Cory Booker

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I am really proud to stand here, having represented New Jersey now a little bit over 3 years in the U.S. Senate. I have to say that I have developed a great respect for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I have a deep belief that this is a body that can do good things for the American people. We don't always agree, and too many things are not getting done, but I have seen this body at its best. I have seen our ability to rise to the occasion. Along the way, I have made friendships and found respect for people and my colleagues across the aisle, as well as fellow Democrats. I have witnessed occasions where Members of both parties have put principle before partisanship and evidenced a willingness to actually embrace personal political risk to stand up for what they believe is right and honorable and in the best interest of our country. Given this, this is a day in which I rise with painful disappointment. Frankly, I feel a deep sense of astonishment and even a sense of crisis. Thus, I feel a deepened determination to fight with everything I have against the efforts of my Republican colleagues that I believe will harm our country as a whole but particularly the most vulnerable people in our country. This is about the Republican push, really the race--what I believe is a reckless race--to repeal the Affordable Care Act without putting forth any legislation, any proposal, any plan on how they intend to replace it. This is fundamentally dangerous, and it will hurt millions of Americans. I have heard over the past month people rightfully saying: Well, this is how the Affordable Care Act was implemented. I understand the frustrations that have resulted from that, and people think this was jammed through along partisan lines many years ago using similar legislative tactics. The truth is, that is simply not the case. The Affordable Care Act went through a long and arduous process and received input from doctors, nurses, patient groups, medical specialists, medical professionals of all types. The Affordable Care Act started with listening sessions, then hearings, then came the advice and counsel of policy experts, businesses, market experts, insurance companies, health nonprofits, hospitals--literally thousands and thousands of people over thousands of hours, often through public discourse, putting forth ideas that actually shaped and changed legislation. I wasn't in the body then. I was a mayor in Newark, NJ, but I know this occupied months of debate. Years later, Republicans are seeking to undo this work with a kind of plan to move forward. They are saying that they have a plan, but no plan exists. I am a big believer that there are things we can and we must do to improve health care in America, to improve the Affordable Care Act, but what I have to make clear is that it is profoundly irresponsible to repeal the Affordable Care Act and not put anything in place. There is no plan. This is at a time that everyone agrees--people in the Republican Party and Democratic Party continue to talk about the achievements of the Affordable Care Act, things that they want to maintain, things they believe make a real difference. Those are things I have heard Republicans praise and even say again they want to protect. These things are making a lifesaving difference for millions of Americans. Let's be clear. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe that we should not give the power back to insurance companies to deny people health insurance because of a preexisting condition. Let's be clear. Most people believe that we should allow young people, young adults to stay on their parents' plans up to the age of 26. We also believe that requiring health plans cover preventive services is a profoundly important thing to do for individuals in this country, but it actually saves Americans money by pushing people to do preventive care--mammograms, birth control, and mental health care-- without cost sharing. These are logical things that the majority of Americans believe in, such as closing the prescription drug coverage gap, which too many seniors on Medicare and people with disabilities have had to face, known as that doughnut hole. We believe in prohibiting insurance companies from charging women more money simply because of their gender. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe in requiring the insurance companies to spend more on patient care and less on administrative costs, and the insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to gouge the American people while making massive profits at the same time. There is so much that people believe in and want to have preserved, and these are tremendous things for America. There are bank account savings; there are lifesaving policies, all of which are popular with Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. They are popular with people on both sides of the aisle in this body. Some Republicans have said that what they are doing will not threaten these accomplishments, but this couldn't be any further from the truth. The way they are going about this puts the health care system in a perilous position. The health care system is complicated in nuance, and to think you can repeal something without replacing it right away shows a lack of understanding of what is going to happen and what the consequences will be. What the Republicans are doing now is quite contrary to what the Democrats did before the ACA passed in 2010. Republicans are not putting forth a proposal. They are not speaking to the health care needs of all Americans. They are not inviting professionals from all different backgrounds to help shape a plan for America. They are not even fulfilling what I heard countless Republicans on the campaign trail, including our President-elect, say: They would repeal and then replace. They are just not replacing. The replace part put forth by the mantra of many Republicans has not materialized. It doesn't exist. There is no plan to replace, no statement of principles, no outline of features, no framework for a plan, no explanation of how they would pay for the things they claim they like. There is no specific timeline for when a plan might materialize or even any substantive hint of what many Republican colleagues plan on doing to address the crisis--the crisis that will surely come as a result of repealing the Affordable Care Act without giving forth any replacement. I say time and again: Show us the plan before you repeal this legislation. If you do not do that, you will be responsible for pain, suffering, chaotic markets, and for many Americans' health care problems. There are many people who don't understand this. They listen to the political rhetoric, and they think: Hey, you might be that one who, if you are wealthy enough or secure enough, if you are a Member of this body, in fact, this concept of repealing and maybe figuring out a replacement down the road might sound good. But if you are one illness away from bankruptcy, if you know and remember the challenges of having a child with a preexisting condition, if you know that one injury, one unexpected fall could place your family in peril but for the insurance you have, if you are one of the 20 million Americans who used to be uninsured and now you have insurance, you know how perilous this moment is. You know that you can't afford the recklessness of any politician-- a Republican move that equates to jumping off a cliff and then packing your parachute on the way down. Repealing without replacing is simply irresponsible, it is dangerous, and it is threatening to our country's well-being. People--families, children, the elderly--will suffer. This is a moment where we need Republican leaders to tell the truth and say: We want to improve our health care system. We may not believe in ObamaCare, but we can't tear it down unless we do the responsible thing and put forth a replacement. Right now, what we have is political rhetoric that is not just rhetoric. It is perilous. It is dangerous. It is threatening to our Nation. This will inflict immediate catastrophe upon families, causing millions to lose their health insurance, and it will unleash chaos with market uncertainty and cost spikes. There is no defense for what is being done. I don't understand it. There is no logic here whatsoever. Elections were won. You now have the floor and the ability to put forth your great vision for health care in America, but doing it backward and repealing something and not offering up a plan is truly putting politics before people. This is a move of grand political theater that comes with profound public consequences affecting millions. As a Democratic Senator, some people will say that this is just political rhetoric, but these are not just partisan words. This is the truth and don't take my word for it. Look at the words of other more thoughtful--other very thoughtful people, Democrats and Republicans, businesspeople and nonprofit leaders, conservative think tanks and nonpartisan groups, speaking with a chorus to the point I am making. Experts across sectors, across industries, and across the country are taking a hard look at what a repeal will mean for the American people without a replacement. People from all across sectors of our country are saying what the Republicans are doing is reckless, and the consequences are dire. Take the American Medical Association, the preeminent association of physicians. Mind you, this is an organization that opposed the enactment of the Affordable Care Act. They have urged--this chorus of doctors has urged that ``before any action is taken, policymakers should lay out for the American people, in reasonable detail, what will replace current policies. Patients and other stakeholders should be able to clearly compare current policy to new proposals so they can make informed decisions.'' The American Medical Association isn't a political organization. They are thoughtful people whose fundamental concern is the doctors in this Nation and the health care of the people. Another respected organization representing American hospitals made it clear. The American Hospital Association warned that Republican action of repealing without a plan would result in an ``unprecedented health care crisis.'' Are Republicans listening to doctors and hospitals or are they rushing forth, willing to risk a crisis for our country, and for what? They are a President for 4 years, a Congress for 2. What is the rush to put forth a plan and just repeal? Will they listen to these experts? What about the president of America's leading cancer group, the American Cancer Society? Will they listen to them? They urge Congress to ``consider the future of the Affordable Care Act. It is critically important that cancer patients, survivors and those at risk of the disease don't face any gap in coverage of prevention or treatment. . . . Delaying enactment of a replacement for 2 or 3 years could lead to the collapse of the individual health market with long-term consequences.'' This organization is respected by people on both sides of the aisle and is not playing partisan games. They are calling out the truth; that it is a reckless Republican move to repeal without replacing. Will Republicans listen to the American Diabetes Association? Folks with diabetes are Independents, Republicans, and Democrats, and this is an organization respected by people on both sides of the aisle. They say: The Association strongly opposes going back to a time when . . . treatment for preexisting conditions like diabetes could be excluded from coverage; when people could find their insurance coverage was no longer available just when they needed it most. What is the Republican plan to address these concerns and to pay for these concerns? Will they listen to private businesspeople? They, too, join in the chorus of Americans urging that Republicans not endanger the lives and livelihoods of millions. The Main Street Alliance. We all have main streets in our States and our communities. A group representing these small businesses from across the country urges lawmakers to consider the devastating effect a repeal without replace would have on small businesses: Small business owners depend on healthy and vibrant communities to keep us profitable in the engines of economic growth. . . . Changes to our current health care system are needed, but not in the form of cuts to critical programs or through taking away our health coverage. There are some Senators who are speaking out. It is not the entire Republican caucus. There are some who are saying exactly what I am saying. Yet we are still rushing toward a vote, even with Republican Senators having the courage to stand up. Just yesterday Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, before voting to proceed to this measure, said: ``It is imperative that Republicans do a replacement simultaneous to a repeal.'' I respect my Republican colleague for saying what is common sense and speaking up against the reckless actions being taken by the Republican Party as a whole, and some fellow Republican Senators have joined him in similar statements, including Lamar Alexander, the chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. The Republican from Tennessee, who noted in an interview in November 2016 that when it comes to the ACA, ``what we need to focus on first''--Senator Alexander said--``is what would we replace it with and what are the steps that it would take to do that?'' Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine shared in an interview last month that she was ``concerned about the speed in which this is occurring'' and expressed concern over what would happen to her constituents in Maine who had signed up for insurance through the ACA, saying: ``You just can't drop insurance for 84,000 people in my State.'' I not only talk about Republicans in this body, but there are conservative think tanks focused on our country that are speaking out now as well. The American Enterprise Institute said in a 2015 report that ``repealing the law without a plausible plan for replacing it would be a mistake.'' So here we have it from all over the country, people across the political spectrum, experts, market analysts, insurance executives, doctors, nurses, hospital leaders, patient groups; these people in our country who are beyond politics and even beyond their opinions of the Affordable Care Act when it was enacted are now speaking in a chorus of conviction in one voice: Don't repeal the Affordable Care Act without a clear plan to preserve the things that are making America healthier and more financially strong and secure. Don't recklessly rush into a politically motivated move that would endanger the health care of millions of Americans, increase the costs for millions of Americans, throw insurance markets into chaos, endanger our hospitals' financial stability, and put our most vulnerable Americans into crisis: our seniors, people in nursing homes, retired coal miners, people recovering from drug addiction, the poor and other underserved communities. We are America, and this is a time that we must call, not to party rhetoric but to who we are and what we stand for. We cannot let this repeal without replacement happen. We must know what the Republican plan is so experts, market analysts, insurance folks, doctors, everyone understands what will happen. Americans will be hurt. It is time to put our country and the people first. There is no rush. The voters gave this body 2 years. It gave the Presidency 4 years. We must now fight these efforts. We must resist. We must call to the conscience of neighbors and appeal to the moral compasses of our Republican leaders to do what they said they would do--put forth your plan. Let the American people know what they are going to do and do not thrust millions of your fellow country men and women off a cliff and shout promises to them as they fall: ``Hey, don't worry. We will figure something out before you hit the ground.'' Where is the honor in that strategy? Call the public together, gather your experts, put forth a thoughtful process, and develop what you think is better, what improves upon what we have now, what doesn't diminish our unassailable gains that we have had but build upon them. Give us a plan, not empty promises. Give America hope. Don't plunge millions into despair and uncertainty. Show decency, not costly craven politics. We know who we are as a country. Profound are the words, ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men. . . . `' This government, this body, the United States Senate, led by Republicans here and in the House and in the White House, must stand for these ideals. Health care is critical to life. We must stand for these ideals. Health care is critical to liberty, our freedom from fear, our freedom from illness, our freedom from deprivation. We must stand for these principles. Health care is critical to the happiness, the joy, the greatness of America. To secure these rights, governments are instituted, and we were elected to stand for the American people, by the American people, to fight to defend our brothers and sisters. This government and actors must put our ideals first, not partisanship and not theater. Do not attack these ideals through a rash and reckless repeal. Be thoughtful. Be kind. Be magnanimous. The well-being of our Nation is in the balance. May God bless us in this time of crisis. May wisdom prevail over politics. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Fair Calculations in Civil Damages Act of 2016, also known as the Fair Calculations Act. This critical civil rights legislation would ensure that Federal judicial awards of civil damages do not value women and minorities less than other Americans. By combating discrimination in the award of civil damages, the Fair Calculations Act would help bring our nation one step closer to fulfilling the promise of equal justice under law. I thank Senator Gillibrand for her support, and I am proud she is an original cosponsor of this bill. I also thank Rep. Kennedy, who is introducing the House companion to this bill, for his leadership. A basic tenet of the American legal system is our shared belief that ``all men are created equal,'' an idea so critical to who we are and what we believe that it is explicitly reflected in our Declaration of Independence. Even our national charter reflects the idea that everyone must be given equal protection under the laws. Out of this constitutional foundation lays a simple truth: to be equal under the law means, at a minimum, that neither our government nor the rule of the law should discriminate against anyone by virtue of his or her membership in a group. Sadly, our Nation fails to live up to those promises when courts award damages in civil cases. Far too often, Federal and State judges use race or gender as factors to weigh when deciding how much money to award a plaintiff in a civil case. As a result, individuals of a certain race or gender often receive larger awards than people of a different race or gender, even in similar cases. This damages awards gap derives from estimates of how much money an individual would have earned over their lifetimes had they not been injured and, far too often, that estimate considers earnings and job levels by race and gender. Consider the case of James McMillan, an African-American man who was injured during the 2003 Staten Island ferry crash. As a result of the crash, Mr. McMillan suffered a severe spinal cord injury that caused him to need medical care for the remainder of his life. He sued the City of New York. In response to his suit, the City of New York argued that he should receive less money for his injury because data demonstrated that African-American victims of spinal cord injuries lived fewer years than white victims and, therefore, he would incur fewer medical costs. Fortunately, the judge in that case rejected the city's argument. But no American should have to endure the indignity of having the value of their life determined by their race or gender. The use of race and gender to project future earnings in courts is a widespread problem. According to a 2009 survey by the National Association of Forensic Economics, 44 percent of forensic economists reported considering race and 92 percent reported considering gender when estimating future earning rates for injured children. Even leading scholars have been critical of this practice. Martha Chamallas, a law professor at the Ohio State University Law School, called the practice reminiscent of something ``civil rights advocates [fought] in the 1960s.'' Jennifer Wiggins, a law professor at the University of Maine Law School, has emphasized that the practice ``reinforces past discrimination and pushes it out into the future and endorses.'' I could not agree more. The Fair Calculations Act, which I introduce today, would bar Federal courts from awarding damages based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or actual or perceived sexual orientation. Justice in an American court should not turn on race or gender, and the time has come to put an end to this discriminatory practice in Federal courts. I also believe this bill would serve as a road map for States who I hope will end this discriminatory practice in their courts. The legislation would require the Department of Justice and the Department of Labor to develop guidance to the States on how calculations of future earnings for a violation of State tort law could violate Federal equal protection laws. That is yet another example of how this bill aims to persuade states to follow our lead. By issuing guidance to the states on this issue, the impact of this bill has the potential to be even more far-reaching. The bill would require the Department of Labor to issue guidance to forensic economists on how to create inclusive future earnings tables that do not rely on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or actual or perceived sexual orientation. Forensic economists are often used as experts in both Federal and State courts to advise lawyers and judges on the proper amounts to award for damages. Instructing these experts on the benefits of more representative future earnings tables and the legal hurdles of using less inclusive earning tables is yet another way to ensure that future earnings in State courts do not harm women or minorities. Finally, the Fair Calculations Act would direct the Judicial Conference of the United States to conduct a study and report to Congress on the use of race, ethnicity, gender, age, disability, or actual or perceived sexual orientation in the calculation of future earnings in civil court cases. This provision provides for more transparency and record keeping. The first step to fixing a problem is understanding the extent of the problem you have, and this provision allows for Congress to track the extent of Federal judicial awards based on demographics. It also allows for more open government, which is important because transparency allows the American people to hold its government accountable. Our Nation was founded on the idea that all people are created equal. Valuing one person's life more than another merely because of the color of their skin or sex belies this core value that makes our Nation great. The Fair Calculations Act would remedy this wrong and continue our country down the path towards fulfilling our Nation's promise of liberty and justice for all. I am proud to stand here today and introduce this critical bill and I urge its speedy passage.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Fair Calculations in Civil Damages Act of 2016, also known as the Fair Calculations Act. This critical civil rights legislation would ensure that Federal judicial awards of civil damages do not value women and minorities less than other Americans. By combating discrimination in the award of civil damages, the Fair Calculations Act would help bring our nation one step closer to fulfilling the promise of equal justice under law. I thank Senator Gillibrand for her support, and I am proud she is an original cosponsor of this bill. I also thank Rep. Kennedy, who is introducing the House companion to this bill, for his leadership. A basic tenet of the American legal system is our shared belief that ``all men are created equal,'' an idea so critical to who we are and what we believe that it is explicitly reflected in our Declaration of Independence. Even our national charter reflects the idea that everyone must be given equal protection under the laws. Out of this constitutional foundation lays a simple truth: to be equal under the law means, at a minimum, that neither our government nor the rule of the law should discriminate against anyone by virtue of his or her membership in a group. Sadly, our Nation fails to live up to those promises when courts award damages in civil cases. Far too often, Federal and State judges use race or gender as factors to weigh when deciding how much money to award a plaintiff in a civil case. As a result, individuals of a certain race or gender often receive larger awards than people of a different race or gender, even in similar cases. This damages awards gap derives from estimates of how much money an individual would have earned over their lifetimes had they not been injured and, far too often, that estimate considers earnings and job levels by race and gender. Consider the case of James McMillan, an African-American man who was injured during the 2003 Staten Island ferry crash. As a result of the crash, Mr. McMillan suffered a severe spinal cord injury that caused him to need medical care for the remainder of his life. He sued the City of New York. In response to his suit, the City of New York argued that he should receive less money for his injury because data demonstrated that African-American victims of spinal cord injuries lived fewer years than white victims and, therefore, he would incur fewer medical costs. Fortunately, the judge in that case rejected the city's argument. But no American should have to endure the indignity of having the value of their life determined by their race or gender. The use of race and gender to project future earnings in courts is a widespread problem. According to a 2009 survey by the National Association of Forensic Economics, 44 percent of forensic economists reported considering race and 92 percent reported considering gender when estimating future earning rates for injured children. Even leading scholars have been critical of this practice. Martha Chamallas, a law professor at the Ohio State University Law School, called the practice reminiscent of something ``civil rights advocates [fought] in the 1960s.'' Jennifer Wiggins, a law professor at the University of Maine Law School, has emphasized that the practice ``reinforces past discrimination and pushes it out into the future and endorses.'' I could not agree more. The Fair Calculations Act, which I introduce today, would bar Federal courts from awarding damages based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or actual or perceived sexual orientation. Justice in an American court should not turn on race or gender, and the time has come to put an end to this discriminatory practice in Federal courts. I also believe this bill would serve as a road map for States who I hope will end this discriminatory practice in their courts. The legislation would require the Department of Justice and the Department of Labor to develop guidance to the States on how calculations of future earnings for a violation of State tort law could violate Federal equal protection laws. That is yet another example of how this bill aims to persuade states to follow our lead. By issuing guidance to the states on this issue, the impact of this bill has the potential to be even more far-reaching. The bill would require the Department of Labor to issue guidance to forensic economists on how to create inclusive future earnings tables that do not rely on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or actual or perceived sexual orientation. Forensic economists are often used as experts in both Federal and State courts to advise lawyers and judges on the proper amounts to award for damages. Instructing these experts on the benefits of more representative future earnings tables and the legal hurdles of using less inclusive earning tables is yet another way to ensure that future earnings in State courts do not harm women or minorities. Finally, the Fair Calculations Act would direct the Judicial Conference of the United States to conduct a study and report to Congress on the use of race, ethnicity, gender, age, disability, or actual or perceived sexual orientation in the calculation of future earnings in civil court cases. This provision provides for more transparency and record keeping. The first step to fixing a problem is understanding the extent of the problem you have, and this provision allows for Congress to track the extent of Federal judicial awards based on demographics. It also allows for more open government, which is important because transparency allows the American people to hold its government accountable. Our Nation was founded on the idea that all people are created equal. Valuing one person's life more than another merely because of the color of their skin or sex belies this core value that makes our Nation great. The Fair Calculations Act would remedy this wrong and continue our country down the path towards fulfilling our Nation's promise of liberty and justice for all. I am proud to stand here today and introduce this critical bill and I urge its speedy passage.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I wish to thank my Senate colleague from Delaware, Senator Coons, for his extraordinarily eloquent and, frankly, urgently passionate voice on issues of solitary confinement, as well as for all the work he is doing on criminal justice reform as a whole. This bill that he and Senator Durbin have worked so hard on and that I am so proud to cosponsor, along with Senators Leahy and Franken, is a critically important bill when it comes to the overall reforming of our criminal justice system. Please understand, as the Senator from Delaware has said, this is currently a practice in our Federal system as well as in State prisons. It is an archaic, damaging, ineffective, and inefficient practice that actually works against the public interests--not just their financial interests but even the safety and well-being of our communities. Now, solitary confinement--many people don't know exactly what we are talking about. As Senator Coons said, it is people being kept in a prison cell for 22 to 24 hours a day with little to no outside human interactions. Senator Coons said it is a fact that on any given day, we now have 80,000 to 100,000 incarcerated people in State and Federal prisons who are being held in rooms often no bigger than a parking spot. We know that inmates placed in solitary confinement can be put there for the most minor of infractions--for literally just filing papers with the court to try to assert their constitutional rights. We also know that solitary confinement is extraordinarily expensive--more expensive than nonsolitary confinement. In fact, on average, it costs about $75,000 each year for an individual to be housed in solitary confinement. Yet it is increasingly clear that this overuse, especially for low-level offenders--not people who have done violent crime, not people who have assaulted a correctional officer, but people who are there for low-level, nonviolent crimes--we know that this is providing little benefit to no benefit for the public good, but what is extraordinary is it is creating conditions which could harm the public. Solitary confinement has irreversible effects on the human brain, which may lead inmates to harm themselves or others. It does psychological damage. It can do serious psychological damage, making a person more dangerous. So here we have a correctional system that doesn't correct but actually is doing more harm and putting people in a position where they can be more dangerous to themselves, to their fellow inmates, and to society as a whole. It makes no sense. International bodies understand this. Other nations have referred to it as torture. The United Nations considers long-term isolation to be cruel and degrading treatment. Here we are in the United States of America, which I firmly believe is a symbol to the Nation--to the globe--of justice, righteousness, and decency, yet we are engaging in tactics that many of our peer nations consider cruel and degrading. We know the data. It is clear that isolation actually worsens mental illness and can actually create issues in those who were previously seen as psychologically healthy. Researchers estimate that at least 30 percent of inmates held in solitary confinement already have a mental disorder. So this is how we are treating mental illness. We incarcerate not just the poor, but we incarcerate the addicted and the mentally ill. In prison we should seek to make those populations better, healthier, to deal with their disease or their mental disorder, yet we are using practices that aggravate these conditions. We know data has shown that holding inmates in isolation not only makes mental illness worse for the individual, but it has truly negative impacts on their lives, the lives of their families, and their communities when they are released. We know that while confinement for short periods of time may be necessary for safety--and please understand that the security of our correctional officers is critical in prison environments, but to allow these practices to go on actually doesn't make our correctional officers safer; it makes their job more dangerous and puts them at greater risk. This is why correctional officers across the country are speaking out. The very people who have to conduct the work in our prisons are speaking out against solitary confinement. One Texas correctional officer said: ``When you cut out social interaction, you are dealing with a person who has nothing to lose, and that is extremely dangerous.'' Kevin Kempf, the director of the Idaho Department of Corrections, remarked that reforming the practice of solitary confinement ``is not a soft-on-inmates approach; this is a public safety approach.'' He refers to a time in 2014 when 44 inmates were released directly from isolation in a maximum security prison and out to the public. That means that they were released, as in the case that Senator Coons explained, from solitary confinement--from these conditions of no social interaction, from an environment that researchers deem aggravating to mental illness--and they go right from that solitary confinement environment out into the public. He remarked about this case: Those 44 inmates, we took belly chains and leg irons off of them and walked into your community. That is irresponsible of me as a director. Frankly our taxpayers should expect more of me, should expect more of our staff, to do things differently. It should come as no surprise to any of us that the use of solitary confinement has received criticism both from law enforcement folks-- folks who have sworn oaths to protect the public--as well as the civil rights community, civil libertarians, the medical community, and the legal community. Just last year, in a Supreme Court case, Davis v. Ayala, Justice Kennedy denounced the widespread use of solitary confinement in prisons. Justice Kennedy cited a litany of the possible side effects from prolonged isolation, including anxiety, panic, withdrawal, hallucinations, and self-mutilation. After examining the evidence, Justice Kennedy concluded that ample ``research still confirms what the Court suggested a century ago; years on end of near-total isolation exacts a terrible price . . . [t]he penal system has a solitary confinement regime that will bring you to the edge of madness, perhaps into madness itself.'' This is not a criminal justice system that reflects our highest values. It doesn't stand for moral rights when we are exacting such cruel punishment that doesn't just do punitive damage but also puts an inmate in a situation where they can cause more harm and damage to themselves and others. So the bill that Senator Coons talks about--the bill that we are introducing with Senator Durbin--would substantially limit the ability of the Bureau of Prisons to use solitary confinement in Federal facilities. The bill would mandate that solitary confinement be limited to the briefest terms under the least restrictive conditions practicable, and it would preclude the BOP from placing vulnerable populations in solitary confinement, like minors--like children--as well as people with serious mental illnesses, physical disabilities, and pregnant women. Critically, this legislation wants to promote more data collection. The bill would require the BOP to collect data on the use of solitary confinement, and it would create a national resource center on solitary confinement reform under the Bureau of Justice Assistance. This is an issue--the issue of solitary confinement--that has been a priority for me here in the Senate from my beginning months. In fact, over a year ago, in August of 2015, I worked with members of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on an oversight hearing to explore current practices at the Federal Bureau of Prisons. I requested this hearing because of the urgent need to shine a spotlight on our broken criminal justice system, including what occurs within the walls of Federal prisons that the general public does not see that is being done in the name of the public. The hearing was a good first start to improve transparency on solitary confinement. At the hearing, we heard testimony from a wide range of stakeholders, including the head of the Bureau of Prisons and advocates. Udi Offer, from the New Jersey ACLU, testified that ``our nation has seen a dramatic increase in the use or reliance on solitary confinement over the last couple of decades.'' I also introduced the MERCY Act, a bill that would prohibit the use of solitary confinement of youth adjudicated delinquent in the Federal system unless it is a temporary response to a serious risk of harm to the juvenile or others. Our justice system must ensure justice in the deepest, richest meaning of that word. That is what we swear an oath to, that we will be a nation of liberty and justice for all--not just some but for all. It means that we need to begin to expose the practices that are happening in our prisons and understand the consequences to all of this-- increased financial expenditures, increased risk to our security and our safety, increased risks of recidivism. Our justice system should not be engaged in practices that people across the spectrum in America--political, medical leaders, and others--really do view as harmful, inefficient, and ineffective. I am proud to cosponsor the Solitary Confinement Reform Act. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and advance it in the Senate. I thank Senators Durbin and Coons for their leadership. This is a time where we need national urgency on this issue. It is unfortunate that what happens in our prisons is seen as something that we as a public wash our hands of--throw them away, throw away the key. That kind of logic doesn't solve problems, it perpetuates them. It doesn't make us safe, it makes us less safe. It doesn't save us money, it costs us more. These kinds of practices undermine the foundation of common sense as well as moral rectitude. We stand for more than this as a country. We should set an example that ultimately as a nation we are not about retribution, we are not about disproportionate punishment, we are about restorative justice. Solitary confinement as a practice being done now is an assault on justice. It is an offense to our moral values as a nation. It calls for reform. I am proud to stand with my colleagues today to introduce legislation that will begin to take us down that important road to justice for all.

Mr. BOOKER

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

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I wish to thank my Senate colleague from Delaware, Senator Coons, for his extraordinarily eloquent and, frankly, urgently passionate voice on issues of solitary confinement, as well as for all the work he is doing on criminal justice reform as a whole. This bill that he and Senator Durbin have worked so hard on and that I am so proud to cosponsor, along with Senators Leahy and Franken, is a critically important bill when it comes to the overall reforming of our criminal justice system. Please understand, as the Senator from Delaware has said, this is currently a practice in our Federal system as well as in State prisons. It is an archaic, damaging, ineffective, and inefficient practice that actually works against the public interests--not just their financial interests but even the safety and well-being of our communities. Now, solitary confinement--many people don't know exactly what we are talking about. As Senator Coons said, it is people being kept in a prison cell for 22 to 24 hours a day with little to no outside human interactions. Senator Coons said it is a fact that on any given day, we now have 80,000 to 100,000 incarcerated people in State and Federal prisons who are being held in rooms often no bigger than a parking spot. We know that inmates placed in solitary confinement can be put there for the most minor of infractions--for literally just filing papers with the court to try to assert their constitutional rights. We also know that solitary confinement is extraordinarily expensive--more expensive than nonsolitary confinement. In fact, on average, it costs about $75,000 each year for an individual to be housed in solitary confinement. Yet it is increasingly clear that this overuse, especially for low-level offenders--not people who have done violent crime, not people who have assaulted a correctional officer, but people who are there for low-level, nonviolent crimes--we know that this is providing little benefit to no benefit for the public good, but what is extraordinary is it is creating conditions which could harm the public. Solitary confinement has irreversible effects on the human brain, which may lead inmates to harm themselves or others. It does psychological damage. It can do serious psychological damage, making a person more dangerous. So here we have a correctional system that doesn't correct but actually is doing more harm and putting people in a position where they can be more dangerous to themselves, to their fellow inmates, and to society as a whole. It makes no sense. International bodies understand this. Other nations have referred to it as torture. The United Nations considers long-term isolation to be cruel and degrading treatment. Here we are in the United States of America, which I firmly believe is a symbol to the Nation--to the globe--of justice, righteousness, and decency, yet we are engaging in tactics that many of our peer nations consider cruel and degrading. We know the data. It is clear that isolation actually worsens mental illness and can actually create issues in those who were previously seen as psychologically healthy. Researchers estimate that at least 30 percent of inmates held in solitary confinement already have a mental disorder. So this is how we are treating mental illness. We incarcerate not just the poor, but we incarcerate the addicted and the mentally ill. In prison we should seek to make those populations better, healthier, to deal with their disease or their mental disorder, yet we are using practices that aggravate these conditions. We know data has shown that holding inmates in isolation not only makes mental illness worse for the individual, but it has truly negative impacts on their lives, the lives of their families, and their communities when they are released. We know that while confinement for short periods of time may be necessary for safety--and please understand that the security of our correctional officers is critical in prison environments, but to allow these practices to go on actually doesn't make our correctional officers safer; it makes their job more dangerous and puts them at greater risk. This is why correctional officers across the country are speaking out. The very people who have to conduct the work in our prisons are speaking out against solitary confinement. One Texas correctional officer said: ``When you cut out social interaction, you are dealing with a person who has nothing to lose, and that is extremely dangerous.'' Kevin Kempf, the director of the Idaho Department of Corrections, remarked that reforming the practice of solitary confinement ``is not a soft-on-inmates approach; this is a public safety approach.'' He refers to a time in 2014 when 44 inmates were released directly from isolation in a maximum security prison and out to the public. That means that they were released, as in the case that Senator Coons explained, from solitary confinement--from these conditions of no social interaction, from an environment that researchers deem aggravating to mental illness--and they go right from that solitary confinement environment out into the public. He remarked about this case: Those 44 inmates, we took belly chains and leg irons off of them and walked into your community. That is irresponsible of me as a director. Frankly our taxpayers should expect more of me, should expect more of our staff, to do things differently. It should come as no surprise to any of us that the use of solitary confinement has received criticism both from law enforcement folks-- folks who have sworn oaths to protect the public--as well as the civil rights community, civil libertarians, the medical community, and the legal community. Just last year, in a Supreme Court case, Davis v. Ayala, Justice Kennedy denounced the widespread use of solitary confinement in prisons. Justice Kennedy cited a litany of the possible side effects from prolonged isolation, including anxiety, panic, withdrawal, hallucinations, and self-mutilation. After examining the evidence, Justice Kennedy concluded that ample ``research still confirms what the Court suggested a century ago; years on end of near-total isolation exacts a terrible price . . . [t]he penal system has a solitary confinement regime that will bring you to the edge of madness, perhaps into madness itself.'' This is not a criminal justice system that reflects our highest values. It doesn't stand for moral rights when we are exacting such cruel punishment that doesn't just do punitive damage but also puts an inmate in a situation where they can cause more harm and damage to themselves and others. So the bill that Senator Coons talks about--the bill that we are introducing with Senator Durbin--would substantially limit the ability of the Bureau of Prisons to use solitary confinement in Federal facilities. The bill would mandate that solitary confinement be limited to the briefest terms under the least restrictive conditions practicable, and it would preclude the BOP from placing vulnerable populations in solitary confinement, like minors--like children--as well as people with serious mental illnesses, physical disabilities, and pregnant women. Critically, this legislation wants to promote more data collection. The bill would require the BOP to collect data on the use of solitary confinement, and it would create a national resource center on solitary confinement reform under the Bureau of Justice Assistance. This is an issue--the issue of solitary confinement--that has been a priority for me here in the Senate from my beginning months. In fact, over a year ago, in August of 2015, I worked with members of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on an oversight hearing to explore current practices at the Federal Bureau of Prisons. I requested this hearing because of the urgent need to shine a spotlight on our broken criminal justice system, including what occurs within the walls of Federal prisons that the general public does not see that is being done in the name of the public. The hearing was a good first start to improve transparency on solitary confinement. At the hearing, we heard testimony from a wide range of stakeholders, including the head of the Bureau of Prisons and advocates. Udi Offer, from the New Jersey ACLU, testified that ``our nation has seen a dramatic increase in the use or reliance on solitary confinement over the last couple of decades.'' I also introduced the MERCY Act, a bill that would prohibit the use of solitary confinement of youth adjudicated delinquent in the Federal system unless it is a temporary response to a serious risk of harm to the juvenile or others. Our justice system must ensure justice in the deepest, richest meaning of that word. That is what we swear an oath to, that we will be a nation of liberty and justice for all--not just some but for all. It means that we need to begin to expose the practices that are happening in our prisons and understand the consequences to all of this-- increased financial expenditures, increased risk to our security and our safety, increased risks of recidivism. Our justice system should not be engaged in practices that people across the spectrum in America--political, medical leaders, and others--really do view as harmful, inefficient, and ineffective. I am proud to cosponsor the Solitary Confinement Reform Act. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and advance it in the Senate. I thank Senators Durbin and Coons for their leadership. This is a time where we need national urgency on this issue. It is unfortunate that what happens in our prisons is seen as something that we as a public wash our hands of--throw them away, throw away the key. That kind of logic doesn't solve problems, it perpetuates them. It doesn't make us safe, it makes us less safe. It doesn't save us money, it costs us more. These kinds of practices undermine the foundation of common sense as well as moral rectitude. We stand for more than this as a country. We should set an example that ultimately as a nation we are not about retribution, we are not about disproportionate punishment, we are about restorative justice. Solitary confinement as a practice being done now is an assault on justice. It is an offense to our moral values as a nation. It calls for reform. I am proud to stand with my colleagues today to introduce legislation that will begin to take us down that important road to justice for all.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize John Centanni, a firefighter, lifelong Newarker, and friend who is retiring from the Newark Fire Department after 30 years of dedicated service. A true public servant, John has guided the Department since 2010, providing steady leadership during a critical time. John G. Centanni was born to John and Pamela Centanni on July 25, 1965, in Newark, NJ, where he was raised with his younger sisters, Marlene, Angela, and Cassandra, in the city's North Ward. In 1986, at the age of 20, John fulfilled a childhood dream when he became a Newark firefighter. Over the three decades that followed, John advanced through the ranks, serving as captain, batallion chief, deputy chief, chief of staff to the battalion director, and finally, fire chief. Assigned to Engine 6--one of our Nation's busiest--John quickly became known for his exceptional work ethic and commitment to safety. As a firefighter, he earned numerous commendations for courage, valor, and heroism, including two Individual Lifesaving Awards from the Newark Firefighters Union. In 1992, he was inducted into the Police and Firemen's Insurance Association Heroes Hall of Fame, in recognition of his lifesaving work. In 2010, John's substantial experience, impressive record of leadership and service, and great reputation among his fellow firefighters made it easy for me to select him as Newark's fire chief. During his tenure at the helm of New Jersey's largest municipal fire department, John was instrumental in securing Federal funding for equipment upgrades and maintaining crucial relationships and mutual aid agreements with sister fire departments. These accomplishments made Newark and our State safer, saving countless lives. John will retire from the city of Newark on October 21, 2016. His career of three decades, spent exclusively with the Newark Fire Department, has been marked by incredible heroism and service. It is a true honor to formally recognize Fire Chief John G. Centanni for the contributions that he has made to the citizens of Newark throughout his career, thank him for his tremendous service, and wish him happiness in a well-deserved retirement.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Washington for her remarks. As for me, this is the third time this month that I have come to the Senate floor to speak about the Supreme Court nomination currently pending before the judiciary and the judicial vacancy crisis as a whole in our country. It has been 7 months since Chief Judge Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court, and it is still pending. It has been about 19 months since Judge Julien Neals was nominated to the District Court of New Jersey, and it is still on hold. As was the case in the last two times I have come to the floor to speak, our country is not only operating with an incomplete Supreme Court, but it is also operating with a judicial vacancy crisis across the Nation in multiple Federal courts. The Supreme Court's term is about to begin next week, and without action to schedule a vote and confirm Judge Garland's nomination, the Supreme Court will still be operating without a ninth Justice, just as it has been for the past 7 months. I do not believe that was the intention of our Framers. I do believe that because this body is not doing anything about this nomination, it is having a material effect on another branch of government, which I believe is a subversion of the framing of our Constitution and the functioning of our government. By failing to hold the vote on Judge Garland's nomination, we are continuing to cripple one of our coequal branches of government. It is unacceptable that we would consider taking a 7-week break from the business of the Senate before ensuring that one of our coequal branches of government is operating as it was intended by our Framers. There is no credible reason for the refusal of a vote for Judge Garland's nomination, and this kind of wait for a Supreme Court Justice's confirmation is unprecedented in our history. Republicans and Democrats have clearly stated over the years how well qualified Judge Garland is as a nominee. In fact, we have seen multiple people remark that he is not just well qualified, but in the grand scheme of the partisan divides in our country, he is relatively moderate in his judicial history. Unfortunately, though, with that, we are still failing to see an up-or-down vote in this body. There is no reason this distinguished body should not confirm Chief Judge Garland so that we have a full complement of Justices on the Supreme Court when the next term convenes. We also know that across the country, as I said earlier, Federal judges are overworked and, of course, understaffed because of the vacancy crisis. The last time I came to the floor on this issue, I noted that we faced 90 judicial vacancies in our courts across the country, 35 of which have been deemed judicial emergencies. A judicial emergency is not some subjective conclusion; it is an objective conclusion by judicial experts and judicial staff that has nothing to do with the partisan politics of our land. Yet we are seeing no action being taken. There are 30 nominations currently pending on the Senate Executive Calendar, and all but two were voted out of committee by unanimous vote. That includes 20 district court nominees. Both Republicans and Democrats in this body gave a unanimous vote in the Judiciary Committee. The nominations pending on the Executive Calendar are from States all across the country, from east to west. These places include New Jersey, New York, California, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Hawaii, Utah, Massachusetts, Maryland, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Wisconsin, Indiana, North Dakota, South Carolina, and Idaho. Today, when we are perhaps days from adjourning for another long recess--7 weeks--I rise, as I said, for the third time not only to ask Republicans with great respect and reverence for all nominations going on in the Senate, but also to ask that we push this bipartisan package of well-qualified nominees that includes two people who are next on the list, Ed Stanton and Julien Neals, the two longest waiting judicial nominees from Tennessee and New Jersey, as well as nominees from New York, California, Rhode Island, and two nominees from Pennsylvania, again supported in a bipartisan fashion in the Judiciary Committee. The nominees from New Jersey and Tennessee are the two longest waiting nominees currently before the Senate, and as such, deserve to be the next two scheduled nominees up for a vote. I have rejected or stood up in opposition to any efforts to skip those two nominees. Mr. Stanton is the nominee for the Western District of Tennessee. He is highly qualified, and his experience will suit him well as a judge in the Federal court. Mr. Stanton is a highly regarded member of the Memphis community and someone recommended to the President by my colleague Senator Lamar Alexander. Judge Neals is the nominee for the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, possessing undeniably strong qualifications. He possesses significant legal experience, a distinguished judicial career, and an unwavering commitment to justice. His skill, legal aptitude, and unique thoughtful perspective are needed on the Federal bench now more than ever. I know Julien Neals personally. I worked by his side for close to a decade when I was a mayor--7 years to be exact--and I have seen the thoughtfulness of this individual. He is one of the more impressive people I have met in my professional journey. There is no reason why Judge Neals or Edward Stanton, the two longest waiting nominees, have had to wait so long to be confirmed. So I hopefully and simply ask that the Senate promptly vote on the next two nominees in line, making sure our judicial system is functioning at its highest capacity. This isn't a Republican or Democratic issue. It is an American issue. I have been honored to serve people in New Jersey in the Senate for nearly 3 years. During my time in this body, I have been surprised, inspired, and challenged by colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but I have come to a point of hope and hopefulness that when it comes to real issues, such as the functioning of another branch of government, we can come together, and we have the capacity to do the right thing. I know this body is better than a tit-for-tat process, where we measure how many nominees President Bush got versus President Obama. This was not the intention of the Constitution, not the intention of our Framers, and it is not something that has been the tradition of our country. I know the good the Senate can do for Americans across the country. Part of our obligation is to ensure a functioning judicial system that can deliver justice for America. This Senate is failing to uphold its duty now and has plunged our Nation into a level of judicial crisis that is unacceptable. We can and we must do better.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the dedication of Joseph Boardman, the president and chief executive officer of Amtrak. After nearly 8 years of service, Mr. Boardman will retire from Amtrak this month. He is the second longest serving leader in Amtrak's history. Mr. Boardman has spent his life in transportation and public service. As a boy, Mr. Boardman would watch the buses passing on Route 69 as he was working in the fields on his family farm. His father persuaded him of the importance of transportation and started him down to the road to a career in public transportation. After graduating from high school, he enlisted in the U.S. Air Force in 1966 and served the United States in Vietnam. He received his bachelor's degree at Cornell and his master's from SUNY Binghamton. Mr. Boardman's transportation career began as a bus driver. Later, he went on to manage the transportation authorities for the cities of Rome and Utica. He also worked in Broome County as the commission of transportation services, before starting his own transportation company in 1995. Mr. Boardman later went on to serve as the longest serving Commissioner of Transportation in New York State's history. In 2005, he became the Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration. During his transportation career, Mr. Boardman has been a fierce advocate for improving safety. At the Federal Railroad Administration, he played a particularly important role in the development and passage of the 2008 Rail Safety Improve Act. This bill mandated the implementation of positive train control technology to help prevent crashes and fatalities on America's railroads. Under Mr. Boardman's leadership at Amtrak, the railroad led the Nation in implementing this lifesaving technology. At Amtrak, Mr. Boardman has also made improvements in how Amtrak operates. He has been responsible for a host of financial, technical, and safety improvements at the railroad, as well as numerous investments in infrastructure improvements. During Mr. Boardman's tenure, Amtrak has hit its highest ridership levels; annual ridership reached and passed 30 million passengers per year. Amtrak's debt dropped to a third of the 2002 level, which allowed the railroad to replace its aging elective locomotive fleet and improve service on the Northeast corridor. Amtrak has made numerous improvements to its infrastructure thanks to Mr. Boardman's careful stewardship of the Federal investment in Amtrak. In my State, we know just how important that is, as Amtrak works to build the Gateway Project, connecting New Jersey and New York via a new tunnel under the Hudson River. Finally, it goes without saying that Joe Boardman has been the heart and soul of Amtrak. He has been a passionate advocate for maintaining nationwide Amtrak service, for increasing passenger rail service around the country and for providing the best possible service to Amtrak riders. His dedication to the railroad will be sorely missed. I congratulate Mr. Boardman on his service and wish him well in his retirement. Thank you.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, yesterday I joined my colleagues Senators Nelson, Thune, and Fischer in introducing the Surface Transportation and Maritime Security Act. The security of our Nation's ports and rail and surface transportation systems is critical to the daily lives of Americans, as well as to the health of our national economy. I thank my colleagues for joining together on this important legislation and hope that it leads to improved safety for our country. This legislation comes months after the tragic attack on the Brussels metro and airport which killed 35 and injured over 300, and it comes just days after explosives were detonated in New Jersey and New York, threatening the lives of thousands. The sad reality is that attacks like these occur, and we must do more to protect our citizens. The fact is mass transit and rail systems are challenging to secure. Meeting this challenge requires us to have a strategy in place that recognizes the evolving threats to surface networks and puts sufficient resources in place to match those risks. Currently, less than 2 percent of the Transportation Security Administration's, TSA, budget and staff are dedicated to protecting surface transportation networks. While the Federal role has been to support and oversee State and local efforts to secure transit and other surface networks, we need to ask ourselves whether we are doing enough to protect passengers. The Surface Transportation and Maritime Security Act requires the TSA Administrator to implement risk-based security plans for surface transportation in order to ensure resources are being driven to the most high-risk places. The bill directs TSA to conduct careful analysis to consider risks and provide mitigation strategies using information from global terrorist attacks. Additionally, I thank my colleagues for working with me to include language to the bill that will authorize more bomb-sniffing canines to be utilized to deter threats in our railroad networks and surface transportation. The bill also helps improve the screening of maritime workers and includes further measures to reform and improve port security. The bill includes several other important provisions that will yield new data to help inform future security needs. The bill is a product of compromise with my colleagues, and we will also need to work with our appropriator colleagues to ensure TSA has the resources to take these important security measures. Again I thank my esteemed colleagues for partnering together on this legislation.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, as I said earlier, Julien Neals is someone whom I was proud to recommend to President Obama. Julien Neals is right there with the next jurist, Edward Stanton from Tennessee. They are well-qualified jurists who are the only two African Americans on the long list of the next 15. Both of these men have demonstrated skill, earned distinction, and they have incredible legal careers. Right now, the second longest nomination pending on the floor is Judge Neals, who was first nominated over a year ago--in fact, 19 months ago. He has been nominated to fill what is now a judicial emergency, as I stated, which means more specifically that the caseload is extraordinarily high, that other good public servants in our State are doing their best to keep up but cannot, and the course of justice is being perverted. The people of New Jersey deserve better from us as a body, and this seat should be filled. It is an act of simple justice. It is an act of mercy at this point. A hearing was held on his nomination in September of 2015, and his nomination was passed out of committee in November of 2015. Since that time, Judge Neals' nomination has been sidelined by this body. Judge Neals has incredibly strong qualifications, and more than that, this is a man I know. I know his family. I have seen up close and personal the sacrifices he has made. It is no surprise that the American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary has unanimously rated Judge Neals as ``well qualified'' to the district court. He received the highest possible ranking. Judge Neals has extensive legal experience, a distinguished judicial career, an unwavering commitment to justice, as well as private sector experience. As an attorney, Judge Neals worked in public service, which is where I knew him, but before that in a distinguished private practice. He has most recently been a county councilman in Bergen County. I know a county executive there who raves about him but understands the higher calling and aspirations he has to be a federal district court judge. Judge Neals has an impressive breadth of judicial experience. He graduated from Morehouse College and Emory University School of Law. He started his career as a law clerk on the New Jersey Superior Court. Later, he served as the chief judge of the Newark Municipal Court. That is how I got to know him. Judge Neals also has an unwavering commitment to justice and a balanced view. He is a moderate man. At a time when our Nation is working to address so many complicated issues, I believe we need this man on the bench. I believe he would make all of us proud--not Republicans or Democrats but Americans. Judge Neals understands issues. He understands scholarship. He has demonstrated his worth, his aptitude, and his thoughtfulness. This is the kind of guy I think all of us would want on the bench. There is no credible reason why we are not moving forward besides partisanship. I just can't see it. So I rise again to ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations. Regular order would mean that we would go to these two judges who happen to be qualified African Americans, and regular order would bring us to these longstanding men who have been sitting on the sidelines now for well over a year. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 359 and 362; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have not been in the Senate that long, but when I came to the Senate, there were just months left when the Democrats were in the majority. I am sure, as the pendulum swings back and forth, I will be in the majority again and I may have a chance to show true to what I am about to say, but I cannot imagine that I would support what I see going on right now if the Democrats were in the majority. When I read the Constitution, it makes no claim to political parties or tit for tat or that we should have one President who gets a certain number of nominations versus another President getting another number of nominations. Should we add up the number of Republican Presidents over the last century and Democratic Presidents over the last century and somehow compare the number of judges? That was not the intention of the Constitution. There is a branch of government independent of ours that we are strangling right now through our inaction. Any objective understanding of the functioning of the American Government should clearly demonstrate that one branch should not strangle the operations of another, undermining what is clearly in the best interests of the people. This is not a partisan tit for tat--Bush had this many, Obama had this many; this is about the fact that we have a proliferation of judicial emergencies and that our very economy is being undermined because businesses can't get a fair hearing before the judicial branch. It actually is written clearly, the idea of having a justice system that works in a timely fashion. This seems to be an affront to what the purpose of this body is as spelled out in the Constitution. I can't go with a partisan tit for tat--that is just not in my blood--on an issue that has been so fundamentally spelled out in the Constitution. We are measuring how many Bush had versus how many Obama had. Clearly, there are so many more vacancies that happened to come through the course under the Obama administration--90 vacancies versus what we had in the Bush administration, which was significantly less. It would be one thing if these nominations were clearly partisan, but these nominations are coming from red States and blue States. They are coming from Republican Senators--recommendations to the President, mind you--and Democratic Senators. If we are going to indulge in a partisan analysis of this, the unanimous consent request offered by the Republican leader is for States that are red and purple States. I represent New Jersey. I have the longest--or second longest-- pending judge on the floor, a qualified judge with an incredible history of service and sacrifice to country and community. This is a judge who happens to be African American in a State that urgently needs diversity on the bench as well. I heard a lot of talk when I first got here--and again, I am new-- about how important regular order is. Why are we skipping judges and not going through the regular order? I have tremendous respect for the majority leader and the pressures he faces on a daily basis, but this I cannot understand. When I read the Constitution, I cannot understand why this body is strangling the functioning of the other body and why my State is dealing with this judicial emergency, unnecessarily so. When I came here, I was instructed on what to do, and I have been following regular order to fill this seat in New Jersey, so I respectfully object to the majority leader's request for unanimous consent.

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I am grateful for the time. I am hoping that in the intervening hours and days we are here in Washington, DC, we can give some attention to this profound obligation we have of keeping the functioning of the three branches of government and perhaps solve this impasse. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the judicial nominations that are currently pending before the Senate and the fact that we have a very serious vacancy crisis in the United States. We have a challenge based upon the unwillingness of the majority to put on the floor a number of judges who are pending and have been pending for many months. This is a serious problem, and it is causing problems in States all around the country. We have critical challenges in performing our role of helping the judiciary--that independent branch of government--to function. I would be wrong not to mention Judge Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court, which has now been pending before the Senate for 7 months. This is the longest period in U.S. history that a Supreme Court nominee has been pending not only for an up-or-down vote but also pending to have hearings on the qualifications of this judge. This judge would absolutely bring great qualifications. In fact, nobody has had more Federal judicial experience. Yet we refuse to move forward, to go through a process that is spelled out in the Constitution in the sense that we are supposed to make sure that the judicial branch has a full complement of judges. For 7 months now, the Supreme Court has not been functioning as was intended by the Constitution. The Supreme Court is missing a Justice, and because of that vacancy, cases have resulted in 4-to-4 tie votes. As a result of those 4-to-4 decisions, we lack a national precedent in cases that could guide lower courts, bringing resolutions that are necessary for ordinary Americans who go before our justice system seeking justice as was intended in the Constitution. It is challenging in providing certainty to businesses. It is challenging in providing the regular course of many Americans' lives. The Supreme Court's next term begins in just 2 weeks. It seems that we will be out in recess, but they again will be trying to do the business intended of the Court. I do not believe there is any justifiable reason that this distinguished body should not confirm Justice Garland or frankly even go through the process of having hearings and ultimately a vote. The Supreme Court was intended to have nine Justices. We are not doing our job. Justice Garland would not be the first to be confirmed in the month of September and not the first to be confirmed during a Presidential election. In fact, a total of 13 Supreme Court Justices have been confirmed in the month of September, including Chief Justice Roberts, William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Sandra Day O'Connor. This inaction of ours is putting the Supreme Court at a disadvantage. The disadvantage is not to the Supreme Court; it is actually ours as the American people. Across the country, though, we know that Federal judges at other levels of the judiciary are facing a real crisis. They are overworked and are understaffed because of a judicial vacancy crisis. We now face 90 judicial vacancies in our courts across the country, and 34 of them have actually been declared judicial emergencies. This is not a subjective declaration; this is an objective declaration. Right now, in the United States of America, there are 34 judicial emergencies. In contrast to previous administrations, by the end of September, 2008, in the last year of the Bush administration, Democrats had reduced those vacancies--not where we are right now with 90 judicial vacancies--all the way down to 34. In addition to Judge Garland's Supreme Court nomination, 30 nominations are currently pending on the Senate Executive Calendar, all except two of whom were voted out of committee by unanimous vote in a bipartisan manner. This includes 20 district court nominees that were put forth in bipartisan spirit. There are nominees pending on the Executive Calendar from States including Tennessee, New Jersey, New York, California, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Hawaii, Utah, Massachusetts, Maryland, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Louisiana, Indiana, North Dakota, South Carolina, and Idaho. These are red States and blue States and purple States. These are our States here in our country. I believe it is time to act on people who are well-qualified. I believe it is time for us to act on people who have bipartisan support--names that have come with recommendations by Republicans and Democrats, two of whom were approved by voice vote and all of whom, except for two, were approved by voice vote. Two weeks ago, I joined with several of my colleagues all of whom came to the Senate floor to ask for consent for the Senate to begin voting on nominees pending on the Senate Executive Calendar. Senators have the right to vote yes or no on those nominees, but we believe they should be at least brought to the Senate floor for a vote. In rejecting our requests, Senate Republicans made the counteroffer for the Senate to vote on a package of nominees. At that time they were skipping over the next two in line. I know there has been more discussion about that, but the reality is, I cannot support skipping one of the longest standing judicial nominees, Judge Julien Neals in New Jersey, where there is now a judicial emergency, where the people who are suffering--I don't know what their political backgrounds are, but these are business people, these are citizens who are now facing unbelievably long waits as a result of these judicial emergencies. Nominations are from red and blue States. This is a time when we should act in a way that belies the partisan rancor that is so often associated with this body. By voting on these nominees, the Senate would follow the regular order, something many of us are calling for, regardless of who is in power on the Senate floor. We should be moving on the longest pending nominees on the floor. Mr. President, I rise today to make a request, to humbly ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 359, 362, 363, 364, 459, 460, and 461; that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I wish to commend the hardworking men and women in New Jersey who have made significant strides to ensure our State keeps pace with modern technology when it comes to public safety. This month, all 21 counties in our great State will have access to expanded 911 services, by being able to text to 911 in case of emergency. This exciting new development will help save lives across our State and serves as a national model for receiving public safety services. Text to 911 further empowers persons with disabilities--such as hearing or speech impairments--who may have previously faced barriers to accessing emergency services. Today, 911 in New Jersey is open and accessible to more residents than ever before, and I commend the hard work and collaboration in New Jersey that resulted in this accomplishment. Tragically, there are situations that happen every day where victims of crime or domestic violence are not in a position to physically call 911. With text to 911, individuals who can't speak on the phone can still access vital services. Further, with text to 911 enabled, there may soon come a time when victims can send information they never could have before, such as photos which can be instantly shared with first responders on the ground. In February of this year, the text to 911 system was rolled out at Rutgers University and showed excellent results. In July, Camden County announced its successful implementation of this new service. And today all counties in our entire State have access to this convenient way of reaching local police. While this service is incredibly important and helps bring our emergency communications into the 21st century, it is important to note that, at this time, a phone call is preferred over a text message. I commend the educational campaign that has accompanied the text to 911 roll out, sharing the message to ``call if you can, text if you can't.'' With this month's announcement, New Jersey leads the way as the fifth State to implement text to 911 in the entire Nation. This major achievement would not have been possible without the commitment and collaboration from cellular providers, Rutgers University, and other host sites across the State, as well as State and local governments and emergency response professionals who came together to advance this goal. I am confident that text to 911 will have a tremendous impact on the residents of our State, and I hope our successes and lessons learned in New Jersey can help further inform other States seeking to update their 911 capabilities and better protect their citizens.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Yes, there is objection. I object to the modification.

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as the junior Senator from New Jersey, this is difficult for me because one of the judges the Republican leader is suggesting be skipped is the judge who has been waiting for the longest time. Judge Julien Neals has been waiting since February of 2015. He is someone who came out of the committee with bipartisan support and someone who has deep qualifications. In addition to this, he is suggesting that we skip another judge named Ed Stanton, who is the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Tennessee. I bring out those two judges who are next on the list. They are the two longest waiting judges for the district court--one from May and one from February. I single those two out not just because one of them is from New Jersey but, if you look at the list of the next 15 judges, these are the only two African Americans on the list. The two longest waiting district court judges and the only two African Americans are the two who are being singled out, among others, to be skipped over in what the Republican leader is suggesting. I know that for my colleagues in the Republican Party this is not a conscious thing. I know this is a coincidence and that it is not intentional that the two longest waiting judges--the only two African- American judges on this list of 15--are being skipped over, but I do feel it is necessary to point out this fact. At a time when this Nation is looking at this judicial system as needing to confront judicial bias, at a time when judicial organizations of all backgrounds are pointing out the need for diversity on the Federal court, what is being suggested right now is that we come up with a bargain to skip over the two longest waiting district court judges, who happen to be the only two African Americans on the list of the next 15. That, to me, is unacceptable, especially when you look at the qualifications of these two judges and especially if you look at their wide bipartisan support within the Judiciary Committee. The perception alone should be problematic to all of us in this body. So I would like to object to this offer, especially given the tensions that exist right now in our country, the urgency for diversity on the bench, and the clear qualifications of these men, and, finally, the fact that they have been waiting since May and February of 2015. Thank you.

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I rise again to continue the plea to move forward when it comes to fulfilling the vacancies now pending in our courts. I don't know about the Constitution saying anything about a tit-for-tat--what one President got another should get--but to me the obligation of the Senate is clear, and that is, we have an obligation to do our job and to fill vacancies. During this Presidency, significantly more vacancies have come up because of retirements and other reasons. As we have already heard from the Senator from Massachusetts, not only are there double the vacancies, but the judicial emergencies being talked about now, which have nothing to do with party, are real. Around our country right now, there are many districts that are in crisis because of our failure to do our job. Relying on a tit-for-tat partisan understanding reflected nowhere in our Constitution is unacceptable when we are not supporting the proper functioning of the judiciary. We have nominations on the floor, ones that have passed out of the Judiciary Committee in a bipartisan fashion. One of those nominations-- to fill a vacancy in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey--is Julien Neals, who is a well-qualified nominee and who has had to wait for over 19 months on his nomination--19 months. On this list, he is the longest waiting judge. Judge Neals has served as the chief judge of Newark Municipal Court, worked in private practice, and served his community as corporation counsel and business administrator for the city of Newark. The President nominated Judge Neals to the Federal bench over a year and a half ago. A hearing was held on his nomination in September 2015. The Judiciary Committee favorably reported his nomination by voice vote in November of 2015. The delay in confirming this nomination is unfair to the people of New Jersey, who expect their justice system to be working in its full capacity. But we know this isn't just a burden for New Jerseyans; States across this country are being forced to shoulder the Senate's failure to confirm judges, precipitating a massive judicial crisis in our country. Continued judicial vacancies means that current Federal judges will be overworked and understaffed. Continued judicial vacancies means the American people must wait a year or two or longer to receive justice in a case. This goes counter to the very ideals we pledge allegiance to, this idea of liberty and justice for all. Without judges on the Federal bench, justice is denied for the woman who was fired on account of her gender. Without judges on the Federal bench, justice is denied for the transgender individual who is seeking to access a restroom or other public accommodation. Without judges on the Federal bench, justice is denied for the criminal defendant who deserves a speedy trial before a jury of their peers--fundamental constitutional ideas. The longer the Republican leadership delays filling our country's judicial vacancies, the longer justice is denied for Americans across our country. I ask the Senate to promptly vote on the next two nominees who would be up, nominees from Tennessee and New Jersey. The Western District of Tennessee nominee, Edward Stanton, is a former U.S. attorney and has been pending for over 16 months. It is important for me to point out, especially after the suggestion from the Republican leader that we skip these first two judges, the longest waiting judges--I know there was no intention here, but I think it is important that we point out that in the compromise suggested by the majority leader, these are the only 2 African-American judges in the next 15. So here we have two of the longest waiting judges, two qualified judges, two judges who passed out of the Judiciary Committee, two judges who deserve Senate action and who are also African-American judges who can help create diversity on our Federal judiciary so that it better reflects our society as a whole. Given all of that--the totality of the crisis in our country, the urgency that is explicitly addressed in our Constitution that the Senate do its job--I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 359 and 362; further, that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed and that, if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I want to thank Mike Lee for coming to the floor and speaking with such heart and conviction. Also, I want to thank Senator Durbin for his stand on the floor today. Please understand, Senator Lee, Senator Grassley, Senator Durbin, Senator Leahy, and so many Senators on both sides of the aisle have been speaking on this issue for years. In fact, since before I became a U.S. Senator, this moment has come. As Senator Durbin began talking about the issues of the day, where there is so much frustration, so much concern, so much consternation, so much divisiveness on this issue of criminal justice in America, it made me think personally about this idea of hope because this week I have talked to a lot of people who seem to be indulging in a dangerous, toxic state of being, which is hopelessness about criminal justice issues in our country. I have appreciated Senator Durbin, who has not just been a senior Senator, not just been steadfast in working on this issue, but he has been a friend, calling me up, not just this past week but weeks before, when lots of Americans were indulging in hopelessness about the divisiveness in our country, about the injustices in our country, about the ravages of a broken criminal justice system. As I have been thinking about hopelessness, I keep coming back to this understanding, taught to me by teachers on the streets of Newark, NJ, that hope does not exist in an abstract; that hope is the active conviction that no matter how bad things get, despair will not have the last word; that hope is a choice that must be made amidst hopelessness; that amidst despair, amidst frustration, you have to choose hope; and that choosing hope means you commit yourself to a process that doesn't divide this country but that unifies it with the conviction that we can be a nation that makes real the words we pledge when we say we are a nation, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. This week we need those words. We need that hope. Mike Lee and Dick Durbin, two politicians on opposite sides of the spectrum, said: Hey, this is a time that we should be pushing hope, indivisibility, and we have a bill that addresses issues at the core of so much of the frustration going on. It doesn't solve all the issues, it doesn't wave a wand, but it will advance us toward liberty and justice for all because, unequivocally, we have gone off the rails. Since 1980, the land of the free broke with the rest of the world and became the incarceration nation. Our prison population has exploded since 1980. The Federal prison population is up 800 percent. Our overall prison population is up 500 percent. We have only about 5 percent of the globe's population, but one out of every four incarcerated people on the planet Earth are right here in America. In response to a criminal justice system that has lost its proportionality in its punishment and that seems to have become more about retribution than restorative justice, a criminal justice system that is rife with the stories that Mike Lee talked about when he talked about Weldon Angelos and a judge who himself cried out about the injustice of sentencing someone to 55 years for a nonviolent drug crime or Alton Mills, whom Senator Durbin spoke about, who was sentenced to life in prison for a nonviolent drug crime, we in America went off the rails. I am hopeful today because on the right and the left, not just Members of this body but from the Koch brothers to Newt Gingrich, to Grover Norquist, to the ACLU, people on both sides of the political spectrum said we can do better because this broken criminal justice system is hurting us. Rather than being a tool for public safety and social order, as was intended by our criminal justice system, it instead became an industry and an end to itself. It became a massive exploding bureaucracy, draining our economic prosperity. In fact, one study has shown we would have 20 percent less poverty in America if our incarceration rates were similar to our industrial peers. This has been a divisive drain on our cohesive society, a misappropriation of taxpayer funds. While our infrastructure has been crumbling, we have led the planet Earth in building out a prison infrastructure. In fact, between the time I was in law school in the mid-1990s to the time I became mayor of Newark, we were building a new prison in this country every 10 days. Congress has increased Federal spending on prisons alone by 45 percent since about the year 2000. Congress has cut spending on the things that keep us safe, such as law enforcement at the State level, by 76 percent--putting someone like Weldon Angelos in prison for 55 years, hundreds of thousands of dollars in a long, disproportionate sentence for a nonviolent crime that could have gone to public safety, like hiring police officers for our community. What is painful to me in this time is that our criminal justice system--the data that I gave would be painful enough, but our criminal justice system clearly disproportionately affects poor people, leading authors like Bryan Stevenson to say that we have a criminal justice system that seems to treat you better if you are rich and guilty than poor and innocent. Blacks and Whites have no difference in America in using or selling drugs, but African Americans are about 3.6 times more likely to get arrested for selling drugs. Instead of a criminal justice system that unites us under principles of justice and fairness, we see it disproportionately persecuting groups because they are poor or because they are of color. If you look at Latinos, they account for the largest group of offenders convicted of offenses that have a mandatory minimum at 38 percent. Native Americans are grossly overrepresented in the criminal justice system with an incarceration rate 38 percent higher than the national average. Eighty percent of Americans in our criminal justice system are represented by public defenders, meaning that they are deemed by the court to be indigent, to be too poor to afford an attorney. Our justice system does not reflect our values. This drug war is not being carried out in a way that is fair or just, and it is not just hurting the poor, the mentally ill, the drug addicted, the minorities. It hurts all Americans because it drains our resources; it drains our treasure. When I say ``treasure,'' I don't just mean money. We have come to a point in America today where millions of children have had parents who are incarcerated, and it hurts generationally the best of our Nation, the promise of our Nation. The irony about our lack of action in putting this bill to a vote is that States are already moving more quickly than we are. Red States, Georgia and Mississippi and Texas, have been doing things for years that we have been proposing in this bill, and have yet to enact, that have shrunk their prison populations. Guess what has happened in States such as Texas and Georgia and Mississippi, which have lowered their prison populations. Guess what happened. Their crime went down, as well, because when you have a system that is not about retribution but about restorative justice, that has proportionality in sentences, you not only save money for your State, but you also empower people to succeed and lower crime. When States start to put drug addicts in treatment as opposed to jail, it empowers people to succeed, saves money, and lowers the prison population. It is common sense. Red states have acted. We have seen the success. But in the Federal prison population, there is an 800 percent increase. It takes away money that should be spent on homeland security, money that should be spent on investing in public safety, money that should be spent for our public universities, money that should be saved for the taxpayers but is now going, still fueling one of the biggest growing bureaucracies we have seen in the last 40 years. This calls for unity in our country. I tell you, we have unity. When I can stand in partnership with Mike Lee and Chuck Grassley, when you have people like Patrick Leahy and Dick Durbin--these folks are not normally mentioned together as partners on legislation, but I am proud that some of the most esteemed Members, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, both agree that we can put more justice in our justice system. We can do something to reverse this trend, and we can begin to put rationality back so that the values of this country are made more real. I am proud to have negotiated and worked with Chairman Grassley, who is sitting across the aisle from me right now. I am honored. In the 3 years I have been in the Senate, one of the more proud things that I have accomplished is to find common ground with my Republican colleagues on the other side in a bill that I know--from the neighborhood and block that I live on to across the country--would make a difference. Now we have encountered some sclerosis, some blockage. A dam exists between where we stand now and greater justice for our Nation. This has been a tough week. It has been a week of frustration and grief and sadness. This is a time that we should choose hope. It is a time that we should choose unity. It is a time that this very body should be saying to America: Hey, we have challenges, but we can find common ground. We can come together, left and right, Black and White. We can do better than we are doing now. It is a hard walk that we have ahead, but this body can start leading on issues of justice. There have been other difficult times in our country when this body answered the call. There have been times where people were fearful, people doubted, and there have been times where people felt their heart was heavy. I am proud that, in our history, it was in those times that leaders emerged and chose hope. My prayer is that in the waning days of this Congress, with all the important things we have on our agenda, we remember that there are people right now who are stuck in despair. There are people who don't believe in our indivisibility, as we say in our Pledge of Allegiance. There are people who are frustrated. It is my hope, when it comes to issues of criminal justice, a system that is so obviously broken, that we choose reform; that we choose healing; that we demonstrate unity; that on this issue we bring forward a bipartisan bill that begins to cast away some of the darkness that hangs over our country with the light and wisdom that is in this bill that reflects both sides of the political aisle and, I believe, that reflects the best of who we are as a body. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Clarence Gideon Full Access to Justice Act, Gideon Act, and the Equal Justice Under Law Act of 2016, two bills aimed at addressing the access to justice crisis. Today, America's broken justice system is riddled with deficiencies in our indigent defense system and gaps in legal services to the poor. To repair those shortcomings, these bills would improve the justice delivery system that serves people who are unable to afford counsel. Gaps in legal services to the poor exist at all levels of our justice system. To fill in those gaps in the highest court of our land and better balance the scales of justice between the government and the defendants, the Gideon Act would establish an independent federal public defender office charged with representing poor defendants before the United States Supreme Court. To address the indigent defense crisis in the states, the Equal Justice Under Law Act would create a private right of action that allows a class of indigent defendants to sue in federal court when systemic violations of their Sixth Amendment rights to counsel occur. In 1963, the Nation's highest court ruled that Americans have a Sixth Amendment right to an attorney in a criminal case, even if they cannot afford one. In Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court declared it an ``obvious truth'' that ``any person hailed into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided to him.'' By clarifying that counsel must not only be present, but be ``effective,'' Gideon marked a landmark shift towards creating a justice system that safeguards equal justice under law for all. Nearly 5 decades after Gideon, its promise of equal justice remains unfulfilled. Today, the federal government has no entity dedicated to furnishing legal counsel for criminal defendants in Supreme Court cases. Rather, lawyers in private practice who volunteer their services or public defenders who often have never argued before the High Court are often tasked with delivering competent legal representation to the poor in Supreme Court criminal cases. The prosecution, however, has highly specialized lawyers from the U.S. Department of Justice who represent its interests. With a small cadre of lawyers from the Solicitor General's Office dedicated solely to Supreme Court litigation, the government amasses considerable appellate experience before the Court. As the most frequent advocate before the Court, the Solicitor General routinely files writs of certiorari and argues criminal cases each term. With this experience, the government has the opportunity, foreclosed to defendants with private attorneys, to establish familiarity and, ultimately, credibility with the Court. The structural imbalance between prosecutors and defendants at the Supreme Court has a profound impact on our justice system. Without counsel trained and experienced in Supreme Court advocacy, the likelihood that cases are decided against criminal defendants increases. In addition, the development of criminal precedent can far too often tilt in favor of the government and against the civil rights of ordinary Americans seeking justice in criminal cases. To address these structural deficiencies, I am introducing the Gideon Act. This bill would establish a Federal corporation called the Defender Office for Supreme Court Advocacy, which would be dedicated to Supreme Court advocacy on behalf of criminal defendants. The bill aims to breathe life into the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of effective assistance of counsel and to help level the playing field at the Supreme Court between prosecutors and defendants. The Gideon Act would empower the office with critical tools to zealously represent indigent defendants at the front end, middle, and back end of the Supreme Court advocacy process. At the front end, known as the writ of certiorari stage, the office would have authority to monitor noncapital Federal and State cases seeking Supreme Court review for Federal law issues. By allowing the office to file cert petitions in criminal cases, the office could have critical input into which criminal cases the Supreme Court accepts to hear and decide. By empowering the office to consult with lawyers representing criminal defendants seeking the High Court's review, the office can serve as a resource to lawyers inexperienced in Supreme Court advocacy. During the middle of the process, known as the merits stage, the office would be empowered to zealously represent the poor. From filing merits and ``friend of the court'' briefs to responding to the Court's ``call for views'' on complex criminal law issues to participating at oral argument in criminal cases, the office could provide all forms of advocacy on behalf of the poor. As such, the office would provide a necessary counter-weight for defendants to prosecutors' specialized Supreme Court expertise within Solicitor General's Office. It would also provide a centralized resource for defenders to develop uniformity on federal criminal case law. On the back end, after a Supreme Court case is completed, the office could help train other defenders throughout the nation on the unique experience of practicing before the Supreme Court. In addition, the office would have the power to participate in appellate advocacy before the highest State courts in our land, if resources permit. This tool is necessary to help develop criminal case law nationwide since most criminal cases that the Supreme Court hears a term come Federal criminal law issues arising from State courts, rather than from Federal courts. Today, I am also introducing the Senate companion to H.R. 5124, the Equal Justice Under Law Act. This bill aims to address America's public defense crisis, and I thank Rep. Patrick Maloney for his leadership on this bill in the House of Representatives. Today, many State and local governments have failed to provide the funding necessary for public defenders to keep pace with the flood of criminal cases. Without resources, many public defenders lack the staff, training, or time to investigate each case adequately and prepare a robust legal defense. As a result of being underpaid and overworked, they are simply unable to provide the accused with their right to effective assistance of counsel. Ample evidence exists that shows the state of public defense in America is in crisis. According to the American Bar Association, anywhere from 60 to 90 percent of criminal defendants need publically funded attorneys. Yet, due to a lack of resources, far too many public defenders are unable to meet this demand. In fact, a 2013 report from the Brennan Center for Justice concluded that public defense offices are so overworked and underfunded that clients are not getting the legal representation they need. Citing a funding disparity between the prosecution and public defenders, the report found that State prosecutors' office budgets were $5.8 billion in 2007, while State and local public defender expenditures were only $2.3 billion. Excessive caseloads are another example of how Americans' right to counsel is defective. In 2009, the Constitution Project's National Right to Counsel Committee--comprised of current and former judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and law enforcement officials--released a report entitled ``Justice Denied: America's Continuing Neglect of Our Constitutional Right to Counsel.'' The report found that all too often indigent defendants were provided counsel late or not at all. Even when a public defender represented a defendant, the report showed that lawyers' excessive caseloads made effective representation simply not possible. In conclusion, the report recommended ``litigation to remedy such deficiencies should be instituted.'' To help fix the indigent defense crisis, the Equal Justice Under Law Act of 2016 would implement this common-sense recommendation into action. The bill would create a federal cause of action that allows indigent criminal defendants to file a lawsuit against states and localities for systemic failures to provide effective assistance of counsel in felony cases. Litigation to be a useful tool to remedy systemic failures when indigent defense systems require defense attorneys to represent more clients than they can competently represent or otherwise fail to assure legal representation in compliance with the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel. The bill would require states to consult with representatives from the public defender community prior to distributing Byrne JAG funds. Currently, Federal defenders are eligible for Byrne JAG funds. Yet, in practice, Federal defenders may not get the same proportion of these funds as prosecutors and law enforcement. So this provision would ensure that defenders are consulted before critical Federal funds are distributed. This access to justice legislation has the support of numerous civil rights groups, such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Innocence Project. Our public defender system is broken. It is time we fix it. I am proud to introduce the Gideon Act and the Equal Justice Under Law Act and I urge their speedy passage.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Clarence Gideon Full Access to Justice Act, Gideon Act, and the Equal Justice Under Law Act of 2016, two bills aimed at addressing the access to justice crisis. Today, America's broken justice system is riddled with deficiencies in our indigent defense system and gaps in legal services to the poor. To repair those shortcomings, these bills would improve the justice delivery system that serves people who are unable to afford counsel. Gaps in legal services to the poor exist at all levels of our justice system. To fill in those gaps in the highest court of our land and better balance the scales of justice between the government and the defendants, the Gideon Act would establish an independent federal public defender office charged with representing poor defendants before the United States Supreme Court. To address the indigent defense crisis in the states, the Equal Justice Under Law Act would create a private right of action that allows a class of indigent defendants to sue in federal court when systemic violations of their Sixth Amendment rights to counsel occur. In 1963, the Nation's highest court ruled that Americans have a Sixth Amendment right to an attorney in a criminal case, even if they cannot afford one. In Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court declared it an ``obvious truth'' that ``any person hailed into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided to him.'' By clarifying that counsel must not only be present, but be ``effective,'' Gideon marked a landmark shift towards creating a justice system that safeguards equal justice under law for all. Nearly 5 decades after Gideon, its promise of equal justice remains unfulfilled. Today, the federal government has no entity dedicated to furnishing legal counsel for criminal defendants in Supreme Court cases. Rather, lawyers in private practice who volunteer their services or public defenders who often have never argued before the High Court are often tasked with delivering competent legal representation to the poor in Supreme Court criminal cases. The prosecution, however, has highly specialized lawyers from the U.S. Department of Justice who represent its interests. With a small cadre of lawyers from the Solicitor General's Office dedicated solely to Supreme Court litigation, the government amasses considerable appellate experience before the Court. As the most frequent advocate before the Court, the Solicitor General routinely files writs of certiorari and argues criminal cases each term. With this experience, the government has the opportunity, foreclosed to defendants with private attorneys, to establish familiarity and, ultimately, credibility with the Court. The structural imbalance between prosecutors and defendants at the Supreme Court has a profound impact on our justice system. Without counsel trained and experienced in Supreme Court advocacy, the likelihood that cases are decided against criminal defendants increases. In addition, the development of criminal precedent can far too often tilt in favor of the government and against the civil rights of ordinary Americans seeking justice in criminal cases. To address these structural deficiencies, I am introducing the Gideon Act. This bill would establish a Federal corporation called the Defender Office for Supreme Court Advocacy, which would be dedicated to Supreme Court advocacy on behalf of criminal defendants. The bill aims to breathe life into the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of effective assistance of counsel and to help level the playing field at the Supreme Court between prosecutors and defendants. The Gideon Act would empower the office with critical tools to zealously represent indigent defendants at the front end, middle, and back end of the Supreme Court advocacy process. At the front end, known as the writ of certiorari stage, the office would have authority to monitor noncapital Federal and State cases seeking Supreme Court review for Federal law issues. By allowing the office to file cert petitions in criminal cases, the office could have critical input into which criminal cases the Supreme Court accepts to hear and decide. By empowering the office to consult with lawyers representing criminal defendants seeking the High Court's review, the office can serve as a resource to lawyers inexperienced in Supreme Court advocacy. During the middle of the process, known as the merits stage, the office would be empowered to zealously represent the poor. From filing merits and ``friend of the court'' briefs to responding to the Court's ``call for views'' on complex criminal law issues to participating at oral argument in criminal cases, the office could provide all forms of advocacy on behalf of the poor. As such, the office would provide a necessary counter-weight for defendants to prosecutors' specialized Supreme Court expertise within Solicitor General's Office. It would also provide a centralized resource for defenders to develop uniformity on federal criminal case law. On the back end, after a Supreme Court case is completed, the office could help train other defenders throughout the nation on the unique experience of practicing before the Supreme Court. In addition, the office would have the power to participate in appellate advocacy before the highest State courts in our land, if resources permit. This tool is necessary to help develop criminal case law nationwide since most criminal cases that the Supreme Court hears a term come Federal criminal law issues arising from State courts, rather than from Federal courts. Today, I am also introducing the Senate companion to H.R. 5124, the Equal Justice Under Law Act. This bill aims to address America's public defense crisis, and I thank Rep. Patrick Maloney for his leadership on this bill in the House of Representatives. Today, many State and local governments have failed to provide the funding necessary for public defenders to keep pace with the flood of criminal cases. Without resources, many public defenders lack the staff, training, or time to investigate each case adequately and prepare a robust legal defense. As a result of being underpaid and overworked, they are simply unable to provide the accused with their right to effective assistance of counsel. Ample evidence exists that shows the state of public defense in America is in crisis. According to the American Bar Association, anywhere from 60 to 90 percent of criminal defendants need publically funded attorneys. Yet, due to a lack of resources, far too many public defenders are unable to meet this demand. In fact, a 2013 report from the Brennan Center for Justice concluded that public defense offices are so overworked and underfunded that clients are not getting the legal representation they need. Citing a funding disparity between the prosecution and public defenders, the report found that State prosecutors' office budgets were $5.8 billion in 2007, while State and local public defender expenditures were only $2.3 billion. Excessive caseloads are another example of how Americans' right to counsel is defective. In 2009, the Constitution Project's National Right to Counsel Committee--comprised of current and former judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and law enforcement officials--released a report entitled ``Justice Denied: America's Continuing Neglect of Our Constitutional Right to Counsel.'' The report found that all too often indigent defendants were provided counsel late or not at all. Even when a public defender represented a defendant, the report showed that lawyers' excessive caseloads made effective representation simply not possible. In conclusion, the report recommended ``litigation to remedy such deficiencies should be instituted.'' To help fix the indigent defense crisis, the Equal Justice Under Law Act of 2016 would implement this common-sense recommendation into action. The bill would create a federal cause of action that allows indigent criminal defendants to file a lawsuit against states and localities for systemic failures to provide effective assistance of counsel in felony cases. Litigation to be a useful tool to remedy systemic failures when indigent defense systems require defense attorneys to represent more clients than they can competently represent or otherwise fail to assure legal representation in compliance with the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel. The bill would require states to consult with representatives from the public defender community prior to distributing Byrne JAG funds. Currently, Federal defenders are eligible for Byrne JAG funds. Yet, in practice, Federal defenders may not get the same proportion of these funds as prosecutors and law enforcement. So this provision would ensure that defenders are consulted before critical Federal funds are distributed. This access to justice legislation has the support of numerous civil rights groups, such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Innocence Project. Our public defender system is broken. It is time we fix it. I am proud to introduce the Gideon Act and the Equal Justice Under Law Act and I urge their speedy passage.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, today I wish to acknowledge the creativity and professionalism of the men and women of the cruise travel industry. Up until the early 1800s, cruise ships were primarily concerned with transporting mail and cargo. It wasn't until 1818 that the first cruise ship company to transport passengers began regular service from the United States to Europe. Since then, cruising has become one of the most popular and unique methods of traveling enjoyed by my constituents and individuals and families across the country. The cruise ship industry would not have taken off if it weren't for the diligent men and women who undergo a series of training programs and professional development to become cruise travel professionals. In 2014, the cruise industry generated approximately 375,000 American jobs and generated $46 billion in gross output of spending on both crew members and passengers. In New Jersey alone, the cruise industry has generated over 7,500 jobs and $451 million in income. Traveling by cruise has changed the way Americans vacation. Cruising offers unique amenities, activities for families, entertainment, fine dining, and experiences before the destination is even reached. This summer, as American families hopefully enjoy more leisure time, let's thank and acknowledge the workers in the travel and tourism industry, including cruise travel professionals who contribute to this country's economy.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, I rise today in support of the confirmation of Judge Brian R. Martinotti to be a U.S. district court judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. I am very proud to support his nomination and grateful that my senior Senator Robert Menendez is here as well. Judge Martinotti is an outstanding public servant who has honorably served the people of New Jersey in both private practice and public service for decades. I am grateful that Judge Martinotti is finally getting the confirmation vote he deserves more than a year after his nomination. I thank Senator Menendez for his support of this nomination throughout this long process. During my first year within the Senate, I had the honor to recommend Judge Martinotti to President Obama. He is a talented jurist, he has an impressive legal background, and he is more than qualified to be a Federal judge. As a judge in the New Jersey Superior Court, Judge Martinotti is a well-known and highly regarded leader in the New Jersey legal community. As a State superior court judge, he served 14 years and has judicial experience, having presided over 90 cases that have gone to judgment. He previously served as a public defender, a prosecutor, a tax attorney, and even city council member, the same position where I began my political career. He served as a legal counsel for the Italian American Police Society and has worked in private practice for 15 years. Judge Martinotti has litigated both criminal and civil cases, which I am confident will make him a well-balanced jurist. Judge Martinotti possesses a sharp legal mind, a breadth of experience, solid judicial temperament, and he is prepared to do the work of a Federal jurist. The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary rated Judge Martinotti unanimously ``well qualified,'' giving him their highest possible rating. Last October, the Judiciary Committee voted unanimously in support of Judge Martinotti's nomination. I am confident this well-qualified nominee will serve honorably on the Federal bench. While I am pleased Senate leadership has finally scheduled this vote, this body still has work to do when it comes to confirming more well- qualified judicial nominees. Currently, our Federal courts have 83 Federal vacancies nationwide, 30 of which have been deemed judicial emergencies. Despite the number of vacancies, the pace of judicial confirmations has been historically slow. Last year, the Senate confirmed only 11 judicial nominees, matching the record for confirming the fewest number of judicial nominees in more than half a century. Now, more than 17 months into this Congress, there have only been 20 judges who have been confirmed. Yet, with a Democratic majority during the last 2 years of the Bush administration, the Senate confirmed 68 judges. I fear the Senate's slow pace of confirming judges will harm the judicial branch and make it harder for Americans to achieve simple justice in federal courts. Even after today's vote, we still have 2 of the 17 judicial seats vacant in the District of New Jersey and 24 judicial nominees pending on the Senate floor. We have to do better. We do not yet have an agreement to vote on the nomination of Judge Julien Neals, whose nomination has now been pending before the Senate for 18 months. His nomination has the support of both myself and Senator Menendez and was unanimously passed out of the Judiciary Committee last November. It is time that Judge Neals' nomination receive a full Senate vote. Our Federal justice system cannot function as intended when critical posts are left vacant for months on end. It hurts our economy, our civil rights, and the overall principles of justice in our country. I urge our leadership to act to address the judicial vacancy crisis. I also urge my fellow Senators to vote to confirm Judge Martinotti as U.S. district judge for the Federal district court of New Jersey. Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I rise today to support the introduction of the Restoring Education and Learning Act of 2016, REAL Act, legislation to improve our justice system by reinstating Pell Grant eligibility for people in State and Federal prisons. I thank Senator Schatz for his leadership on this issue, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this critical bill. In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Higher Education Act of 1965, legislation that created the Federal Pell Grant program. Pell Grants are the single largest source of Federal aid that supports undergraduate students. Because Pell Grants are need-based, they primarily go to students from low-income families. When Congress created the Pell Grant program its intent was clear--to expand access to higher education for students with limited resources. By creating Pell Grants, Congress sent an unmistakable message that our country's most valuable resource is the genius and talent of our people. In an increasingly competitive global economy, investing in the education of all Americans--young and old--helps bolster our country's leadership. Unfortunately, far too many Americans are not eligible to receive Pell Grants simply because they are behind bars. In 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act completely eliminated Pell Grant eligibility for people who are incarcerated in State and Federal correctional institutions. This is flawed policy. Rather than enhance public safety, this policy change has made our communities less safe and has destroyed the potential of so many Americans who deserve a second chance. It is time we end this failed policy of the past. It is time we work to rebuild these broken individuals and allow them to acquire the skills they need to become contributing members of our society. Today, I am proud to join with Senator Schatz in introducing the REAL Act. This criminal justice reform bill would restore Pell Grant eligibility for Americans who are in state or Federal Prison. This is important because if we truly want to reform our broken criminal justice system, we need to allow incarcerated people to engage in activities that will make them more prepared for life after prison, which will in turn make them less likely to recidivate. This bill would give returning citizens the tools they need to successfully reintegrate into their communities. Last week, President Barack Obama announced a $30 million Second Chance Pell Grant pilot program. This program will expand access to Pell Grants for over 12,000 incarcerated students at 141 State and Federal institutions. However, the president's Second Chance Pell Grant pilot program does not extend to all incarcerated people nor does it codify this policy into law. By building on the president's work, the REAL Act would codify into law that prisoners are eligible for Pell Grants. Our criminal justice system is broken. We lead the globe in the number of people we incarcerate and we waste billions and billions of dollars locking up human potential. Passing the REAL Act would reduce staggeringly high recidivism rates because we know individuals with college degrees are less likely to commit crimes. Additionally, today, more than ever, it is clear that obtaining a college degree has become essential to obtaining employment--a key element in reducing recidivism rates. By precluding so many people from taking college classes, we are not only hurting those who are behind bars, but we are hurting ourselves. There is an old African saying that if you want to go fast go alone, but if you want to go far go together. This bill will help so many Americans get on the right path and turn their lives around. This bill would make us all stronger. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the REAL Act. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I urge its speedy passage in the Senate.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I rise today to support the introduction of the Restoring Education and Learning Act of 2016, REAL Act, legislation to improve our justice system by reinstating Pell Grant eligibility for people in State and Federal prisons. I thank Senator Schatz for his leadership on this issue, and I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this critical bill. In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Higher Education Act of 1965, legislation that created the Federal Pell Grant program. Pell Grants are the single largest source of Federal aid that supports undergraduate students. Because Pell Grants are need-based, they primarily go to students from low-income families. When Congress created the Pell Grant program its intent was clear--to expand access to higher education for students with limited resources. By creating Pell Grants, Congress sent an unmistakable message that our country's most valuable resource is the genius and talent of our people. In an increasingly competitive global economy, investing in the education of all Americans--young and old--helps bolster our country's leadership. Unfortunately, far too many Americans are not eligible to receive Pell Grants simply because they are behind bars. In 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act completely eliminated Pell Grant eligibility for people who are incarcerated in State and Federal correctional institutions. This is flawed policy. Rather than enhance public safety, this policy change has made our communities less safe and has destroyed the potential of so many Americans who deserve a second chance. It is time we end this failed policy of the past. It is time we work to rebuild these broken individuals and allow them to acquire the skills they need to become contributing members of our society. Today, I am proud to join with Senator Schatz in introducing the REAL Act. This criminal justice reform bill would restore Pell Grant eligibility for Americans who are in state or Federal Prison. This is important because if we truly want to reform our broken criminal justice system, we need to allow incarcerated people to engage in activities that will make them more prepared for life after prison, which will in turn make them less likely to recidivate. This bill would give returning citizens the tools they need to successfully reintegrate into their communities. Last week, President Barack Obama announced a $30 million Second Chance Pell Grant pilot program. This program will expand access to Pell Grants for over 12,000 incarcerated students at 141 State and Federal institutions. However, the president's Second Chance Pell Grant pilot program does not extend to all incarcerated people nor does it codify this policy into law. By building on the president's work, the REAL Act would codify into law that prisoners are eligible for Pell Grants. Our criminal justice system is broken. We lead the globe in the number of people we incarcerate and we waste billions and billions of dollars locking up human potential. Passing the REAL Act would reduce staggeringly high recidivism rates because we know individuals with college degrees are less likely to commit crimes. Additionally, today, more than ever, it is clear that obtaining a college degree has become essential to obtaining employment--a key element in reducing recidivism rates. By precluding so many people from taking college classes, we are not only hurting those who are behind bars, but we are hurting ourselves. There is an old African saying that if you want to go fast go alone, but if you want to go far go together. This bill will help so many Americans get on the right path and turn their lives around. This bill would make us all stronger. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the REAL Act. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I urge its speedy passage in the Senate.