Cory Booker

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, throughout my time in Congress, I have worked to address our Nation's most pressing environmental issues and have supported aggressive action to protect our environment, address climate change, and reduce air and water pollution. Although I was not present for the votes on the following nominees and legislation on the floor, I did vote no on the nomination of Aurelia Skipwith to be Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during her Senate Environment and Public Works Committee markup. In addition, if I had been present for the floor vote on her nomination and the additional votes outlined below, I would have voted in the following way: yes on 2/7/19 for vote No. 18, motion to table amendments to the Natural Resources Management Act, S. 47, PL 116-9. Throughout my time in Congress, I have worked to address our Nation's most pressing environmental issues and have supported aggressive action to protect our environment, address climate change, and reduce air and water pollution. Although I was not present for the votes on the following nominees and legislation on the floor, I did vote no on the nomination of Aurelia Skipwith to be Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during her Senate Environment and Public Works Committee markup. In addition, if I had been present for the floor vote on her nomination and the additional votes outlined below, I would have voted in the following way: no on 2/7/19 for vote No. 19, motion to table amendment to the Natural Resources Management Act, S. 47, PL 116- 9. Throughout my time in Congress, I have worked to address our Nation's most pressing environmental issues and have supported aggressive action to protect our environment, address climate change, and reduce air and water pollution. Although I was not present for the votes on the following nominees and legislation on the floor, I did vote no on the nomination of Aurelia Skipwith to be Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during her Senate Environment and Public Works Committee markup. In addition, if I had been present for the floor vote on her nomination and the additional votes outlined below, I would have voted in the following way: no on 4/11/19 for vote No. 77, the confirmation of David Bernhardt to be Secretary of the Interior. Throughout my time in Congress, I have worked to address our Nation's most pressing environmental issues and have supported aggressive action to protect our environment, address climate change, and reduce air and water pollution. Although I was not present for the votes on the following nominees and legislation on the floor, I did vote no on the nomination of Aurelia Skipwith to be Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during her Senate Environment and Public Works Committee markup. In addition, if I had been present for the floor vote on her nomination and the additional votes outlined below, I would have voted in the following way: no on 9/24/19 for vote No. 300, the confirmation of Daniel Habib Jorjani to be Solicitor of the Department of the Interior. Throughout my time in Congress, I have worked to address our Nation's most pressing environmental issues and have supported aggressive action to protect our environment, address climate change, and reduce air and water pollution. Although I was not present for the votes on the following nominees and legislation on the floor, I did vote no on the nomination of Aurelia Skipwith to be Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during her Senate Environment and Public Works Committee markup. In addition, if I had been present for the floor vote on her nomination and the additional votes outlined below, I would have voted in the following way: no on 9/ 26/19 for vote No. 310, amendment to continuing appropriations, 2020/ health extenders, H.R. 4378, PL 116-59. Throughout my time in Congress, I have worked to address our Nation's most pressing environmental issues and have supported aggressive action to protect our environment, address climate change, and reduce air and water pollution. Although I was not present for the votes on the following nominees and legislation on the floor, I did vote no on the nomination of Aurelia Skipwith to be Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during her Senate Environment and Public Works Committee markup. In addition, if I had been present for the floor vote on her nomination and the additional votes outlined below, I would have voted in the following way: yes on 9/26/19 for vote No. 311, passage of continuing appropriations, 2020/health extenders, H.R. 4378, PL 116-59. Throughout my time in Congress, I have worked to address our Nation's most pressing environmental issues and have supported aggressive action to protect our environment, address climate change, and reduce air and water pollution. Although I was not present for the votes on the following nominees and legislation on the floor, I did vote no on the nomination of Aurelia Skipwith to be Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during her Senate Environment and Public Works Committee markup. In addition, if I had been present for the floor vote on her nomination and the additional votes outlined below, I would have voted in the following way: yes on 10/17/19 for vote No. 324, passage of the powerplant rule disapproval, S.J. Res. 53. Throughout my time in Congress, I have worked to address our Nation's most pressing environmental issues and have supported aggressive action to protect our environment, address climate change, and reduce air and water pollution. Although I was not present for the votes on the following nominees and legislation on the floor, I did vote no on the nomination of Aurelia Skipwith to be Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during her Senate Environment and Public Works Committee markup. In addition, if I had been present for the floor vote on her nomination and the additional votes outlined below, I would have voted in the following way: no on 10/31/19 for vote No. 339, amendment to further continuing appropriations, 2020, H.R. 3055. Throughout my time in Congress, I have worked to address our Nation's most pressing environmental issues and have supported aggressive action to protect our environment, address climate change, and reduce air and water pollution. Although I was not present for the votes on the following nominees and legislation on the floor, I did vote no the nomination of Aurelia Skipwith to be Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during her Senate Environment and Public Works Committee markup. In addition, if I had been present for the floor vote on her nomination and the additional votes outlined below, I would have voted in the following way: yes on 10/31/19 for vote No. 340, amendment to further continuing appropriations, 2020, H.R. 3055. Throughout my time in Congress, I have worked to address our Nation's most pressing environmental issues and have supported aggressive action to protect our environment, address climate change, and reduce air and water pollution. Although I was not present for the votes on the following nominees and legislation on the floor, I did vote no on the nomination of Aurelia Skipwith to be Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during her Senate Environment and Public Works Committee markup. In addition, if I had been present for the floor vote on her nomination and the additional votes outlined below, I would have voted in the following way: yes on 10/31/19 for vote No. 341, passage of further continuing appropriations, 2020, H.R. 3055. Throughout my time in Congress, I have worked to address our Nation's most pressing environmental issues and have supported aggressive action to protect our environment, address climate change, and reduce air and water pollution. Although I was not present for the votes on the following nominees and legislation on the floor, I did vote no on the nomination of Aurelia Skipwith to be Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service during her Senate Environment and Public Works Committee markup. In addition, if I had been present for the floor vote on her nomination and the additional votes outlined below, I would have voted in the following way: no on 12/11/19 for vote No. 395, confirmation of Aurelia Skipwith to be Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, in 1974, after the House Judiciary Committee voted to approve Articles of Impeachment against President Nixon, Chairman Peter Rodino, of my home State of New Jersey, a lifelong Newark resident of my home city who had been thrust into the high-profile position only the previous year, returned to his office and called his wife. When she answered the phone, this chairman, this longtime Congressman broke down in tears and cried. Forty-six years later, our Nation has found itself under similar duress, and I agree with my fellow Newarker--impeaching a President is a profoundly sad time for our Nation. It is a painful time. No matter what party, if you love your country, then this is heartbreaking. When we think about our history as Americans, so many of us have reverence for our Founding Fathers and our founding documents. They represented imperfect genius. We talk about the Declaration of Independence. We hail the Constitution. These documents literally bent the arc of not just our own history but human history for democratic governance on the planet. While these were milestones in the path of our Nation's relatively brief existence, the governing document that came between the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution is often overlooked--the Articles of Confederation. With the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to view the development of our Nation as preordained, inevitable--as if it were an expected march toward the greatness we now collectively hail, that this was somehow a perfectly plotted path toward a more perfect union. But it wasn't. In 1787, as our Founders gathered in Philadelphia, our fledgling country was at a crisis and at a crossroads. Its future, as in so many moments of our past, was deeply uncertain. You see, when the Framers designed our system of government in the Articles of Confederation, you can say they overcompensated. With the tyranny of King George III fresh in their minds, they created a government with powers so diffuse and decentralized that nothing could really get done. Instead of one Nation, we were operating essentially as 13 independent States. The Federal Government could not tax its citizens. It could not raise money. It lacked a judiciary and an executive branch. So when our Framers arrived in Philadelphia that hot summer, they would have to thread a difficult needle, providing for a strong central government that represented the people and one that also guarded against the corrupt tendencies that come when power is concentrated, as they well knew was so in a monarchy. Our democratic Republic was their solution. The Nation needed a powerful Executive, yes, but that Executive needed guardrails, and his power needed to be checked and balanced. So the Framers created what we now almost take for granted--three coequal branches of government: the legislative, the executive, and judicial branches. Each branch would have the ability to check the power of the other branches to ensure, as James Madison so profoundly argued, that ambition would ``be made to counteract ambition.'' But this system of checks and balances was not enough for our Founders. Still reeling from their experience under the oppressive rule of the King, many feared an unaccountable, autocratic leader. So the Founders created a mechanism of last resort--impeachment. George Mason prophetically asked the Founders to wrestle with the concept of impeachment at the Constitutional Convention, saying: ``Shall any man be above Justice?'' The Founders answered that question with a resounding no. The Constitution made clear that any Federal officer, even the President, would be subject to impeachment and removal. No one--no one--no one is above the law. This was seen as the ultimate safeguard, and it has only been invoked twice before in American history. This is the third. I sat in this very spot and listened to the evidence presented, honoring my oath to be objective, and based on the evidence that was presented in hour after hour after hour of presentations, I concluded that the President, Donald John Trump, is guilty of committing high crimes and misdemeanors against the United States of America, against the people. I believe he abused the awesome power of his office for personal and political gain to pressure a foreign power to interfere in the most sacred institution of our democracy, our elections. He then engaged in a concerted, far-reaching, and categorical effort to cover up his transgression and block any efforts for the people's representatives to have the truth. It brings me no satisfaction to come to this conclusion. I feel that sadness of my predecessor. Yet we have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. This is not a moment that should call for partisan passions. It is not a moment that we think of in terms of the limitlessness of personal ambition. This is a patriotic moment. It is about putting principle above party. It is about honoring this body and the Senate's rightful place in our constitutional system of checks and balances. It is about fulfilling the enormous trust the Founders placed in this body as an impartial Court of Impeachment and a necessary check on what they foresaw as the potential for ``grave abuses'' by the Executive. If we fail to hold this President accountable, then we fail the Founders' intent; we fail our democracy; and I fear the injury that will result. When our grandchildren and their children read about this chapter in the history books at a time far into the future, when this President is a memory along with those of us serving in this Chamber, it will not be seen through the eye of politics or partisanship. They will read about how this body acted in their moment of constitutional crisis. I fear that their unflinching eyes, at a time when the full body of evidence will be out in the public domain, will see clearly how this body abdicated its constitutional responsibilities, surrendering them to partisan passions. They will read about how the Senate shut its doors to the truth, even though it was within easy reach; how, for the first time in our history of impeachment proceedings for judges and for past Presidents, the world's greatest deliberative body conducted an impeachment trial without demanding a single witness and without subpoenaing a single document; how, even as new evidence during the trial continued to be uncovered, the Members of this body failed to even view it. They failed to pursue with even the faintest effort those things that would have easily and more perfectly revealed the breadth and depth of the President's misconduct. We know across the street, in the Supreme Court, the saying is that justice is blind, but that means that no one is above the law. It does not mean that this body should abdicate its responsibilities and it should abandon its senses and even abandon common sense. If there is evidence we know about that could speak beyond a reasonable doubt to this President's alleged crimes and misconduct, it makes no sense whatsoever that we should deny, in this deliberative body, the truth-- the truth. This kind of willful ignorance, this metaphorical closing of our eyes and ears, is a grave danger to any democracy. It is the rot from within, when the ideals of truth and justice fall victim to the toxic tyranny of absolute partisanship. This President has claimed authoritarian power that our Constitution was explicitly designed to prevent. He has literally said that article II allows him to do whatever he wants. That outrageous statement tomorrow could be given life within this democracy. He has declared himself unaccountable to and above the law. He has shredded the very governing ideals of this great Republic, and we, the Senate, the body designed to check such abuses of power, that ``dignified . . . independent . . . unawed and uninfluenced'' tribunal, as Hamilton so famously wrote in Federalist Paper No. 65, have been enablers to this destructive instinct. This is a sad day. This is a sad moment in the history of this body and in our Nation, and I fear that it is emblematic, that it is a symptom of deeper challenges to this Nation, challenges that are being exploited by our enemies abroad and by opportunists here at home. The factionalism that our Founders warned us of has deepened beyond mere partisanship to a self-destructive tribalism. The ``cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men'' seeking to subvert the power of the people, as Washington predicted in his profound and prophetic Farewell Address, have found their season to flourish here in our time. Many in our society now hate other Americans, not because of the content of their character or their virtue and the values they hold dear, but we, as Americans, now more and more see hate proliferating in our country between fellow Americans because of what party we belong to. We have failed to listen to the words that come out of each other's mouths, failed to listen to the ideals or the principles or the underlying facts because we now simply listen to partisanship. This Nation was founded with great sacrifice. The blood, sweat, and tears of our ancestors, which gave life and strength to this Nation, are now being weakened and threatened, as our very first President warned. And, yes, today is a sad moment, but we, as a nation, have never been defined by our darkest hours. We have always been defined by how we respond to our challenges, how we have refused to surrender to cynicism, and how we have refused to give in to despair. As Senator after Senator today gets up and speaks, I fear that mere words in this time are impotent and ineffective. It may mark where we as individuals stand for the record, but the challenge demands more from all of us in this time. We have already seen on this Senate floor that sound arguments have been dismissed as partisanship. We have heard speech after speech and seen how they will not cure this time. They will not save this Republic from our deepening divides. So I ask: What will? How? How do we heal? How do we meet this crisis? I know that this President is incapable of healing this Nation. I have never seen a leader in high office ever take such glee in meanness. He considers it some kind of high badge of virtue in the way he demeans and degrades his political adversaries. He demonizes others, often the weak in our society, and I firmly believe that he has shown that he will even conspire with foreign nations to defeat his adversaries, and then defend himself not with any truth or transparency but by trying to heighten and ignite even more partisan passions. So the question is really, How do we heal this Nation? How do we meet this challenge that is not embodied in any individual? It was a man far greater than me named Learned Hand who said: Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias. I continue to quote this great judge. Our dangers, as it seems to me, are not from the outrageous but from the conforming; not from those who rarely and under the lurid glare of obloquy upset our moral complaisance, or shock us with unaccustomed conduct, but from those, the mass of us, who take their virtues and their tastes, like their shirts and their furniture, from the limited patterns which the market offers. I love our Nation's history. I am telling you right now we have seen that the true test of our democracy will not come simply from the low actions from our leaders on most high. The true test of our democracy will not turn alone on the actions of this body because Presidents before and this body before have failed us in dark times. They failed the ideals of freedom when time and again they defended slavery. This body has failed the ideals of liberty when time and again it rejected civil rights. This body has failed the ideals in the past of equality when it voted down, again and again, suffrage for women. Lo, Presidents before and the Senate before has failed this Nation in the darkest of times. As the songs of my ancestors have said, our path has been watered with the tears and blood of ancestors. How do we heal? How do we move forward? I say on this dark day that the hope of this Nation lies with its people. As Learned Hand said: The spirit of liberty is not embodied in the Constitution. Other nations have constitutions and have failed. The hope of this Nation will always lie with its people. So we will not be cured today, and, I tell you, tomorrow's vote--it is a defeat. But we, as a people facing other defeats in this body, must never be defeated. Just like they beat us down at Stonewall and they beat us back in Selma, the hope of this Nation lies with the people who faced defeats but must never be defeated. So my prayer for our Republic, now yet in another crisis in the Senate, is that we cannot let this be leading us further and further into a treacherous time of partisanship and tribalism where we tear at each other and when we turn against each other. Now is the time in America where we must begin, in the hearts of people, to turn to each other and to begin to find a way out of this dark time to a higher ground of hope. This is not a time to simply point blame at one side or another. This is a time to accept responsibility. Like our ancestors in the past so understood, that change does not come from Washington. It must come to Washington. As I was taught as a boy, we didn't get civil rights because Strom Thurmond came to the Senate floor one day and pronounced that he had seen the light. No, this body responded to the demands of people, and now is a time that we must demand the highest virtues of our land and see each other for who we are--our greatest hope and our greatest promise. We are a weary people in America again. We are tired. We are frustrated. But we cannot give up. That flag over there and we who swear an oath to it and don't just parrot words or say them with some kind of perfunctory obligation--but those who swear an oath to this Nation--must now act with a greater unyielding conviction. We must act to do justice. We must act to heal harms. We must act to walk more humbly. We must act to love one another unconditionally. And now, more than ever, perhaps we need to act in the words of a great abolitionist, a former slave, who in a dark, difficult time when America was failing to live up to its promise, gave forth a sentiment of his actions captured in the poetry of Langston Hughes. He declared through his deed and through his work and through his sacrifice: America never was America to me, And yet I swear this oath-- America will be! As a Nation, in this difficult time where we face the betrayal of a President, the surrender of obligation by a body, may we meet this time with our actions of good will, of a commitment to love and to justice, and to yet again elevating our country so that we, too, may be like, as it says in that great text, ``a light unto all Nations.'' I yield the floor.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk to be asked of the House manager.

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. Chief Justice.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a member of my staff in the great State of New Jersey. We are all fortunate to have offices full of staff members passionate about working for the betterment of our country. William Moen, Jr., or Bill Moen, as we affectionately call him, is a shining example of what patriotism looks like in government service. The son of a disabled Vietnam veteran and the grandson of a WWII veteran, Bill Moen's commitment to public service is a family legacy. Even prior to his Federal work in my Senate office in Camden, NJ, Bill has worked at all levels of government in New Jersey. Hes interned at his local police department and the First Congressional District of New Jersey. He worked in the New Jersey State Legislature, with the Gloucester County Board of Chosen Freeholders and even as an elected Freeholder himself in Camden County. On December 9, 2013, I welcomed Bill Moen to my staff in Camden, NJ. Bill was with me on one of my first official events as U.S. Senator. He helped organize a visit to Cape May County--the southernmost county in New Jersey--where I spoke with residents who were still struggling to recover from the devastation of Superstorm Sandy. The past 6 years are full of memorable events, stories, projects, and cases like this one. He has managed my South Jersey office with compassion and integrity. Mr. President, I wish to recognize Bill Moen today because he is leaving my office to set up his own as assemblyman representing New Jersey's Fifth Legislative District in the New Jersey State Assembly. I am sad to see him go but grateful for his work and proud of the new role he begins in what will surely be a long and brilliant career in public service.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I want to express my disapproval of the confirmation of Eugene Scalia as Secretary of Labor. America's workers are the backbone of our economy, and the Secretary of Labor should be entrusted to strengthen worker protections, support unions, and play a crucial role in ensuring a just economy. Instead, Eugene Scalia has repeatedly demonstrated that he prioritizes the well-being of corporate interests over those of workers. Throughout his career as a corporate lawyer, he fought against unions, worker safety regulations, and consumer protections rules. For those reasons, I do not believe Eugene Scalia is fit to serve as Secretary of Labor. My grandfather was one of the first Black members of United Auto Workers at Ford Motor Company, and through him, I learned the importance of worker rights that collective bargaining provides. Through collective action, unions are able to provide workers with livable wages, safe working conditions, and access to benefits like healthcare coverage and retirement savings. Not only has Eugene Scalia represented companies in arbitrations against collective bargaining agreements, but he identifies it as one of his most significant career moments. The Secretary of Labor should be doing everything in their power to make it easier--not harder--for working people to join unions. Eugene Scalia also represented the Chamber of Commerce in working to overturn the fiduciary rule, a commonsense step towards protecting the retirement security of countless working families. Employers trying to design a quality plan for their workers, workers starting to save, and retirees trying to avoid spending down their nest egg too quickly deserve access to quality advice, without fear that financial bias is clouding their broker's judgment. Unfortunately, that access to quality, unbiased advice was ultimately overturned, in part thanks to the efforts of Eugene Scalia. More Federal oversight and stricter safeguards are necessary to prevent the exploitation and discrimination of working people; yet Eugene Scalia has dedicated his career to fighting against the existing safeguards. He argued that more than 30 women alleging sexual harassment and retaliation should have their claims thrown out, defended a company that refused to hire a woman because she had dreadlocks, and fought against corporate whistleblowers. He has also worked to undermine the rights and protections provided by the Americans with Disabilities Act, stating that workers with disabilities should not be provided workplace accommodations. When I go back to my home in Newark, I see many working families struggling to make ends meet, sometimes while working two to three jobs. They often face underemployment, wage stagnation, wage theft, and a variety of other tactics meant to keep wages down and suppress worker rights. They deserve a Secretary of Labor that will fight for them. The Trump administration and the previous Secretary of Labor have been relentless in their efforts to roll back workers' rights, attack unions, and undermine civil liberties. Unfortunately, I do not have any reason to believe that Secretary Scalia will be any different. This is why I must express my deep concern and opposition to his nomination and confirmation as Secretary of Labor.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, I rise to speak today on S. 1689, which passed last night. Yesterday, this body unanimously voted to pass my legislation that could give States greater flexibility in how they use Federal funding for water projects. This bill is a tool to help communities in New Jersey and other States remove lead from their drinking water. We have a national crisis. It is a crisis we are seeing all over the country. I first wrote this legislation after a study was released last year that found lead leaching into the drinking water of my home city, Newark, NJ. Since then, I have been trying to get our State the Federal resources it needs to upgrade our aging water infrastructure. After it wasn't included in last year's end-of-the-year spending bill, I introduced it as a stand-alone bill and pushed its passage through the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, with bipartisan support, earlier this summer. While the bill has been waiting to pass here in the Senate, the residents of my city, my neighbors, my family, and others have had to deal with additional concerns of exposure to lead in our drinking water. Local, State, and Federal officials have been working almost literally around the clock to bring residents answers they deserve, answers they demand. I have repeatedly pushed the Federal Government, and the EPA in particular, to provide more resources to Newark in every way I can. I have been making calls and writing letters, hosting meetings. When I spoke with Administrator Wheeler and then personally met with EPA in Newark, I reminded them of our shared responsibility in bringing safe, clean drinking water to residents. This is not just a national emergency; this is an urgency. We are waiting for more sampling results right now to better understand how to address the situation in Newark as quickly as possible. This legislation will allow Newark, NJ, and all of New Jersey to have access to upward of $100 million in Federal funds for pressing drinking water projects. For the last month, thousands of residents haven't been able to drink the city's water. As I was handing out bottled water to my neighbors, I heard how significantly this was affecting the daily routines of my neighbors and friends and undermining the well-being of my community, of my city. Again, I say this is a national urgency, a national emergency, because the residents of my city are not alone. This crisis is affecting communities all over the country. In fact, as Reuters reported, there are over 3,000 jurisdictions where children in America have more than twice the blood lead levels of Flint, MI. These results across our country demonstrate yet again how we have failed to adequately invest in our Nation's aging infrastructure. In a Nation as wealthy as ours, clean drinking water should be a basic human right, and we must act to make that our reality. The majority of those impacted are low-income, economically vulnerable people. They are like the neighbors in my community. They cannot face this health crisis alone. The Federal Government must act. I am so grateful for the success we have had to help Newark and the bill we passed together last night, but clearly our work is not done, and I will not stop until every American has access to clean drinking water. Clean water and clean air must be an American right. I want to thank my partner on this legislation, Senator Bob Menendez. I also want to thank my Senate colleagues, especially Leader Schumer, Ranking Member Carper, and the chairman of EPW, Chairman Barrasso. I also want to thank others who are advocating for this critical legislation and urge the House to take it up immediately--not only to help New Jersey but communities nationwide. I am happy that finally the legislation I wrote has now passed this body, and I am grateful it was done with 100 Senators in accord. We still have work to do, but this, for me, was affirmation that now people in the State of New Jersey will have more of the Federal resources they need to address the crisis. I am encouraged that this bill was able to be passed and that there is more hope on the horizon for my city and others like it in New Jersey. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, today I wish to speak about S. 1900, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance and Security at the Southern Border Act. I understand there is some important funding in the bill to deal with President Trump's manufactured crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border, particularly funding for the Department of Health and Human Services. However, I cannot in good conscience support a bill that provides additional resources to the Department of Homeland Security at a time when we are seeing this agency commit so many gross human rights violations. I want to make my position clear: I do not support this bill in its entirety, and I would have voted against it. Both U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, and U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, CBP, have already benefited from increased funding in fiscal years 2018 and 2019 and, as we have seen, have used that funding to ramp up their inhumane policies. Policies like ``metering'', which forces migrants to wait in Mexico for weeks, sometimes months, in order to enter the United States and claim their legal right to asylum. We know that ``metering'' has resulted in the deaths of families seeking refuge, like Oscar Alberto Martinez and his 23-month-old Valeria just this week. Policies like the zero-tolerance policy, which has separated thousands of children from their families and continues to this day. These policies are unacceptable and do not reflect who we are as Americans. Everyone should be outraged as what is happening at the hand of this administration and DHS. Just last week Donald Trump tweeted that he would begin ICE deportation raids across the United States. At a time when the Trump administration is claiming that it does not have enough money to deal with the humanitarian crisis at the Southwest border, it is puzzling how DHS has enough resources to conduct large-scale raids all across the United States. How is there money for raids that would terrorize communities yet not enough money for providing soap, blankets, and toothbrushes for children in the government's custody? Repeatedly, this administration has chosen to implement policies that cost more and are less efficient in order to pursue its extreme immigration agenda. If ICE and CBP are in need of extra funding, then they should implement policies that save money, like further utilizing alternatives to detention, ATDs. The government's own statistics demonstrate that ATDs work and save money. People are frightened, and they are returning to the shadows. It is weakening the safety of our communities, and it is an affront to the ideals of the United States. I will not support funding which further endangers the lives of immigrants who have every right to remain in this country and those fleeing violence and seeking shelter in our country. Those of us in positions of power have an obligation to stand up for all people and stand against abuses especially at the hands of our government. Instead of rubberstamping additional funding, I will continue to do this and hold this administration accountable. Thank you.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, this week marks the 65th anniversary of the Supreme Court's unanimous decision of Brown v. Board of Education. In Brown, the Justices recognized a profound, moral wrong tearing at the soul of this country--racial segregation in our Nation's schools. They held fast to the principle inscribed above the entrance to the Supreme Court, ``Equal Justice Under Law,'' and they appealed to a self-evident truth, but not yet realized by our Founding documents, that equal means equal. Of course, the Supreme Court's decision in Brown didn't stand alone. We needed civil rights activists like Thurgood Marshall, who had built toward this moment to carry the torch forward. We needed a Congress and a White House that would enshrine protections for civil rights, voting rights, and housing rights into law. We needed courts committed to this principle that racism and White supremacy could no longer hide behind the shield of law. Most of all, we needed the power of the people fiercely demanding equality--students like the Little Rock Nine, who courageously, in the face of State-sponsored hostility, walked through the doors of Little Rock Central High School to jeers and taunts and threats; people like John Lewis, who marched and bled on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma; folks like Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner, who lost their lives together in the pursuit of justice; and leaders like King, who pointed us to the mountaintop. Brown v. Board of Education isn't confined to the history books. The fight for equality and civil rights still continues to this day. Much of this hard-earned progress, unfortunately, almost tragically, is being rolled back. Now, staggeringly, many judicial nominees for the Trump administration have refused to say whether they believe Brown v. Board of Education was even rightly decided. They can't even affirm the most basic and fundamental principle of American law. One judicial nominee is set to receive a floor vote this week--Wendy Vitter. She not only refused to say that Brown was correctly decided but even suggested at the time that it was, perhaps, the wrong decision. The nominee for the second highest job at the Justice Department, Jeffrey Rosen, refused to say whether Brown was rightly decided, even though he would oversee the Solicitor General in day-to-day operations of our Federal prosecutors. The principle underlying Brown is more than a foundation of our legal system. It is also the foundation of democracy. It goes to the heart of one of the deepest ideals in our Nation--that we are a Nation where equal means equal. The principle underlying Brown is sacrosanct. It is not something that we in this era, this day and age, should be leaving up to question or even debate. So I would like to take a moment today to read from the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. This decision wasn't written just for lawyers or students at law school; it was written for the American people, making the case for equal justice under law. So here we are--Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS. Chief Justice Warren delivered the opinion of the Court, and I quote: These cases come to us from the States of Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. . . . In each of the cases, minors of the Negro race, through their legal representatives, seek the aid of courts in obtaining admissions to public schools of their communities on a nonsegregated basis. In each instance, they have been denied admission to schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to race. This segregation was alleged to deprive the plaintiffs of equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. In each of the cases other than the Delaware case, a three- judge federal district court denied relief to the plaintiffs on the so-called ``separate but equal'' doctrine announced by this Court in Plessy v. Ferguson. . . . The plaintiffs contend that segregated public schools are not ``equal'' and cannot be made ``equal,'' and hence they are deprived of the equal protection of the laws. . . . Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education toward democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms. We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other ``tangible'' factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does. . . . To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. . . . We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of ``separate but equal'' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. . . . It is so ordered. It has been 65 years since the nine Justices of the Supreme Court unanimously gave those words the force of law. Today, for any nominee who would enforce or interpret our laws, it should be far beyond debate that Brown was right--the separate-but-equal doctrine has no place in American society. Sixty-five years on, it is our duty as Americans to continue to fight for equality and justice in America. We owe this not just to ourselves but we who benefit from the blessings of this democracy, sewn by the hands of our ancestors, we who partake of that fruit from their labors. We must recognize those heroes in the generations who advocated, marched, and insisted that this Nation make good on the promise of equal justice under the law. I stand here upon the shoulders of those who came before. We as a nation have progressed in every generation toward more inclusion, more equality. Our courts and our activists and our citizens who came before have made this a more perfect union. We still have work to do, but we cannot allow ourselves to see undone the progress of our ancestors. We cannot allow ourselves to call into question those sacrosanct ideas enshrined in our law. This is not the time to go back. We must continue to forge a pathway forward. Sixty-five years ago, our courts acted in the name of justice and equality. It is our duty and obligation to preserve that progress. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, today I wish to speak on the nomination of Janet Dhillon, who is nominated to be Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The EEOC plays an important role in protecting American workers. I am deeply concerned that Ms. Dhillon will put the interests of corporations over those of employees, which is antithetical to the mission of the EEOC. The EEOC is charged with ``enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.'' It also investigates claims of individuals who are retaliated against for complaining about discrimination. Needless to say, the EEOC plays a critical role in protecting American workers and ensuring that our Federal anti- discrimination laws are enforced and not disregarded by unscrupulous employers. In choosing someone to sit on the Commission, it is critical that the administration select someone with a history of working to advance civil rights and workers' rights. Ms. Dhillon clearly does not have that background. Ms. Dhillon has spent the vast majority of her career working for and representing the interests of large corporations. Notably, while she was employed at JC Penney, the company was harshly criticized for its handling of a garment factory accident in Bangladesh that killed more than 1,000 people. She also worked at the Retail Litigation Center, an entity that works to limit employees' and consumers' access to justice. These experiences stand in direct opposition to the mission of the EEOC. Additionally, during her confirmation hearing, she would not commit to maintaining the EEOC's current position that title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects LGBT people from discrimination. As one of the main authors of the Equality Act in the Senate, which clarifies that existing civil rights law forbids discrimination of LGBT people, I am deeply concerned Ms. Dhillon would not make that commitment at her hearing. If the United States is going to be a beacon of liberty and freedom, we must not allow discrimination of any kind to continue. The EEOC plays an essential role in fulfilling that promise of eradicating discrimination and creating a workplace that reflects the best of American values: hard work, ingenuity, decency, and respect. It is clear to me that Ms. Dhillon is not the right person for the job, and I urge my colleagues to vote against her nomination.

Mr. BOOKER

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

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the nomination of Paul Matey, who has been nominated by President Trump to a New Jersey seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Constitution actually charges this body with a sacred obligation. This body is charged by our Founders and by our Constitution with providing advice and consent on the individuals the President nominates to serve on the Federal courts. Over the last century, the United States has developed a process for carrying out that duty of evaluation, evaluating those nominees, but just a couple weeks ago, the body broke a century-old precedent. Until then, the Senate had never ever confirmed a judicial nominee over the objections of both home State Senators. I looked into this through the Congressional Research Service, and they didn't find a single example where that has ever happened. During the last century before the Trump administration, you could count on one hand the number of times the Senate had confirmed a judicial nominee when even one home State Senator had objected. That happened four times during the 1980s and once during the 1930s. That is it. But with the nominees now coming to the Senate floor, to this body, it is breaking a longstanding, bipartisan tradition and has jettisoned that rule and that idea. This has already happened--ignoring the objections of one home State Senator--five times. Now that is happening in a doubling-down capacity. The Senate confirmed Eric Miller to the Ninth Circuit a couple weeks ago, and he was opposed by both of his home State Senators, my friends Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell. This was the first time in a century that this body has disregarded the objections of both duly-elected Senators, who know their States, who know their communities. It was a breakdown of this longstanding, bipartisan tradition, this idea that this body is different from the majoritarian body in the House; that in this body, we believe home State Senators should have a say on the nomination of judges. Not that they are in line ideologically--clearly, when you have a Republican President, you are going to see Republican-appointed judges. But this breakdown has now undermined this tradition that in the Senate, we find a way to come together and work together on this sacred duty of putting people into that third branch of government. What worries me now is this week, the Senate is on the brink of doing it again. Senate Republicans are moving to confirm an individual to the Third Circuit over the objections of both home state Senators--in this case, both home State Senators from New Jersey, Senator Menendez and me. So this moment is personal to me, but more importantly, I want to sound the alarm yet again and not just sit as a bystander to history and let this Senate tradition be eviscerated. When I first got to the Senate, I made it known that I really wanted to be a member of the Judiciary Committee. It took me years to get on that committee. I am so proud to be on a committee that has an incredible record of doing bipartisan work, whether it was the bill we passed out of committee to protect Robert Mueller or just last Congress when we worked together across the aisle to do comprehensive criminal justice reform. I know the history of that committee. I have been watching it since I was much younger and had a lot more hair. I knew that this committee-- as Senator Durbin so eloquently described last week in our markup committee--this is a committee whose Members have worked together to confront many great challenges. But now we find ourselves in a perilous position where important guardrails that were put in place to properly vet judicial nominees are being thrown by the wayside. The latest development in the Senate is disregarding the blue-slip tradition, which over the last century has enabled home State Senators to have a meaningful role in the nomination process. In late January of this year, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a markup meeting for 44 judicial nominees. Folks around here were literally calling it the monster markup. At that meeting, I told Chairman Graham, just as I had told Chairman Grassley last year, that the White House had not meaningfully consulted with me or Senator Menendez ahead of that markup. In fact, I pointed out, the White House had not offered to even arrange a meeting between Mr. Matey and me or Senator Menendez. We didn't get an offer of a meeting before the nomination. We didn't get an offer of a meeting before the confirmation hearing. We didn't get an offer of a meeting before the markup. Chairman Graham said he would make sure that Mr. Matey and I would be able to meet before the full Senate voted on his nomination, and we did. I really appreciate that and Senator Graham being a man of his word. But when I met with Mr. Matey last week, our conversation was refreshingly honest because we both knew it was just a courtesy. We knew this process was completely backward. Two home State Senators had just been rendered completely irrelevant in the selection of a circuit court judge from their State. I ask any of my colleagues to imagine this: that a person to the circuit court from their community--and Mr. Matey is from my city--that you don't even have a chance to meet with them, have a discussion, ask them questions. If it weren't for my presence on the Judiciary Committee, where I got 5 minutes to question him, this person would have sailed through without any consultation with two home State Senators. I ask my colleagues how they would feel if this happened to them. This breaking of a century-old precedent has made it clear that we are going to keep on breaking it. This is something that is now going to become a part of this body. Are we all really comfortable with the implications of that? The Republicans on the Judiciary Committee just voted out two Second Circuit nominees over the objections of their home State Senators-- again, historically unprecedented--and three more nominees to the Ninth Circuit with the very same problem are about to come before this committee. Senate Republicans seem to be intent on dismantling the century-old process for the vetting of judicial nominees. This is being done methodically--taking it apart piece by piece, whatever it takes to push through these nominees. The pendulum does swing in this place. I was told by Senators whom I respect--I still remember coming here and sitting down with some of the statesmen in this area on both sides of the aisle. I still remember conversations with Senator Harkin, who is no longer here, and Senator McCain telling me to respect the traditions of this body, to understand that this body, as our predecessors said, should be the cooling of the partisan rage or passions of the time; that we should preserve those parts of this institution that create comity, that force us to come together. But the wound that is being created right now goes to the ability of any Senator in this body to truly represent their State. Look, the pendulum is going to swing. Eventually, there is going to be a Democratic President. This body will shift again. Every single Senator, should they stay in this body, is probably going to see the time when, because of what we are doing today, they will have no say whatsoever when it comes to their constitutional duty of advice and consent. My message to my colleagues is this: The feeling I had last week when I met with Mr. Matey is a feeling that everyone in this Chamber is going to have at some point if we do not stop this now. If we continue down this path, you will find yourself rendered irrelevant in the selection of judicial nominees from your State. You were duly elected by the people of your State, and there won't be a thing you can do to stand up for their interests in this process. This will be a sad chapter if we allow it to be written into our history. It doesn't have to be this way. We could go back in this process. We could say: You know what, this guy is qualified. Why don't we go back and have the process done the right way--have the White House sit down with their home State Senators and see if they can work out a deal, as it was done before, to make sure we have a role in the process the Founders designed. The guardrails we have established in this body have an important purpose: to enable the Judiciary Committee and Senators to properly vet judicial nominees, to ensure that those nominees are not just qualified to serve but that they are more in the mainstream, not ideologues, and to ensure that they have a good judicial temperament. We cannot walk away from the longstanding Senate practice of respect for the views of home State Senators about the judges who will serve in their State. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this nomination because of the trashing of the processes that have been a time-honored way of doing things in the Senate. But let me be clear. This is about more than just the dismantling of the Senate procedures. As a Senator, I do have a perspective on the nature of some of the nominees who are being put forward to serve on our courts, and I want to take a moment to speak to that. The Constitution charges this body with vetting the President's judicial nominees for good reason. It is our duty as Senators to provide a check and balance on those nominations to ensure that people who serve as Federal judges can be fair and impartial. It is our duty to help protect the independence of the judiciary. But over and over, we are seeing that President Trump is selecting nominees precisely because they will bring an ideological agenda to the bench. This will be seen as we soon consider the nomination of Neomi Rao to the DC Circuit Court. Ms. Rao is a prime example of how the administration is working to politicize our Federal courts to achieve far-right policy objectives that do not sit in the mainstream of America. The examples of this are not just rhetoric; the examples of this are clear. The DC Circuit Court often gets the last word on legal challenges to important regulatory protections. Who is the person the President has chosen to sit on this court? Ms. Rao has dedicated much of her career as a law professor and as a Trump administration regulatory czar to tearing away critical protections for American citizens. During her time in the Trump administration, Ms. Rao has overseen efforts to roll back an array of Federal protections, from fair housing to clean air and water, from women's rights to LGBTQ rights, from food safety to workers' rights, to so many areas that impact Americans of all backgrounds and all aspects of American life. She has also criticized landmark decisions by the Supreme Court. Other Trump nominees have not gone as far as she has. She literally criticized Brown v. Board of Education, Lawrence v. Texas, and Roe v. Wade. Worse still, Ms. Rao has been unwilling to make the firm commitment to recuse herself from legal challenges to regulations that her office reviewed while she was a Trump administration regulatory czar. This is fundamental to the independence of our judiciary. If you compare her position to others within the Trump administration, you will see that other judicial nominees, including President Trump's prior nominee to the DC Circuit, have pledged to recuse themselves from matters they worked on in the executive branch, but Ms. Rao is refusing to do the same. Given her long track record of opposing critical Federal protections, the serious concerns about independence and recusal, Ms. Rao is the wrong person to sit on the DC Circuit Court, and I urge my colleagues to vote no on the nomination as well. Most importantly, I urge my colleagues--all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans--who do not want to be rendered irrelevant in the selection of judges from their States to stop--stop--this evisceration of a longstanding blue-slip tradition in the Senate. I thank you for the time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Thank you. Mr. President, I thank Senator Harris for her partnership and leadership on this bill. I also thank my colleague and my friend, Tim Scott from South Carolina, for his leadership and partnership on this legislation. As Senator Harris just said, this is not the first time we have come down to the floor of the U.S. Senate to implore this body to recognize lynching for what it is--bias-related terror. It is not the first time we have come down to this body to try to right the wrongs of history. After numerous attempts--dozens and dozens--during the height of lynchings in the United States, this body failed to act. This body did not stand up to protect American citizens and condemn the horrors of lynching. In December of last year, as Senator Harris and I were standing here, this body actually made a historic decision. It was a profound moment, an emotional moment. They made the decision to pass the Justice for Victims of Lynching Act by unanimous consent--no opposition. After a long, painful, and shameful history of this body, the U.S. Senate finally voted unanimously to make lynching a Federal crime. Unfortunately, the bill was not taken up in the House before the end of the last Congress. So we are here today with the hope and expectation that for the second time this body will make history by passing Federal anti-lynching legislation and that, for the first time in history, this bill will actually become the law of the land. Senator Harris referenced the Equal Justice Initiative, which documented over 4,000 cases of racially motivated lynchings between 1877 and well into the 20th century. Lynchings were used to terrorize, marginalize, and oppress Black communities, to kill human beings in order to sow deeper fear, inequality, and injustice for generations. The use of lynching to inflict racial terror is ugly, disturbing. It is a tragic part of our history, but we know its legacy does not just live in our history books. Less than 2 weeks ago, an actor and activist was brutally attacked in Chicago by two men yelling racial and homophobic epithets. Lynching is not a relic of the past. We are seeing in the present pernicious evil, and we still have yet to confront this in this body. Bias-motivated acts of violence and intimidation in America are actually on the rise. Hate crimes are on the rise for the third year in a row. Hate crimes against Black Americans are on the rise. Hate crimes against Jewish Americans are on the rise. Hate crimes against LGBTQ Americans and Muslim Americans are on the rise. This is unacceptable. Justice for the victims of lynching has been too long denied, and as we look forward we must collectively in this body make a strong, unequivocal statement. The last time Senator Harris and I came to the floor with this request, I read from an excerpt of a speech given by Congressman George Henry White, the first Member of Congress to introduce an anti-lynching bill more than a century ago and the last Black Member of Congress to serve for decades following Reconstruction. In 1901, in the last speech he ever gave on the floor, the last speech of a Black Congressman for decades, he said about the terror of lynching: ``This evil peculiar to America, yes, to the United States, must be met somehow, some day.'' For too long in this body, in the U.S. Congress, we have relied on the inevitability of ``some day'' when it comes to addressing this profound injustice. For too long we have failed--failed--to ensure justice for the victims of lynching, and failed to make clear that in the United States of America, in this great country, lynching is and always has been not just a Federal crime but a moral failure. We have the opportunity right now, again, to make history in this moment. We have the opportunity right now to recognize the wrongs of both our history and our recent past, to honor the memories of those so brutally murdered, and to leave a legacy that future generations can look back on. We will know, after some 200 attempts in this body in more than 100 years, that on this day, this moment in American history--notably Valentine's Day; as one leader once said, ``Never forget that justice is what love looks like in public''--that on this day, we can right this wrong. I would like to recognize the Senator from California.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the nomination of William Barr to be the next Attorney General of the United States of America. Last Thursday, I voted against his nomination in the Senate Judiciary Committee, as did nine of my fellow Committee Members. I voted against his nomination because of some very serious concerns I have with his record on everything from criminal justice to environmental justice, to defending the economic rights of Americans, the rights of immigrants, LGBTQ rights, and women's rights. I want to go through those concerns here on the floor today, but I also want to be clear that Mr. Barr has been nominated at a time of extraordinary challenge when it comes to defending rights in this country. This is a crisis. We are in a moment in history when, after years of attacks on civil rights by this President and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, some of our most fundamental democratic principles--the rule of law, separation of powers, equal protection under the law--are hanging in the balance. We now face a full-blown crisis when it comes to rolling back the rights of Americans. From community to community across the country, we see what it looks like when the Department of Justice fails to pursue justice for all Americans. It looks like hate crimes in this country are on the rise for the third year in a row but a Department of Justice that rolls back protections for LGBTQ Americans instead of strengthening them. It looks like more than one-third of all the LGBTQ youth in the country missing school because they feel unsafe but a DOJ that refuses to fight for them and protect them against State laws that target transgender students. It looks like unchecked voter suppression of Black Americans in Georgia, Native Americans in North Dakota, and the voter ID and voter purge laws across the country that tried to target and suppress minority voters but a Justice Department that has stood by and failed to take on one single voting rights case during the last 2 years. It looks like communities that are being poisoned by corporate polluters pushing their costs of doing business onto neighborhoods least able to defend themselves, making their land and air and water toxic but a DOJ that has made it easier for polluters to get settlement agreements while cutting its own enforcement capacity to hold those corporate polluters accountable. It looks like corporate malfeasance continuing to target the most vulnerable while DOJ enforcement of corporate penalties drops by 90 percent during the first 2 years of the Trump administration. It looks like doubling down on the failed war on drugs, which is known to be not a war on drugs but a war on the American people-- disproportionately low-income Americans, disproportionately mentally ill Americans, disproportionately addicted Americans, and disproportionately Black and Brown people--which is exactly what Jeff Sessions did when he directed all Federal prosecutors to ``charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense'' and seek the highest penalties in nonviolent drug crimes. It looks like unarmed Black men being killed by officers in their own homes and backyards, Americans of color being disproportionately stopped and arrested without adequate systems of accountability, but having a DOJ that limits the use of consent decrees that can prevent systemic abuses of power by law enforcement and can actually help to make law enforcement better, more accountable, more effective, rebuilding and repairing the trust between law enforcement and communities necessary to create safe and strong communities. Of course, it looks like children fleeing violence, being ripped from the arms of their parents, of their mothers at the southern border, 6- year-olds being thrown into cages, and an untold number of children who still have not been reunited with their families because of the DOJ's so-called zero-tolerance policy. Right now we see a Justice Department whose leadership over the past 2 years has failed countless communities, from low-income Americans who are being victimized by large corporations with bad actors to individual Americans who are trying to have their basic, fundamental rights protected. The Justice Department has failed the American people, and, most of all, it has failed to seek that ideal we all hold dear, which is equal justice under the law. That is why, at this moment in history, during this crisis of conscience, during this crisis of moral leadership, we need an Attorney General who grasps the urgency of the moment, who is aware of the impact of the Department of Justice on communities across this country, and who is willing and prepared to protect our most fundamental rights in every community for every American. That is the ideal of justice; that is the ideal of patriotism. What is patriotism but love of country? You cannot love your country unless you love your fellow country men and women. What does love look like in public? Justice, justice, justice. I appreciate that Mr. Barr took the time to sit down and meet with me. It was after the hearings; yet at my request, he finally agreed to come and meet with me. There was no staff in the room. It was an honorable gesture--a gesture of courtesy. We had a chance to have dialogue about his record, his experiences, his perspectives as well as mine. I appreciate that. It is a constructive first step. I appreciate his willingness to listen to me and talk about his record of mass incarceration. I even appreciate his willingness to accept the book I gave him--I hope he reads it--titled ``The New Jim Crow'' by Michelle Alexander. I continue to have concerns about Mr. Barr's ability and willingness to be the kind of Attorney General this country needs at this pivotal moment in American history. I am concerned because throughout his career, time and again, and during his confirmation process, Mr. Barr has demonstrated not only that he holds troubling views but also that he has an alarming lack of knowledge about the crises that make our justice system so broken right now, at a time when the United States continues to lead the globe, to lead the planet Earth and all of humanity in the sheer number of people we incarcerate. One out of every four people incarcerated on the planet Earth is right here in the United States, the land of the free. One out of every three incarcerated women on the planet Earth is right here in America, the land of the free. I say, again, that they are not the wealthy; they are not the privileged. As my friend Bryan Stevenson says: We have a nation that treats you better if you're rich and guilty than if you're poor and innocent. Since 1980, our prison population in this country alone has grown on the Federal level by 800 percent. You can tell a lot about a nation by whom they incarcerate. In Russia they incarcerate political prisoners. In Turkey they incarcerate members of the media. In this country we incarcerate the poor. We incarcerate Americans with mental illnesses, Americans with disabilities, Americans who are survivors of sexual assault, Americans who are struggling with addiction, people who have faced harm and need help, who often in the system get hurt and experience retribution and not restorative justice. We have a nation where we are locking people up for doing things that two of the last three Presidents admitted to doing. Mr. Barr has a record of actively pushing the policies that have led to mass incarceration, that have driven up our Nation's prison populations at a time when we need an Attorney General who is willing to follow the lead of this body, which passed criminal justice reform. When Mr. Barr served as Attorney General during the first Bush administration, he literally wrote the book on mass incarceration. He commissioned a report titled ``The Case for More Incarceration'' and wrote the forward endorsing it. He is an architect of the criminal justice system that is so disproportionate--out of proportionality-- that is ruthless, doing things that other countries, until this body acted, called torture, like juvenile solitary confinement. At his hearing, Mr. Barr said he recognized that some things have changed over the last quarter century, but he failed to explain how his views on criminal justice have actually evolved. He was describing more of what he was seeing this body and others do, but he didn't talk about his own evolution. He didn't say: Hey, that was my perspective then, and it has changed now. On the issue of implicit racial bias, I asked him if he acknowledged its well-documented existence in our criminal justice system. Implicit racial bias has been pointed out by both sides of the aisle in this body, by big city police chiefs and a former FBI Director. Time and again, it has been documented by university studies. It is actually in our Justice Department's policies to train people in implicit racial bias. This isn't something that is new. This is something we understand. When asked about it, Mr. Barr said: I have not studied the issue of implicit racial bias in our criminal justice system. . . . Therefore, I have not become sufficiently familiar with the issue to say whether such bias exists. I find this incredibly alarming. There are widely documented instances of racial disparities throughout our criminal justice system from police stops to sentencing, to charges. Racial bias exists even in our school pipeline; with Black kids and White kids having committed the same infractions in school, African-American kids are more likely to be suspended for them. There is no difference, for example, between Blacks and Whites in the United States of America for using drugs--no differences for Blacks, Whites, Latinos. We have a drug problem in America, and it is equally seen, regardless of race. Whites are more likely than Blacks, in many studies, to deal drugs. Yet, despite this, we live in a country where Blacks are about three times more likely to be arrested for using drugs and almost four times more likely to be arrested for selling drugs. What does it do when you apply a justice system to certain communities and not to others? It has a multiplier effect of impact. It affects voting rights because States still eliminate the right to vote for nonviolent drug charges. It is called felony disenfranchisement. It affects economic opportunity because if you have one criminal conviction for doing the same things that past Presidents have admitted to doing and Members of this body have admitted to doing, then you can't get a job, you can't get business licenses. Doors are shut to you; opportunity is closed. When you have a justice system that disproportionately impacts certain Americans, those communities then face serious, serious consequences. As a Villanova study shows, overall, we would have about 20 percent less poverty in America if our incarceration rates were the same as those of our industrial peers. Poverty is more inflicted on those communities of color when they are more likely to be arrested, charged, and convicted because of the existence of implicit racial bias. But the nominee for the top law enforcement position in our country says he is not sure ``whether such bias exists.'' This should be deeply troubling to all Americans because we believe in an ideal of equal justice under the law. This should be troubling to all Americans because we believe, as King said, ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' This should be deeply troubling to all Americans because there is a deep lack of faith that people have in our criminal justice system. They are losing faith that they will receive equal treatment. When the justice system does not operate in good faith, it is hampered in doing its most sacred duty. Right now there is a lack of belief that people will be treated fairly, a lack of belief that the system works the way it is supposed to. Mr. Barr's response and his record show me that he will do nothing to address these legitimate concerns in communities all across this country. At a time when he could be a leader, a champion, a light of justice and hope for those who have lost hope, for those who have lost faith, for those who feel left out and left behind, he almost doubles down with a dangerous lack of knowledge about what we all know exists. If confirmed, Mr. Barr would also be charged with implementing what this body collectively has done to start to reform, for the first time in American history, mass incarceration and increased sentencing. For the first time since 1994's crime bill, we in this body, with wisdom and in a bipartisan way, have started to go back to more proportionate sentencing. Through the FIRST STEP Act, this body put more justice back into our justice system. It is the first step, but it is the first step in the right direction in decades in our country's history. I am proud of what we did together. The bipartisan criminal justice reform that this body just passed into law, by an overwhelming vote, is incredible, but it is critical that the FIRST STEP Act be fully and fairly implemented by the Justice Department. Mr. Barr has not demonstrated his commitment to the law or to fixing any part of the broken criminal justice system I have outlined. Then, of course, we have industries, from the private prison industry to phone companies charging exorbitant fees in prisons and jails, making a profit off of these injustices, making a profit off policies that penalize and criminalize low-income communities and communities of color and that target refugees of color. What is happening in our country's criminal justice system today is a human rights crisis. Think about a justice system right now that has people sitting in prison for months before they even get a trial because they can't afford bail or a lawyer. We have a human rights crisis in this country. We need an Attorney General who recognizes the problem and has a willingness to do something about it, not one who says they are not sure we even have a crisis. This is an extraordinarily challenging time in our history. This Nation was formed under ideals of justice and fairness and equality. It was formed at a time when we mutually pledged to each other--as it says in our Declaration of Independence--``our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.'' This is a country where we are all in this together. This is a country where our values and ideals have to be real for all and not just a select few. After 2 years, we have seen the Justice Department's relentless attacks on basic fundamental rights by our President and Attorney General. We now need an Attorney General who will work to uphold the values that are most in danger. We need an Attorney General who will fight for equal justice for all, not just the privileged few. We need an Attorney General who knows the difference between ensuring justice is done and does not automatically seek the harshest penalty in every case, with a blind eye to circumstances, or facts, or extenuating circumstances. We need an Attorney General who will stand up for all of our children, LGBTQ rights, for voting rights, environmental justice, and a fairer justice system. We need an Attorney General who will refocus on the mission of the Department of Justice in seeking justice for every young person who is afraid to go to school because of prejudice and policies that discriminate. We need one who is seeking justice for every elderly man who lived through Jim Crow only to be blocked from exercising his voting rights because of racially targeted voter ID laws. We need an Attorney General who is seeking justice for Americans who have become entrapped in our broken criminal justice system, whether it is a kid from a community like the one I live in who is being targeted by our ineffective drug laws or kids who have been picked up on the southern border and thrown into a privately run detention center. We need an Attorney General who is seeking justice for communities whose soil, air, and water are being polluted by massive corporations and that feel no one will fight for them. We need an Attorney General who will live up to the purpose of the Justice Department. This is the call of our country. This is the leadership we need. This is the Attorney General we must insist on, one who will seek justice for everyone in every community from the gulf coast to the Great Lakes, from sea to shining sea. Mr. Barr has not demonstrated that he understands the fierce urgency of this moment in our history and the imperative for the Attorney General to be deeply disturbed by injustice and to urgently seek justice. For this main reason, I will be voting against his nomination, but if confirmed, I will perform my constitutional duty and provide oversight and accountability. I will continue to work to ensure that our Justice Department lives up to its demands. I hope this Attorney General, should he be confirmed, learns, sees the vulnerable, understands the challenges of the meek, and understands communities in crisis; that he gets to know people; that he reaches out and sits down with folks to learn and to develop a more courageous empathy, but I will not wait on that. I will fight every day to make sure our Justice Department seeks justice. If Mr. Barr tries to double down on the failures of a broken criminal justice system, tries to roll back basic rights, or fails to protect voting rights and civil rights, I will fight against his efforts at every step. I will fight for justice that doesn't just take the side of the powerful few but seeks justice for all Americans. That is our obligation--all of us. Whether you sit in this body or you sit in communities across this country, we have gotten to where we are because we all sought justice. Even if it didn't affect our families directly, we knew the call of our country must be about all of us understanding that injustice for one is an injustice for all. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Thank you, Madam President. I want to thank Senator Harris for her incredible partnership and leadership on this bill, and I want to thank Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina for his leadership and for the consistent examples of character and integrity they both have shown as my partners on this legislation in this body. As my colleague has said, it has been a very long time coming. For over a century, Members of Congress have attempted to pass some version of a bill that would recognize lynching for what it is--a biased, motivated act of terror. Today, Senator Harris and I have requested that after a century-- after 100 years and over 200 bills introduced in this body--we finally make lynching a Federal crime in the United States of America. Thanks to the work of incredible people around this country--truth tellers such as Brian Stevenson and the Equal Justice Initiative-- today, we have a more comprehensive understanding of just how widespread and purposefully lynching was used as a tool of racial terror and oppression in our history. We know that the Equal Justice Initiative was able to document thousands of cases--over 4,000 documented cases of racially motivated lynchings between 1877 and 1950. During that time, lynchings were used to terrorize communities. They weren't only vicious acts of murder against individuals, but in many cases bodies were hung trying to drive fear into communities to make them submit to second-class citizenship and inconsistent justice. The use of lynching as a larger part of terrorism is disturbing. It is a dark chapter of our past and part of our history. Its legacy doesn't just live in our history books. Despite activists and organizations that have dedicated themselves to studying and addressing the racial terror in our history, we have failed to correct for many of those past sins. We know that the passage of this bill will not undo the damage, the terror, and the violence that have been done and the lives that were brutally taken in our past. We do know that the passage of this bill, even though it cannot reverse the irrevocable harm caused by lynching used as terrorist oppression, is a recognition of that dark past. We know that when wrongs are ignored they fester underneath the skin of the body politic, and we know that justice delayed is justice denied. Today, this is a moment of potential justice in this body, a reckoning to the victims of lynching that for too long have been denied. I want to go back to a point in history in this body. The very first bill introduced by Congress to address the terror of lynching was by a man on the other side of the Capitol, Congressman George Henry White, in 1900. The year after it was introduced, in 1901, was the last year he would serve in Congress. That is because Congressman White was the very last Black Congressman of the group who had been elected to Congress during Reconstruction. Congressman White's departure in 1901 would be the last time an African-American Black southerner would serve in Congress for over 70 years. Congressman White must have had an understanding of what was to come with the long dearth of time and the lack of diversity. He knew the terror of Jim Crow laws and voter disenfranchisement that would stop the election of African-Americans. In his last speech in this body on January 29, 1901, 1 year after he introduced the bill to criminalize lynching, he delivered a farewell address he called ``The Negro's Temporary Farewell to the American Congress.'' In that address to Congress over one century ago, he made the same request that Senator Harris and I are making right now--for the United States to officially criminalize lynching. Congressman White said: Mr. Chairman, permit me to digress for a few moments for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to a bill which I regard as important, introduced by me in the early part of the first session of this Congress. [It was intended] to give the United States control and entire jurisdiction over all cases of lynching and death by mob violence. During the last session of this Congress I took occasion to address myself in detail to this particular measure, but with all my efforts, the bill still sweetly sleeps in the room of the committee to which it was referred. The necessity of legislation along this line is daily being demonstrated. The arena of the lyncher no longer is confined to Southern climes, but is stretching its hydra head over all parts of the Union. Referring to the terror of lynching, Congressman White knew that ``the evil peculiar to America, yes, to the United States, must be met, somehow, some day . . . '' Well, now in this moment in America, we have a chance to make some day today. We have the opportunity to recognize the wrongs of our history, to honor the memories of those brutally killed, and to leave a legacy that future generations can look back on, knowing that after 200 attempts over the course of 100 years of trying, on this day in American history this body will do the right thing. So I would recognize my colleague from California for the historic calling up of this piece of legislation.

Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, my friend, the Senator from Oregon, just came over. This is a very meaningful moment for this body. There was a speech by a man that I revere. His picture hangs in my office. His name is Martin Luther King. For many people who endured the pain and agony of our past, with lynchings that went on up to the 1970s in this country, and for those people who yearned for justice they would never experience, for those people who know the pain, agony, and hurt in their family's history and the trauma that is still felt by many people today, who remember lynching in this country that was so pervasive--Dr. King once spoke to those people who were hurting and seeking justice, and he asked at the end of his speech: How long? Not long, because ``the truth crushed to the earth will rise again.'' He asked: How long? Not long, because ``no lie can live forever.'' He asked: How long? Not long, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. This has been a long arc, a painful history and shameful history in this body--that at the height of lynchings across this country affecting thousands of people, this body did not act to make it a Federal crime. At least now, the U.S. Senate has acted--100 Senators, no objections. I just want to give gratitude to this body for what we have just done. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I want to give a lot of gratitude to my colleague, Senator Coons of Delaware. He is not only with us today on this call for a vote on a bill that was voted out of this Judiciary Committee in a bipartisan manner, but he is also a cosponsor of this legislation and somebody I have been proud to work with. I want to thank my colleague Jeff Flake for putting himself so far out there in pushing for this legislation. It is a consistent pattern with Jeff Flake. If you know him, you might know that he and I might disagree on a lot of policy, but he is one of the people I have looked up to in the U.S. Senate as someone who understands the role of Congress, the article I branch of government--that the powers of Congress articulated by the Constitution should be seen as sacrosanct, and that the erosion of these powers or the surrendering of these powers to the executive undermines the very ideals of our Constitution that our government should be one of checks and balances on power. I have seen him step forward and lead in the manner he is showing today. I have seen him step forward when it came to war powers and talking about the authorization of the use of military force and speak forcefully in a bipartisan manner with another of my colleagues, Tim Kaine, in saying: Hey, we have to have a system of checks and balances or the very foundations of this Republic begin to be undermined. If you know his character, you know he is on the Senate floor because of his deep belief in this Nation, not just today but for the tomorrows to come, and that we must maintain healthy checks and balances on Executive power and within our system of government. I am grateful for him to come in his final hours as a U.S. Senator still pushing this idea that there should be checks and balances, pushing this idea that there is a bipartisan space to try to preserve the ideals of this Republic, pushing this idea that no one--not a U.S. Senator, not a Congressperson, not even a President--is above the laws of this land because in the United States of America, we believe in the rule of law. More than this, we talk about the Framers, but every generation of people who are in these seats in many ways are stewards of this Republic. What I respect about my colleague from Arizona is that he takes that seriously. Something from past Members in history who have understood that is that you need to not only make decisions for today but you need to plan for tomorrow. It is an axiom that I know all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle believe: It is better to be prepared for a crisis and not have one than have a crisis and not be prepared. I am one to believe that we are coming perilously close to the precipice of our Nation having a constitutional crisis. There is an investigation going on that is not a political attack. It is not a witch hunt--whatever may be seen. We already have seen this investigation through a consensus of our intelligence community that is investigating an attack on our Nation. It is something that people from both parties have spoken about--the importance of having an independent investigation. It is something that an appointee of the President, Jeff Sessions, has said we need to make sure the investigation is independent and beyond reproach. That investigation has already yielded many indictments. It has yielded guilty pleas, and that investigation should be able to continue. There are some people who say: Hey, there is no threat to that investigation, but I am a big believer that if someone shows you who they are or tells you who they are, believe them. We have a President right now who is attacking this investigation-- the very legitimacy of this investigation--and he is acting like someone who believes this investigation shouldn't be going on at all. I believe that it may not happen, and we may not end up with a constitutional crisis, but if one comes, we should be prepared. How are we to be prepared? Not by some partisan radical idea, but by a very sobered measured step that is embodied in the legislation that we are calling for right now--to have a modest check and balance on a President's power to end an investigation and dismiss the special counsel. That is what this is all about. It is a modest step of judicial review that could prevent not just a crisis that might happen next month or next year but 20 years from now, 30 years from now, 50 years from now. It is in line with what this body has done in the past of providing a check and balance on Executive power. We have called yet again, for the third time, for a vote, and a third time we have not been granted a vote on the Senate floor or granted unanimous consent. I am grateful to be standing with my colleagues for the third time. My hope is that in the fashion we have seen on this floor of recent, that we can work together to ensure we have a check and balance on Presidential power, to ensure the ideal of this Nation of equal justice for all, and to ensure that we can have a country where no one is above the law. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I want to thank the Presiding Officer and acknowledge my friend, whom I deeply admire, sitting in the chair. It is great to give this short speech in front of him. It is good to see the Presiding Officer, my friend. I want to say good afternoon to everyone, and this is a moment in which I want to give a sense of gratitude. I want to thank my colleagues for their incredible work and leadership and, especially, recognize the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley. I want to thank Senator Dick Durbin, who has been a hero of mine on the issue of criminal justice reform, as well as Mike Lee, who has been a champion, all of their staffs, everyone who is involved in the tireless work and effort that has been going on in what is the pending bill on the floor before us now, the FIRST STEP Act. I also want to recognize the incredible people--many of them advocates, many of them citizens, many of them activists. So many of the groups have been pushing, challenging, demanding that we have criminal justice reform in this country. A lot of these groups have been organized and working for years and years--years before I came to the Senate--to try to bring forward criminal justice reform. They brought insight, wisdom, and they helped to shape this legislation. Their advocacy has made this a better bill. It is because of the work and the diversity of voices that have been involved in this process that we stand poised today to pass this bill, to begin to deliver some reforms to our savagely broken criminal justice system. I am proud of this coalition. I am proud that the coalition has people all across the political spectrum. I am proud that the coalition has people from diverse backgrounds. This is how change has been made in this country for generations. I want to return to the fact that we are poised to pass this bill because of the deeply, savagely broken criminal justice system that we have. Since 1980 alone, our Federal prison population has exploded by 800 percent. There has been an 800-percent increase in our prison population. This is because of failed policies by this body that created harsh sentencing, harsh mandatory minimum penalties--three strikes and you are out. These are the bills that caused this exploding population of prisoners to become the largest in terms of percentage on the planet Earth. America is now the preeminent incarceration Nation. We are the incarcerating capital of the planet Earth. Even though we only have 5 percent of the world's population, one in four of the incarcerated people on the planet are in the United States of America. One in three of all incarcerated women on the planet Earth are here in the United States of America. Today, close to one-third of all adults in the United States have a criminal record. We have criminalized the United States population. About one-third of Americans have a criminal record. After decades of failed Federal policies and after decades of going in the wrong direction, we now have an opportunity to reverse course in a significant way. Our criminal justice system, as it stands right now, is an affront to whom we say we are as a nation. We profess--we swear an oath to the flag that we are a nation of ``liberty and justice for all,'' but our criminal justice system violates those values. I believe you can tell a lot about a nation--not by its buildings, not by its structures or its wealth, but you can tell a lot about the true character of a nation by looking at its prisons and seeing whom they incarcerate. You can go to countries with authoritarian regimes and see how they imprison their political opposition. You can go to some countries and see they actually incarcerate members of the media. We don't do that in the United States. In this country, if you go into our prisons and our jails, you see, overwhelmingly, that we incarcerate those who are marginalized in our society, those who are vulnerable in our society. Overwhelmingly, in the United States, our prisons and jails are full of those Americans who are already hurting and struggling and often need more help than a system that hurts them. Our prisons and jails have become warehouses for people who are struggling with trauma, struggling with disease, struggling with illness. Right now, our prisons and jails are filled overwhelmingly with people with mental illness, overwhelmingly with Americans struggling with addiction, overwhelmingly with Americans who are survivors of sexual assault, and also overwhelmingly, it is full of Americans who are low-income, poor folks and people who are disproportionately people of color. This is a system in our country that feeds upon certain communities and not others. The War on Drugs--which has fueled so much of the explosion of our prison population--has really been a war on certain people and certain communities and not on others. I am the only Senator who lives in a majority Black and Brown community. It is low income, but I can tell you right now, my community does not mistake wealth with worth. I live in an inner-city community, and when I go home at the end of most weeks, I draw strength from my community. I see evidence of the incredible growth that has occurred. These are good people in a city. They pull together, work together, and can accomplish more things than other people who are disrespecting, disregarding, and just plain dissing them don't think is possible. I am proud of my community. Despite all the work that has been done in the city of Newark, I still live in a community that is both overcriminalized and underprotected because of Federal policies--because of policies in this body that mistake severity of a punishment with the actual security of a people. We know there is no deeper proclivity to commit crime among people of color, but there is a much deeper bias in the way our drug laws have been and are being applied, which disproportionately target people of color and low-income communities. We have a system that for over a century, we as a nation have overcome slavery--decades of Jim Crow--but author Michelle Alexander calls our criminal justice system ``The New Jim Crow'' because of its disproportionate impact on people of color. We now have a criminal justice system where there are more African-American men under criminal supervision than there were enslaved in 1850. This is a punishing reality that I have seen with my own eyes, where people in certain privileged communities don't face the kind of scrutiny, the kind of arrests that you do in other communities in our country. The truth about human beings is that all of us make mistakes. That is an inevitable part of life, but the way our country's drug laws are designed and applied, a kid in a more privileged community or on a college campus gets a chance to stumble--to learn a lesson. There is a wide margin for error, but a kid living in a community that is low income or a community that is Black and Brown, gets trapped by a system that disproportionately impacts their lives more than it does others. Bryan Stevenson said we live in a nation ``that treats you better if you are rich and guilty than if you are poor and innocent.'' In the USA, we see Americans getting trapped in a system where the data is clear. There is no difference between Blacks and Whites for using drugs or selling drugs in the USA. There is no difference, but if you are Black, you are almost four times more likely to get arrested for selling drugs and almost three times more likely to be arrested for possession of drugs. This is one of the things that has led to such a dramatic racial disparity in incarceration in the USA. People right now in our country are sitting in prisons for doing things that two of the last three Presidents admitted doing, but they encounter a different type of justice system. The scales of justice in America are not balanced. This is a system that hurts people, and it hurts people who are often already struggling, often already hurt. What we do to people in this country with a nonviolent drug offense is like getting a life sentence for the rest of your life. Even after you have come out of a prison sentence or even if you received no time served at all, once you are convicted of a nonviolent drug offense-- again, like people in this body and in the White House have done before, potentially in this body; I am making no accusations--but once you have been convicted of a crime, for the rest of your life, if you are one of those folks who has been convicted of a nonviolent drug offense, you have to check a box that says you are going to have difficulty being hired, you are going to have difficulty getting housing. You can't get many business licenses. You can't get food stamps. You can't get a loan from the bank. The American Bar Association points to 40,000 collateral consequences that come with a criminal conviction in this country--40,000 collateral consequences that follow you for life for a criminal conviction. We are debating a funding bill that is dominating the news, but we are already throwing an exorbitant amount of taxpayer dollars into the black hole of mass incarceration. That is not making us safer, and it is not making us stronger. In fact, it is making us a more vulnerable community. We have been using more government resources--not to offer more support for law enforcement, not to offer more opportunities for Americans to get mental health care, not to help more folks get access to drug treatment, not to rehabilitate people, but we have been spending more and more money actually hurting more Americans by putting them into a system that actually harms them more often than helps them with their addiction, with their mental health issue, with their trauma. We are using our resources to compound hurt and harm that people have already endured to incarcerate more Americans than ever before in our history, which ultimately makes our neighborhoods and communities one that is like mine: less safe, not more. Despite the fact that our infrastructure in this country is crumbling--that our trains and roads and bridges are in desperate need of repair--we have been investing in a different type of infrastructure. Between 1990 and 2005, a new prison in this country has been opened every 10 days. We spend billions of dollars for the construction of prisons and jails to warehouse human potential: folks who often need help, need counseling, need mental health care, need rehabilitation. We have been taking the far more expensive way and warehousing human beings in our prisons and jails instead of helping them. We call this system a justice system. It is not meant to be a system of retribution; it is meant to be a justice system. It is not meant to be a system of punishment only; it is meant to be a justice system. We are Americans. We have ideals of restoration and rehabilitation. Ultimately, in the United States of America, we all believe this is a nation where redemption is possible. One of our former Senate colleagues who stood in this same well got into a lot of trouble in his youth. He was convicted of multiple crimes--crimes like arson and assault. He attacked a police officer. He actually became one of the most serious outspoken advocates for restoring this broken system. It was Senator Alan Simpson. This is what he once wrote. He said: I was lucky that the bullets I stole from a hardware store as a teenager and fired from my .22-caliber rifle never struck anyone. I was fortunate that the fires I set never hurt anyone. I heard my wake-up call and listened--and I went on to have many opportunities to serve my country and my community. When a young person is sent ``up the river,'' we need to remember that all rivers can change course. He went from an arsonist, a person who attacked police officers, and a person who was admittedly guilty of crimes to a Senator because we are a nation that believes in redemption. The fact is, when most people go to prison, 95 percent of those folks right now in State prisons will come back to our communities. The question is, Will they come out further harmed by the system or better able to start again, better able to avoid more criminality or will they be people who actually help to make us safer and stronger, to be elevated toward that ideal of full citizenship? Those of us in this body who proclaim Christian faith know the story of the prodigal child, that child who did wrong, but yet when he came back, his father embraced him. That story is held in the Christian community as an ideal, but what do we do in America? Is it the story of the prodigal child? It is not because this is a system that right now inflicts harm on those incarcerated rather than trying to rehabilitate them. This is a system that still subjects young people to what other countries and human rights activists in this Nation call torture: juvenile solitary confinement. This is a system that, in some places, still denies women access to basic sanitary products. This is a system that, in some places, still allows the shackling of pregnant women during birth. This is a system that burdens families, hurting them economically and fracturing entire communities like the one I live in. It is a system that inflicts poverty by concentrating its attacks on low-income neighborhoods. In fact, according to a study from Villanova University, the poverty rate in all of America would be 20 percent lower if we had incarceration rates in line with our industrial peers. This system, as a whole, is a cancer on the soul of our country, and it is hurting every single American. Today we have an opportunity to do something about addressing the ills of this system. That is why I am proud this is a bipartisan compromise bill with extraordinary leadership on both sides of the aisle, saying: Hey, there are things we need to begin to correct for this system. There are ways to make this system more fair. There are ways to make this system better reflect our collective values and ideals. Because of this collection of work done over the last years, this bill includes critical sentencing reform that will reduce mandatory minimums and give judges discretion back--not legislators but judges who sit and see the totality of the facts. Thanks to the work of Senator Durbin, the racially biased crack cocaine sentencing disparity has already been negotiated down from 100 to 1 to 18 to 1. It should be equal. It should be 1 to 1, but we made progress. The problem was the change wasn't retroactively applied. Because of that, there are people sitting in jail right now for selling an amount of drugs equal to the size of a candy bar who have watched people come in and leave jail for selling enough drugs to fill a suitcase. We never made this change retroactive. That is not justice. Making this fix in this bill alone will mean that thousands of Americans who have more than served their time will become eligible for release, and it addresses some of the racial disparities in our system because 90 percent of the people who will benefit from that are African Americans; 96 percent are Black and Latino. The bill includes a provision that I have worked on for the past 4 years that will effectively end the use of juvenile solitary confinement among young people under Federal supervision. This bill also takes an important step but still an incomplete step in reforming the way women are treated behind bars. This bill will ensure that incarcerated women will have access to free sanitary products, and it will ban the shackling of pregnant incarcerated women. Last year, I introduced a bill that includes this reform, among others, and I am happy to see it now as part of this legislation. Can we do more? Yes. This legislation is the product of compromise. This legislation is just one step in the right direction. If we pass this legislation, it will be a step in the right direction and I hope will be the momentum for greater, urgently needed reforms that will be supported by conservatives in this country and progressives. Let's make no mistake. This legislation, which is one small step, will affect thousands and thousands of lives. Those are not just some people. When you affect the lives of some Americans on issues of justice, you affect the lives of all Americans because we as a people cannot fall into that trap of separateness, the insidious idea that we think that there are some throwaway people whose dignity we can assault without assaulting our own. Dr. King said, ``Justice is indivisible,'' and he was right. We cannot separate a system of oppression in our country and think that it won't affect us all as a whole. It could not be further from the truth. You cannot deny justice, deny dignity to any American without its affecting us all. You cannot cheapen justice for some without its cheapening the justice of us all. As a man much greater than anyone in this body once said, ``Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' We are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality that is tied in a common garment. We cannot suffer the illusion of separation when we think this criminal justice system that is so punishing of some is not hurting this country as a whole. Our criminal justice system, as it stands right now, is a gaping, self-inflicted wound. This bill is a step--a step--towards healing. It has been perhaps one of the greatest honors of my life--easily one of the greatest honors as a Senator--to have worked in a bipartisan coalition over the last 5 years to get to this point. I have had the opportunity to sit down with people in common cause--from Republicans on the far end of the conservative spectrum to individuals with whom and organizations that on most other issues, I often disagree. Yet we have found common ground because this system is an affront to our most fundamental common values on both sides of the aisle--the value of freedom, the value of liberty, the value of equality, the value of fairness, and the value of justice. We share those common values because we still live in a nation in which the ties that bind us are stronger than the lines that divide us. This bill is a recognition of the fact that we are bound together as a people by the most precious ideals and humanity--the ideals that were put forth by our Founders, which have been aspired to in every generation and have been worked on in every generation to make us a more perfect Union. We know that our Nation's history--the bills and debates we have seen in this very body--is scarred by many wretched injustices--slavery and the denial of universal suffrage, Jim Crow and segregation. Like people--individuals who have done wrong in the past--our Nation has demonstrated the capacity to change. We as a nation have demonstrated the capacity to improve. Like people, we have demonstrated as a nation the capacity to redeem ourselves. None of us should ever be judged by the least of what we have done but, instead, by our ability and our capacity to find redemption. Every generation has worked to make our ideals more true and real, which makes the dream more accessible to us all. We have stood for each other and have worked with each other. We have sacrificed with each other despite our differences in race and differences in color and differences in religion and creed. Every single great gain in this country has been made by multiethnic, multiracial, broad-based coalitions because we recognize the ideal that is above the President's desk, written in stone here, which is the ideal of E pluribus unum-- ``out of many, one.'' We know that it is not just a slogan, that those aren't just words; it is a calling to the people of this country. I want to see more than the bill we have today. I know we can do more than just this bill we have today, but this is a first step. It is a necessary step. For the sake of thousands of Americans whose lives will be directly affected, this is a step in the right direction. I hope that we all come together and make this first step our momentum on the journey. We have work to do in this country, and I am proud to have been a part of what can be an historic step in the right direction. May our work continue. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Would the Senator yield? I wish to express my gratitude on the floor. I have been here in the Senate for almost exactly 5 years, and Senator Durbin and Senator Grassley have been nothing short of heroic, in my eyes, in consistently working the entire 5 years to get us to this point where we are, to use a football metaphor, on the 1-yard line in getting this over. Obviously, Senator Mike Lee and Senator Whitehouse have also been in that category. You did an incredibly good job of laying out that we have amendments that go counter to the victims groups and to their interests and to their well-being, their often emotional well-being, being retraumatized, forced to be back out there. But I want to ask you a question about that last amendment Cotton is making about that so-called exclusion list, people who won't be eligible for particular programs before they are released. In other words, there are programs they can enroll in while they are in prison that would ultimately shave a little bit of time off their sentences. These programs, though--I would like you to maybe go into them because they are evidence-based programs that actually lower recidivism rates, and they save taxpayer money. The idea behind this--maybe you could explain it--is to make sure that when people are released, they don't come back. In other words, if they don't get into these programs, it is more likely that those very people he has tried to exclude might come back. Can you explain why these programs are important and why they make sense?

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, today I wish to add myself as a cosponsor of S. 720, the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, and urge my colleagues to support this important legislation in its modified form. I have long and staunchly opposed the BDS movement and associated efforts to unfairly isolate Israel in international forums. This legislation will prevent international entities from imposing their will on U.S. businesses with regards to their decisions, consistent with U.S. law, to conduct commerce with our close ally Israel and its citizens. After carefully examining the proposed changes to the legislation, I support the amended version of this bill put forward by my colleagues, Senator Cardin and Senator Portman. This revised version of the legislation makes meaningful revisions to the original language to clarify and improve First Amendment protections. Initial concerns that this bill unintentionally infringed on individuals' First Amendment rights have now been addressed by these changes, agreed upon earlier this year, and I feel confident that these modifications safeguard Americans' constitutional right to free speech.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, thank you very much. I want to thank my colleagues from Arizona and Delaware for being here today and for their leadership. I join them in asking the Senate to pass the Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act by unanimous consent. The Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act is a bipartisan bill. Again, I repeat, this is about the legislative branch asserting a commonsense check and balance on Presidential overreach. It is not divided along party lines; it is a bipartisan bill. This bill is about ideals that we all are aligned with--independence, integrity, and the ability of the special counsel and future special counsels to do their job effectively, without interference from a President. This is a proactive bill aimed at ensuring that now and in the future, we have appropriate checks and balances in place to prevent a constitutional crisis. The bill is becoming more urgent. We know that there was an attack on our democracy. We know that there were and are foreign agents who attempted and are attempting to manipulate and undermine our democratic institutions. We need to understand what happened and how to prevent it from happening again and to hold those people accountable for their actions. The preservation of the special counsel investigation is indeed a matter of national security, but we know that the special counsel is in danger. We know he is in danger because even just yesterday, the President was again maligning and mischaracterizing the special counsel investigation. We know there is danger because just a few weeks ago, the President fired Attorney General Sessions and named Matthew Whitaker as the Acting Attorney General to oversee the Mueller investigation. We know that Acting Attorney General Whitaker has a history of criticizing and debasing the very investigation he is now responsible for overseeing. In 2017, he wrote an op-ed calling this investigation into our national security a ``witch hunt.'' This investigation must be allowed to continue without interference. This investigation must continue for our national security. We are all stewards of our democracy. It has been sustained by this ideal: that no one, not even the President of the United States, is above the law. We must act quickly to protect and secure this fundamental democratic ideal. This is a sobered, measured, bipartisan bill that will achieve those ends. I now yield to my colleague from Arizona.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the nomination of Thomas Farr to serve as a district judge for the Eastern District of the great State of North Carolina. Over the past year, I have joined many of my colleagues in the Senate, my esteemed colleagues in the House, and really people from all across the country who have been speaking out about Mr. Farr's troubling record. We see many district court judges come before the U.S. Senate, but I think none has triggered this kind of tumult, this kind of frustration, and this kind of outcry. We have seen an outpouring of advocacy and activism that is now coming around this nomination, but this nomination--and the energy and advocacy of Americans speaking out against it--is, frankly, not about politics. It is not about partisanship. It is about something deeper than just left or right. This is about right or wrong. We are a nation of people who I believe have so much more in common than we have apart. The lines that divide us are nowhere near as strong as the ties that bind us. What binds us? We are bound together not because of many of the more obvious historically held things that hold people together. It is not our language or our religion or our race that holds this Nation and her people together. We are bound to one another because of the ideals we share. We say them in our anthem. We say them in our salute and in our pledge. We know we are a nation of principles and ideals. Some of the most fundamental of those principles, the most sacrosanct of those ideals we share are about and surrounding that right to vote; that every American has the right to vote. When you enter that ballot box, whether you are the richest person in this country or a working- class person from New Jersey, you are equal in that ballot box. You all have that right to vote. That is what makes this a great republic. That is what makes us a great democracy; that your vote will be equally counted and treated equally under the law. Throughout our history, greater Americans have fought to secure these fundamental rights for us. From Seneca Falls to the Edmund Pettus Bridge, Americans have stood and fought and marched and sweated and bled for this right to vote, for suffrage, for universal voting rights. There have been debates on this floor advancing legislation that has secured those rights amongst men and women, further advancing that truth about our country that we will be a democracy where every vote will be counted, where every person will be treated equally in their right to vote. Americans from all backgrounds--multiracial, multiethnic coalitions-- struggled together for these rights and fought together to make them real, but this nomination now stands in direct contrast to that legacy of common sacrifice and common struggle, of that legacy to push for equality. The facts in this nomination are clear, and they again have nothing to do with partisanship but do indicate a very clear pattern of time and again that Mr. Farr has worked to advance a very specific, very anti-democratic agenda, one that is aimed at turning back the clock, in eroding very critical voting rights. We know for a fact that in 1984, Mr. Farr managed the so-called ballot security program for the reelection campaign of Senator Jesse Helms that targeted and attempted to suppress the votes of Black North Carolinians. We know that in 1990, Mr. Farr participated in a so-called ballot security meeting just days before the Helms campaign infamously and notoriously sent tens of thousands of postcards targeting Black North Carolinian votes, suggesting that they were not only not eligible to vote but threatened criminal prosecution if they did. This is not left or right. Republicans and Democrats criticized, decried that method of voter suppression. Mr. Farr has repeatedly claimed that he had no knowledge of the mailing until he was contacted after the fact for legal advice, but I am deeply troubled that despite being given multiple opportunities, Mr. Farr has failed to be completely honest with the Senate about his record. When Senator Feinstein from California asked Mr. Farr: ``Did you ever participate in any meetings in which the postcards were discussed before they were sent,'' he replied unequivocally and simply: ``No.'' But according to a breaking story published by the Washington Post within the last hour, we know that ``during the meeting, participants also reviewed the Helms campaign's 1984 ballot security effort Farr had coordinated `with an eye toward the activities that should be undertaken in 1990.''' The evidence that just came out from the Washington Post again casts a shadow over the truthfulness and the honesty of Mr. Farr about his participation in that meeting and the voter suppression efforts. Again, Mr. Farr misrepresented the context of this meeting in his responses to me both in December of 2017 and January of this year. Finally, we also know that in 2016, Mr. Farr lost one of his biggest cases, defending North Carolina's notorious and discriminatory voter ID law--a law that he helped write because the court found it would target Black North Carolinians ``with almost surgical precision''--target those North Carolinians to be disenfranchised from their right to vote. Time and again, Mr. Farr has worked to advance an agenda aimed at turning back the clock on our democratic advancements, on our common ideals, the commonsense fairness that in this country every vote counts, every person has the right to vote. Time and again, in this process, Mr. Farr has offered misleading and incomplete testimony regarding his record and his work. This is a body that has shown, in its history, the capability to work together in a bipartisan way to protect the right to vote. This body is the one that passed one of the most important pieces of legislation in our history, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but the weight of history isn't just on this body in this moment because it still weighs heavily on so many voters in North Carolina who remember receiving one of those postcards from Jesse Helms in 1984, at the direction of Mr. Farr and others, and who may have received another postcard from the Helms campaign in 1990, threatening Federal prosecution if they exercised their right to vote. It is those people in the Eastern District right now who feel the weight, the pushback on historical advancements, who are watching this body now. Those voters who got those postcards didn't get them because the Helms campaign or Mr. Farr saw value in their vote; they received them because the Helms campaign and Mr. Farr were trying to suppress it. That is anti-democratic. That is an affront to our history. Confirming the person responsible for managing and defending those tactics, who was involved in them, who has misrepresented that fact pattern to this body, wouldn't just be a disservice to North Carolinians, wouldn't just be a disservice to those Americans who received those postcards, it would be a betrayal of the work of generations of Americans from all backgrounds, all races, all religions, a multitude of parties--all of those Americans who joined in that common pursuit in this country to stand up for the right to vote. This is not right or left. This is about whether we move forward or back, and forward we have moved: countless generations, people from different backgrounds standing together, working together, sweating together, bleeding together, marching together, marching feet in the suffrage movement, marching feet in the voting rights movement, marching feet across this country, from protestors like Alice Paul marching in front of the White House to protestors marching through the South, through Alabama, across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, every generation marching forward. This nomination now represents a moment in history, not right or left, but will we continue to march forward? If this body confirms Mr. Farr, it will not be forward-marching. It will be a step backward in the wrong direction, against the historical tide and currents that have gotten us to this wonderful moment together. Let us again stand together in a bipartisan way and say: We will not be turned around; that we will not go backward; that we believe, when it comes to the sacrosanct rights of the Nation, that we will always fight to make sure the right to vote is secure, and we have the truth of this country and will go marching on. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, first of all, I want to give gratitude to both of the Senators who spoke before me, my friend Senator Coons and my friend Senator Jeff Flake. I want to especially thank Jeff Flake for his willingness not just to lead with words but to make a commitment on the Senate floor that he will not be voting on judicial appointments until this is brought to a vote. Senator Flake and Senator Coons have said pretty much all of what I was going to say. Perhaps just very succinctly and very candidly, I want to reiterate this moment we are in and the gravity of the moment we are in. This bill is not a partisan piece of legislation. It comes from a bipartisan effort. It started many months ago, when Senator Graham and I started talking and Senator Tillis and Senator Coons started talking many months ago, not just for this moment in history but also understanding that we have a flaw in our system that does not have an appropriate check and balance on a Presidential power that can put them in a position where they are not subject to the laws of our land. This Special Counsel and Independence Integrity Act came from a bipartisan effort to try to make sure that we have appropriate checks and balances to prevent a constitutional crisis. It is actually a forward-thinking bill, understanding that we should not be reactive in the cause of our democracy but proactive in preventing and securing the great Nation and our laws and our rules that we all cherish. We see a bipartisan bill worked on, crafted, compromised, brought to committee, be voted out of committee, and languish now without a vote, and I agree with Senator Coons that it would get more than 60 votes and would provide a reasonable check and balance. This is a bill that is important for history, but the urgency of this moment Senator Coons has already gone over. We now have the firing of Jeff Sessions, and Jeff Sessions was said to be fired by a President who literally said: ``I would not have hired you if I thought you were going to recuse yourself.'' He was replaced with a person--and Senator Coons has read the quotes--who talked about this investigation and what he would like to do. He called it a witch hunt, and he compromised himself now in the position he is in. The idea that the integrity of this investigation and the idea that the urgency of this investigation will continue under his leadership are in question. That is why this bill is necessary. More than that, we are a nation that has been, is, and will be under attack. All of our intelligence agencies have a consensus on the conclusion that our democracy is under attack. We need to understand what happened, what is happening, how to prevent it from happening again, and hold those people accountable. This investigation has led to numerous guilty pleas. This investigation has led to numerous indictments, and it should be able to run its course without interference. So I will conclude by saying that there is urgency in our country to uphold an ideal and a principle that no one, not a Congress person, not a Senator, not a mayor, not a Governor, not the President of the United States--no one in this country is above the law. There is ample evidence of this body taking reasonable, measured, bipartisan actions to make sure we have the balanced government that was designed and intended by our Founders. This is a reasonable, modest check and balance on Presidential power to ensure that no one, including the President of the United States, is above the law. I am deeply grateful for Senator Coons, Senator Tillis, Senator Graham, and especially for the leadership shown right now by Senator Flake in this important moment to avoid a constitutional crisis. Thank you.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 224, on the motion to invoke cloture on the House message to accompany S. 3021. On vote No. 224, had I been present, I would have voted yea.