Kirsten Gillibrand

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk on behalf of Senators Casey, Murphy, Rosen, and myself for the House managers.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for as much time as I consume.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the Republican motion to instruct on paid family and medical leave. Before I move to the issue at hand, I do want to address the very serious allegations against President Trump and the new information we are learning from the memo the White House released today. It is deeply concerning to learn that President Trump asked Ukrainian President Zelensky to work with the United States to investigate Vice President Biden. Our democracy is at risk, and President Trump has betrayed our country. I support Speaker Pelosi in starting the impeachment inquiry she announced yesterday, and the revelations today make these investigations even more necessary. Paid Family and Medical Leave Mr. President, I now want to talk about an opportunity that we have in the Senate today to serve the Nation by guaranteeing paid family and medical leave for 2 million Federal workers and their families through the Schatz motion. Every other industrialized country in the world has some version of paid leave, which allows workers to take care of their loved ones when a medical emergency arises. Yet the vast majority of our workforce in America lacks access to paid leave. That means far too many of our workers are unable to take paid time off if they need to care for a new child, a sick parent, or their spouse. Sadly, this includes 2 million of our Federal employees--and I know the Presiding Officer is aware of this, given his own family situation--but we have a chance to fix that right now. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Schatz motion. However, Senate Republicans have offered an additional motion that would block this benefit from every other working American. This is nothing short of an attack on all workers' access to affordable and accessible paid family and medical leave. What my Republican colleagues are suggesting is that our workers should work overtime to compensate for family leave. Their motion would require workers to shift around their hours and take on more hours in order to receive the paid time off they need in an emergency situation or when welcoming a new child. Let me be very clear. This is not a benefit. It is a cynical plan that would erode our American workers' abilities to make ends meet and harm their access to real paid leave. It would hurt those who need this the most, including women, communities of color, and low-wage workers. Most workers living paycheck to paycheck will not be able to take extra shifts to earn paid leave. Too many families across the country don't even have $400 in savings for emergency expenses. Take Shelby Ramirez Martinez, for example. She found herself in the most untenable situation when her daughter and her father both had simultaneous surgeries scheduled. Shelby is a mom of two, caregiver to her father, and a full-time student and security officer. She didn't have access to paid leave, so she was forced to take 2 weeks off and forgo her pay. She couldn't have planned for that by working overtime and sacrificing time with her daughter or with a flex savings account. What Shelby and all Americans need is dedicated and extended time off for medical emergencies and births. The Republican motion to instruct calls for employer tax credits that are handouts to large and rich companies like Google, which already provide paid leave and leaves taxpayers footing the bill. They are false incentives for small businesses that still will not be able to afford the leave. My bill, the FAMILY Act, would provide 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave for all workers. It is the only comprehensive proposal that is accessible and affordable for all working Americans. It is modeled off of very successful State programs like California's, ensuring that working Americans do not have to choose between their family and their paycheck. It shouldn't be so hard. So many workers around the country have new children, sick spouses, or elderly parents, and they need access to paid leave. Today, let's stand together and reject fake paid leave by voting no on the Ernst motion to instruct, for people like Shelby and her family. I yield the floor.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment because, as it is written, it really rewards only companies that are very wealthy and successful with additional tax credits to do something they are already doing. By that measure, it will leave most American workers without basic access to leave. The other potential idea is about shifting hours and suggesting that workers have to work overtime to be able to have paid leave. Every parent in America, every person in America, will have a time when they have a family crisis--whether it is a dying parent, whether it is a sick spouse, whether it is a new child--and we are still the only industrialized country in the world that doesn't have access to national paid leave. We should be able to come together around this commonsense solution that Senator Schatz has offered to create at least the first step to make sure our Federal workers aren't disproportionately harmed because they can't compete with the private sector. I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I rise to join my colleague Senator Heinrich and others who have come before. I am calling on Senator McConnell to act now to address the gun crisis in our country. Every day that the Senate Republican leaders refuse to act, they are making a choice to be complicit as more lives continue to be lost. People across my State and the country want to see action, and they are tired of waiting for it. I have met with countless families across New York who have lost their children, spouses, friends, community members, and neighbors to gun violence. I have met people who have survived mass shootings and people who live every single day with the threat of gun violence in their neighborhoods. I have heard their stories and seen how their lives have been torn apart by gun violence. Today I want to tell some of those stories to you. Robert Gaafar, one of my constituents from Long Island and a father of young children, was at the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival in Las Vegas for work. He heard loud popping noises and soon realized they weren't coming from the performance on stage but from a gun. As the shooter fired round after round, Robert hid behind a metal vending machine for protection. The bullets being fired around him were so powerful he could actually feel the shock waves. He said that he would never forget the silence of 20,000 people at a concert or the horrific screams of grown men and women he could hear as the gunman reloaded. He was lucky. He survived. But 58 people did not, and many more were injured. Another New Yorker, Trenelle Gabay, had to make the unthinkable decision to take her husband off of life support after he was shot in the crossfire of two rival gangs at a community festival in Brooklyn. He was just an innocent bystander, and, ironically, he was an attorney for the State who helped draft the NY SAFE Act, which set a precedent for one of the strongest gun laws in the country. He was not immune from gun violence himself. As Trenelle told it, her husband's life and bright light were extinguished by guns. At the trial, Trenelle heard a criminal testify about how easy it was for him to purchase a gun and traffic it from Georgia to New York. It should not be this easy for criminals to get access to dangerous weapons. It should not be so easy for lives to be taken so senselessly. One mother I met in New York, Jackie Rowe-Adams, lost not one but two sons to gun violence. One of her sons was shot when he was 17 years old outside of a bodega in Harlem. The reason? Two men with a gun believed that her son was staring at them, so they killed him. Ms. Rowe-Adams lost her second son to gun violence during a robbery outside of her apartment. The boy who shot him was only 13 years old. He should never have had access to a gun. Imagine the horror of being a mother and losing two of your sons to gun violence. Then there is another one of my constituents, Edwin Vargas. His 16- year-old son Luis was killed on Halloween when an unknown gunman decided to fire his weapon into the crowd in a neighborhood in the Bronx. The gunman was irritated by a group of teenagers who were throwing eggs in his neighborhood, so he began to randomly shoot into the crowd. The gunman hit three innocent bystanders, including Luis. Luis was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. These are the tragic and heart-wrenching stories that New Yorkers have shared with me. They are by no means unique. In every State around the country, there are too many stories just like these. The reality is that mass shootings can and have happened in every corner of this country in all types of places. Gun violence is becoming the new normal in America. Certainly it has happened in Arizona. We do not have to live in a country where mass shootings occur in our schools, our houses of worships, our movie theaters, our playgrounds, our stores, our community gatherings, at festivals, at concerts, at nightclubs, and at Congress on your corner. Madam President, I am speaking to you and to every other Republican in this Chamber. We all have a responsibility to do the right thing and stand up to the NRA and stand up to the greed and corruption that is in this country today that makes every decision about whether we have a vote on commonsense gun reform. I can poll your State for you. I can ask every NRA member in America: Do you support universal background checks, banning large magazines, military-style weapons? Leave them in the hands of military members, not someone who walks into a store and buys them because he wants to shoot large numbers of people in minutes and seconds. That is what is happening in America today. I would like you to look up because I have to say this is something all of us should be caring about, especially from Arizona, where my dear friend Gabby Giffords was shot for doing her job and a young girl showing up for ``Congress on Your Corner'' to meet her Congresswoman died. It is not OK. The time for turning a blind eye is over. I yield the floor.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in discussing our country's horrific gun violence epidemic. I have risen to speak of this problem many times over the years, and to be honest it is exasperating to have to do it over and over again. El Paso, Dayton, Gilroy, Odessa, Midland, Brownsville in New York-- the list goes on and on--city after city, community after community, devastated by gun violence. We witness these tragedies. We watch heartbreaking and nightmarish footage on our televisions. We offer our thoughts and prayers. We have heavy hearts, deep disappointment and horror, and still nothing. The Senate has still not passed any meaningful legislation to address the problem. So here we are once again in this Chamber. Democrats are speaking out on behalf of the American people, on behalf of the citizens who are protesting and demanding action, and on behalf of our constituents who call and write and tweet to us every single day for commonsense legislation to help end this gun violence that plagues our communities. We aren't just speaking out on behalf of Democrats because gun violence doesn't ask what political party you support. It touches the lives of everyone in this country. The majority of the American people--Democrats, Independents, and Republicans--all want action. They want their schools to be safe. They want a place to go and worship and be safe. They want to go and buy their back-to-school supplies and be safe. Let's be really clear about the root of this inaction. It is greed. It is corruption. It is the rot at the heart of Washington. The NRA is no different. The NRA cares more about gun sales than they do about the people of this country. They care more about the gun manufacturers than they do our communities. Too many of my colleagues just don't have the guts to stand up to the NRA. There are three effective solutions sitting right in front of us, all of which are bipartisan, all of which have been voted on before, getting lots of bipartisan support. I reject the false argument that because these commonsense proposals may not stop every single instance of gun violence that it is not worth doing them. We should do these. It makes no sense to stop doing the commonsense things just because it doesn't stop every gun crime because the truth is, it is time to do something. We can and should ban assault weapons and large magazines. No civilian needs access to weapons of war. Those weapons are designed solely to kill large numbers of people very quickly, in minutes and seconds, and our military train heavily to be able to use those weapons well. We can and should pass my legislation to criminalize gun trafficking. It will help slow the tide of illegal guns into cities like New York and Chicago and across the country where guns that are illegal are sold directly out of the back of a truck to a gang member or a criminal. It is one of the things that law enforcement keeps asking us to do and have been asking for a decade. We can and should pass the red flag laws that are designed to make sure people with violent tendencies cannot have access to guns, but the first and most obvious solution should be a cakewalk for this Chamber, and that is universal background checks. This solution is supported by the vast majority of Americans. A great bipartisan bill has already passed our House, but it is not even being considered right now for a vote in the Senate. So it is really on Senator McConnell right now. It is on him. It is his decision whether to protect our communities or not--to just protect our kids. As a mom, when there was a shooting less than a mile from Theo and Henry's school, all I could think about was getting there as fast as I possibly could just to make sure my child was safe. That is the fear every parent in America has today. We shouldn't accept living in an America where we have to worry that our kids aren't safe in school, where they are actually doing shelter-in-place drills instead of mathematical drills. We shouldn't accept that world. We shouldn't accept a world where you can't be at Bible study with your friends. We shouldn't accept a world where you can't go to a concert or go to a movie and know that you are safe, but that is the world we are living in. The truth about all of this is, right now at this moment, we have Americans who are fueled by hate hunting down other people with weapons of war. That has to change. We do have the will to do this. Congress can show courage. Congress can do the right thing, so why not do it now, when the American people are begging us to just have an ounce of strength in our spines, just an ounce of courage to stand up to special interests, to greed and corruption and lies that distort this debate. We are bigger than this. We are stronger than this. We are better than this. Let's protect our kids. I yield the floor.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I rise to join my colleagues in speaking about our 9/11 heroes. I thank Senator Schumer for his extraordinary leadership, his unwavering support, his dedication to taking this across the finish line, and his unbelievable willingness to lift up the voices of people who were not being listened to. Thank you to Senator Schumer. I want to first note that while we are debating this bill, there is a wake happening on Staten Island right now for Detective Christopher Cranston. A father of 5, he was only 48 years old, but he will be buried on Thursday because of the months of work he did on the pile at Ground Zero at Fresh Kills Landfill. He spent his 20th anniversary just a few weeks ago in chemotherapy. The eyes of the Nation are looking at this Chamber today to see if we finally will stand by our 9/11 heroes for the rest of their lives. In a few minutes, heroes such as James Zadroga, Ray Pfeifer, and Lou Alvarez will have their names etched into the history books forever, which is where they belong. Their families are in the Gallery today--here again, walking the halls of this Chamber and this Congress to be heard, here again to ask one more time that this body do what is right: to stand by them in their gravest time of need. Their families are here today to watch whether this Chamber will do what is right. They are standing here with so many others in the 9/11 community who have fought so hard to demand that Congress do the right thing. Let's honor their service today. Let's actually honor their commitment to coming here time and time again, not for themselves but for their brothers and sisters who are sick, who are still dying all across this country. Seven are dying a week. Let's honor the ultimate sacrifice they paid for responding to the call of duty when the Nation needed them most. Responders came from every State across this country. Last week, we lost Richard Driscoll, the 200th FDNY firefighter to succumb to a 9/11 illness. More police officers have died since 9/11 than on 9/11. More than 10,000 people have been certified with a 9/11- related cancer, with more being diagnosed every day. More will get sick. More will die. Some of them will not be diagnosed for years. That includes responders, and it includes the residents, teachers, and students who stayed downtown because the government told them the air was safe. They told them it was safe to breathe, even though it was not. This bill will not change any of that, but we can finally let the people in the Gallery, who are sitting here watching us today and witnessing this, go home knowing that the government will truly never forget. We owe them that promise. Today, we have the opportunity to let them get back to their lives, to be with their families, and to exhale. They at least deserve that. I thank Senator Gardner for his leadership on this bill. I thank Senator McConnell for staying true to his commitment. As I said earlier, I thank Senator Schumer for being a tremendous advocate, leader, and partner who never, ever, gave up. And I thank every single person who has spent their time and energy coming here again and again over these many years to advocate for this bill and for their brothers and sisters. I ask every Senator to have empathy--just that bit of care for someone else--to vote yes on this bill and stand by our first responders. I also urge every colleague of mine to reject the amendments that are being put forward. First is the amendment from my colleague from Utah. Unfortunately, this amendment would accomplish only one thing. It would make these first responders have to go through this entire process again in just a few years. It would force sick and dying police officers, firefighters, and other 9/11 first responders to waste even more of their precious time coming here, away from their families, away from their loved ones, away from their cancer treatments, away from their last moments in their homes and communities, traveling back and forth to Washington and lobbying Congress to pass the bill for the fourth time. Do not fall into this trap. Our 9/11 heroes deserve this program as it is written in the bill, without these amendments, which will only force them to have to come back here again and again. Stand up for our heroes. End the games. Let's reject this amendment, pass the bill, and let our heroes go home and live in peace, where they can breathe and finally exhale. I yield the floor to my colleague from Utah.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, after this vote, the people in the Gallery above us, these brave men and women who have suffered unbelievably, will not have to come here again. This should never have been a fight. It should never have taken this long to pass this bill and make it permanent. It should never have been a question. But now, finally, we have the chance to get this job done for our 9/11 heroes once and for all--our firefighters, our police officers, our EMTs, our construction workers, our survivors, our families who stayed in their homes at Ground Zero because EPA told them the air was safe. This bill is a signal from our Nation, from this body, from Congress, that we are representing people in all 50 States and that the Senate will live up to the words it has said over and over again, ``never forget''--that we will never forget our 9/11 heroes and that we will never stop helping them when they are in need.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. We will pass this bill for them, once and for all, so they can get back home where they belong. I yield the floor.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. I am grateful that we now have this agreement on timing so that we can get to the floor next week and have an up-or-down vote on the 9/11 first responders bill and the healthcare they desperately need. I just want to go to the merits of Senator Lee's amendment because I think there is a misunderstanding. I understand that there is a concern about 72 years and that my colleague believes it is a recipe for trouble, but the truth is, the timing is limited for this bill because these men and women aren't going to survive. So many of them are already sick and dying, and all they care about is just being able to provide for their families. There is nothing about this bill that is trying to play politics with the lives of men. There is going to be no fraud. There is going to be no disuse. This is literally all that is necessary for families to survive during these horrible times when their loved ones are dying. I will not support my colleague's amendment because it will cap the bill needlessly, and it will mean that if there are survivors who still need healthcare, they will have to come back and walk these halls again. The gravest concern I have is that we dare ask these brave men and women to do this all over again. To watch someone come to the Capitol with an oxygen tank, in a wheelchair, unable to breathe or talk properly because of their cancer and their illness, is something I cannot accept. I am grateful that we now have a time agreement for Wednesday, and I am grateful that we now have a chance to get an up-or-down vote and to get this done. I yield the floor.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that as in legislative session, the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 153, H.R. 1327; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed that my colleague has just objected to the desperately needed and urgent bill for our 9/11 first responders--a bipartisan bill that just earned over 400 votes in the U.S. House of Representatives and that has 73 cosponsors in this Chamber. Enough of the political games. Our 9/11 first responders and the entire Nation are watching to see if this body actually cares. Do we care about the men and women who answer the call of duty? When our country was attacked on 9/11/2001, the entire world looked on in shock as many people rightfully sought to get away as quickly as they could. As those towers began to crumble, there was one group of men and women--our heroes, the bravest among us--who ran the opposite way. They ran toward danger. They raced up the towers. They went into harm's way to answer the call of duty. Then, in the days and weeks that followed and the months and months that followed, life slowly began to return to normal for the rest of the country, but at Ground Zero, nothing was normal. The pile kept burning. It was smoldering. You could smell it blocks and blocks away-- 10 blocks, 20 blocks, 30 blocks away. Men and women kept going to that pile to do the very hard work of, first, trying to find survivors and then, of course, just trying to find remains and doing all the hard work of cleaning up. They dove in. They got to work. They wanted to help our country heal. Now more than 18 years have actually passed, and thousands of those men and women have actually died. Thousands more are getting sick. They are getting grueling, painful diseases, like cancer, and they are now dying. Why? Because they did the work at Ground Zero that we asked them to do, and it made them very sick--the air they breathed, the smoke, the burning metal, the crushed glass, the crushed electronics, the toxins they breathed in that the EPA told them was safe. These heroes have since had to quit their jobs and doing the jobs they love and providing for the families they love because they are too sick. They have had to give up their income. They have had to give up their dreams. They have had to give up their future. They have had to face the terrifying reality that they are actually going to die because of what they did on 9/11 and the months thereafter. If that wasn't a great enough burden, they had to use their most precious commodity, time--time away from their families, time away from their friends, and time away from their children, from their loved ones, and from their community. To do what? To come here. To come here to walk the Halls of Congress, to go to office after office, to ask that this body and this government stand by them in their greatest time of need, to ask for the basic compensation that they have earned and deserve, to ask for the healthcare that could actually keep them alive maybe another year longer and not have to go through bankruptcy, and to have to come here week after week, spending thousands of dollars of their own money, sacrificing the time and energy that they have left. I have seen first responders in wheelchairs, attached to oxygen tanks, spending their last moments here in Congress just asking that we do the right thing. Almost a decade ago, 9 years after the attacks, Congress finally listened. We passed a healthcare and compensation fund for the people who got sick because of 9/11, but that compensation fund was only designed to last for 5 years. You know how this place works. They wanted to make sure it worked right. They wanted to make sure every i was dotted and every t was crossed. They wanted to make sure there could be no fraud and no corruption. Well, of course, there wasn't. So it was limited. These first responders--many of them sick and some dying--had to come back again and again and again to spend more of their time walking these halls. Eventually, we passed another compensation bill, but, again, it was for another 5 years. Even though thousands of 9/11 first responders are sick and even more will become sick, they still had to come back, even though some of these diseases are lifetime diseases and more will die. And, now, sadly, the fund is running out. The 5 years aren't over yet, and the Federal Government is already having to tell these families who have gotten cancer and died since 9/ 11 that we have actually run out of money for them, that the compensation they have earned and the need their families have will be cut by up to 70 percent. Once again, sick and dying first responders are being forced to come here to knock on our office doors to remind Members of Congress of what they did on that day and the weeks and months since, to tell them their personal stories of how painful it is to lose everything you love. First, it is your ability to work, then your ability to play with your kids, then your ability to eat, and then your ability to breathe. I believe we have a responsibility--a sacred responsibility--so that anyone in this Chamber who has any sense of decency, compassion, or patriotism would listen to our first responders and give them what they need: a permanent compensation program so that these men and women will never have to spend another moment in these hallways again. We could pass this bill right now, but, instead, my colleague has objected, asking people to come back over and over. Everyone loves to point fingers in this place, but there is nowhere else to point that finger today than this Chamber. The House has already passed the bill overwhelmingly 402 to 12. It is about as bipartisan as it gets. Shame on those 12 Members who voted no. The same bipartisan bill, the one I just called on my colleagues to pass already, has 73 cosponsors--73. When was the last time that happened? I want to say how grateful I am to my Republican colleague from Colorado, Senator Gardner, for leading this bipartisan bill with me. In these divided times, what other bill can you imagine would have so much support by both parties? Enough is enough. We should pass this bill today. We should have passed this bill today, and I hope we can pass this bill with no further delay. I yield the floor.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I thank Senator Schumer for being such an extraordinary advocate for the men and women who have served our Nation. This bill would never have gotten this far without his leadership, without his dedication, and without his absolute commitment to the men and women in the Gallery, as well as the men and women in all 50 States throughout this country. I thank Senator Schumer for never giving up on this bill and for always bringing it across the finish line when we need his skills and his leadership and his tenacity the most. I thank him, for the record, for his undying commitment to the men and women who serve this Nation. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I rise to add my name to S. Res. 120. This resolution would make it the sense of the Senate that we in this Chamber oppose the global BDS movement and other efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel. I have long said that the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement targeting Israel--the BDS movement--is too often used as a vehicle for anti-Semitism. The resolution would affirm our commitment to a two-state solution in the Middle East, with a future viable, democratic Palestinian State living side by side with the democratic State of Israel in peace, in security, and with mutual recognition. It would make clear that particularly in this climate of increased anti-Semitism, we do not agree with efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel. I agree with these principles, and it is why I am supporting this resolution. I would also like to say this: I have made it clear in the past, and my opinion is no different today, that I will not support any legislation that will weaken Americans' First Amendment rights. In this country, we have a fundamental constitutional right to express our opinions and speak out about what we believe in. We have a right to engage in civil disobedience. We have a right to protest. This resolution recognizes all of that. It recognizes the right of people to protest and express their opinions about whatever country or whatever policy they want, but the Senate is also entitled to our opinion, and I support making it our opinion in this body that we oppose the global BDS movement, that we want a two-state solution, and that we want to stand by our alliance with Israel. I am proud to stand up for these ideals. I am proud to speak out about them. I encourage all New Yorkers and all Americans all over the country to keep speaking out what they believe in too. I also want to make a broader and critically important point here; that is, today we cannot ignore the anti-Semitism that is on the rise all around us. It is more important now than ever that we stand together against all forms of anti-Semitism. Just this past weekend, a hateful, anti-Semitic White supremacist walked into a synagogue in California on the Sabbath, during a celebration, and horrifically opened fire with a weapon of war on people who were praying--praying--on the last day of Passover. Six months before that, we mourned the tragedy at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, when another hateful, anti-Semitic White supremacist walked into a synagogue on the Sabbath and slaughtered people with another weapon of war. New Yorkers in my home State have had to endure hateful graffiti with swastikas and even outright physical attacks. The FBI has reported a spike in hate crimes all over our country, so has the Anti-Defamation League. The ADL just released its annual audit of anti-Semitic incidents. These cases of harassment, vandalism, and assault aren't just happening in one place; they are happening in people's businesses, in their schools, in their cemeteries, in their synagogues, and in our public parks. It was their third highest year on record. They are not just happening in our country either. In Europe, far-right political parties are winning elected office. We are seeing new attempts to deny the Holocaust. It is all unacceptable. Given the rise of anti-Semitism, it is particularly concerning to me that the U.N. is so focused on continuously and singularly vilifying Israel, in contrast to all other nations. That is why I have taken so many steps so often to call out the U.N.'s unfair actions, and it is why I will continue to call on the U.N. to abstain from its unfair treatment of Israel. The United States is supposed to be a safe haven for Israel and a safe haven for the Jewish people. It is supposed to be a safe haven for people of all religions. You are supposed to be able to worship freely here and to honor the Sabbath here without coming under attack. We must never let that change. We must not allow bigotry and violence to become normal and routine. We must not look the other way when we hear slurs and witness harassment. Anti-Semitism is real and dangerous, but it is not going to stop on its own. Only our words and our actions can do that. We need to show the world that we are more united than ever to fight against anti- Semitism and against all other forms of racism and bigotry. We need to send a powerful message of solidarity by standing with the Jewish community, praying with them, and helping assure them that in this dark moment, they are not alone. Let me end with this. I take my faith very seriously. It grounds me. I am grateful that I have the opportunity to attend Bible studies with my colleagues in the Senate and that I can attend a weekly Prayer Breakfast. I believe we are here now, at this moment, for a reason. We are all called to end hate; we are all called to speak out against the darkness; we are all called to reject anti-Semitism; and we are all called to defend the vulnerable. As a body, we must answer that call. I yield the floor.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, I want to associate myself with the comments of the Senator from Washington. She is exactly right. We are rising today to speak about a very disturbing annual milestone that we are once again marking today. Today is known as Equal Pay Day, and here is what it means. The average woman has to work 15 months just to get paid what the average man earns in 1 year alone. The reason today is Equal Pay Day is that it is today in the new year when the average woman finally gets paid what the average man earned the year before. If you are a woman of color, on average, you have to work even longer just to get paid what the average man earns in 1 year. It is outrageous that we still don't actually have equal pay for equal work in this country, and it is the year 2019. It is shameful that women all across this country are being underpaid for the hard work they are doing every day. It is disgraceful that the gender wage gap is as wide as it is. This is happening in a moment in our Nation's history when women, more than ever before, are working outside the home, when many women are the actual primary breadwinner or the sole breadwinner for their family. This is an alarming, glaring reminder of how badly our economy is failing so many workers and their families all over the country. Above all else, it is a reminder to all of us that as a country, we are still struggling to value women. We are still struggling to protect women from wage discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, workplace harassment, and unfair minimum wage; that we are still struggling to ensure that women and their families have access to paid leave, affordable daycare. All of these things add to the gender wage gap and make it even worse. If a woman isn't getting paid a fair wage, the way she actually deserves, the wage she earned by putting in the hours of hard work, then that hurts her, her family, her children. It hurts our entire U.S. economy. It weakens the middle class. It is bad for our country. There is no excuse for any of this. It is something all of us should be thinking about what we can do to correct, using our power to correct, because the fact that we still don't have equal pay for equal work in this country is an embarrassment. We need equal pay for equal work, and we need it now. In this Chamber, we have a responsibility to make sure our workplace policies and our laws are actually protecting women, protecting their families, and protecting our economy as a whole. One of the best ways we can actually solve this problem is by finally passing this law. It is common sense. It guarantees equal pay for equal work once and for all. The good news is we already have a bill, and it is ready to go right now. It is even bipartisan. It is called the Paycheck Fairness Act. It has already passed the House, and the only thing stopping it right now is the Senate. This bill would ban retaliation against workers who discuss their wages. It would give the Department of Labor the tools needed to enforce equal pay around this country. Although the Senator claims we already have laws, they are not working. So we need better enforcement. It would prohibit employers from relying on a salary history of prospective employees when they are deciding how much to pay them. This bill would help end wage discrimination. It would actually make our families, our country, and our economy stronger. Don't you want that, Madam President? So what are we waiting for? Congress needs to step up right now. We need equal pay for equal work. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 299, the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, the House of Representatives has already passed this bill unanimously, 382 to 0. The bill is fully paid for, and it is long past time that we do the right thing. We have to right this wrong and help these veterans. The only thing standing in the way of this bill to help the Vietnam veterans is the U.S. Senate, and that is shameful. We have just days before the Congress is finished. Our blue water veterans are waiting for us, their families are waiting for us, and some of them are dying waiting for us. These patriotic Americans went to Vietnam. They risked their lives. They were exposed to the chemical, Agent Orange, which we now know is highly toxic. Some of them were exposed on the ground, some while patrolling the rivers, and some were exposed while stationed on ships off the Vietnamese coast. These are called our blue water Navy vets. Now, all these years later, Agent Orange has made many of them sick and they are severely ill. There have been four different health studies by the CDC about the detrimental effects of Agent Orange exposure, and the blue water Navy veterans have been shown to suffer those exact diseases at the same rate as the other exposed veterans, but some of my colleagues are wrongly insisting on a fifth study. We do not have another year to wait. Some of our veterans will not last that long. Many blue water veterans have already passed away from the disease associated with Agent Orange exposure. The 1991 bill to provide coverage for veterans exposed to Agent Orange didn't discriminate between those who served offshore and those who served on rivers or on the ground. Yet due to a decision by a VA bureaucrat in 2002, the coverage for those who served offshore was wiped out. It doesn't make any sense, and we must help all of our veterans. It would be tragic; it would be an absolute failure of this institution if we did not respond to this call for help from our veterans community. I urge my colleagues to reconsider their choice to block this legislation. The bill has had multiple hearings. It has gone through multiple drafts over the years. It has been subject to numerous studies. I have a letter right here to the CBO from the Military-Veterans Advocacy association, literally going through each of the arguments that Senator Enzi just made to explain why those aren't true. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I hope all of us can come together to do the right thing by our veterans to make sure they get the coverage that they need and to stand by them in their greatest time of need. I yield the floor to my colleague.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to strongly oppose the nomination of Thomas Farr to the Federal bench, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against him. The right to vote is sacred and a precious human right, but it has been under attack, and that is unconscionable and wrong. This nominee represents yet another threat to the basic premise of one person, one vote because, throughout his career, he has worked to make it harder for Black Americans to vote. That is not who we are as a country, and this nominee does not deserve the privilege of a lifetime appointment on the Federal bench. Over and over again, on the most serious and consequential questions related to our sacred right to vote, Mr. Farr has been on the wrong side of the issue. Listen to his record: Mr. Farr defended in court a gerrymandered congressional map that was so blatantly racist that our Federal Court of Appeals judge ordered it to be redrawn. Mr. Farr defended in court State laws that were so obviously designed to suppress the Black vote that a Federal Court of Appeals ordered them to be struck down. He wasn't just a cheerleader for these discriminatory laws; he was the actual architect. He was their defender in court. He did everything he could to keep them in place. That is why millions of Americans all over the country, including so many men and women of color, the NAACP, and the Congressional Black Caucus, are so outraged by this nomination. They are right to be so because this nomination is an insult. This seat is the longest judicial vacancy in the country, but it did not have to be that way. Just a few years ago, a highly qualified nominee was picked to fill the seat, but she didn't even have a hearing, let alone a vote. So then another highly qualified nominee was picked to fill the seat, and she didn't receive a hearing either--or a basic vote. Now we have another nominee for the same exact seat, but this time my colleagues are practically tripping over themselves to rush him through the Senate at full speed, to push him across the finish line before the end of the year, and to hand him a lifetime appointment to the Court. I urge my colleagues to reject this bad choice. Let's find someone better, who isn't so obviously biased on questions related to race. If his record of discrimination and bias alone isn't enough to convince you, then think about this: We cannot ignore the fact that this nomination is coming at a moment when so many Black Americans are still experiencing blatant and racist disenfranchisement every time they try to exercise their constitutional right to vote. Just look at the voter suppression that happened in Florida and in Georgia this month in their elections for Governor. We have already seen terrible decisions from the Federal bench that have rolled back voting rights, such as when the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act. This body has done nothing to address this egregious decision, and we should not be complicit in further eroding this precious right. Now we want to confirm another man to the Federal judiciary who has spent his entire legal career fighting to make it harder for Black Americans to vote. What kind of awful message are we sending to our country? We must reject this nominee. We must stand up to discrimination and racism in all its forms, not reinforce them, not encourage them. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and vote no. I yield the floor.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Madam President, today and these past several weeks have been deeply painful for many in this country. Today it is a painful day for millions of women all across the country who are rightly worried about losing their basic civil rights. It is a painful day for the brave and courageous survivors who have had to relive their trauma and, in some cases, have found the courage to tell their story for the very first time. It is also a painful day for men who hope to see this Senate stand on the right side of history. Today, in just a few hours, the U.S. Senate is going to turn its back on righteousness. It is going to turn its back on fairness and reason, and, make no mistake, it is going to turn its back on women. What we have seen over the last few weeks is an exercise of power: Who has it and who doesn't. Rather than a search for the truth, we have seen those in power ram through a nominee who is unfit to serve on the Supreme Court. Ultimately, this is about the power structure of America, but it is changing, and it is changing fast. I want to say something right here from the Senate floor to every woman in America who is listening: I hear you. Many of my colleagues in the Senate hear you. We hear your stories. We hear your voices, and we will be certain they will not go unheard. I have heard from constituents all across my State. I have been talking to people for the last several months, and I have been talking to people specifically about this nominee for the past several weeks. I have heard from friends who have been sexually assaulted. I have heard from friends whose daughters have been sexually assaulted. I have heard from people who are outraged about what is happening in this country right now--outraged at a process that doesn't seek the truth and doesn't seem to be fair. Unfortunately, it is a moment when survivors are having to relive the worst moments of their lives in real time by just watching the news. So I am going to read a little bit of information that was submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 27 by Jessica Davidson from End Rape on Campus. She writes a very heartfelt letter about her own trauma, about her own experience with sexual violence, and about the representation she provides from her organization. She writes: We envision a world in which each individual has an educational experience free from violence, and until then, that all survivors are believed, trusted, and supported. Each year, we assist nearly 1,000 survivors and their families directly, conduct educational campaigns, support student activists, and to advocate for policy reform efforts that reach millions of individuals. She asked: How many more viral online moments must be created before an incredible harm and trauma we have experienced is enough to be taken seriously when a survivor comes forward? And why is the burden always shifted to those who have experienced the harm? She says an American is sexually assaulted every 98 seconds. Just imagine how many lives are being destroyed. She says more than an estimated 17,700,000 women and 2,780,000 men have experienced an attempted or completed rape since 1998; 3 million college students will be sexually assaulted this fall alone; 18,900 military servicemembers bravely serving our country experienced sexual assault in 2014; and one in every four voters in the United States is a survivor--more than half of all voters in the United States know a survivor. Survivors make up a significant portion of each U.S. Senator's constituencies, and survivors everywhere deserve to know that if they come forward, they will be taken seriously. I received thousands of calls, hundreds of letters, and I have read some of those letters this morning. They are so disturbing and so upsetting. I can't imagine what that must be like to deal with in this moment that we are in when you have Members of the Senate who either don't believe credible survivors or, if they do believe them, they don't care. For every survivor out there who feels she is not being heard, not being listened to, not being believed, I want you to know there are those of us here who do believe you, who have heard you, and who will fight for you. Your voices are being heard, and they do matter. Your willingness to protest, to stand tall, to speak out, and to speak clearly over these last few weeks has been extraordinary. It has been powerful. It has been meaningful. It has made a difference. So do not fear that what you have done was a waste of time. Do not fear that speaking out doesn't matter because it does. The energy and inspiration you have created is going to drive this movement forward. I also want to talk a little bit about why Brett Kavanaugh should not be serving on the Supreme Court, why he doesn't deserve this seat, and I want to talk a lot about his record and what we know about Brett Kavanaugh as an individual. Over these last few weeks, we have learned a lot about this nominee, even before we found out that more than one woman had accused Judge Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her. His judicial record was already clear, and many of us made our decisions to oppose Judge Kavanaugh based on that record--that judicial record and statements alone. That was the first reason I opposed him--because I have no doubt he will undermine women's rights on the Supreme Court. I will say more about his judicial record in a moment, but what we all saw and heard over the last few weeks isn't something that you can actually discern from a judicial record. More than one woman has come forward with sworn statements under penalty of perjury, saying Brett Kavanaugh committed acts of sexual misconduct against them. One of them, Dr. Blasey Ford, even bravely testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. She was under oath, and she relived one of the worst moments of her life on national television. She was credible. I believed her. When my colleagues asked her what she remembered most clearly, her strongest memory was the laughter. She said that ``indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter--the laugh, the uproarious laughter between the two, and their having fun at my expense.'' She said: ``They were laughing with each other.'' She said: ``I was, you know, underneath one of them while the two laughed, two friend--two friends having a really good time with one another.'' She was direct, and she did not evade any questions. She did not duck or dodge like someone who was trying to hide the truth. When my colleagues asked her with what degree of certainty did she believe Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her, she said: ``One hundred percent.'' When I was watching her testimony sitting there in the room, there were many moments when her testimony brought me to tears. I thought the way she opened was particularly moving. She said: I am here today not because I want to be. I am terrified. I am here because I believe it is my civic duty to tell you what happened to me while Brett Kavanaugh and I were in high school. I agonized daily with this decision throughout August and early September 2018. The sense of duty that motivated me to reach out confidentially to the Washington Post, Representative Eshoo's office and Senator Feinstein's office was always there, but my fears of the consequences of speaking out started to increase. During August 2018, the press reported that Mr. Kavanaugh's confirmation was virtually certain. His allies painted him as a champion of women's rights and empowerment. I believed that if I came forward my voice would be drowned out by a chorus of powerful supporters. By the time of the confirmation hearings, I had resigned myself to remaining quiet and letting the committee and the Senate make their decision without knowing what Mr. Kavanaugh had done to me. At the same time, my greatest fears have been realized and the reality has been far worse than I expected. Apart from the assault itself, these last couple of weeks have been the hardest of my life. I have had to relive my trauma in front of the entire world and have seen my life picked apart by people on television, in the media, or in this body who have never met or spoken with me. I have been accused of acting out of partisan political motives. Those who say that do not know me. I am a fiercely independent person and I am no one's pawn. My motivation in coming forward was to provide the facts about how Mr. Kavanaugh's actions have damaged my life so that you can take that into serious consideration as you make your decisions about how to proceed. It is not my responsibility to determine whether Mr. Kavanaugh deserves to sit on the Supreme Court. My responsibility is to tell the truth. That is a woman of extraordinary humility and extraordinary courage. I want to compare Dr. Blasey Ford's testimony to Judge Kavanaugh's testimony right after her. We all saw it. Some of my colleagues have suggested that because multiple women were making very credible accusations against Judge Kavanaugh that he had a right to be angry, that he was right to come out strong and fight back, like a politician would. Really? Is that how a judge is supposed to act? Not according to Judge Kavanaugh. I want to quote from a law review article he wrote 2 years ago about how a good judge is supposed to act: To be a good judge and a good umpire, it is critical that you have the proper demeanor. We must walk in the shoes of other judges, the lawyers, and the parties. It is important to understand then to keep our emotions in check, and be calm against the storm. To put it in the vernacular: to be a good umpire and be a good judge, don't be a jerk. Judge Kavanaugh would have been well served to listen to his own advice. I was shocked by his tirade against my colleagues and my party. I was disturbed by its vindictiveness, his animosity. I want to quote from his testimony to remind you of exactly what he said at his hearings. Every time I see these words, I am in disbelief that a sitting Federal judge--a nominee for the Supreme Court--said them to the Judiciary Committee in prepared testimony under oath. He said: This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election. Fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record. Revenge on behalf of the Clintons. And millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. Supreme Court Justices are supposed to be thinking about the law and only the law, not elections, not political parties, but now we know exactly what Judge Kavanaugh is thinking about. He is thinking about politics. He is thinking about leftwing conspiracies. He is thinking about the 2016 election and Trump and the Clintons. Those aren't my words; those are his words, his testimony. He said them directly to the committee under oath while the entire Nation was watching. He showed us his true colors. He showed us what he does when he is under pressure. He showed us how he really feels about our politics and our political parties, even though he said he always stays far away from politics because judges aren't supposed to go there. He showed us what he really thinks, deep down, when his back is against a wall. Think about that. A sitting Federal judge, a nominee to the Supreme Court, shouting--shouted about Democrats trying to take him down. It makes me wonder, even if you love every judicial decision this judge has ever written, how can any of my colleagues argue, after hearing that tirade, that this judge is unbiased? It makes me wonder how any of my colleagues can ignore that fact. It makes me wonder, to my colleagues who are so desperate to confirm Brett Kavanaugh at all costs, what decisions by this judge are you so eager to see? What do you already know about how the supposedly fairminded judge is going to rule that you would risk the Court's reputation by putting such a blatant partisan on the bench? A retired Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Stevens, who was appointed by a Republican, even came so far as to change his mind and oppose Judge Kavanaugh. Why? Because Judge Kavanaugh is now clearly biased. He said: He has demonstrated a potential bias involving potential litigants before the court that he would not be able to perform its full responsibilities. And I think there is merit in that criticism and that the Senators should really pay attention to it. For the good of the court, it's not healthy to get a new justice that can only do a part-time job. I agree with that. When the next big gerrymandering case comes before the Supreme Court, we already know how Judge Kavanaugh feels about Democrats because we heard directly from him at the hearing, so we can't expect him to rule fairly in that case. What if a forced arbitration case related to sexual harassment comes before the Court? We all heard Judge Kavanaugh say under oath that credible allegations of sexual assault are nothing but a leftwing conspiracy, so we can't expect him to rule fairly on that one either. There are real consequences to the bias and partisanship and anger Judge Kavanaugh showed at his hearing. I am incredibly disappointed by this, and I hope my colleagues think about this one last time before they cast their votes today. I would like to talk a little bit about his record as a judge. Whose side does he take? Whom does he believe? In one case, in a dissent, Judge Kavanaugh said employers should not have to give their workers insurance that covers birth control if they don't want to. In other words, he thinks a boss's religion is more important than a worker's religion. Does that sound fair to you, Madam President? In another case, he had to decide whether a pregnant teenage immigrant girl should be allowed to have an abortion. He made her wait for 9 weeks before he said no, and then he was overruled by his judicial colleagues. He said he didn't think what he did to the girl was an undue burden. Does that sound fair to you? Let's not forget that President Trump said he wanted the new Supreme Court Justice to overturn Roe v. Wade, that he wanted to nominate someone who would automatically vote to overturn it. He chose Brett Kavanaugh to get the job done. If this Chamber confirms Judge Kavanaugh, I have no doubt that the Supreme Court will take away women's reproductive rights. I have no doubt that the Supreme Court will tell women they aren't allowed to make their own decisions with their own doctors about their own health. I want to speak about another part of his record. Judge Kavanaugh wrote in an opinion that if the President doesn't like a law, then the President could ignore the law and ignore the courts. This is what he said. As you listen to this, let me know if you think this is judicially sound judgment. He wrote: ``Under the Constitution, the president may decline to enforce a statute that regulates private individuals when the president deems the statute unconstitutional, even if a court has held or would hold the statute constitutional.'' Anyone with the most basic understanding of how our constitutional system of government works knows that this is not what our Founding Fathers designed. Anyone who has been paying attention to President Trump's attacks on our institutions and his repeated attempts to undermine the Mueller investigation should be alarmed by that statement alone. It makes me think President Trump's choice for this nominee was because he wanted to be protected from the Mueller investigation. I am also deeply concerned about Judge Kavanaugh's record on money in politics. It should come as no surprise that Judge Kavanaugh is on the side of big money interests that pollute our political system. Kavanaugh was handpicked by White House Counsel Don McGahn, a former FEC Commissioner who was notorious for his hostility toward campaign finance laws. Indeed, Judge Kavanaugh fulfills President Trump's promise to nominate individuals in the mold of Justice Scalia, a steadfast opponent of campaign finance regulations. Like McGahn and Justice Scalia, Kavanaugh has made his opposition to campaign finance laws clear during his time on the DC Circuit. In 2011, Kavanaugh authored an opinion that would allow foreign nationals to spend unlimited funds on issue ads in U.S. elections. Let me say that again. Kavanaugh authored an opinion that would allow foreign nationals to spend unlimited funds on issue ads in U.S. elections. That is the Bluman v. FEC decision. Kavanaugh presided over a lawsuit brought by foreign persons living in the United States who wanted to make campaign contributions to candidates in U.S. Federal elections. Although Kavanaugh upheld provisions of Federal election law banning foreign persons from contributing directly to a candidate or party, Kavanaugh found that federal election law ``does not restrain foreign nationals from speaking out about issues or spending money to advocate their views about issues.'' Under his reading of Federal election law in Bluman, Kavanaugh would only take issue with a small fraction of the election meddling perpetrated by the Russian operatives indicted by Special Counsel Mueller. At his confirmation hearing, Judge Kavanaugh was given the opportunity to directly address the possibility that his decision in Bluman opened the door for ``Vladimir Putin . . . to buy issue ads in American elections.'' Judge Kavanaugh's response to Senator Whitehouse was misleading, indicating that the Supreme Court affirmed the case unanimously, which, while true as to foreign contributions to candidates, was not true on the point of issue ads. Indeed, Judge Kavanaugh's response to a question for the record from Senator Coons also revealed his misleading response to Senator Whitehouse's question. He wrote: ``The challengers in Bluman did not seek to make contributions to organizations that make expenditures on issue ads. The opinion made clear that the court's `holding does not address' whether `Congress might bar' foreign nationals living temporarily in the United States `from issue advocacy and speaking out on issues of public policy.' '' The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the decision. Judge Kavanaugh seeks to have it both ways. He brags about his opinion being unanimously upheld by the Court, but when he is confronted with the real-world consequences of his decision, he hides behind the pleadings. According to Special Counsel Mueller's indictment, the issue ads run by Russian operatives seeking to meddle in the 2016 election include the messages ``JOIN our #HillaryClintonForPrison2016''--I don't even want to read the others; they are so horrible. ``Donald wants to defeat terrorism . . . Hillary wants to sponsor it.'' Yet Judge Kavanaugh's Bluman decision would permit foreign actors to run advertisements like the ones above without consequence. In fact, legal briefs filed by lawyers for the Russian operatives indicted by Special Counsel Mueller cite Kavanaugh's Bluman opinion for the proposition that ``[f]oreign nationals are not barred from issue advocacy . . . such as what is described in the indictment.'' Judge Kavanaugh opposes limitations on big money in politics. During his confirmation hearing, Judge Kavanaugh was confronted by Senator Klobuchar with an email he wrote in March 2002 wherein he suggested that contribution limits could be unconstitutional: ``And I have heard very few people say that the limits on contributions to candidates are unconstitutional, although I for one tend to think those limits have some constitutional problems.'' When Senator Klobuchar pressed Judge Kavanaugh on whether he believed that ``contribution limits have constitutional problems,'' Judge Kavanaugh evaded the question and issued a nonresponsive answer. In a 2016 American Enterprise Institute speech, Kavanaugh said that political spending ``absolutely'' deserves First Amendment protection because ``to make your voice heard [in politics] . . . you need to raise money to be able to communicate to others in any kind of effective way.'' In 2009, in EMILY's List v. FEC, Kavanaugh heard a challenge to multiple FEC regulations restricting the use of ``hard-money'' by nonprofit organizations in Federal elections. These particular regulations were passed in striking down these regulations. Kavanaugh held that nonprofit organizations are ``constitutionally entitled to raise and spend unlimited money in support of candidates for elected office'' because it is ``implausible that contributions to independent expenditure political committees are corrupting.'' These are really concerning statements about unlimited money and spending in politics from foreign nationals on issue ads and from moneyed interests. I do not believe that money is speech, and I do not believe that corporations should have the same free speech rights as individuals, but Judge Kavanaugh does, and I find that to be deeply troubling. Judge Kavanaugh also has a very disturbing record when it comes to rolling back the civil rights of millions of Americans. In his time as a judge, Brett Kavanaugh has consistently sided against Americans who are trying to exercise their civil rights. From voting rights, to employment discrimination, to the rights of those with disabilities, Kavanaugh has taken positions that perpetuate inequality. Judge Kavanaugh's record leaves little doubt--if confirmed to the Supreme Court, he will continue to roll back the hard-won rights of millions of Americans. As a partner at Kirkland & Ellis, Kavanaugh was involved in Rice v. Cayetano, which challenged Hawaii's right to limit participation in an election for the State's Office of Hawaiian Affairs to Native Hawaiians. In a brief he cowrote with Robert Bork and Roger Clegg--the latter of whom heads the anti-affirmative-action Center for Equal Opportunity--Kavanaugh argued that restricting participation to Native Hawaiians was unconstitutional. According to Kavanaugh, it did not matter that Hawaii's ``voting qualification in elections for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs [was] designed to remedy past discrimination in voting against `Hawaiians' in Hawaii.'' Discussing that decision in a 1999 interview, Kavanaugh said that the ``case is one more step along the way in what I see as an inevitable conclusion within the next 10 or 20 years when the court will say we are all one race in the eyes of government.'' Kavanaugh's adoption of Justice Scalia's approach from Adarand Constructors v. Pena that ``in the eyes of government, we are [all] just one race'' indicates a belief that the government should be ``color blind.'' Under this theory, affirmative action and minority contracting requirements would be constitutionally prohibited. Those are just some of the issues that I care about and that New Yorkers care about. I am very troubled about this nominee for so many reasons--for his record, for his beliefs, for his judicial temperament, for how he treated women Senators during that hearing. When we vote on this nomination later today, when we decide whether Judge Kavanaugh deserves to have the privilege to serve on the Supreme Court, there is just one fundamental question that I believe should be on all of our minds when we make this decision: Do we as a country value women? Does the Supreme Court value women? Does the Senate value women? Does the President? Most of all, does Brett Kavanaugh value women? Millions of Americans--millions of women--are watching us today. They are waiting to see whether, when a woman comes forward and says she is a survivor of sexual assault, this Chamber--do the individuals here take her seriously? Do we listen to her, or do we disregard her and disbelieve her and patronize her? The last 2 weeks have been so incredibly painful for women who have experienced sexual trauma, for survivors all across this country. When they are watching some of the most powerful people in this country disregard Dr. Blasey Ford--they distrust her, they disbelieve her, and they devalue her--it is painful for all of them. It is painful because they are tired of seeing the same old outcome every single time. They are tired of the same old scenario where the men are believed and the women are not. They can't believe their eyes when they see two women being treated with so little respect and with less of a process than even Anita Hill received. One of the worst parts of this process has been that we have been through it before. Almost three decades ago, Anita Hill sat right where Dr. Blasey Ford sat. She went through the same kind of cross- examination. She was disbelieved. She was patronized. She was disrespected. We said we would never put another woman through that. We said we had learned lessons from that fiasco. We said it would never happen again, but it did. And I really believe that the process over the last few weeks was shameful. We should have learned from our mistakes, and we should be doing much better. But I can tell you, America's women are watching. They are watching what our leaders decide to do. They are watching who is listening and who is not. And they have made a decision that I could have never imagined or predicted. So many women in this country--and men--have made the decision since President Trump was elected that they are going to be heard. They are going to march. They are showing up at townhalls. They are showing up outside of Federal offices. They are coming to Washington. They are knocking on Senate doors. They are speaking out. They are protesting. They are carrying signs. They are speaking their truth, and they are speaking truth to power in a way they perhaps never imagined they would do. They are running for office. Over 200 women are running for Congress alone as nominees of their party this year--more than ever in the history of America. They are working hard to right the wrongs that they see happening in this country. They know that what makes this country great--what has always made this country great--is that we have cared about one another, that we are a country that believes in the golden rule, and that we are a country that believes you should care about the least among us. Every generation has tried to make this country a more perfect union. Whether it is fighting to end slavery through abolition; whether it is fighting for basic voting rights for all Americans through the suffragist movement; whether it is the civil rights movement saying that equality is necessary in this country and people must be protected by the law; whether it is the LGBT equality movement to ensure that we can marry the people we love; whether it is people's desire today to ensure healthcare as a right and not a privilege, this is what our country is about. I deeply feel that the process over these last few months has turned our backs on that basic desire to bring our country to a more perfect union, to a place where we value one another. Do we value women? Unfortunately, for too many in this Chamber, the answer is no. I hope the American people are listening. I hope they are watching. I hope they will fight for what they believe in, their values, and what this country stands for. I yield the floor.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to speak about Judge Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court. I urge my colleagues to actually listen to Dr. Blasey Ford and treat her with the respect that she deserves. She deserves better than the setup she is walking into tomorrow. I want to take a step back for a second and look at the big picture of what is actually going on with this nomination. We have a nominee for a lifetime appointment to the highest Court in the land who has been accused, credibly, of sexual assault. Dr. Blasey Ford reluctantly came forward out of civic duty and said that Brett Kavanaugh tried to rape her in high school. She is now facing death threats for her courage, and her worst fears of how she would be treated by this body have come to fruition. Another woman, Deborah Ramirez, agreed to tell her story after being contacted by a reporter--again, risking her career and her safety--and said that Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to her face in college while laughing, as part of a game. These accusations are disturbing enough by themselves, but the response to these allegations by our colleagues are so disappointing. Take a look at how Dr. Blasey Ford is being bullied because she told her story. Listen to how she is being patronized and dismissed by some Members of the Judiciary Committee. Look at how our President belittled and demeaned Dr. Blasey Ford and Ms. Ramirez, reminding us once again that he has been credibly accused of committing sexual assault himself and denigrates not just women who accuse him but survivors everywhere. That is not all. The chief counsel of the Senate Judiciary Committee tweeted after Dr. Blasey Ford's sexual assault allegation: ``Unfazed and determined. We will confirm Judge Kavanaugh.'' According to Ms. Ramirez's lawyer, the Judiciary Committee isn't even interested in taking her claims seriously or getting information from her about her claims. Instead of getting the facts--instead of even wanting the facts--they try to dismiss this as a smear campaign and plow right ahead. For anyone who has ever wondered why so many survivors of sexual assault don't come forward--obviously, there is trauma, but there is also the fear of this very kind of retaliation and scorn. The question I have, that I know you have: Do we value women in this country? Do we listen to women when they tell us about sexual trauma? Do we listen to their stories about how their lives have been forever scarred? Do we take their claims seriously or do we just disbelieve them as a matter of course? I want to echo the words of my colleague from Alaska: ``It is about whether or not a woman who has been a victim at some point of her life is to be believed.'' I believe Dr. Blasey Ford. Here is why I believe her. She has risked everything--her own safety--to come out on the record to say Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her. She told her therapist and her husband about it 5 years ago. She told a friend about it a year ago. She told a reporter about it before Kavanaugh was ever named. She has even taken a lie detector test. Why are my colleagues moving so fast, as fast as they possibly can, to confirm this judge? This process is sending the worst possible message to girls and boys everywhere. It is telling American women that your voices don't matter. It is telling survivors everywhere that your experiences don't count, that they are not important, and that they are not to be believed. We are saying that women are worth less than a man's promotion. That is not how the world is in 2018, and we cannot allow this Senate, this body, to take us back to before 1991. To those whom I hear say over and over that this isn't fair to Judge Kavanaugh, that he is entitled to due process and to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and that Dr. Blasey Ford has to prove her case beyond a reasonable doubt, those are the standards for a trial. Those are the standards in criminal justice. We are not having a trial. This is not a court. He is not entitled to those because we are not actually seeking to convict him or to put him in jail. We are seeking the truth. We are seeking facts. We are seeking just what happened. We, Senators--not staff members, not female lawyers--are being asked to assess his honesty. Is he an honest person? Is he trustworthy? Can we trust him to do the right thing for decades? To rule on women's lives for decades to come? Can we trust him to do that right? This is not about whether he should be convicted. This is about whether he has the privilege to serve on the highest Court of the land for a lifetime. This is not a court of law. This is a job interview, and it is our job as Senators to assess if he is honest. Has he lied about his past? Has he misled members of the Judiciary Committee? Is he trustworthy? One point, I think, that our colleagues are somewhat blind to, which I know the Presiding Officer is not, is that the last 2 weeks have been so painful for women who have experienced sexual trauma. Women have lived through this. So, when they are watching some of the most powerful people in this country disregard, distrust, disbelieve, minimize, devalue, unfortunately, it is painful for all of them. It is painful because you are tired of seeing the same old outcome every single time. You are tired of the scenarios in which the men are believed and the women are not. They can't believe their eyes when they see two women being treated with less respect and having less of a process than even Anita Hill received. I quote a friend of mine, Amina Sow, who just disclosed today that she is a survivor. Her words are powerful and truthful and describe exactly the way many people feel: The truth is our strength. We are each other's strengths. To the women who are struggling: I see you. I am sorry we have to go through this. Thank you for trusting us with your stories. I am heartened by them and honored to know about you. I believe Dr. Blasey Ford because she is risking everything--her safety, her security, her reputation, her career--to tell this story at this moment for all the right reasons. If we allow women's experiences of sexual trauma to be second to a man's promotion, it will not only diminish this watershed moment of the societal change we are in, but it will bring shame on this body and on the Court. I yield the floor.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. GILLIBRAND

Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.