of Americans like Rhett bring us together--a 9- year-old boy who tells us, in his words: ``Don't repeal the Affordable Care Act, Improve it!'' We all agree, the ACA can be improved. It must be improved. It isn't perfect. I am ready to work with anyone who really wants to make it better.

Instead of playing politics, instead of playing politics with public health and people's lives, we can actually work together to strengthen our healthcare system.

In fact, I am proud to have recently cosponsored a bill with Senator Dianne Feinstein and a number of my Democratic colleagues. Our bill would make it safer and easier for middle-class Americans to buy insurance if they currently don't qualify for any help paying their premiums.

These are the kinds of solutions Democrats can get behind. These are the kinds of solutions that would help and not hurt the people we represent. We took an oath to represent all the people. I am asking every Member of this Chamber to think long and hard about the consequences of this bill. Think about the responsibility we have been entrusted with.

We owe it to the American people to tell the truth, not to hide it. We owe it to the American people to solve real problems, not to manufacture new ones. We owe it to the American people to do the job we were sent here to do.

I urge my colleagues to vote down this bill and stand up for the people we represent and serve.

I yield back.

Mr. President, I was unavoidably absent during today's vote, Executive Calendar No. 55, due to my son's college graduation. Had I been present, I would have voted nay on the confirmation of Governor Terry E. Branstad to be the U.S. Ambassador to China.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for her important remarks just now and for her leadership and her friendship to so many of us. She has been an extraordinary hero of mine, personally, and so many of us look to her leadership. So I thank her--and for her speaking on the nomination of Judge Gorsuch.

Across the street from this Chamber stands the U.S. Supreme Court. Above its doors are the words ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' As Senators, we have a solemn responsibility to ensure that every man and woman who sits on that Court upholds that ideal. As a U.S. Senator, I take that responsibility extremely seriously.

Almost two decades after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, I was part of only the second class to integrate the Berkeley, CA, public schools. If the Court had ruled differently, I likely would not have become a lawyer or a prosecutor or a district attorney or the Attorney General of California, and I certainly would not be standing here today as a U.S. Senator.

I know from personal experience just how profoundly the Court's decisions touch every aspect of Americans' lives, and for that reason, I rise to join my colleagues in strong opposition to the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court.

As we know, Judge Gorsuch went through 4 days of hearings in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and here is what we learned: We learned that Judge Gorsuch refused to answer the most basic of questions. He initially even refused to share his views on Brown v. Board of Education. We learned that Judge Gorsuch has a deeply conservative worldview. And we learned that Judge Gorsuch interprets the law in a theoretical bubble, completely detached from the real world--as he puts it, ``focusing backward, not forward.'' If Judge Gorsuch joins the U.S. Supreme Court, his narrow approach would do real harm to real people, especially the women of America.

America deserves a Supreme Court Justice who will protect a woman's right to make her own decisions about her own health. Judge Gorsuch will not. Judge Gorsuch carefully avoided speaking about abortion, but he has clearly demonstrated a hostility to women's access to healthcare.

Last year, when the court he sits on sided with Planned Parenthood, Judge Gorsuch took the highly unusual step of asking the court to hear the case again.

Judge Gorsuch determined that a 13,000-person, for-profit corporation was entitled to exercise the same religious beliefs as a person. That meant the company did not have to provide employees birth control coverage and could impose the company's religious beliefs on all of its female employees. I ask my colleagues, why does Judge Gorsuch seem to believe that corporations deserve full rights and protections but women don't?

As we mark Equal Pay Day today, Americans deserve a Supreme Court Justice who will protect the rights of women in the workplace. Judge Gorsuch won't. In employment discrimination cases, Judge Gorsuch has consistently sided with companies against their employees. These employees include women like Betty Pinkerton. The facts of the case were undisputed. Her boss repeatedly asked her about her sexual habits and breast size and invited her to his home--then fired her when she reported his sexual harassment. Judge Gorsuch ruled against Betty. Why? Well, part of his justification that he offered was that she waited 2 months before reporting the harassment.

Americans deserve a Supreme Court Justice who upholds the rights of all women, including transgender women. Judge Gorsuch won't. When a transgender inmate claimed that the prison's practice of starting and stopping her hormone treatment was a violation of her rights, Judge Gorsuch disagreed.

As the National Women's Law Center observed, his ``record reveals a troubling pattern of narrowly approaching the legal principles upon which everyday women across the Nation rely.'' They write that his appointment ``would mean a serious setback for women in this country and for generations to come.''

But judging by his record, if Judge Gorsuch becomes Justice Gorsuch, women won't be the only ones facing setbacks. Take Luke, a young boy with autism whose parents sought financial assistance after switching him from public school to a school specializing in autism education. Judge Gorsuch ruled that the minimal support Luke received in public school was good enough. People in the autism community were up in arms. And in the middle of a Senate hearing 2 weeks ago, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Judge Gorsuch was wrong on the law.

Consider Alphonse Maddin. Maddin was a trucker who got stuck on the road in subzero temperatures--minus 27 degrees, as he recalls--and abandoned his trailer to seek help and save his life. For leaving the trailer, he was fired. Judge Gorsuch wrote that the company was entitled to fire Maddin for not enduring the cold and for not staying in his freezing truck.

Then there is Grace Hwang, a professor diagnosed with cancer. She sued when her university refused to provide the medical leave her doctor recommended. Judge Gorsuch called the university's decision ``reasonable'' and rejected her lawsuit. Sadly, Grace died last summer.

Judge Gorsuch has Ivy League credentials, but his record shows he lacks sound judgment to uphold justice. He ignores the complexities of human beings--the humiliating sting of harassment, the fear of a cancer patient or a worker who feels his life is in danger. In short, his rulings lack a basic sense of empathy. Judge Gorsuch understands the text of the law, to be sure, but he has repeatedly failed to show that he fully understands those important words: ``equal justice under law.'' For the highest Court in the land, I say, let's find someone who does.

I yield the floor.