Cory Booker

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, I have six requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, this Saturday, March 18, will mark the 60th anniversary of the unanimous and landmark Supreme Court decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, which held that every American has the constitutional right in criminal cases, regardless of their wealth and where they were born--they have a right, fundamentally, to the public defense system that we know today. Before Gideon was decided, people accused of crimes were left to fend for themselves, having to navigate arraignments, plea bargains, jury decisions, trials, cross-examination of witnesses--every part of the criminal prosecution, they had to do it themselves while facing government prosecutors who had the legal upper hand. Clarence Earl Gideon was a 51-year-old with an eighth grade education who ran away from home in middle school. History describes him as a ``drifter'' who spent time in and out of prison for nonviolent crimes, but history would also come to know him as someone who fundamentally transformed our legal system so that any person without resources accused of a crime has a due process right to a fair trial. You can't have a fair trial without counsel. In 1961, Gideon was arrested for stealing $5 in change and beer, allegedly doing so from the Bay Harbor Poolroom in Panama City, FL. As James Baldwin would write the same year as Gideon's arrest, ``Anyone who has ever struggled with poverty knows how extremely expensive it is to be poor.'' Gideon, who had spent much of his life in poverty, was too poor to hire an attorney and asked the trial court to appoint one for him. The court denied his request, saying that only indigent defenders facing the death penalty are entitled to a lawyer. Gideon assumed the burden of defending himself at trial, becoming his own lawyer. He made an opening statement to the jury and cross-examined the prosecution's witnesses. He presented witnesses in his own defense. He declined to testify himself and made arguments emphasizing his innocence. Despite his valiant efforts, the jury found Gideon guilty of this $5 theft, and he was sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment. But Gideon felt he had been fundamentally deprived of his due process rights. Determined to prove his innocence, Gideon penciled a five-page, handwritten petition asking the nine Justices of the Supreme Court to consider his case. Against all odds, the Supreme Court granted Gideon's petition. Gideon would tell the Supreme Court: It makes no difference how old I am or what color I am or which church I belong to, if any. The question is I did not get a fair trial. The question is very simple. I requested the court to appoint me [an] attorney and the court refused. In the Court's unanimous decision, they held that ``reason and reflection require us to recognize that in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him.'' Gideon's case was sent back to the lower court, where he had a lawyer to defend him. It took the jury only 1 hour to come to a verdict and acquit him. From that time on, the public defense system as we know it today came into existence. Folks who couldn't afford a lawyer 60 years ago are now guaranteed basic legal protection. Public defenders play a sacrosanct role in our society. Every one of America's public defenders embarks on the noble work that is the cornerstone of our legal system, ensuring that every citizen has a right to a fair trial, that every citizen has access to justice within the justice system. Yet the promise of Gideon, the promise of this decision, still remains unfulfilled. The public defense is under such strain that in many places, it barely functions. Justice Black declared that ``lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries.'' But too often across our country, adequate legal representation is a luxury only afforded to those who are wealthy enough to hire a lawyer. Despite their important and essential work to the cause of justice, public defenders carry crushing caseloads that strain their ability to meet their legal and ethical obligations to provide effective representation. According to a 2019 Brennan Center report, only 27 percent of county-based and 21 percent of State-based public defender offices have enough attorneys to adequately handle their caseloads. There are counties and States in America where public defenders are responsible for more than 200 cases at one time. The quality of public defenders also varies from State to State, town to town, case to case. Compared to prosecutors and other attorneys, public defenders are woefully underresourced and underpaid. That is why today, with my friend and colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, I am introducing the Providing a Quality Defense Act to provide funding to local governments to hire more public defenders so that those accused of crimes can receive adequate representation. The bill will provide funding to increase salaries for public defenders so that they can have pay parity with the prosecutors they face. It will require the Department of Justice to conduct evidence-based studies and make recommendations for appropriate caseloads for public defenders and for adequate compensation. Public defenders don't just represent their clients with zealous advocacy; they get to know their clients and see the impact of convictions on their families and loved ones. This experience is invaluable and helps to inform sentencing should there be a conviction. However, unlike the majority of State sentencing commissions, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, an independent Agency tasked with establishing sentencing policies and practices for the Federal court, lacks a representative from a public defender background who would provide an essential perspective on the criminal justice system. Today, again, along with Senator Durbin, I am reintroducing the Sentencing Commission Improvements Act to add a member to the U.S. Sentencing Commission with a public defender background who will bring a new and valuable perspective to the Commission. I urge my colleagues to support both of these bills, which will bring us one step closer to a justice system that is fairer, more humane, and more just. Such a criminal justice system is part of the legacy of a so-called drifter, a 51-year-old who spoke truth to power, who challenged a system that seemed impossible to beat, who challenged the very idea of what it means to have a just justice system. If the moral arc of the universe bends towards justice, then Clarence Earl Gideon is one of the arc benders.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I would like to ask consent--I know we have an order to vote at 1:45--to speak for about 5 minutes.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, this Saturday, March 18, will mark the 60th anniversary of the unanimous and landmark Supreme Court decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, which held that every American has the constitutional right in criminal cases, regardless of their wealth and where they were born--they have a right, fundamentally, to the public defense system that we know today. Before Gideon was decided, people accused of crimes were left to fend for themselves, having to navigate arraignments, plea bargains, jury decisions, trials, cross-examination of witnesses--every part of the criminal prosecution, they had to do it themselves while facing government prosecutors who had the legal upper hand. Clarence Earl Gideon was a 51-year-old with an eighth grade education who ran away from home in middle school. History describes him as a ``drifter'' who spent time in and out of prison for nonviolent crimes, but history would also come to know him as someone who fundamentally transformed our legal system so that any person without resources accused of a crime has a due process right to a fair trial. You can't have a fair trial without counsel. In 1961, Gideon was arrested for stealing $5 in change and beer, allegedly doing so from the Bay Harbor Poolroom in Panama City, FL. As James Baldwin would write the same year as Gideon's arrest, ``Anyone who has ever struggled with poverty knows how extremely expensive it is to be poor.'' Gideon, who had spent much of his life in poverty, was too poor to hire an attorney and asked the trial court to appoint one for him. The court denied his request, saying that only indigent defenders facing the death penalty are entitled to a lawyer. Gideon assumed the burden of defending himself at trial, becoming his own lawyer. He made an opening statement to the jury and cross-examined the prosecution's witnesses. He presented witnesses in his own defense. He declined to testify himself and made arguments emphasizing his innocence. Despite his valiant efforts, the jury found Gideon guilty of this $5 theft, and he was sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment. But Gideon felt he had been fundamentally deprived of his due process rights. Determined to prove his innocence, Gideon penciled a five-page, handwritten petition asking the nine Justices of the Supreme Court to consider his case. Against all odds, the Supreme Court granted Gideon's petition. Gideon would tell the Supreme Court: It makes no difference how old I am or what color I am or which church I belong to, if any. The question is I did not get a fair trial. The question is very simple. I requested the court to appoint me [an] attorney and the court refused. In the Court's unanimous decision, they held that ``reason and reflection require us to recognize that in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him.'' Gideon's case was sent back to the lower court, where he had a lawyer to defend him. It took the jury only 1 hour to come to a verdict and acquit him. From that time on, the public defense system as we know it today came into existence. Folks who couldn't afford a lawyer 60 years ago are now guaranteed basic legal protection. Public defenders play a sacrosanct role in our society. Every one of America's public defenders embarks on the noble work that is the cornerstone of our legal system, ensuring that every citizen has a right to a fair trial, that every citizen has access to justice within the justice system. Yet the promise of Gideon, the promise of this decision, still remains unfulfilled. The public defense is under such strain that in many places, it barely functions. Justice Black declared that ``lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries.'' But too often across our country, adequate legal representation is a luxury only afforded to those who are wealthy enough to hire a lawyer. Despite their important and essential work to the cause of justice, public defenders carry crushing caseloads that strain their ability to meet their legal and ethical obligations to provide effective representation. According to a 2019 Brennan Center report, only 27 percent of county-based and 21 percent of State-based public defender offices have enough attorneys to adequately handle their caseloads. There are counties and States in America where public defenders are responsible for more than 200 cases at one time. The quality of public defenders also varies from State to State, town to town, case to case. Compared to prosecutors and other attorneys, public defenders are woefully underresourced and underpaid. That is why today, with my friend and colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, I am introducing the Providing a Quality Defense Act to provide funding to local governments to hire more public defenders so that those accused of crimes can receive adequate representation. The bill will provide funding to increase salaries for public defenders so that they can have pay parity with the prosecutors they face. It will require the Department of Justice to conduct evidence-based studies and make recommendations for appropriate caseloads for public defenders and for adequate compensation. Public defenders don't just represent their clients with zealous advocacy; they get to know their clients and see the impact of convictions on their families and loved ones. This experience is invaluable and helps to inform sentencing should there be a conviction. However, unlike the majority of State sentencing commissions, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, an independent Agency tasked with establishing sentencing policies and practices for the Federal court, lacks a representative from a public defender background who would provide an essential perspective on the criminal justice system. Today, again, along with Senator Durbin, I am reintroducing the Sentencing Commission Improvements Act to add a member to the U.S. Sentencing Commission with a public defender background who will bring a new and valuable perspective to the Commission. I urge my colleagues to support both of these bills, which will bring us one step closer to a justice system that is fairer, more humane, and more just. Such a criminal justice system is part of the legacy of a so-called drifter, a 51-year-old who spoke truth to power, who challenged a system that seemed impossible to beat, who challenged the very idea of what it means to have a just justice system. If the moral arc of the universe bends towards justice, then Clarence Earl Gideon is one of the arc benders.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, I want to just say that I respect and am grateful for the generosity of the chairman, the Senator from Oregon, for allowing me to slip in and say some remarks. I want to thank Senator Van Hollen for his incredible leadership on this issue. I have the distinction of being the only one of the 100 Senators who was actually born in Washington, DC. This is the city my parents met in. This is the city they married in. My mom worked for the DC Public Schools. My father was one of the first Black salesmen hired in the entire DC region by the company IBM. I owe this city so much, and I am disappointed that there is nobody in this body who was officially elected to speak for this city. Washington, DC, is suffering, as it has, from a violation of one of our most sacrosanct principles of the country, which is this idea that this democracy is rooted in the ideal of representative democracy, the separation of powers, and most certainly the idea that you can't have taxation without representation. In fact, DC residents pay more per capita in Federal taxes than any other State, but yet they have no say in the Federal Government. Madam President, 700,000 Americans, in one of the only expressions of representative democracy available to them, have 13 council people who were part of a process. As was said already by my colleague, the council members completed the monumental task of modernizing the 120- year-old DC Criminal Code to make it more consistent, clarifying conflicting provisions, and bringing it in line not just with current best practices reflected in the majority of States' criminal codes but in trying to address the urgencies of the moment wherein you have a city that is deeply concerned about the crime in its community. DC's efforts are not unique. There are 37 States that have gone through similar processes--so-called red States, so-called blue States, and purple States. The process was spearheaded, as my colleague said, by the independent DC Criminal Code Reform Commission, which was a nonpartisan agency that was very representative of prosecutors and victims' rights advocates. All of these nonpolitical people came and unanimously endorsed what we have before us today. Now, the first time any partisan politician got involved was with the City Council just voting to confirm this nonpartisan body's unanimous recommendations. It was to that process that the Republican leader said: Oh, it looks like, with what they did, they are in need of adult supervision. Think of how patronizing and paternalistic that is for this body, not being any part of this process, now suddenly saying they need adult supervision as if they are children. The DC Criminal Code was about keeping DC safe. It is what the prosecutors involved said and what the U.S. Attorney's Office said: We need to do this to create a safer city because of the confusion in the code and the lack of having criminal penalties at all for certain crimes. All of these things opened up opportunities for DC not to have the security they wanted. So this was about DC's safety. Unfortunately, it is now embroiled in scare tactics, where political, opportunistic actions are taking place to try to use this as a way to win political points. Even the media, for whom I have tremendous respect for its role, has been more keen on asking questions about the political analysis than actually the facts of what DC has done. What DC has done in this bill is to actually create a tougher element on crime, tougher laws on crime. In looking at the totality of this bill, it is impossible to say that it isn't about making DC safer and having tougher penalties on crime. My colleague went through some of this. It actually quadruples the maximum penalty for attempted murder, and it triples the maximum penalty for sexual assault because people in DC see those as serious crimes, and they want to seriously increase the consequences for them. DC is pro-police officer, so what did they do? They doubled the maximum penalty for misdemeanor assaults on police officers, and they increased by 40 percent the maximum penalty for a felony assault on a police officer. Washington, DC, knows that there is too much gun violence and that they need to take action against it, so it quadruples the maximum penalty for the possession of assault rifles, for ghost guns, for restricted explosive devices. I know the NRA doesn't want laws like this, but DC residents do. It doubles the maximum penalties for possession of a firearm or a bump stock--tougher laws on guns, more serious penalties. DC's Criminal Code actually modernizes and creates new categories of offenses that aren't currently crimes. It creates new offenses for negligent homicide. It creates new offenses for reckless endangerment with a firearm. It creates new offenses by expanding liability for sexual assault, including for the sexual abuse of a minor. It expands liability for the possession of sexual images of children. This is a city that came together and said: We want to protect our children. We want to protect sexual assault victims. We want to better protect our police officers. We want to better protect people from murder. But no. This body now, in a rush of politics, is going to prevent a city from protecting itself. It actually increases the protections for domestic violence victims. It criminalizes strangulation as a felony, which is currently very difficult to even prosecute. In fact, every State but South Carolina has closed this loophole, but this body is going to stop them from doing it today. It criminalizes nonconsensual conduct as a felony and quadruples the maximum penalty. It helps the victims of domestic violence better obtain civil protection orders because the current law lacks clarity and makes it very hard to do this. Let me say this again. By rejecting this law today, by voting against this, people, in the name of being tough on crime, are actually the people who are preventing a city from better protecting itself--from better protecting its children, its sexual assault victims, its police officers. I mean, think about that. I have not, in my 10 years in the Senate, seen such a distortion of facts, such a misrepresentation of what something is. The RCCA sets new maximum penalties for armed carjackings--my friend talked about that-- and their carjacking laws now have a maximum penalty higher than Georgia, Kansas, North Dakota, and Kentucky. Maybe we should do a unanimous consent request right now saying that Kentucky is too soft on crime because DC wants higher maximum penalties. It sets new maximum penalties for unarmed carjackings higher than Georgia, higher than Iowa, higher than North Dakota, higher than Tennessee and Kentucky. The very Senators coming down here to criticize laws--Senators from Tennessee I have seen today, from Kentucky, from Iowa--actually, their States have lower maximum penalties than what DC is trying to do, but they are going to stop DC from doing it. Armed robbery, the same thing--higher maximum penalties than North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio. The same thing for unarmed robbery--higher than Kansas, higher than South Dakota, higher than Tennessee, the sponsor of this bill, and Kentucky. Yes, they may be lowering the maximum penalty, but it is still higher than so many States of the Republicans pushing this bill and not speaking to the facts of it. I am a former big-city mayor, and there are communities like Washington, DC, all over this country that are trying to fight crime. Many of them have significant numbers of African Americans as a percentage of their population who have higher rates of victimization. Those cities are grappling with this. They feel a sense of urgency. That is why this bill actually is raising penalties, putting in new criminal statutes, and making sure that so many of their laws are tougher than even many of the red States, like Kentucky and Tennessee here. That is what happens in a city that has elected representatives that know that their No. 1 job is to protect the community because those communities often are being more victimized than Senators and their families are in their States. Give DC what we believe was a revolutionary idea then but not a revolutionary idea now, which is to let them protect themselves. Don't strip them of their ability to protect themselves. Don't take away their ability to protect their children. Don't take away their ability to create laws that protect their police officers. Don't take away their ability in this law to protect their citizens--700,000 residents who do not have a voice in this body, 700,000 residents who are about to have a law that will better protect them overturned because of politics, because of opportunism, because of the big divisions in our country that tear our Nation apart. But DC is united in its fight for self-determination, for representation, for safety, and security. Those are the ideals that started America, and this body shouldn't interrupt a city trying to live its American ideals that we take for granted but they, obviously, today, are still fighting for. I yield the floor, and I give my apologies to the great Senator from Oregon.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, I appreciate the recognition more than you know. I would like to ask unanimous consent that a detailee of the Senate Judiciary Committee--that would be one Douglas Miller--be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 118th Congress.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, I have 17 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I really appreciate you recognizing me for a moment. We are about to adjourn the Senate. Many Senators will travel back to their home States to do work, to meet with constituents, to go forward, but something is happening tomorrow that I wanted to recognize, which is the graduation of this class of Senate pages. Many people watch the functioning of the Senate, and what draws attention is not many of the people that do the work of this place. We have an incredible parliamentary staff. We have incredible people that serve the different caucuses. We have incredible people who provide security for this place who often don't get the attention they deserve. Senators come and go, but one thing that stays consistent is the incredible human beings, the patriots who make this place work. I am humbled every day to meet people who so love the institution of the Senate that they have chosen to serve it, and I am sure you can agree with me: They are not doing it for the pay, and they are not doing it for the glory. They do it for the love of country, and, especially, in particular, the love of this institution. There is another group, though, that does come and go that I think play a very special role here, and that is about twice a year--then there are some summer pages--we see the pages come in from all over the country to serve this institution in a way that has been done for generations. And what is remarkable about them, in their suits, is that they are not young adults, they are teenagers who have made an irrational choice, in my opinion. They have decided to leave their high schools, their comfort, their technological devices, their extracurricular activities, their sports teams, their homes, and come and live in Washington, DC, where the rigors of their lives are extraordinary. Literally, our Senate pages, during the two sessions that are during the year, they are doing a full class of academics. They actually are studying difficult topics that--I am not sure how Senators would do on calculus or chemistry, but they are taking a full load of classes, and then they are working the equivalent of a full-time job. And at times, they are up at 5 in the morning, and then they service this institution. And the jobs they do, I would say, are essential. In fact, if they were not here--the people that would have to do those jobs--the Senate would have to hire people to fill those roles. During my 10 years in the Senate, I have to say, I have met some remarkable young people. They call them Democratic and Republican pages, but there is no partisanship here. These are patriots first who probably ascribe to many different ideals and parties and dependents and what have you, but when they are here, they are participating in the Senate. I often say to Senate pages, it is an honor to have served in the U.S. Senate with you, and I mean that very meaningfully when I talk to them. Now, on a personal note, I have to say the Senate pages adore me. I tell horrible jokes. I make it a goal to try to embarrass them on the floor of the Senate as often as I can. I try to get them to encroach the rules--never break them, just encroach them. But during the course of my time here, I have watched some of these young people blow me away with their intellect and their acumen, with their dedication and their knowledge, but, most importantly, with their hearts. I look at this class of pages right now as they are about to graduate and go on to do incredible things in life. How do I know this? With 10 years in this body, I bump into pages every once in a while. They try their best to pretend like they don't know me, but I call them out, and I see them doing great things. I now know Senate pages who have gone off to college, who have graduated from college, who have now gone into the work world and continue to distinguish themselves, not by having a common experience of serving in the Senate but having taken the inspiration of working in this body into their work as American citizens and living a life of committed patriotism. And so to this class, I just want to say to you as well: It has been an honor to serve this institution with you. You all are some of the best of our Nation. You have shown a grit and guts while you were here, handling your coursework and the demands. You have dealt with sometimes the indignities of being treated like you are wallpaper. But the truth of the matter is, you guys have risen in service through your course and your experience here. For that, on behalf of this entire body, I want to give you my thanks. And I want to encourage you to think of yourselves as always a part of this body. Lots of people have passed through here. We have had former pages become U.S. Senators. We have former pages that sit on that dais now. I hope you will always consider this not just your Capitol, but also your community. And I look forward to seeing you all about in the world, and I hope for old times' sake, you will at least let me tell you one bad ``dad'' joke. With that, I ask unanimous consent to submit a list of names of the pages to the record. And I would like the Congressional Record to say that the junior Senator from New Jersey told them that they are great people, but they need better senses of humor.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 1255, Elizabeth Frawley Bagley, of Florida, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Federative Republic of Brazil; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I am really proud to be New Jersey's junior Senator. Even more so, I am proud that I have called Newark my home for most of my adult life. I can talk about my community for weeks on end. I know the Presiding Officer has heard me talk about Newark for some time. It is an incredible community where we do not mistake wealth with worth. We know the value of goodness and decency. And a lot of members of my community in the city of Newark are Black and Brown folks, and the special relationship they often have to their hair denotes deep cultural traditions. You go to my city right now, and you will find hairstyles of different types: locks, cornrows, twists, braids, bantu knots, and, of course, what I once had, Mr. President, afros. You will find barber shops and hair salons aplenty that are dedicated to the upkeep of these beautiful hairstyles. One of my favorite things to do is to go to barber shops to sit in community with folks and connect. I can write almost a dissertation probably, sir, right now about the role of barber shops in Black and Brown communities. They are incredible community cultural convening places. But I also want to say that it is not always a source of joy. At times, the conversation has turned to a deep source of hurt and pain. There is a decades-long problematic practice of discrimination against natural hair in this country. It was brought to the forefront in 2018 when a New Jersey student named Andrew Johnson was forced to cut his dreadlocks in the middle of a wrestling match. The entire ordeal was caught on camera. And as the scissors were brought out to cut Andrew's hair, you can see the deep hurt and pain on the face of this young man. It is the pain felt by many, traumatic at times, of hurtful experiences that make you question your very belonging in a community--the beauty of your hair, its natural style, your immutable characteristics, your cultural beliefs, your connection to your heritage. No person in America should have to deal with this pain, and that is why I stand here today, urging this body to pass legislation that is dear to my community's heart, dear to communities all across the country. It is named the Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act, otherwise known as the CROWN Act. This bill is ultimately a matter of justice. Hair discrimination is real. It is a continuing and a pernicious problem for Black and Brown people in our country. It can lead to lost employment opportunities. It can lead to violations of students' civil rights. In short, it forces people to change parts of their very being so as to avoid harassment or punishment. A recent study from Michigan State University found that Black women are 50 percent more likely to be sent home from the workplace because of their hair, and 80 percent of Black women feel the need to change their hair from its natural state to fit in at the office. Another study from Duke University found that Black women with natural hairstyles are less likely to land job interviews than White women or Black women with straightened hair. Many students, other than Andrew, have had their civil rights violated. There have been cases in schools that have changed their dress code midyear to place restrictions on hairstyles, targeting Black students with locks and expelling them from school when they refused to cut their hair. Although existing law prohibits some forms of hair discrimination as a type of racial or national origin discrimination, Federal courts, at times, have narrowly construed this protection in a way that has allowed schools, workplaces, and other Federal institutions to discriminate against people of African descent who wear certain types of natural or even protected hairstyles. That is where the CROWN Act comes in. This commonsense pragmatic piece of legislation is necessary. This legislation clarifies that discrimination based on a hair texture or hairstyle that is commonly associated with a particular race or natural origin--including hair that is tightly coiled or tightly curled, locks, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, and afros--is a prohibited form of discrimination. Since the moment I first introduced the CROWN Act with Members of the Congressional Black Caucus, while I am grateful for their work and leadership, we have worked to build more support. In the House, this bill passed with broad bipartisan support because of the strength of the lead of my colleague and friend from New Jersey, Congresswoman Bonnie Watson Coleman. Here in the Senate, Senator Collins has signed onto the bill, making it a bipartisan effort. And it is an effort that replicates what has already been done in 19 States--so-called blue States, such as mine or California, to so-called red States, like Nebraska, Tennessee, and Louisiana. At its core, the CROWN Act is a commonsense policy. It is legislation that further protects the civil rights of Americans. But on a more profound and deeper level, it is a celebration of what makes up the wonderful fabric of our Nation: the rich, cultural diversity and the connections people have to their very identity. We know the significance that hair plays for the communities that make up the diverse American fabric. For Black folks, hair is rooted in stories of strength and resistance. During the time of slavery, in Colombia, hair braiding was used to relay messages, including as a way to signal that one wanted to escape the lash of bondage. As one person eloquently described, the hair of Black women is ``a crown that tells a story--a story of struggle, triumph, pain, pride, and comfort.'' The CROWN Act is a chance for us to make sure that story and the stories of so many other cultures are told, a chance to make sure that those stories aren't punished but become more of an integral part of the larger American story. It is a chance to make sure that those stories aren't stigmatized to the point that some have to make the difficult decision to change their natural hair just to have a chance to land a job, to succeed in school, or to escape discrimination overall. This is a chance for us to make for a more perfect union, to bend the arc of the Nation just a little bit more toward justice, to end another chapter, another area, of deplorable discrimination, which is why today I ask for unanimous consent to pass the CROWN Act. And so, I guess, as in legislative session, I now ask for unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2116 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, 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.

Mr. BOOKER. I would like to say a couple of things.

Mr. BOOKER. Thank you very much for the recognition, Mr. President-- the Presiding Officer. I really heard the point about workplace safety. This bill does not prohibit employers from addressing safety concerns. Instead, it accounts for employers' legal obligations to ensure workplace safety. Written in the bill, section 6(b) of the bill expressly prohibits that the employment nondiscrimination provision ``shall be enforced in the same manner and by the same means, including with the same jurisdiction, as if such subsection was incorporated into Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.'' In other words, employers will be no more burdened by this bill than they are under the current employment discrimination law. Under the longstanding, burden-shifting scheme applied by the courts in title VII cases, the employer may defeat a discrimination claim by asserting the workplace safety as a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for taking adverse employment action against an employee, with the burden then shifting to the employee to prove that the asserted reason was a pretext for discrimination. So this is addressed, and I appreciate that. But as it was passed in a boldly bipartisan way, it was shown to have incorporated that concern in the bill itself. Again, this is something that has been passed in States like Tennessee and Louisiana. This has been shown to have wide bipartisan support. It is shown to be needed in the Federal context. And I am hoping that we, through continued deliberations, can actually get that passed. Mr. President, if I may have leave to say one more thing, I would like to just wish you a Merry Christmas, to the Presiding Officer. I appreciate the cheer and good will that is in this Chamber, and I look forward to happy holidays for everyone.

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2116 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed on the motion. Before I do this, sir, I would like to just read a brief statement if I may, Mr. President.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, when the Federal Government authorizes billions of dollars in grants to States, we have a duty to ensure that those dollars are spent in a responsible, effective manner. Accountability is essential to a healthy, functioning democracy. And it is especially important when we discuss issues related to policing. In recent years, we have seen egregious instances of police misconduct, many of which have involved the unjustifiable deaths of Black people. Right now, it is vital that we prioritize initiatives that will improve public safety and strengthen public trust in law enforcement. As mayor of Newark, I spent hundreds of hours with police officers riding along with them in their squad cars and learning about the daily challenges they face trying to make our communities safer. I have seen their bravery in the face of uncertainty and their fear knowing that their streets are filling up with deadly weapons of war. I have witnessed the enormous sacrifices they make in service of the public. I have tremendous respect for our law enforcement officers. and I believe that they need support to be able to do their jobs effectively. I support improving officer training programs, hiring more officers in underresourced departments, and updating the outdated equipment law enforcement agencies are often left using. Any resources provided, however, must be coupled with transparency. It flies in the face of responsible governance to invest significant resources into something without ever knowing what parts of that investment are paying dividends. Transparency does not mean that every law enforcement program must come under the Federal Government's close scrutiny. Instead, it means commonsense data collection and reporting. It means tracking how Federal funds are spent and whether they produce positive or negative outcomes. It means doing basic due diligence for the purpose of improving policing in this country and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are being spent as effectively as possible. As Congress moves to increase Federal assistance to State and local law enforcement agencies, we must ensure responsible administration and oversight of grant programs and ensure resources are directed toward policing practices that actually enhance public safety and promote the dignity of all communities, especially Black and Brown communities. One of the biggest pools of funding for our Nation's law enforcement comes in the form of grants from the Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, Office. The amount of money given to State and local law enforcement through these grants has steadily increased over the last few years, from $222 million for fiscal year 2017 to $512 million for fiscal year 2022. These grants fund the improvement of Tribal law enforcement agencies, school violence prevention, drug crime enforcement aria prevention, mental health and wellness services, equipment and technological capabilities, and community policing strategies. All of these programs share the goal of improving public safety. Yet, despite the large increase in funding for the COPS grant program, Congress has not moved to measure the successes and failures of the program. As such, we cannot be sure that real improvements are actually being made with the more than half a billion dollars in taxpayer money being spent. Reviewing how COPS grants are being spent and the outcomes they are producing will help realize the very goals that the COPS program aims to advance. Ensuring that the Federal Government, through COPS grants, invests in best practices will help train officers in the most effective ways possible. Establishing performance metrics for COPS grants will allow law enforcement agencies to identify which initiatives make officers and the public safer and which reduce negative and dangerous interactions between law enforcement and the public. As law enforcement agencies are called upon to bolster their data collection and reporting practices, it is also important to recognize that some agencies, particularly in underresourced communities, struggle to respond to those calls even with the availability of COPS grants. We must specifically dedicate more resources toward helping these law enforcement agencies meet these standards. In particular, many law enforcement agencies have not been fully equipped to report data to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Use-of-Force Data Collection. This dearth of data severely hinders our ability to analyze policing trends, develop best practices, and hold officers accountable for wrongdoing when it occurs. These measures for transparency and accountability are basic, commonsense ways to invest effectively in policing and make our communities safer. All law enforcement agencies should be collecting and reporting data. All law enforcement agencies should be complying with civil rights laws. All law enforcement agencies should be using performance metrics to identify best practices. These are the building blocks of responsible, modern policing which we should all be able to agree on. Today, I introduced the COPS Responsible Administration and Management Act of 2022, which will promote the kind of accountability and transparency that should accompany these important investments that the Federal Government makes in law enforcement. This bill supports and complements the crucial investments we are making in police forces by reviewing COPS grants to ensure they are being effectively and efficiently administered, evaluating how COPS grants are being utilized and how well they are assisting law enforcement in making communities safer, offering grants to agencies to improve data reporting, and assessing agency compliance with civil rights laws. This Congress has made historic investments in improving law enforcement and addressing violent crime in our communities. Let us also take the time to make sure that those investments are paying off. Law enforcement agencies across the country are struggling to manage competing demands. Officers work incredibly hard every day to protect their neighborhoods, and they often do so without the equipment, personnel, and training that they need. The good news is that law enforcement agencies will be receiving many of these important resources with COPS grant funding. At the same time, if the goal of this funding is to improve policing and public safety, which we can all agree it is, then we must also track and evaluate the success of these grants. Our investments should produce positive outcomes for communities. They should reduce negative and dangerous interactions between officers and the public, including use-of-force incidents, and they should increase the public's trust in law enforcement. Our officers deserve resources that will help them do their jobs effectively and keep them safe. Our communities deserve police forces that are well-trained and well-informed. The COPS Administration Act will help secure both of those goals.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, when the Federal Government authorizes billions of dollars in grants to States, we have a duty to ensure that those dollars are spent in a responsible, effective manner. Accountability is essential to a healthy, functioning democracy. And it is especially important when we discuss issues related to policing. In recent years, we have seen egregious instances of police misconduct, many of which have involved the unjustifiable deaths of Black people. Right now, it is vital that we prioritize initiatives that will improve public safety and strengthen public trust in law enforcement. As mayor of Newark, I spent hundreds of hours with police officers riding along with them in their squad cars and learning about the daily challenges they face trying to make our communities safer. I have seen their bravery in the face of uncertainty and their fear knowing that their streets are filling up with deadly weapons of war. I have witnessed the enormous sacrifices they make in service of the public. I have tremendous respect for our law enforcement officers. and I believe that they need support to be able to do their jobs effectively. I support improving officer training programs, hiring more officers in underresourced departments, and updating the outdated equipment law enforcement agencies are often left using. Any resources provided, however, must be coupled with transparency. It flies in the face of responsible governance to invest significant resources into something without ever knowing what parts of that investment are paying dividends. Transparency does not mean that every law enforcement program must come under the Federal Government's close scrutiny. Instead, it means commonsense data collection and reporting. It means tracking how Federal funds are spent and whether they produce positive or negative outcomes. It means doing basic due diligence for the purpose of improving policing in this country and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are being spent as effectively as possible. As Congress moves to increase Federal assistance to State and local law enforcement agencies, we must ensure responsible administration and oversight of grant programs and ensure resources are directed toward policing practices that actually enhance public safety and promote the dignity of all communities, especially Black and Brown communities. One of the biggest pools of funding for our Nation's law enforcement comes in the form of grants from the Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, Office. The amount of money given to State and local law enforcement through these grants has steadily increased over the last few years, from $222 million for fiscal year 2017 to $512 million for fiscal year 2022. These grants fund the improvement of Tribal law enforcement agencies, school violence prevention, drug crime enforcement aria prevention, mental health and wellness services, equipment and technological capabilities, and community policing strategies. All of these programs share the goal of improving public safety. Yet, despite the large increase in funding for the COPS grant program, Congress has not moved to measure the successes and failures of the program. As such, we cannot be sure that real improvements are actually being made with the more than half a billion dollars in taxpayer money being spent. Reviewing how COPS grants are being spent and the outcomes they are producing will help realize the very goals that the COPS program aims to advance. Ensuring that the Federal Government, through COPS grants, invests in best practices will help train officers in the most effective ways possible. Establishing performance metrics for COPS grants will allow law enforcement agencies to identify which initiatives make officers and the public safer and which reduce negative and dangerous interactions between law enforcement and the public. As law enforcement agencies are called upon to bolster their data collection and reporting practices, it is also important to recognize that some agencies, particularly in underresourced communities, struggle to respond to those calls even with the availability of COPS grants. We must specifically dedicate more resources toward helping these law enforcement agencies meet these standards. In particular, many law enforcement agencies have not been fully equipped to report data to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Use-of-Force Data Collection. This dearth of data severely hinders our ability to analyze policing trends, develop best practices, and hold officers accountable for wrongdoing when it occurs. These measures for transparency and accountability are basic, commonsense ways to invest effectively in policing and make our communities safer. All law enforcement agencies should be collecting and reporting data. All law enforcement agencies should be complying with civil rights laws. All law enforcement agencies should be using performance metrics to identify best practices. These are the building blocks of responsible, modern policing which we should all be able to agree on. Today, I introduced the COPS Responsible Administration and Management Act of 2022, which will promote the kind of accountability and transparency that should accompany these important investments that the Federal Government makes in law enforcement. This bill supports and complements the crucial investments we are making in police forces by reviewing COPS grants to ensure they are being effectively and efficiently administered, evaluating how COPS grants are being utilized and how well they are assisting law enforcement in making communities safer, offering grants to agencies to improve data reporting, and assessing agency compliance with civil rights laws. This Congress has made historic investments in improving law enforcement and addressing violent crime in our communities. Let us also take the time to make sure that those investments are paying off. Law enforcement agencies across the country are struggling to manage competing demands. Officers work incredibly hard every day to protect their neighborhoods, and they often do so without the equipment, personnel, and training that they need. The good news is that law enforcement agencies will be receiving many of these important resources with COPS grant funding. At the same time, if the goal of this funding is to improve policing and public safety, which we can all agree it is, then we must also track and evaluate the success of these grants. Our investments should produce positive outcomes for communities. They should reduce negative and dangerous interactions between officers and the public, including use-of-force incidents, and they should increase the public's trust in law enforcement. Our officers deserve resources that will help them do their jobs effectively and keep them safe. Our communities deserve police forces that are well-trained and well-informed. The COPS Administration Act will help secure both of those goals.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, I think the points that the Senator from Kentucky is making are worthy. We are facing a reality right now wherein there are lots of threats that are increasing against public officials all around our country, and I understand that. This is not a bill that Senator Menendez and I just wrote and brought to the floor. This is a bill that we worked through the committee process. It was a long and arduous process that was done in a bipartisan manner. During the discussion that the committee had, the point that the Senator from Kentucky brought up was brought up as well. There is a real concern about the safety and security of the Members of this body. But with the understanding and the commitment that there would be a bipartisan effort to work on this issue, every Senator on the Judiciary Committee said we should let this go for right now. This bill has been vetted; it has been worked over in a bipartisan manner; and it is ready to pass. Threats on the Federal judiciary have gone up 500 percent. I will grant you, threats on Members of Congress have doubled, but the threats on the Federal judiciary are rising, and we saw that in the case of Justice Kavanaugh. This body thought it enough not to hold up the protection of Supreme Court Justices in order to protect the 535 of us, and we passed a bill to protect the Supreme Court Justices. So here we now have a bill that has been vetted in committee, that has been worked on in a bipartisan fashion, and has come out, and we have a commitment. For the Senator from Kentucky to say that nothing has been done is not right. We now have Senator Ted Cruz and Senator Amy Klobuchar working a bill through committee, through regular order, to make sure that we address the concerns that he is having. This is my concern: Threats on the judiciary have gone up and are significantly higher than on this body. To grind this bill to a halt right now puts at risk members of the judiciary when we have the power in this body to protect our brothers and sisters in that branch of government. Why would we stop when there is good will on the Judiciary Committee to work on the concerns? There are two people who are committed to this bill, and there are verbal commitments from everyone. To stop this today creates a window of vulnerability that we know is real because we just saw a threat on a Supreme Court Justice. For the sake of mercy, for the sake of caution, for the sake of the protection of the people in the Federal judiciary, let's pass this bill. I commit myself to joining with Senator Ted Cruz, to joining with Senator Amy Klobuchar, to joining with Chairman Durbin and with Ranking Member Grassley, who have also spoken of their willingness to work a bill through regular order. That is what we should be doing. Our job as Senators, if anything, first and foremost, is to protect the lives of American citizens. We have a bill that is widely bipartisan, that has proven to be urgent--a bill with a name of a young man who was slaughtered in his home. To hold this bill up is cruel. It is creating risk and jeopardy to people who serve in the judiciary. It is wrong. It is wrong. It is wrong. I ask my colleague, with all humility and with all compassion and empathy, to please let this go. I commit to him that I will fight and work with the bipartisan coalition that is working on ways to protect the people in this body. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I literally turned to my staff and asked: Has Senator Paul's staff reached out to us at all? That is not the case. Then, to characterize us as the opposition, we are not in opposition to this bill. We are trying to protect Federal judges as is the unanimous vote of the Judiciary Committee. So this is very frustrating that we should stop this for the Supreme Court Justices--the Senator has no objection to that--but, for some reason, not for the other members of the judiciary. I just find that problematic. I am willing to meet with the Senator. I am not in opposition to his bill. The meeting which would be had, I will do but with the two sponsors of the bill to protect the U.S. Senate. But to hold up the protection of other fellow citizens because we are not getting protection, to me, does not mark the nobility of this body and the self-sacrifice of this body. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOOKER

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

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. I rise not expecting to give a speech today, but I want to, first and foremost, recognize the Chair, who is my ``mother'' Senator, and I want to thank her for her incredible service to this institution. I want to thank, which I rarely do, the staff who works here and runs the Senate every day, but I rise today to talk for a moment about groups that we don't talk about enough on this floor. We usually talk about everybody from law enforcement to our military, but we don't talk about artists. We are a nation that even from our founding during Revolutionary times, there were extraordinary artists who expanded the moral imagination of this country and helped us to see a nation that could be free from British rule and domination. In every point of American history, from protest movements to battles for suffrage, we have had artists who have painted these pictures of an America, a vision for what could be, but even more than that, they have healed us during difficult times. They have pulled us together with their inspiration. They have called out injustices. They have brought light to the dark places of our country. You know, Picasso talked about art being something that helps to shake the dust off the soul of humanity, but I think it does more than that. As an African American, I have seen art in the tradition of healing, of providing hope, of even calling out with specificity the instructions on how to be free. We remember the song that Harriet Tubman pointed to: Wade in the water, wade in the water, God is going to trouble the water. That is the tradition that sourced my family. From enduring the pain of a nation that was unequal and divided, often in church with gospel songs, there was healing; there was hope. And even the poetry in the Harlem Renaissance spoke to an America that could possibly be if we just never stop believing. As the great poet Langston Hughes said: America never was America to me, [But] I swear this oath-- America will be! Who made America, Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain, Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain, Must [make] our . . . dream [live] again. O, yes, I say it plain, America never was America to me, And yet I swear this oath-- America will be! I lean on poetry and song today just to get myself up in the morning. I have seen how artists have come to visit us here in the Capitol and Senators from all backgrounds thanking them for providing for them the soundtrack of their lives. And God, humor, the comedians of old, I remember sneaking into balconies--in my house--and watching over the balcony my dad, quietly not thinking his children were listening, put on records by Richard Pryor, whose humor helped to heal his troubled heart, make him laugh at the absurdities of a nation that still had not fully fulfilled itself. And so I bring this thought and this heart to say thank you to artists, thank you to this institution for what we did in a bipartisan way to make sure we were funding the venues of this country, the stages where so many artists were able to continue to work during the pandemic. We fund the arts. It is funding that often has to be pushed or fought for, but I say it is the funding that in many ways helps to sustain and source the soul of a nation because without art, we would have lost our way a long time ago. Now, this week I had this moment where you have just got to pinch yourself, and I know that the Presiding Officer has had this moment, too, where you get this call from White House staff, and they say: Hey, we have got some extra seats in the President of the United States' box at the Kennedy Center to come see a performance by a group called Freestyle Love Supreme. And I said no immediately. I am so busy. I have got so much work. I had a night that was ending relatively early. But my staff said to me, you know, a guy, Chris Jackson--he was George Washington in ``Hamilton''--is going to be there as well, and I had gotten to know him because he was so generous. I saw him in ``In The Heights.'' He invited me backstage, gave me such love. I saw him in ``Hamilton.'' Even when I had someone I was trying to date with me, he made me seem special in her eyes. I will never forget that. He was a good wingman. So I went to go see them perform, and I was just blown away by the performance. I hope that while they are here, people get a chance to go. But what blew me away was how they reaffirmed that message to me. At a time that I am troubled with what is happening in our life, with decisions in the Supreme Court, with challenges, with the economy, they touched on a lot of those issues with humor and artistic genius, and I found my spirit being lifted. I found camaraderie with strangers. You see a whole crowd of people being pulled together around ideals of empathy and love and affirmation of our most core, cherished values as a nation, like freedom and protest. I am honored that this group is visiting the U.S. Senate right now-- for many, their first time being in this sacred space, this hallowed Hall--to get a chance to witness what we do every day. And I just want to say thank you to them, and I want to give tribute to all of the artists in America who do so much for the soul of this Nation and inspire us every day not to stop believing in tomorrows that can be better than what we have in the present. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, the instruction by my colleague from Wisconsin directs conferees to reject bipartisan House language that addresses a serious public health concern related to mink farming. Mink farms in Europe and the United States have spawned five COVID-19 variants that have collectively infected thousands of people. The next mink variant could infect millions of people. Vaccinations do not prevent infection or transmission in mink, and the risk of virus mutation on mink farms remains significant. Today, there are only 60 mink farms left in the United States, and they sell their furs to buyers in China, not here. Americans have stopped buying fur because keeping these semiaquatic wild animals in cages and breaking their necks to kill them for fur is inhumane. More than a dozen European countries have already phased out mink farming because of the serious pandemic risks they present. The United States should immediately follow suit. I urge my colleagues, for the health of our country, to join me in voting no on this motion to instruct. Vote on Motion I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Reserving the right to object.