Cory Booker

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. I appreciate the Senator yielding for a question. I have a number of questions for Senator Murphy. I think you bring up a good point. We have now been at this for about 8\1/2\ hours, and we have seen colleague after colleague. We have worked now through the majority of the Democrats in this caucus who have stood up and asked Senator Murphy question after question. I want to start, before I even give a question, by giving my respect and gratitude to Senator Murphy. In Isaiah, it talks about those who wait on the Lord, running and not getting weary, walking and not being faint. I see the consistency of his efforts, which is not just manifest during this filibuster. He has been on his feet now for 8\1/2\ hours, and it is not just today. Senator Murphy, in his maiden speech here in the Senate, stood right there--I know this because at that time I was still mayor of the city of Newark--and gave, still to this day for me of all the Senate speeches I have heard, probably one of the most eloquent, moving, factual, compelling speeches on gun violence that I have heard. I am grateful today because just yesterday, in a caucus meeting that I think my colleagues who are here will agree got very heated, very emotional, in which he spoke with passion, as did other colleagues, he and I began talking about making sure that this was not business as usual and that we didn't go through the same routines in this body every single time there was a mass shooting. There are mass shootings with greater and greater routine. You have heard it from my colleagues. It is an insufficient response that our elected leaders should simply pray and share condolences. To paraphrase one of my heroes whose picture stands on my wall, Frederick Douglass said: I prayed for years for my freedom, but I was still a slave. It wasn't until I prayed with my hands and prayed with my feet that I found my salvation. Faith without works is dead. Prayer is not enough. I stand here first and foremost to express my gratitude to Senator Murphy. We talked during the day, we talked into the night, and we chose to be here. I am grateful for his senior Senator, who has been here for the entire duration. These two partners from Connecticut went through the unimaginable when they shared the grief of a community where child after child--20 children--were gunned down and murdered. These two men have been dedicated and determined--not yielding, not giving up, not surrendering to cynicism about government or this body but continuing to fight and to fight so that we would do something about this problem. This is the first question I have for Senator Murphy. There is this idea that is deep within the history of our Nation, that when there is injustice--and there is no greater injustice than the savage murder of our fellow citizens, the murder of innocents. I have seen you time and again--and today is a model of courage as well as a model of endurance--take on a Senate that was prepared to move on, a Senate that was prepared to go on with business after the greatest, largest mass killing in this Nation's history. We were going to go on with business as usual. In my conversations into the night last night with Senator Murphy, I saw his determination not to let the business as usual go on in this Senate. I have a number of questions for you. But the first one, Senator Murphy, is that there are a lot of people who are surrendering to cynicism about government, a lot of people who are showing frustration. But yet, you are still going on with this in a way that reflects those people who didn't give up on the idea of civil rights in the 1940s and the 1950s and kept pushing legislation--pushing legislation before the 1965 Voting Rights Act, before the 1964 Civil Rights Act, before the consciousness of the country caught up. But this must be frustrating to you. I have been here for 2\1/2\ years. You have been here longer. We came here tonight--today--for a reason. I say today because we are approaching the ninth hour. We are about a half-hour away from the ninth hour. Can you frame one more time why you are expending your energy doing this now, here, in the Senate, especially because I know that perhaps there are people talking about: Well, they don't have a shot; they don't have a chance. There are cynics, there are critics, and there are pundits probably saying they may not get a vote. The majority of Americans, the majority of gun owners, the majority of NRA members might agree with Senator Murphy, but the NRA has too much of a hold on the Senate. Why are you here right now doing this on this day?

Mr. BOOKER. I thank the Senator from Connecticut, Chris Murphy, and the senior Senator from Connecticut as well. I do want to echo his spirit and the deference he gave to Senator Barbara Mikulski and Senator Shelby. Both of these two Senators are people I respect a tremendous amount. In fact, I would go beyond that for Senator Shelby and Senator Mikulski because I have deep affection for them. They are great, strong legislators, and they have produced legislation that is important to this country. I have a reverence for their work, the attention to detail, and the focus they have provided preparing legislation to move forward. I asked for indulgence from them to understand why I stand on the floor today preparing to ask a question to Senator Murphy. Last night, Senator Murphy and I talked about the tragedy of what happened in Florida. It was painful to both of us because we knew this was not in any way an anomaly. This was something happening with terrible, savage routine. In this Nation we are seeing mass killing after mass killing after mass killing after mass killing. We both understood, with other colleagues, that right now our Nation stands at a point of vulnerability to those who seek to do us harm, those who seek to inflict terror, those who seek to inflict grievous bodily harm, those who seek to kill Americans, and they have the ability to exploit loopholes in order to have access to weapons. So I stand on the floor today in preparation to ask a question to Senator Murphy, wanting to say that the motivation for his presence on the floor right now is that we just cannot go on with business as usual in this body at a time where there is such continued, grievous threat and vulnerability to our country, where you see again and again mass shooting after mass shooting. There is a saying that the only thing necessary for evil to be triumphant is for good people to do nothing. I am grateful to Senator Murphy for his conviction in our conversations yesterday and into the night that we could not just go along with business as usual; that we have had enough; that we have to push this body to come to some consensus on that which the overwhelming majority of Americans, indeed, the overwhelming majority of gun owners in this country and, indeed, the overwhelming majority of NRA members in this country believe; that we should put commonsense safety measures in place to protect against terrorists obtaining firearms to inflict the kind of carnage we have seen too often in this country and in others. Please understand, while many people imagine that when terrorists act, they act with bombs, more and more across the globe and across the United States they are acting with assault weapons and firearms. We are here today to say: Enough. I have cleared my entire day. This will not be business as usual. I cleared my evening events so that I could stay on this floor and support Senator Murphy as he pushes this body to come to some consensus, in the way the country has already done, to find commonsense, practical ways we can protect this Nation from terrorism. The Constitution of this country begins with the understanding that the primary responsibility of this Nation is about the common defense. It says in our preamble that ``We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'' Written there in plain English, the Constitution laid out the very form of government in which this body stands and put in clear English at the beginning that we are to focus on domestic tranquility, the common defense, the general welfare. So we cannot go on with business as usual in this body. We must stand because this violence in our country will continue unless we take measures, commonsense measures, to restrict these firearms from going to known or suspected terrorists. I believe this is a day that should not be business as usual. I believe this should be a day that this body comes together as it has before, to put forth commonsense safety measures to prevent terrorism. I want to paraphrase one of our great leaders, Martin Luther King, who said: What we will have to repent for in this day and age is not just the vitriolic words and violent actions of the bad people but the appalling silence and inaction of the good people. That is why I stand now to ask a question of the Senator. That is why I will stay on this floor with my colleague from Connecticut and support him in this effort to move this body into putting forth the commonsense steps we should take to prevent weapons from getting into the hands of our enemies, from getting into the hands of terrorists, from getting into the hands of people who seek to wreak the kind of carnage that our Nation tragically witnessed this past weekend. The Senator from Connecticut, my colleague and friend, went through the unforgettable lists of mass shootings--Newtown, 20 schoolchildren and 6 employees killed; Santa Monica, 5 Americans killed; Washington, DC, at the naval yard, 12 people killed; Fort Hood, 3 people killed; Isla Vista, CA, 6 people killed; Marysville, WA, 4 people killed in a high school cafeteria; Charleston, SC, 9 people at a church killed; Chattanooga, TN, at a military recruiting office, 4 marines and a naval petty officer killed; Roseburg, OR, 10 people killed at a local community college; Colorado Springs, CO, 3 people killed at a Planned Parenthood clinic; San Bernardino, CA, in an act of terrorism, 14 people killed; Orlando, this past weekend--this past Saturday night--49 innocent people murdered, killed. I rise to ask Senator Murphy a question because there is a question on the hearts and minds of the majority of the people of our Nation. They are asking the question: How long will this go on? They are asking the question: How can we be a nation so mighty and great, yet hold this distinction on the planet Earth where these kinds of mass killings go on at a rate, at a level nowhere else seen on the planet Earth? It is here in this country--founded upon the idea that we formed this government for our common defense, that we formed this government to ensure domestic tranquility, that we formed this government based on the idea that we can make for a safer, stronger, and more prosperous land--that question is being asked from coast to coast, from north to south. Senator Murphy and I talked yesterday about coming to the floor today and not letting business as usual happen. We talked with our other colleagues who will come to this floor today and who all have in their hearts that word: Enough. Enough. Enough. What we are seeking is not radical. What we are seeking is not something that is partisan. What we are seeking is common sense and is supported by the overwhelming majority of this Nation. In study after study, poll after poll, survey after survey of gun owners, of people who have weapons and who take to heart their Second Amendment rights--when you ask them ``What should we do? Do you support closing the terrorist loophole, creating practical, commonsense bars for people who are suspected of terrorism from buying a gun,'' 82 percent of gun owners say ``Yes, we should do that.'' They say: Enough.

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I have a question, but I think I can have a preamble to my question to set the context of the question.

Mr. BOOKER. The question I would like to ask is, Given the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans support commonsense gun legislation, given the fact that 82 percent of gun owners support closing the terrorist loophole, and given the fact that 75 percent of NRA members support closing the terrorist loophole, why does the Senator from Connecticut feel this body is not moving on commonsense legislation that will protect our Nation, that will defend us against terrorists, and that will prevent tragedies such as the one that happened in Orlando? I direct my question to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. BOOKER. Senator Murphy, I am grateful for your yielding for a question. I think I want to drill deeper down on that point because I am not sure if Americans understand that there is a lot of bipartisanship when it comes to CVE, countering violent extremism. I am very proud to serve on the Homeland Security Committee. I have worked with members on the other side of the aisle to do a lot of commonsense things to try to counter violent extremism here at home. Those involve efforts of coordination, as Senator Murphy was talking about, investing resources in trying to counter violent extremist efforts here at home. There is a tremendous bipartisan effort that has gone on in this country since 9/11 in trying to take down silos of information-- sharing, cooperating, coordinating, and investing resources in many ways to keep us safer as a nation. We should all be very proud of that. But it is clear--especially from what should be stunning to people who don't know this and from the information you read--that the very enemies we are talking about--terrorist organizations that now have become common knowledge in this country, because people know Al Qaeda, they know ISIS, and folks are focused on that--the very enemies we are fighting against are aware of the big loophole that exists in this Nation--that someone who is a suspected terrorist, who has a terrorist intent, who is even known by the FBI, can come to our Nation or can be a citizen of our Nation and go to a gun show and buy weapons. I want to clarify what I said. That was not an accident. This could be someone who is in our Nation as a citizen or it could be someone who has come to our Nation through the Visa Waiver Program and could still exploit this loophole of buying weapons without a background check. So we have actually enough sharing of information to go on that we actually can stop an individual from getting on a plane. Think about this. We can take an action to stop someone from flying, but we do not have the ability in this country right now to stop that known individual from getting in a car and driving down 95 from New Jersey and going to a gun show and buying weapons. The data show that the GAO has found that between February of 2004 and December of 2014 there were at least 2,033 cases where a known suspected terrorist tried to buy a firearm or even obtain it. We know there are that many people trying to do this and that we have the ability to stop those folks. So given the context of all the areas in which we are cooperating to stop terrorism and that there is this one black hole where now the information isn't being shared for actions to stop folks from getting these weapons that can do such carnage, isn't this a glaring gap in our overall security procedures, policies, and structures in our country?

Mr. BOOKER. Again, I appreciate this point that I want to keep coming back to, which is that we are--and both Republicans and Democrats talk about--in a war with a determination to defeat our enemy. Yet our enemy has spoken very clearly about exploiting the loopholes that exist in a way for those who are seeking to do terror to buy weapons. In other words, as to someone who is suspected already by the FBI, suspected by the American Government to have designs on the kind of terroristic act that could take many Americans, as we saw this past weekend, we already know who that person is, and our enemy has basically advertised the fact that it doesn't matter. If they were already suspected by the FBI and had been interviewed by them last year or 5 years ago, they explicitly said: Don't worry about that because America--singling us out from European countries and others that are terrorist targets--in particular has this loophole we can exploit. Even though you have been suspected of terrorism and have been interviewed by the FBI, you can still find ways to easily obtain weapons by taking these measures, such as going to a gun show or ordering online. We just passed a Defense authorization bill that will allocate billions and billions of dollars for our national defense. I don't mean to be over the top about this issue, but if our past enemies and past wars have specifically showed us what our vulnerabilities are and that they are going to continue to exploit these vulnerabilities and literally have ISIS-inspired individuals who have been interviewed by the FBI carry out these horrific actions by using a loophole, as we saw this past weekend, doesn't it make common sense to close that loophole when we are at war with folks who are inspiring individuals to take so much human life? When we talk about closing the terrorist loophole, we need to be very articulate and make sure that it is done in a way that just has to do with those people. As it stands now, the NICS system can potentially check to see if a person is on one of those aggregated watch lists. I wish to ask the Senator from Connecticut: Doesn't it make sense to have universal background checks in this context? That is what I would really like to get at. If you have steps to stop terrorists from exploiting this loophole but it is not a universal stop, we are not solving this problem. We are not really arresting it in the way that we should.

Mr. BOOKER. I just want, again, to say thank you to you. We started this about 13 and a half or almost 14 hours ago with business as usual. We started almost 14 hours ago with no focus on these issues in this body. We started this 14 hours ago with something as obvious as closing the terrorist loophole not on the agenda of the Senate. This filibuster--your standing tall, your multiple colleagues standing with you, over 2 dozen representing States from East to West-- and this measure is standing here together. It now seems that we at least will have a vote on those two things, the closing of the terrorist loophole and the expanding of the terrorist block so that we have background checks that can block terrorists who seek to get weapons through secondary avenues. So that is a good step. It is not everything I would have hoped for out of this day. But it seems clear to me that we have some work to do in changing the hearts and minds of some of our colleagues so these measures that have failed in the past can pass now. For those of you who don't know the history of this body, a lot of the most prideful legislation of America--let's take the Civil Rights Act, for example--failed many, many, many times. But those who kept fighting and didn't give up or didn't give in to cynicism were able to break that measure on the floor. This has happened with many pieces of legislation, from the abolishing of slavery to a woman's right to vote. Sweet Honey in the Rock is a group that I love. They sing a song called Ella's Song, where they say: We who believe in freedom cannot rest. We who believe in freedom cannot rest until it is won. So my hope is that this filibuster, now going into its 14th hour, didn't just win a vote on these two amendments, didn't just stop business as usual, didn't just get a chance to have a final determination at least on these two amendments, but that it happened to do something else, Senator Murphy. My hope is that it helped to push back on cynicism. I think cynicism is a refuge for cowards, that cynical people basically throw up their hands and say nothing can change. Thank God people who are fighting for our freedoms in this country didn't give in to cynicism and stop fighting. Thank God that those who have reasons to be cynical about government didn't fall into that trap of cynicism, didn't take that refuge for cowards and kept fighting in this body for so much of the legislation that we take for granted, from workers' rights to the rights of immigrants. So my hope, Senator Murphy, if I can express it to you, is that not only will we fight to win the vote on these two amendments--one by Dianne Feinstein in closing the terrorist loophole and the other authored by you, me, and Senator Schumer to expand background checks-- but my hope is that this filibuster did not just get those four votes but will mobilize it and engage more people to reach out to their Senators. I really appreciate the fact that your office got 10,000 calls. I appreciate the fact that your effort has been trending on social media, but that is nothing calling you, who already support this, and not reaching out to Senators who are deliberating over whether to support this or not. We are all here because folks not only didn't take that refuge for cowards through cynicism, that toxic state that debilitates us from being agents of change, but we are also here not just because of people who shun cynicism but because of people who embrace love. Love--I use that word very purposefully--love of country, love of patriotism necessitates loving your country, men and women, and if you love your country, men and women, you don't just tolerate them. I think that is kind of a cynical aspiration for this country, that we will be a nation of tolerance, stomaching each other's right to be different. If we are a nation of love, love doesn't just stomach someone's right to be different. Love actually sees the truth of who we are. We each have value, worth, and merit. We need each other. We are interwoven in each other's destiny. And if there is injustice facing you, it affects me, and I have to work to correct that. I am here, Senator Blumenthal is here, Senator Murphy is here, and all of the people who are working here, we are here because of this conspiracy of love of folks who didn't just take care of themselves and their families, they got engaged in their country, in their communities, in their neighborhoods. They did it for others. They served, they volunteered, and they sacrificed. So we are on another inflection point in America's history, with the worst mass murder in our country's history. You cannot control always what happens to you, but you can control your response to it. Let our response to this hateful act be love. Let our response to this terroristic act seeking to scare us be courage. Let us in the days ahead act with love and courage, as demonstrated by our engagement with our political system--pressing, pushing, letting our representatives be heard from in this body that we want them to support commonsense initiatives, the closing of the terrorist loophole and expanding that with background checks that shut off the back door for terrorists to exploit to get assault weapons to do repeats of what we saw. With that kind of courage, with that kind of love, our enemies do not win. We do. With that kind of courage, that kind of love, we don't stumble, we don't stop, we don't hesitate, equivocate, or retreat; we advance this country toward its highest ideals that we will be a Nation with liberty and justice for all. We are all families. From inner city communities to suburban, from rural to urban, all communities should enjoy safety, security, strength, and prosperity. So with that, I ask the question, does Senator Murphy agree that we have not just achieved this first step of stopping business as usual, letting this body go on, but actually getting two measures that were not on this agenda until this action began? Does the Senator believe that is not enough, and with thousands of people watching, people on social media now, we need to get more engagement to begin, as the Senator said earlier, not to change the hearts and minds of all Americans--frankly most of America is with us--but to start focusing on the Senators that will be deliberating over the coming hours, maybe days, about these specific pieces of legislation?

Mr. BOOKER. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BOOKER. The Senator is not asserting he is still in his 20s, is he?

Mr. BOOKER. I thank the Senator. I just wanted to clarify that.

Mr. BOOKER. That is the first part of the framing that is very important--this determination that we will not do business as usual and that this fight will not stop. We will take this fight to the Senate floor, we will take this fight to legislators, and we will take this fight to neighborhoods and communities. It is not a physical fight. It is a fight, in my opinion, of love. It is a fight that says we can be a country that affirms people's right to own weapons. We heard from one of our closest friends in the Senate, Mr. Heinrich, who is an ardent gun owner. He is a hunter. As a vegan, I have seen some pictures of what he has shot and killed, and he takes great pride and joy in that. What we are talking about--and this gets me to the next area of questioning--is that it is not about hunters, it is not about people who want guns for self-defense, and it is not about people who want guns because they love the sport. Senator Bennet took me out skeet shooting when I was in Colorado. It is not about the folks who want guns for that. This is about something very narrow, and that is the question that I have, which is the second part of this framing. I have heard some people talk about this in partisan terms. The truth is that this may be a partisan issue in Washington-speak, but when I go back to New Jersey--I go to communities like the ones I grew up in, where a majority of the community is Republican, and communities like the one I live in, where the majority is Democrat--I hear the same thing from members of both parties. They say that there is a lack of understanding in this country. How can we be at a point where our country is at war with terrorists, with our enemy in places such as Iraq and Syria literally trying to egg on and radicalize young people, saying ``Go to America''? Al Qaeda and others are instructing them that this is the country to go to and buy guns because it is so easy to get access to guns, thanks to these massive loopholes. That is the point that brings us here. Senator Murphy and I probably share beliefs about gun safety that are not shared by the majority of gun owners, and there are things I heard brought up tonight, frankly, that, hey, I might like. People have talked about magazines and research on this issue. I heard a lot of subjects brought up, but what brought Senator Murphy and Senator Blumenthal to the floor for almost 9 hours now, with me standing here this entire time, is to say: Hey, we as Americans can agree that someone who is a suspected terrorist and under investigation and might be on a no-fly list--that person should not be able to buy not just a weapon or handgun but an assault rifle. When you look at this issue, it is not controversial with Americans. This is not controversial with Republicans. This is not controversial with NRA members because the overwhelming majority of them agree that we should not be a country where a person can't get on a plane in Newark, NJ, but they can drive to a private seller or a gun show or go on the Internet and buy a gun. The second of three questions I have is that this not a radical thing the Senators from Connecticut are asking for. Senator Murphy is not calling for something controversial. This is something that, at this point, is common sense and is agreed upon by over 70 percent of gun owners. I am not sure if there is an elected official in the Senate that has a 70-plus percent approval rating. Rarely do you see people agree that greatly. Could the Senator please explain why he is taking a stand on this issue right now and what it is that he thinks we should be able to achieve on this common ground for the common good?

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I said one more question, but I have two more questions. This is sort of a progression. My friend is here today because of a commitment Senator Murphy made in his maiden speech in the U.S. Senate--a consistent sense of belief that my friend will never give up until we have commonsense gun safety in America. After the grievous act that we saw in Florida, where 49 innocent people were slaughtered, Senator Murphy, Senator Blumenthal, countless Senators, and I--at least half of our caucus has come down here and said the same thing: Enough is enough. We can't let business as usual happen. No. 2, and the reason my friend stood up and has been holding the floor for 9\1/2\ hours, has been in order to say: Hey, the terrorist loophole should be closed. There is one more element to this progression--an indefatigable Senator with a noncontroversial element in terms of the terrorist loophole, but now there is this other piece, which is just common sense, and I want to take that one step and ask that my friend go a little deeper with it. That last step is this: If you just have the terrorist loophole closed but don't have universal background checks--in other words, if you close the terrorist loophole so that anybody who goes to a Federal firearm licensed dealer or goes to a NICS check, that stops that terrorist, but if you still have these Internet and private sales, that terrorist, who probably will not even go to that Federal arms licensee, will go to the back doors that are still wide open for people to get guns. So what the Senator from Connecticut is saying is that he is not giving up. No. 2, 70-plus percent of NRA members agree with me on what I am asking for. This last step, where the majority of gun owners in America agree, why is it important to also make sure that if we want to stop terrorists from doing what they did in Orlando--if we do nothing, it may happen again, God forbid. Why is this universal background check element the second thing my friend is standing up for today, along with his colleagues?

Mr. BOOKER. So the last question--and I know the senior Senator from Connecticut would like to ask a question. But this is where I have to say it becomes deeply personal to me, because what you are talking about there is your persistent, unyielding fight for commonsense gun legislation from the second you walked into the U.S. Senate, to the noncontroversial idea that terrorists in America--people who are suspected terrorists--should not be allowed to buy assault weapons, period. And your comment that that affects a very small universe of people, that in order to make that ironclad--again, nothing is going to stop everybody, but this is doing something that will constrict access to terrorists--you have to do a universal background check, so you close the back door, as you said. Now, this is what gets personal to me even more so because it is more than all this. When you do that, you are not affecting sports people; you are not affecting Second Amendment right believers who believe that I need to have my right to bear arms; you are not affecting folks who are worried about self-defense and want to have a gun to defend themselves; who you are affecting when you do that is not just terrorists, but you actually have a collateral benefit when you tighten up the system that you then stop criminals of all categories from getting guns. We live in a nation where women are victims of violence at astonishing rates. You close down that system for terrorists, you are going to make it much harder for someone who seeks to engage in domestic violence with a firearm--you are going to shut down their access. You are going to shut down criminals from getting guns. This is really what I experienced as a U.S. mayor. I looked at all of my shootings and murders as too many in Newark when I was mayor. I could only find one case--one case--where a law-abiding citizen used a gun in violence. The problem we saw overwhelmingly in our city was that criminals who should have been stopped were using these loopholes to buy lots of weapons and engage in criminal activity. So much of the carnage in our communities is happening when criminals can easily get access to guns. You and I have had this conversation privately so many times. I have sat with you in Connecticut cities. We have seen the impact and the pain and the agony of murder after murder after murder after murder in our cities. And this commonsense terrorist loophole closure--would the Senator please explain how that will also constrict the ability for all criminals committing murders at rates not seen anywhere on the planet Earth, because someone who has restrictions on them for buying guns for domestic violence, stalking, threatening a woman, can go get a gun; somebody who is an ex-con for a violent crime can go get a gun. Why is this also important because of the collateral benefits that would come about from this commonsense constricting and closing of the terrorist loophole? (Mr. GARDNER assumed the Chair.)

Mr. BOOKER. I thank Senator Murphy very much for what I think has been one of the more remarkable exhibitions of grit and toughness. Senator Murphy has not only been on his feet, not only has not left the floor to use facilities, but he has stood in the saddle and has been for this entire time--as our colleagues have flowed through this Chamber, he has been answering question after question after question after question on a topic that he is passionate about, on a topic about which he feels deeply and personally. I just want to thank him for his leadership because it has captured the attention of our Nation. This filibuster right here--I know a little bit about social media. This filibuster right here has been the focus trending on Twitter, the focus of Facebook. It has created media attention on a problem because in a sense the Senator is giving hope. His very intention of coming here has met the urgent need that the public has seen that this auspicious body, this greatest deliberative body on the planet Earth, this Senate, designed by the Constitution to deal with the biggest problems of our land--this body would not just go on with business as usual. What the Senator chose to do is to say: Enough. Stop. We are going to have a discussion about an issue that is not just on the minds of the American public but is grievously affecting the hearts and the spirit of our Nation. Tens of thousands of people since Sunday have been standing around our country in vigils, in solidarity, expressing their pain and expressing their sorrow but expressing the feelings they have that we should be better than to allow such grievous, terroristic, hateful acts to happen on our soil. While the American public has been stepping up, this body today had a different plan--to move on a piece of legislation, to barely acknowledge this. So before I want to really reframe this, I just want to say to the Senator, thank you for the courage that you have put forth to say: Enough is enough. No business as usual; we are going to stop, and we are going to push for two commonsense amendments that cannot end gun violence in America, cannot stop terrorist activity here and abroad, but they can take a step--a constructive step--toward beginning to choke the flow of commonality of these incidents on American soil. As has been said time and again, as has been said by a number of Senators today, what reason was our government organized in the first place? We heard Angus King--wearing the Constitution on his tie--talk to that preamble: common defense, domestic tranquility. So I want to frame this again. But the first frame, I just have to say--the Senator and I talked about it after caucus lunch yesterday, we talked about it during the day, and we talked about it last night. I say to the Senator, you are not talking about it today; you are doing it--no business as usual. For that, I am grateful. It is merited that we also thank the many people who are involved. When the Senate is open past midnight, hundreds of people have to be here as well--not just the people you see here on the floor. The pages are in their first days, and this is one of their seminal experiences. Not the folks who are working behind the dais there, not the great Republican colleagues who have had to man that chair, but there are security guards and subway operators and the people who are seating folks in the gallery. I want to say thank you, and I want to point out the fact that Chris has helped to pay for food for not only a lot of the folks here but including the Republican cloakroom. I appreciate you, Senator Murphy. Now I want to get to the framing of what this is about because there has been a lot talked about tonight, most of which I agree with, a lot discussed, a lot far afield, but you came here with a purpose around two issues that are common sense; one is that in the United States of America, if our investigatory authorities see people as threats, are investigating people because they are believed to be desirous of committing acts of terrorism on American soil--people who have already been banned, in some cases, from flying on airplanes--we should take a step, we should make it the law of this land that the person who is a suspected terrorist, that person who can't get on an airplane, that person also should not be able to buy an assault rifle. That is so commonsense that as you said earlier today, perhaps 4, 5 hours ago, many people in America are shocked when they realize that a terrorist loophole actually exists. What you are fighting for, Senator Murphy, is not radical. It is not out of the box. It is common sense. What is even more important is that in this day and age, when partisanship does cripple this body from time to time on big issues, this issue is actually not partisan. Study after study has shown, survey after survey, poll after poll says overwhelmingly Americans agree with this. In fact, over 80 percent of American gun owners say we need to close the terrorist loophole. In fact, over 70 percent of NRA members say we should close the terrorist loophole. What nation when they are at war--where your enemy is actually trying to incite terrorism in your country, when your enemy is explicitly saying exploit this loophole--would keep that loophole wide open, where it is easy for someone with terroristic aims to hurt, injure, destroy, and kill? But you took it one step further, and I was happy this morning to work on an amendment with you that says you can't just close a terrorist loophole and leave open, as you called it hours ago, a backdoor for those terrorists to use. That means if you do background checks, they need to be universal because if it is just the brick-and- mortar gun retailers, you go there and you are going to have to do a background check. By the way, those background checks stop people every single year, not just people who may be suspected of terrorism. Frankly, they stop criminals, but we now know that we are a nation of change, where the buyers of weapons have migrated from the brick-and-mortar stores now to another market, often online or gun shows. Unless we close those avenues for terrorists to use, they are going to use them--so very much common sense again. The second thing that you were saying today is that we need to close the terrorist loophole, and we need to make sure we are doing universal background checks. That is the reason we are here-- the grit of a Senator and the common sense of two amendments that are very critical. For a moment, I want to tell you what was perhaps the most touching time for me in this 13, 14 hours. I actually checked the rules, and you can't acknowledge people who are in the Gallery. They are not here now, so I am not acknowledging anybody who is here, but your wife and child showed up. When I heard you talk as a parent about the love of your child and how you did something that is so important for us as Americans--in fact, I think it is at the core of who we are that this is what our country calls us to do, which is to take courageous steps of empathy and say, when other people's children are dying, that is not their problem. It triggers empathy in me. I think of my own child. I think about my niece. I think about my nephew. I think about my family. There is a privilege in this country that is a dangerous type of privilege. It is the type of privilege that says if something is not happening to me personally, if a problem is not happening to me personally, then it is not a problem. It is not a problem if it is not happening to me personally. That is contrary to what we say about ourselves as a country. The spirit of this country has always been we are all in this together. We all do better when we all do better. If there is injustice in our midst affecting another family, another State, another neighborhood, then that is an injustice that is threatening the whole. Senator Murphy, this is one of your core values. It is expressed by great Americans. It was expressed by Martin Luther King in perhaps one of the greatest pieces of American literature, the ``Letter from a Birmingham Jail,'' this idea that if something is going on wrong in Connecticut, if a tragedy happens there, if children are murdered there, that is not Connecticut's problem, it is our problem. Dr. King said: Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a common garment of destiny. So, to me, that is a core element of our Nation. It is what our Founders understood when they said we are in this together. The very Declaration of Independence ends with a nod toward that interdependence, toward that interwoven nature. It was said by our Founders on the Declaration of Independence, right at the end, that in order for this Nation to work, we must be there for each other. We must care about each other. We must invest ourselves in each other. If an injustice happens to my brother or my sister, it is affecting me. That Declaration of Independence ends with those words: ``We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred honor.'' Now we see these tragedies, and I don't want to believe that we are becoming numb to them. We see them as some distant reality and not as a personal attack because when you attack one American, you attack us all. When you have an avenue where you can make a difference to preserve and protect life and you do not claim it, to me, that is a sin. There is a great writer, great thinker, Nobel laureate, who once said to the effect that the opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference. The opposite of love is not just hate, it is inaction-- lack of caring, lack of compassion. What gets me upset about this issue is that we have commonsense tools that have been enumerated by wise colleagues of mine. We have legal scholars in our caucus who understand clearly that there is no absolute right when it comes to freedom of speech. As has been quoted many times, the majority opinion in the Heller case, there is no absolute right to bear arms. It has been said by multiple Senators, just closing the terrorist loophole doesn't infringe on the rights of any American to bear arms, of any American sportsmen, any American seeking self- defense. This is just saying that if you are someone who is believed to be a terrorist, you should not be able to purchase a gun. If you are somebody on that no-fly list, you should not be able to purchase a gun. Even with that, as you pointed out, there should be due process so that if you have to grieve that, there is a process for you to grieve being on that no-fly list. When I see the Senator's child come here to listen to her father, when I see parents--many of my colleagues have children. I hope that when we hear about a mass shooting, we don't just say I am praying for those families but begin to think that what is happening to my fellow American is a threat to me. It is happening to us all. We all are lesser as a result of it. We have to think to ourselves, ``How would it feel if I fail to act, to do what is right, to close a terrorist loophole?'' What if right now that person our enemy is working to radicalize, what if right now that person in our country whom our enemy is working to inspire, what about that person who right now is seeking to do harm to Americans, what happens if they exploit that loophole tomorrow, next month, next year? What happens if they exploit that loophole, and this time they go to a playground, a train station, a movie theater, a school, a church, and it happens to be your playground, your movie theater, your school, your church, your child? If you know there is something we can do to stop our enemy from getting arms and doing us harm--and we have seen now from San Bernardino to Orlando, FL, the terrorists are looking to do us harm-- and we can stop our enemy with a commonsense amendment that is believed and supported by the majority of Americans, the majority of Republicans, the majority of gun owners, the majority of NRA members, yet this body can't do that, then we are setting ourselves up for future acts of violence and terror that could have been prevented. What if it is our child or our family or our community or our neighborhood? There is one more step I have to mention, I say to Senator Murphy. There is one more step that is important to this because if you close the terrorist loophole and make sure those terrorists cannot exploit the backdoor, if you make sure those background checks are universal-- again agreed to by the majority of Americans, the majority of Republicans, the majority of gun owners, the majority of NRA members-- you are also going to benefit by creating a background check system that stops criminals from getting guns, that better undermines their ability to get their hands on weapons that they want to carry out violence in our neighborhoods, communities, and our cities. That is where it gets deeply personal to me. As the Senator has for his child, every American has for their kids. We have big dreams. This is a nation of dreams. We have something called the American dream, which is known across the globe. It is a bold dream. It is a humble dream that this is a nation where our children can grow up, have the best of opportunities. Our children can do better than us. It is the American dream. But the challenge I see with American reality, where we have such liberal access to weapons by people who are criminals, what that has resulted in--I have seen it myself--is so many children taken, killed, murdered, time and time again, every day, every hour. Time and time again, another dream destroyed, another dream devastated, another dream murdered. And those are not just my words. I have seen it across my State. I have seen it in our cities and on our street corners where shrines with candles and Teddy bears are set up, marking place after place and street after street where children have been murdered. I have stood on too many street corners looking down at bodies--13-year-olds, 14-year-olds, 16-year-olds murdered in our Nation with a regulatory that has not been seen in wars past. I have been to funerals with parents begging us to do something about the violence in our country. I have seen children who are living, yet live with trauma and stress because they hear gunshots in their neighborhoods. We have the power to stop this, and we can't assume that these problems are not ours. Langston Hughes said it so poetically: ``There is a dream in this land with its back against the wall, to save the dream for one, we must save the dream for all.'' How many children's dreams must be destroyed by gun violence before we do the commonsense things we agree on to begin to shrink those numbers? It is written in Genesis that when Joseph's brothers see him approaching, with murder in their eyes, they said, ``Here cometh the dreamer, let us slay him, and see what becomes of his dreams.'' We have lost so many, and so many have been slain, but the dream of America can't die. There are people who want to take it from us. They want to inject it with fear and hate. The dream of our country cannot die. There are rules and loopholes that allow madmen, terrorists, and criminals to get their hands on assault weapons. We cannot let the dream of our country die and be dashed and killed. We can do something about it, and it is unacceptable, when you have the power, to do nothing. We, those of us elected to this body, are the caretakers of that dream. We are the torch with the light, the hope, and the promise of this country that still attracts so many. Hundreds of millions of people in our Nation believe, as do so many people outside of our Nation, that we must make sure that we form a more perfect union, where we see that unfinished business, the work to be done, and answer the call of our citizens. I return to where I began. There have been literally thousands of Americans who have taken to the streets this past week. I saw them in New Jersey. I read about them in California and Florida. I see them in Washington, DC, here in our Nation's Capital. Today I am proud that my friend has decided that that dream was worth fighting for, that the call of our Nation had to be answered, that that dream demanded something more than business as usual. Senator Murphy has stood on this floor for 13-plus hours. I don't know how long it will take, but I know that closing the terrorist loopholes and closing the avenues for terrorists to go online or to gun shows is just doing what makes common sense to keep us safe. I know we will win this battle. It is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when. As the hour grows later and later and this filibuster drags on, I just wish to address one more item. Senator Murphy and I both know from the thousands of calls to his office that one of the problems we happen to have is that we allow our inability to undermine our determination to do something; that when you have a majority of people who believe in something, often the only thing that stops us from achieving it is not that we can't--it is not a matter of can we, it is this: Do we have the collective will? I know from scanning social media that there are thousands of people watching this right now. As Senator Murphy speaks to our colleagues and speaks to the Chair, my question is, Can my friend speak to those people tonight, many of whom were cynical about this body but found a little bit of hope by your action? Can my friend take a moment to speak to them about how we can keep fighting this fight and what they can do to press forward and how we can make the dream of our Nation stronger, mightier, and more just so that a week or a month from now, we are not gathered together and mourning our Nation about dreams that were dashed by violent terrorists? (Mr. DAINES assumed the Chair.)

Mr. BOOKER. This is my final question. I ask the Senator one more time, will you yield for a question?

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about amendment No. 4083, submitted by a dear friend and respected colleague of mine from New Hampshire whom I must in good faith disagree with. This amendment increases already existing mandatory minimum sentences on offenses related to fentanyl and would not make our communities safer. It would redirect funds away from the kinds of investments we need to truly end the opioid abuse and heroin use epidemic. Today we face a deadly reality, a community-shattering reality--an opioid epidemic in America. I know what this epidemic is doing to our communities. In my home State of New Jersey, the heroin death rate is more than three times the national average. The heroin overdose rate in New Jersey now eclipses that of homicides, suicides, car accidents, and AIDS as a leading cause of death. Over the past 10 years, we have lost over 1,500 people under the age of 30 to heroin overdoses in New Jersey alone. I know that nationally death rates from prescription opioid overdoses have tripled in the last 20 years. I know that the opioid epidemic knows no bounds. It crosses geographic lines, economic lines, and racial lines. This is an epidemic that is tearing apart families, individuals, and communities. This is an American epidemic, but this amendment is not part of the solution. First of all, mandatory minimums themselves have proven to be ineffective in making us a safer Nation and stopping the drug war. Secondly, this amendment and ones like it will divert critical resources that could be, that should be, that must be invested in real solutions, in supporting preventive and education efforts, in supporting law enforcement, in supporting treatment programs. We have seen a rush like this toward mandatory minimums before. In the 1980s and 1990s, we piled on mandatory minimum sentences and ``three strikes and you're out'' laws in response to the growing drug problem in the United States, but these laws did not prevent this epidemic. It didn't work then, and there is no reason to expect it to work now. What did the war on drugs do? Well, it increased our Federal prison population by 800 percent since 1980 alone. The laws ended up increasing the costs in our Federal prison system from $970 million annually in 1980 to $6.7 billion in 2013, a close to 600-percent increase in the use of taxpayer dollars. According to Pew, the Federal prison system uses $1 in $4 spent by the Department of Justice. This is unacceptable. In fact, in my first meeting with then-Attorney General Eric Holder in his office after I was elected Senator, he shared with me how the Bureau of Prisons budget had become so bloated that he had limited resources to put toward other Department of Justice programs-- initiatives such as hiring FBI officers and support for programs that we actually know will make our communities safer. What is more, these laws did not work. They didn't target those whom they were supposed to target. Mandatory minimum sentences weren't responsible for reducing crime. The work of law enforcement and the utilization of data-driven policies are what have done that. A report from the Brennan Center found that ``increased incarceration has been declining in its effectiveness as a crime control tactic for 30 years. Its effect on crime rates since 1990 has been limited, and has been non-existent since 2000.'' Experts have found that mandatory minimum sentences have no demonstrable marginal effect on deterring crime, and it is also the reason why police leadership across the country are speaking out against increasing these mandatory minimums. Former New York Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik spoke out earlier this year to say: ``The reality is that the federal mandatory minimum sentences established in the early 1980's has had little, if anything, to do with the various state and city violent crime and murder statistics in America.'' I know this. I ran a police department as a mayor and oversaw the functioning of an incredible group of professionals. Had we had more resources from the Federal Government--instead of going to mandatory minimums--to actually hire more police officers, to put more of them in the streets, had we had more resources for drug treatment, had we had more resources for doing things such as reentry programs, we could have better fought crime, rather than wasting more money on ineffective mandatory minimum sentences. Since 1990, as the onslaught of these mandatory minimums have come, illegal drug use in the U.S. has actually increased. To pay for the overincarceration explosion, Congress has increased spending on Federal prisons by 45 percent since 1998. But over that same period, Congress has cut spending on State and local law enforcement by 76 percent. In fiscal year 2015, the Federal Government spent over $2.3 billion warehousing people who received lengthened mandatory minimums, and that is money that could be invested elsewhere. Mandatory minimums, if we remember our history, were created to go after drug kingpins. However, the U.S. Sentencing Commission has found that they too often apply to every function within a drug organization, from mules and couriers to low-level street offenders. By the way, when low-level offenders are arrested and given these mandatory minimum sentences, they are simply replaced by other low-level dealers. The strategy does not work in making us safer, but it is costing us so much money. This is contrary to the original vision of mandatory minimums. They were created to go after serious drug traffickers and kingpins. The U.S. Sentencing Commission found that mandatory minimums are often applied too broadly, set too high, and--what is worse--that they are unevenly applied. In other words, people who can afford lawyers, people who have resources and means, can fight against those laws, and people who cannot afford the best defense often are the ones who get mandatory minimums. Who is going to get mandatory minimums? People on college campuses, such as the one I attended, or people in the city I now call home. Understand this: The amendment that is being proposed reflects the old strategies that haven't won the war on drugs but, in many cases, have actually made things worse, especially by diverting so much money into our prison system and away from strategies in our communities, such as treatment and law enforcement, which we know work. What have these laws done? They have caused an 800-percent increase in our Federal prison population over the last 30 years. What have these laws done? They have imprisoned too many nonviolent Americans for decades for nonviolent, low-level drug crimes. What have these laws done? They have imprisoned people such as Sherman Chester, who with two prior nonviolent drug arrests was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for a third nonviolent drug crime. At his sentencing, Mr. Chester's judge said: ``This man doesn't deserve a life sentence, and there is no way that I can legally keep from giving it to him.'' What have these laws done? They have imprisoned mothers such as Alice Johnson, who, after losing her job and filing for bankruptcy, began to associate with people involved in drug dealing. She was arrested for her participation in transporting drugs as a go-between. When 10 of her coconspirators testified against her for reduced charges, she was sentenced to life in prison without parole for 25 years for that nonviolent drug crime. What have these laws done? They have imprisoned people like Dicky Jackson, a father who was so desperate to save his 2-year-old child who needed a bone marrow transplant that, after exhausting his options-- including community fundraisers--he began transporting meth in his truck. A year into his work, he was arrested for selling a half pound of meth to an undercover officer. He was found guilty of possession with intent to distribute and was given three life sentences without parole. The Federal prosecutor assigned to Mr. Jackson's case remarked: ``I saw no indication that Mr. Jackson was violent, that he was any sort of large-scale narcotics trafficker, or that he committed his crimes for any reason other than to get money to care for his gravely ill child.'' What these laws have done is make sure that these nonviolent offenders and too many more like them will die in prison for their crimes--taking money from our communities and imprisoning people into their fifties, sixties, and seventies for nonviolent crimes. They are redirecting taxpayer dollars from strategies in our neighborhoods, in our cities, and in communities that we know work and will actually get to the problem of drug abuse. Our system hasn't empowered people. It hasn't empowered them to deal with addictions. It hasn't empowered them to deal with mental health challenges. Our system, as it stands, hasn't empowered us to do the things we know make us safer. This has been punishment without proportionality, retribution without reason, and a gross taxpayer expense that takes away money that could be invested in public safety and our community well-being. If the failed war on drugs, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1984 have taught us anything, it is that locking more people up for longer and longer sentences for low-level drug crimes at the expense of billions and billions of taxpayer dollars does not curb drug use and abuse. These laws didn't work then. Why are we proposing new ones now? There is a different way. More mandatory minimum sentences won't impact the fentanyl opioid problem. The mandatory minimums being proposed for low-level drug offense are not going to accomplish what the amendment supporters hope it will. It is a facade that makes people feel like they are doing something about the problem, but they are not making a difference. What they will do is throw more taxpayer dollars at our Bureau of Prisons, expanding that bureaucracy and draining money--taxpayers' money--from solutions that we know will work. What is stunning to me, what is actually deeply frustrating to me is that we have two pieces of bipartisan legislation, one that has passed without enough funding and one that has yet to be brought up for a vote that would address this epidemic and the broken criminal justice system. Instead of turning to bipartisan legislation that is going through regular order and investing in strategies that this body, in a bipartisan fashion, has agreed with near unanimity would work, we are now considering an amendment that would spend more money on imprisoning low-level offenders for longer and longer sentences. Earlier this year, the Senate passed the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2015, also known as CARA. It is a bipartisan bill that would allow the Attorney General to award grants to address the opioid epidemic and expand prevention and education efforts. I was pleased to cosponsor that bill, but unfortunately the amendment that would have provided funding for the programs and grants in this bill failed to pass. The bill that went forward had the right intentions, but an unwillingness in this body to provide robust funding means that it simply won't address the epidemic adequately. That is what is frustrating to me. The Members of this body who refused to increase funding for preventive and treatment measures through CARA now want to divert taxpayer resources towards putting people in jail for longer and longer sentences for low-level, nonviolent crimes. That makes no sense--to spend millions of more dollars to lock up low-level offenders and starve the programs that local leaders all over this country are asking for, such as treatment, education, and local law enforcement. If properly funded, CARA would expand prevention initiatives, would expand education efforts, and would curb abuse and addiction, hitting our Nation's problem at its heart--at its demand--and helping addicts with what they need--treatment, not more jail. It would expand the availability of naloxone to law enforcement. It would increase resources to identify and treat incarcerated Americans suffering from drug addiction. It would increase disposal sites for unwanted prescription medications and would promote best practices for evidence- based opioid and heroin treatment and prevention all over our country. This bipartisan bill had wisdom in it. It was sensible, commonsense, and based on evidence-based strategies. But now, here we are, not talking about investing in what we know will work but suggesting that we do things that have proven over the last two decades not only not to work but to drain taxpayer dollars and to do more harm. We are considering an amendment that would use taxpayer resources not to do the things I just listed that are underfunded right now but would spend money on incarcerating low-level drug offenders because of unwise increases of mandatory minimum sentences. The fact is the opioid epidemic is not a problem we can jail our way out of. We already have mandatory minimum sentences in place for heroin and fentanyl offenses, and they haven't done what they were created to do--to prevent an epidemic such as this from occurring. What this amendment does is to double down on that failing strategy. In fact, for over a year, Senate Judiciary Committee members on both sides of the aisle have worked on crafting a bill, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, which would take meaningful steps toward undoing so much of the damage these failed policies have caused over the past decades. That bipartisan criminal justice reform legislation, which worked through regular order and would reduce mandatory minimum penalties and give judges more discretion at sentencing, has been pending on the Senate floor for over 7 months now without Senate action. The bill followed regular order. It moved through a hearing and a markup. It took in testimony from dozens of experts and organizations. It was adjusted and amended with input from law enforcement officers, attorneys general, prosecutors, civil rights leaders, and local elected leaders. It passed out of the committee. It was then, because of input from other Republican Senators, changed again and modified. Now, this baked bill is fully ready for a vote on the floor. If given that vote, it would most likely get a super majority in this body. But today, instead of moving forward on that bipartisan, compromise piece of legislation--which would start to fix the failed drug policies of the 1980s and 1990s, which would save us money, which would help us right past wrongs, which would create resources through its savings that could be used for the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act--we are now considering an amendment that would actually build on the mistakes of the past and divert money from the solutions we know work today. So again I say that I am frustrated, I am angry, and I am beginning to grow disheartened by the current state of affairs. The amendment being proposed and its potential consequences are what a growing consensus in the Senate from both sides of the aisle and especially thoughtful leaders around the country from all sides of the political spectrum--this is exactly what we have been fighting against. My frustration is that instead of looking to take a step forward with the current bipartisan legislation, we are looking to take a step back into the mistakes of the 1980s and 1990s. Instead of learning from the mistakes of the past, we are damning ourselves to make them again. Since arriving in the Senate 2\1/2\ years ago, I have been encouraged by the momentum building around this comprehensive criminal justice reform legislation. I felt encouraged that hope has been dawning. It has been one of my more affirming experiences as a public leader. During the 2\1/2\ years I have been in the Senate, many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have been negotiating over this issue in good faith, and actually for a time even before I was here they were working hard on criminal justice reform. This comprehensive criminal justice reform bill would address so many of the issues that have been agreed to on both sides of the aisle. It would address a system that does not make our communities safer but instead wastes the potential of millions of Americans and drains billions, trillions of taxpayer resources over time. What we have in the Senate is amazing. It has been incredible to see. We have Senators as different from each other on the political pole as Senator Leahy and Senator Grassley, with other Democrats and Republicans, from the most liberal to the most conservative in this body, coming together to craft a measured bill that would begin to fix our deeply broken criminal justice system. This result, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, would enable prosecutors and judges to maintain critical tools for prosecuting violent offenders and high- level drug traffickers while reducing mandatory minimums and life- without-parole sentences for nonviolent drug offenders. In addition, the bill actually includes a provision related to fentanyl--not one that I necessarily believe in or believe is most effective, but it was included in the bill as a compromise measure. This critical piece of legislation has the support of dozens of civil rights groups and faith groups, Christian evangelicals and law enforcement and prosecutor groups, including well-respected organizations such as the Major County Sheriffs' Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National District Attorneys Association. From law enforcement to faith-based leaders, civil rights activists, and fiscal conservative organizations, so many have come together and are being led in many cases by law enforcement officials because they know this bill is actually smart public safety policy. This bill has the support of law enforcement leaders, including former President George Bush's U.S. Attorney General, Michael Mukasey; former FBI Director Louie Freeh; and the U.S. Department of Justice. In a letter to Senate leadership, former U.S. Attorney Michael Mukasey, with former Director Bill Sessions and dozens of former Federal judges and U.S. attorneys, shared what they believe the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act can do. They said it ``is good for Federal law enforcement and public safety. It will more effectively ensure that justice shall be done.'' Groups like Law Enforcement Leaders to Reduce Crime and Incarceration, which represent more than 160 current and former police chiefs, U.S. attorneys, and district attorneys, have spoken out in support of this bill, arguing: This is a unique moment of rare bipartisan consensus on the urgent need for criminal justice reform. As law enforcement leaders, we want to make it clear where we stand: Not only is passing Federal mandatory minimum reform necessary to reduce incarceration, it is also necessary to help law enforcement continue to keep crime at historic lows across the country. We urge Congress to pass the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act. Contrary to what the few opponents argue, this act would preserve certain mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders. It would also more effectively target these mandatory minimums toward high-level drug traffickers and violent criminals. Federal drug laws were meant to go after these kingpins, and this legislation leaves important tools in place that allow prosecutors to go after them. Also, contrary to what the few opponents of this bill argue, the bill would not open the floodgates and permit violent offenders to be let out of prison early; rather, each case must go in front of a Federal judge, where the prosecutor will be present, for that independent judicial review. Experts from the National Academy of Sciences to the National Research Council have found that lengthy prison sentences have a minimal impact on crime prevention. The profound thing about this bill is that it is not breaking new ground. This is now becoming common knowledge around the States. In fact, it is being followed and led by many red States in our Nation. In fact, States have shown that we can reduce the prison population, save taxpayers millions and billions of dollars, and also reduce crime. Texas, for instance, between 2007 and 2012, reduced its incarceration rate by 9 percent and saw its total crime drop by 16 percent. If Texas--a State known for law and order and being tough on crime--can enact sweeping measures to reform its criminal justice system, so can we at the Federal level. That is why I am proud that one of the sponsors of the bill is the Republican Whip from Texas, Senator Cornyn. But there are other States--California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, Massachusetts, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah, and New Jersey. All these States have lowered their prison populations through commonsense reforms and--surprise, surprise--have seen crime drop. These States have enacted reforms because it is good for public safety and it saves needed taxpayer dollars that can be reinvested in public safety strategies that actually make us safer. Remember, these are Republican-led States and Democratic-led States, Governors from the right and the left. There is a great conservative organization called Right on Crime. This is what they had to say about public safety and criminal justice reform: Taxpayers know that public safety is the core function of government, and they are willing to pay what it takes to keep communities safe. In return for their tax dollars, citizens are entitled to a system that works. When governments spend money inefficiently and do not obtain crime reductions commensurate with the amount of money being spent, they do taxpayers a grave disservice. It is worth repeating that line: ``Citizens are entitled to a system that works.'' You see, this is not a partisan issue; it is an American issue. There is a chorus calling for reform across the political spectrum. Everyone from Republican candidates for President to conservative groups, such as Koch Industries and Americans for Tax Reform, have come out in support of criminal justice reform and this bill. That is why some Republicans like Grover Norquist and George Martin have written: Some Republicans who have not focused on our successes in the states think we are still living back in the 1980s and also believe that ``lock them up'' is a smart political war cry. . . . Wasting money is not a way to demonstrate how much you care about an issue. That is why people like Marc Levin, the founder of Right on Crime, have shared that ``the recent successes of many states in reducing crime, imprisonment, and costs through reforms grounded in research and conservative principles provide a blueprint for reform--at the Federal level.'' Former Governor Mike Huckabee said: I believe in law and order. I also believe in using facts, rather than fear, when creating policy. And, I believe in fiscal responsibility. Right now, our criminal justice system is failing us in all three camps. Republicans and Democrats from across the political spectrum have come together because they realize our failures to fix this system have simply cost us too much already. Everyone knows that the first rule of holes is that when you find yourself in one, stop digging. That is why this amendment is so frustrating--because it seeks to dig us deeper into a hole. Look at the financial costs we are already paying. In 2012, the average American taxpayer was contributing hundreds of dollars a year to corrections expenditures, including the incarceration and monitoring and rehabilitation of prisoners. A report from the Center of Economic Policy Research concluded that in 2008 alone, formerly incarcerated people's employment losses-- keeping people in for decades and decades--cost our economy the equivalent of 1.5 to 1.7 million workers or $57 billion to $65 billion annually. And it is estimated that the U.S. poverty rate between 1980 and 2004 would have been 20 percent lower if it had not been for all this mass incarceration. This is a lot of money we are spending keeping people behind bars--nonviolent offenders--and it is taking a significant financial toll in our country. We could be investing this money better. By passing this bipartisan Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, the CBO told us that this one bill alone that takes modest steps toward criminal justice reform will save an estimated $318 million in reduced prison costs over the next 5 years and $722 million over the next 10 years. Doing the right thing creates savings that we can then invest in strategies to make ourselves safer or give back to the taxpayers. Please understand that we have paid dearly for our mistakes. For example, from 1990 to 2005, a new prison opened every 10 days in the United States, making us the global leader in this infrastructure investment. A new prison opened every 10 days in the United States to keep up with the massive explosion in incarcerations. Imagine the roads and bridges and railways we could have been investing in during that time. As our infrastructure has been crumbling over the last three decades, the one area of infrastructure that has been ballooning was gleaming new prisons to actually incarcerate overwhelmingly nonviolent offenders. Imagine the investments we could have made in lifesaving research, innovative technologies, science and math funding. Instead, we extended mandatory minimums again and again and again for low-level drug offenders. The United States must be the leader around the globe for liberty and justice. Unfortunately, the United States now leads the world in a vastly more dubious distinction: the number of people we incarcerate. We only have 5 percent of the world population--only 5 percent--but one out of four imprisoned people on planet Earth is here in the United States. Again, the majority of those people are nonviolent offenders. The U.S. incarceration rate is 5 to 10 times that of many of our peer countries. The financial cost, the dollars wasted, are only part of the story, though. We are actually paying for our system's failures in innumerable ways. The hidden financial costs of our broken prison system mirror the hidden social costs that befall families of those incarcerated, with 1 in 28 American children--or 3.6 percent of American kids--growing up with a parent behind bars. Just 25 years ago, it was 1 in 125 American children. I recently saw that ``Sesame Street'' has started programming specifically aimed at helping kids with parents in prison because there are now so many of them. Over half of imprisoned parents were the primary earners for their children prior to their incarceration. What is more, a child with an incarcerated father is more likely to be suspended from school than a peer without an incarcerated father--23 percent compared to 4 percent. Our rush to incarcerate as a response to many of our societal problems has now created a stunning distinction. According to a new report from the Center for American Progress, close to half of all children in America are growing up with a parent with a criminal record. Our system often entraps the most vulnerable Americans. We are entrapping people who often are in need of incarceration but treatment and medical help, putting those vulnerable populations in jail for longer and longer periods. In fact, now many of our prisons serve as warehouses for the mentally ill. Serious mental illness affects an estimated 14.5 percent of men and 31 percent of all the women in our jails. Between 25 and 40 percent of all mentally ill Americans will be jailed or incarcerated at some point in their lives, and 65 percent of all American inmates meet the medical criteria for the disease of addiction, many of them not getting the treatment they need but just getting more incarceration. Today we live in a country where in many ways the words of Bryan Stevenson are also true. This idea of equal justice under the law is challenged by the facts of our criminal justice system. As Bryan Stevenson said, we live in a nation where you get treated better if you are rich and guilty than if you are poor and innocent. Over 80 percent of Americans who are charged with felonies are poor and deemed indigent by our court system. Our criminal justice system doesn't disproportionately affect just the mentally ill, the addicted, and the poor; it also disproportionately impacts people of color. We know that there is no deeper proclivity to commit drug crimes among people of color, but there is a much deeper reality that the drug laws affect people of color in a different way. For example, Blacks and Whites have no difference in using or selling drugs. There is no statistical difference. In fact, right now in America, some studies are showing that young White men have a slightly higher rate of dealing drugs than young Black men. But Blacks are 3.6 times more likely to get arrested for selling drugs. Latinos are 28 percent more likely than Whites to receive a mandatory minimum penalty for Federal offenses punished by such penalties. A 2011 report found that more than any other group, Latinos in America were convicted at a higher rate of offenses that carried a mandatory minimum sentence. And Blacks are also 21 percent more likely to receive a mandatory minimum sentence than Whites facing similar charges. Black men are given sentences about 20 percent longer than White men for similar crimes. And Native Americans are grossly overrepresented in our criminal justice system, with an incarceration rate 38 percent higher than the national average. Because minorities are more likely to be arrested for drug crimes even though the rates are not different in usage of drugs or selling of drugs, they are more--disproportionately--likely, therefore, to lose their voting rights, thus resulting in stunning statistics. Today, 1 in 13 Black Americans is prevented from voting because of felony disenfranchisement. Black citizens are four times more likely to have their voting rights revoked than someone who is White. Those are statistics befitting a different era in American history, but unfortunately they reflect our current circumstances. So here we find ourselves. I have been talking about this issue for my entire time in the Senate. Many of my colleagues have been working on this issue longer. I have been so encouraged that literally my first policy conversation on the Senate floor right after being sworn in right there by the Vice President of the United States--I walked back toward the back of the room and was met by colleagues who talked to me about this issue. I am so glad there is this growing consensus, but I am frustrated that an amendment is potentially coming to the floor that takes us backward while so much work has gone on to move this body ahead. I have come to believe in this body. I worked hard to become a Member of the Senate because I believe in the Senate and the power of this institution to do great things. In fact, it is the result of the great good of this body and the labor and struggles of so many Americans that I am even here in the first place, so many Americans fighting for issues that this body helped to change. From equal housing rights, to voting rights, to civil rights, this body has made us a fairer and more just Nation. This body has made our country the shining light on planet Earth for liberty and justice. This body, with so many committed Americans through so many generations, has so much to be proud of. I am so encouraged by colleagues on both sides of the aisle, that despite the partisanship and cynicism this body often generates, we have found common ground to advance the common good around our criminal justice system. We have a crisis in that system, but I am proud there is movement to address that. I urge my colleagues to consider the profound potential we have to advance our Nation, to deal with the opioid crisis, the drug crisis, and the crime crisis with smart and effective policies that have proven to work already at the State level. I urge my colleagues to resist the seductive temptation to claim to be tough on crime when in reality we are just wasting taxpayer dollars on a failed fiction that obscures the true urgency of the day. Finally, I urge the leadership of this body to not let this amendment reflecting failed policy of the past to the floor and instead move to bring forward a bipartisan, widely supported bill that will address the current crisis. We can no longer hesitate or equivocate, and we can definitely not afford to retreat. Wasting more time is not the answer. The time is now, and, I confess, I am losing patience. While I am encouraged by leaders like the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the ranking member of that committee, while I am encouraged by the fact that the majority whip and the Democratic Whip are on this bill, while I am encouraged by the fact that likely a supermajority of support exists for this bill, I am growing impatient that it has not come to a vote yet. There is nothing as painful as a blockage at the heart of justice, blocking the flow of reason, of commonsense, fairness, and urgently needed progress. But the pain and frustration I might feel is minimal compared to those who are suffering under the brunt of a broken system. We cannot be deaf to the cries for justice of families and children, those suffering addictions, those suffering from mental illness, and those whose families have been torn apart by such misfortunes. We cannot be mute or silent in the face of injustice, those of us who are elected to serve all Americans. At the beginning of each day, we swear an oath in this body. We pledge allegiance to those ideals of liberty and justice. Let us now act so we do not betray the moral standing of our Nation. I urge the Senate leadership to bring the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act for a vote. The time is right now to do what is right now. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, today the Senate voted on amendment No. 4206 to S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, for fiscal year 2017. This amendment would ensure that beneficiaries affected by changes to military health care designed to maintain critical wartime medical readiness skills and core competencies will be able to access through TRICARE medical services no longer available at military treatment facilities. I support this amendment because it ensures military families and retirees receive the care they deserve while allowing the military to focus on its wartime medical skills and training, and I would have voted in favor of it if I were present for the vote. Currently, the Military Health System has the dual role of medically supporting wartime deployments while caring for Active Duty members, retirees, and their families in peacetime. However, the core competencies and skills required for wartime and peacetime medical care can, at times, diverge. Great efficiencies can be found through public- private partnerships that can allow military medical professionals to focus on their wartime skills, while allowing the civilian health system to provide more care to military families and retirees. In our fiscally constrained environment, we must ensure that we use our defense dollars for maximum effect. Amendment No. 4206 specifies how beneficiaries will receive care because of changes to the Military Health System. The amendment also requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress on the modifications to medical services, treatment facilities, and personnel in the Military Health System. This ensures appropriate oversight of the Department of Defense's reforms in this area. I will continue to work to ensure that the individuals that protect us every day receive the care and support that we owe them.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I am pleased to have worked with Senator Cantwell and Senator Schumer to introduce the SANDy Act today which would provide much needed certainty and resiliency to our communications networks during times of natural disaster or emergency. Severe weather and emergencies can have devastating effects on communities, as New Jersey knows all too well. In the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy, we experienced loss in our communications networks including phone and Internet services. Natural disasters are one of the most important times to maintain access to 9-1-1 in order to obtain lifesaving services. Just this week, this legislation passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support, including from the New Jersey delegation led by Congressman Pallone's efforts. I hope the Senate will now turn its attention to this important matter and move this initiative forward to the benefit of New Jerseyans and people across the country. I am further pleased that phone service providers entered into a voluntary agreement last month in order to provide service to consumers during times of emergency, regardless of the network the consumer subscribes to in that area. The SANDy Act expresses the Sense of Congress that this agreement should continue to be adhered to in order to best serve 9-1-1 professionals, first responders, and local governments in accessing communications services during times of emergency. Further, the legislation collects additional data on network security during times of disaster and the resiliency of telecommunications networks power utility during times of emergency. With additional information and data, we can better prepare for disasters and ensure our networks operate at the best of their ability when severe storms strike. Finally, the legislation provides authority to FEMA to reimburse costs associated with restoring and repairing critical communications services to first responders and communities. The SANDy Act is an important step toward better protecting and preserving vital communications networks when disaster strikes. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, I am very grateful that my chairman of my committee, Environment and Public Works, spoke so eloquently about the issues surrounding this bill. I am new to the Senate--at least in Senate terms--because I have been here for 2\1/2\ years, but I have never seen such a broad-based coalition involved in supporting a bill-- a coalition that extends from the far right to the far left, a coalition that brings industry and activists together, a coalition that brings environmentalists together, as well as those who seek economic growth. This is a tremendous coalition. But even more so for me as a relatively new Senator, it has been one of the greatest privileges I have had in the Senate to work together in such a cooperative way to bring about legislation for which you really could build such a broad base of support. I applaud my colleagues, and I applaud the chairman and the ranking member. I applaud all the members on the EPW Committee and others for working on a bill that does earn, in my opinion, speaking as a man from New Jersey, the right to have the name of my predecessor Frank Lautenberg on it. Senator Lautenberg was a giant in New Jersey. He served this country with distinction. He was a veteran. He was a public servant. He actually ran a business and grew it to be a mighty one in my State and beyond. You cannot truly begin to appreciate the void that was left by him, but the great thing about this champion of transportation, of infrastructure, of consumer safety, of fighting for his fellow citizens, this champion's work, where he began working in partnership with Senator Vitter to try to move this forward and then sadly died-- this is one of his great legacies. One of his great contributions was his effort to begin what has now been a multiple-year effort to reform the toxic hazardous chemical law. Senator Lautenberg's efforts were the instigating factor, the ignition of this success that we are having today of such a broad-based bill, of such broad-based support. It reflects his work, his efforts, and his legacy. I am very proud I had the honor of finishing Senator Frank Lautenberg's term in the Senate last year. During that time and still today, I see on a daily basis the urgency around his efforts. I know that after Senator Lautenberg passed, his spirit was still very much manifest in this area when his wife, Bonnie Lautenberg, took up the important cause and served as one of the fiercest champions in strengthening this bill we are talking about now. She was here working, lobbying, nursing, pushing, cajoling, convincing, making sure we got to this day. I am very proud that during my 2\1/2\ years, I was able to enter into the work to get this legislation to where it is today. I saw Senator Tom Udall's leadership, and I want to praise that. I saw how tireless he was working on this. I am grateful for Senator Udall's, Senator Vitter's, Chairman Inhofe's, and everyone's staff, as they worked together to get this bill to where it is today. At the beginning of 2015, my colleagues, Senator Whitehouse and Senator Merkley, and I began by negotiating with Senators Udall and Vitter to make what we saw as urgently needed improvements to this bill. Working together, I am proud we were able to make those improvements to the preemption provisions that were involved in some of the things my colleague from Kentucky was just talking about--making sure that States still have a role in the process, still have power and authority in this process, and have the ability now to co-enforce with the Federal Government around this bill. I was also very proud of a provision in this bill that will significantly minimize new animal testing and potentially save tens of thousands of animals from unnecessary suffering. I am proud that the revised bill passed out of the EPW Committee with strong bipartisan support. I am also proud that since the EPW Committee has improved this bill, Senators Udall and Vitter have stayed at the negotiating table and continued to take input from folks on both sides of the aisle, continuing to make this a better bill. Senators Merkley, Durbin, Boxer, the bill's sponsor, and others have made additional changes to make this bill strong. We would never have gotten this strong of a TSCA reform bill if it weren't for the work of people on both sides of the political aisle, if it weren't for the work of people within industry, if it weren't for the work of advocacy groups, and if it weren't for groups I have come to respect a tremendous amount, such as the Environmental Defense Fund, whose early engagement and constant pressure played such an important role. This is one of those rare moments where you have a full court press, both sides of the aisle and individuals who are representing multiple sectors all coming together to make a strong bill. They are making a strong bill because everyone was in agreement that the legislation we had--decades' old, the TSCA bill--was broken. It was broken in that it did not protect consumer safety. It was broken in that it did not give predictability and certainty to the industry. It was broken because it put America's health at risk. Whether it was children or our seniors, it created an environment where people could get sick. It had no teeth. It had no strength. When this bill becomes law, it will protect American families, it will protect our children from dangerous chemicals, and it will give industry the certainty it needs. I urge my colleagues to pass the Frank Lautenberg bill today. I want to thank everyone again. This is a result of a tremendous coalition of efforts, a symphony of focus and work, of people coming together to do something that many people think is rare in the Senate--that we all can work together across partisan lines to make good legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I am pleased to have worked with Senator Cantwell and Senator Schumer to introduce the SANDy Act today which would provide much needed certainty and resiliency to our communications networks during times of natural disaster or emergency. Severe weather and emergencies can have devastating effects on communities, as New Jersey knows all too well. In the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy, we experienced loss in our communications networks including phone and Internet services. Natural disasters are one of the most important times to maintain access to 9-1-1 in order to obtain lifesaving services. Just this week, this legislation passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support, including from the New Jersey delegation led by Congressman Pallone's efforts. I hope the Senate will now turn its attention to this important matter and move this initiative forward to the benefit of New Jerseyans and people across the country. I am further pleased that phone service providers entered into a voluntary agreement last month in order to provide service to consumers during times of emergency, regardless of the network the consumer subscribes to in that area. The SANDy Act expresses the Sense of Congress that this agreement should continue to be adhered to in order to best serve 9-1-1 professionals, first responders, and local governments in accessing communications services during times of emergency. Further, the legislation collects additional data on network security during times of disaster and the resiliency of telecommunications networks power utility during times of emergency. With additional information and data, we can better prepare for disasters and ensure our networks operate at the best of their ability when severe storms strike. Finally, the legislation provides authority to FEMA to reimburse costs associated with restoring and repairing critical communications services to first responders and communities. The SANDy Act is an important step toward better protecting and preserving vital communications networks when disaster strikes. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in supporting the conflict-of-interest rule that was recently finalized by the Department of Labor. This is a fair and balanced rule that protects our Nation's retirees and savers. In fact, it is a rule that makes sure that in the midst of a retirement crisis in this country, where people are having a harder and harder time making sure that after working a lifetime they have the money they need to retire--it is bringing common sense back to that process. I firmly believe that the conflict-of-interest rule should not be a partisan issue. That is because this rule comes down to those fundamental ideas that really know no party bounds. Again, the idea for me is about honor and common sense. By honor, I mean the idea that we are a country that believes every American deserves a fair opportunity to succeed. Fairness is at the core of our Nation's ideals--this idea that we are all bound to do what we can to identify and change systems that stack the deck against hard- working families that play by the rules. This body and its history have done so much to level the playing field and make sure that we have a free market and a fair market. It is because we as a nation value dignity and stand against those who seek to exploit or take advantage of others. In fact, we understand that we have an obligation to our country men and women. We have an obligation to each other to ensure that there is a level playing field that no one can take advantage of or exploit. We participate in, abide by, and are meant to benefit from this social contract and understand that a social contract and a vibrant economy are not mutually exclusive. Actually, they reinforce one another. These principles make America exceptional. They empower and embolden our free-market economy. They generate strength and security for more families. They ensure abundance and allow us to strive for ideals of life, liberty, and the ability to pursue happiness. So I believe we are honor bound to uphold these principles, to ensure fairness and opportunity for all. We also must understand that fairness is a key ingredient in broad-based economic growth and strength. When I talk about common sense, I mean people have a reasonable expectation, in a free market, to be treated fairly and justly, especially in those areas that are most critical to their lives. It is rational, therefore, and just common sense, for us to insist that when we are treated by a doctor, that the doctor is going to place the interest of our health over their own financial interests. It is understandable that when we go to see a doctor, what is paramount is what is in our best interest. It is also understandable that we have that standard when it comes to the law; and, when we seek legal counsel, we are right to expect our lawyers to act in our best interest. That is the standard for doctors and for lawyers, for our health and well-being and for those legal decisions that will affect our lives profoundly. When we seek advice on an issue as serious as our health, our livelihoods, and our finances, we expect to be treated with the highest standards of care, and those professionals--those lawyers or doctors-- shouldn't in any way be inhibited in their ability to make a livelihood. Indeed, in many cases, they should flourish. While the vast majority in the financial industry are strong advisers who put the interests of their clients first, the challenge we have right now is that unlike doctors and lawyers, those financial advisers are not required to put the interest of their clients at the high level of a fiduciary standard. As a result of not having that same high standard of care as doctors and lawyers, there are some within that industry who actually take advantage of families trying to plan for their retirement. A large money market manager recently said: ``As active equity managers we have all been on the hook lately to justify our value proposition. And we should be, since the facts clearly show that as an industry, we have not consistently provided the performance that investors deserve.'' Here are folks who have incredible financial knowledge, sophistication, and acumen talking to everyday Americans and putting forth this idea that they are going to help them retire with security, but they have no obligation to do what is in their best interest, to uphold the highest standard of care. That is problematic, and industry leaders understand that. They understand we cannot allow space for those who might seek to exploit families, struggling to retire, for their own financial interest. It is this idea that is at the root of the conflict-of-interest rule--the idea that hard-working Americans saving for retirement deserve to be treated with fairness, with honor, and with a mutual obligation Americans should have toward each other, so that if they seek advice from a financial adviser, they deserve to get advice that prioritizes their needs above all others. This is about fairness. This is about common sense. I was proud to stand with the Secretary of Labor, Secretary Perez, and my colleagues Senator Warren and Senator Murray when this final rule was announced. I am proud that prior to that, the rule went through a very lengthy and diligent process that allowed for robust feedback from all types of stakeholders. Throughout the rulemaking process, the Department of Labor demonstrated patience and inclusiveness of all perspectives, and, most of all, an unyielding commitment to protecting our Nation's workers and retirees--protecting the bedrock of our country and the very idea of the middle class; that if you work hard and play by the rules, you can retire with security and dignity. The result of all the work of the Department of Labor and their commitment to this ideal is a fair and balanced rule based on the ideas of common sense and honor. The fact is, for so many Americans, it could not come at a more important time. In fact, it could not come at a more urgent time. We have a retirement crisis in our country. So many people are working harder and harder but are finding themselves with more month at the end of their money than money at the end of their month. Many people are finding it harder and harder to save for retirement. In fact, right now one in three aren't saving for retirement. The Federal Reserve found that a whopping 47 percent of Americans don't have the savings to even cover a $400 emergency expense. Since the financial crisis, retirement readiness for the average American has actually decreased. Families are seeing greater challenges now in securing their own future. They are seeing greater difficulties securing the American dream of being able to work hard, play by the rules, and retire with dignity and security. I know this personally, and my office does because we hear from constituents all the time about their real stories, not just of the difficulties of planning for retirement but in dealing with a financial industry that often takes advantage of their clients. Last year I heard from one of my constituents in Lakewood who wrote to tell me about his mother. After losing her husband, she went to seek advice from a financial adviser to help her sort out her finances and plan for her retirement. She put her trust and her livelihood in the hands of this adviser, but the conflicted advice she received ended up costing her tens of thousands of dollars. Saving for retirement is stressful. At kitchen tables in every town, every city across the country, families are struggling to figure out how best to save for retirement, and here was an adviser who provided conflicted advice, costing my resident in Lakewood tens of thousands of dollars because they trusted and relied on the fact that the advice the financial retirement adviser was giving them was in their best interest. This is wrong, and it is unfair. Especially for those Americans who don't have much to begin with, the way they manage their retirement savings means so much. Huge gulfs continue to persist in retirement savings between men and women, the poor and the wealthy, and minority families and their White peers. This is a problem for all Americans, from all different backgrounds. It is a crisis in our country. For so many Americans, in regard to this rule, there is so much at stake. Good advice from a retirement adviser can make a world of difference. In fact, it can be the difference between security and financial crisis. It can be the difference between retiring with ease versus retiring with stress and dependence. That is why the advice of a trusted retirement professional is so important. There are many good actors in this space who know that increased transparency, increased accountability, and the idea of profitability don't need to be mutually exclusive. In fact, there are people making extraordinary livings in this space by doing the right thing for their clients. Honest, hard-working brokers know that updating the standards expected of retirement advisers is common sense, fair, and it actually helps America as a whole become stronger. That is why industry leaders are already making changes to prepare for this rule's implementation and why the CEO of a major money management firm recently implored his industry colleagues by saying: Let's not lose sight of why clients engage us in the first place: to help them save the money they need to buy a house, send their kids to college, retire comfortably and meet any other long-term financial goals they have. This CEO is 100 percent right, and I am happy many companies are beginning to ensure their retirement plans make the most of their employees' savings. According to a recent Wall Street Journal report, the administrative cost of retirement plans fell to their lowest level in a decade in 2015 and with this rule, they will continue to fall. The needle is moving in the right direction. To attempt to block this rule now would be a step backward, and it would send a message to hard- working Americans and retirees that they simply don't matter enough to this body; that this body cares more about special interests than hard- working families. It cares more about financial advisers on Wall Street and their ability to exploit middle-class Americans than it does those middle-class Americans who believe in the American dream that is being put at risk. To not support this rule would be to roll back what we all know; that we can create a win-win and a fair economy that doesn't exploit people who are vulnerable but uplifts them, where both financial adviser and middle-class retirees can have success. I know men and women in our country--and many who serve here--who know and understand the challenges of planning for retirement. Look, on the day this rule was announced earlier this year, I understood some people would try to fight this, and I turned to the folks listening and said: Look, this fight is not over. We are going to have to continue. Let us as a nation fight for what is right, not for the special interests of the wealthy few. Let's not allow people to feast upon the retirement savings from the hard work of others, but let's fight to affirm the middle-class dream in America. Let's fight to make sure we are doing right by folks. Let's create a level playing field. This is a fight for people like the constituent of mine who not only lost her husband but too much of her savings and now is trying to pick up the pieces. This fight is not over for hard-working families across this country who are diligently saving for retirement and for whom these hidden fees, unfortunately, threaten to undermine decades of hard work. These hidden fees are insidious. These hidden fees allow some advisers to exploit people for their own enrichment. These hidden fees are un-American. We must continue to make sure those hard-working advisers who provide exemplary levels of service, who prioritize their clients' interests, are the ones being elevated in this fairer system and not being maligned by those few bad actors who feast upon the savings of other people. This fight has to be about what it means to be an American. That is what this body did when it passed the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 40 years ago. We believed in the idea that America is a place where if you work hard and you play by the rules, you can retire with dignity and don't have to worry that your doctor or your lawyer or your financial adviser will exploit you and thrust you into insecurity or worse. This is what we must do in this body now. In the spirit of past actions, we must put the interest of our middle-class constituents first, plain and simple. This rule is fair. This rule is balanced. This rule helps our free market economy. This rule ensures that the highest standard will be applied to something as precious and fundamental as our retirement savings. It preserves honor in this business. It preserves honor for America. The needle has already moved forward. We cannot afford to go back. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, today the Senate voted on S. 2613, the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act. This legislation would extend two key programs that Congress established a decade ago to standardize and strengthen registration and monitoring of sex offenders nationwide. I support this bill because it has critical provisions that law enforcement officers need in order to protect our children from harm, and I would have voted in favor of it if I were present for the vote. In 2006, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. The Adam Walsh Act, which was named for a 6-year old who was tragically murdered in 1981, established nationwide notification and registration standards for those convicted of sex offenses. The Adam Walsh Act created a Federal grant program to assist State and local law enforcement to implement registration systems and locate those who fail abide by registration requirements. The Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act would reauthorize the Sex Offender Management Assistance Program, a Federal program that assists State and local law enforcement agencies in their efforts to improve sex offender registry systems and information-sharing capabilities. The bill would also reauthorize the Jessica Lunsford Address Verification Grant Program, a Federal program that assists States and local law enforcement agencies in their efforts to verify the residence of all or some registered sex offenders. The reauthorization of these critical programs would provide law enforcement with the tools they need to keep our communities safe. I would have voted in favor this legislation today because it helps combat child predators by giving law enforcement officials the tools they need to catch these dangerous individuals and convict them. It takes a comprehensive network of law enforcement agencies on the Federal, State, and local levels working together to ensure compliance and locate sex offenders, and that is what this bill would do. I also support this legislation because it would tighten our sex offender registration system and better track registered sex offenders, which helps to protect our children from harm. I also recognize that this legislation has the support of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the Nation's foremost missing children's clearinghouse. Despite my support for this legislation, I do have concerns with some sex offender registration systems. First, more research is needed to assess whether or not sex offender registries actually improve the safety of the public. Some research has concluded that sex registries have no demonstrable effect in reducing sex re-offenses and often registered sex offenders have higher rates of recidivism. While our men and women in uniform believe they need this tool to combat sex offenses, Congress should not rubber-stamp Federal programs in the absence of hard data that demonstrates their effectiveness in keeping us safe. I am also concerned that sex offender programs undermine rehabilitation because they present significant barriers to reintegration into the community. Requiring youth who are adjudicated in juvenile court of sex offenses to register as a sex offender is counterproductive to the goal of the juvenile justice system, which is designed to protect youth from lifelong penalties carried by the adult criminal justice system. The top priority of our government must be to protect the public; but one-size-fits-all solutions do not achieve that end. Despite my concerns, I would have voted in favor of the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act today because I believe it provides law enforcement with the tools they need to keep people safe. I am committed to working with law enforcement to make sure they receive the support they need from Congress to effectively do their jobs. However, Congress must do its job by ensuring that the programs we endorse have the research to support them. That effort is critical to both keeping the public safe and to ensuring that our justice system is fair for all Americans.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I appreciate seeing the Presiding Officer in the chair and having a ``Corey'' represented and presiding over the U.S. Senate. I rise today to speak against an amendment now pending to this bill that would block a rule that seeks to fulfill the promise of the Fair Housing Act. This issue is very deeply personal to me and one that really has defined my own personal history. I would like to start by telling a story. In 1969, just 1 year after the passage of the Fair Housing Act, a couple here in Washington, DC, married with two boys, decided to move to New Jersey. In New Jersey, they encountered a lot of a practice called real estate steering, where Black couples were steered away from certain neighborhoods. Realizing they were being steered away from White neighborhoods, they grew frustrated, and they sought the help of the fair housing council. They set up an elaborate sting operation where my parents would go look at a home--or this couple would go look at a home--and they would then be followed by a White couple. The couple was told the house was sold or it was not for sale. The White couple would then appear and find out if that was, indeed, true. Most often for this couple from Washington, DC, yes, they would find out the house was still for sale. Eventually this couple found a house they loved in a small town called Harrington Park, NJ, but they were told that the house was not for sale. They were told the house had been pulled off the market or sold. They left. Then the White couple came behind them. Lo and behold, the house had not been sold or was not pulled off the market. The White couple pretended that they loved the house as the Black couple did and put a bid on the house. The bid was accepted. On the day of the closing, instead of the White couple showing up, the African-American gentleman from the Black couple and a volunteer lawyer came to confront the real estate agent. The real estate agent was so upset that he stood up and punched the lawyer representing the Black couple and sicced his dog on the African-American man. Yet the law was on their side. The fair housing law of the United States of America, the law of the Federal Government, was on their side. Eventually, that Black couple and their two kids moved into that home in Harrington Park, NJ. That was 1969. It was the year I was born, and that couple was my parents, Cary and Carolyn Booker. That is my origin story. Legislation that this body passed empowered my family to move into the home of their dreams in an all-White neighborhood with incredibly good schools that I went through from K-12. I am the beneficiary of work this body did to ensure that our American values are preserved, our values of inclusion and integration, to make sure fair housing is the law of the land. That work gave me my start in life. The activism of local activists, combined with the law of the land as passed by us, defined my path. After decades of struggle in communities across the country, we have largely been successful in banning overt housing discrimination. We should be proud of our work. But legislation that we passed should not become a relic of history. It is not something for us to turn and admire. We all know on many issues the cause of freedom and the cause of justice necessitate constant vigilance. So I rise today with the knowledge that while major pieces of civil rights legislation like the Fair Housing Act have had a significant impact on millions of Americans--White, Black, Latino, Asian, disabled--this has had a full impact. We still have work to do to continue that vigilance to make sure that those values, those ideals, and the law of the land are made real for families. Unfortunately, for nearly 50 years there has not been real guidance, direction, or tools to help local officials achieve the goals of the Fair Housing Act, which are integrated housing, fair housing, equal access. In 2010, in fact, the Government Accountability Office found that the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, failed to properly administer oversight obligations under the Fair Housing Act and failed to monitor its guarantees for compliance with the law. In 2013, HUD proposed affirmatively furthering fair housing, a new rule that would seek to fulfill the promise of the Fair Housing Act and eliminate a lot of the historic patterns of segregation that still go on in America today. The vision for the rule is to institute a data- driven analysis of localities and to develop Federal grant programs for housing and economic inclusion. When I was mayor, people came to me with passions and accusations and the like. I used to always say: In God we trust, but, everybody else, bring me data. It is important to look at the numbers to know what really is going on. So HUD brought about this idea of making sure we have that data--not in a rushed process. The administration engaged in a diligent 2-year rulemaking process with public inclusion, participation from others, and lots of public comment periods. They finalized that rule in July 2015. It is unfortunate that one of my dear colleagues--somebody whom I value very much because we do a lot of work across the aisle--has introduced an amendment that would block this rule's implementation, and I must respectfully disagree with the intent of this amendment. The Fair Housing Act and, really, the entirety of the Civil Rights Act were meant, again, to be real today, not just relics of yesterday. They were meant to be guideposts and standards by which we hold ourselves accountable for the values we put forth. The affirmatively further fair housing rule is a measure of accountability for HUD and for ourselves. You cannot change what you cannot measure. Let me say that again. I learned this as a manager: If you can't measure it, you can't change it or affect it. The rule will arm communities most in need with knowledge and numbers so they can make intelligent local decisions and best apply their resources. It is what everyone who has to manage something needs: accurate data. It will improve the access to quality data on local demographics and streamline the process for analyzing local fair housing impediments, helping grantees establish their own local fair housing priorities. This rule does not interfere with local zoning or housing laws, and it prevents further taxpayer dollars from being used to discriminate. Every stakeholder--every one of us--is afforded an opportunity to comment on the rule that HUD made, and, as a former local leader, it empowers people at the localities to do justice by their communities. This is a balanced and a measured rule, and it takes up the cause of the work to make our country more and more just. I know personally that so much of the character of our country comes from the values we have as a whole. There are rare times in our history where this body is called upon to affirm those values. This body's history--the noble history of this body--is something I have benefited from personally around fair housing. Now we have more tools necessary, with big data and analysis, to more effectively and affirmatively assert our values and ensure injustice is not being done. I want to make sure that we defeat this amendment for those reasons. I believe and know the values of my colleague who proposed this. I do not think it achieves the end that we want to see by disempowering people to try to help families like mine. I was a child in DC moving to New Jersey and found justice--found a pathway toward integration. Indeed, I doubt I would be here right now if it weren't for the laws of our land. I hope we can defeat this amendment and ensure that our Nation becomes more fair and more just and that more families like mine can find the America we hail when we pledge allegiance to the flag and say we are a Nation of liberty and justice for all. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum calls be charged equally, fairly--like fair housing--fairly, to both sides.

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

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