Cory Booker

Mr. BOOKER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I rise today with a very heavy heart because of the horrific tragedy that occurred and is still unfolding right now. Late last evening, an Amtrak train, train No. 188--a train I myself have traveled on--carrying 243 passengers and crew derailed in Philadelphia. It has been confirmed now that seven people have died, including Associated Press employee, husband, father of two, and Plainsboro, NJ, resident Jim Gaines. More than 200 people were injured. My deepest thoughts and prayers are with those who are suffering today. I am so grateful for the work of the hundreds of first responders, Amtrak crew, doctors, nurses, and many others who quickly, courageously, and very professionally did their jobs and who no doubt saved lives. As we speak, the search through the wreckage for more people, living or dead, is still in process. All people have not been accounted for, and I hope and pray our brave first responders can soon account for everyone who was expected to have been on board. The 243 people--including passengers and crew--many of whom boarded Amtrak regional train No. 188 just half a mile from where I stand right now--were headed to New York. They were on their way home, on their way to work, to see their husbands and their wives, their children, and their journey was horrifically interrupted when the train derailed around 9:30 p.m. in Philadelphia. Since the incident, my staff and I have been in contact with Amtrak, the National Transportation Safety Board, the Federal Railroad Administration, and the Department of Transportation. The exact cause of the derailment is unknown, although speed was definitely a factor. We are in close contact with Amtrak officials and Federal investigators who are working quickly to identify exactly what happened to cause this disaster. Amtrak train No. 188 was on a very familiar path. So many people take this route. The train that derailed was traveling on the Northeast corridor, which is one of the busiest corridors, a 457-mile rail corridor that is the most traveled in North America. It is a transportation lifeline, one of our main arteries connecting the people of Washington, DC, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. The Northeast corridor transports 750,000 passengers every day and moves a workforce that produces $50 billion each year toward our gross domestic product. More people are traveling with Amtrak on the Northeast corridor than ever before. Just last year, 11.6 million passengers traveled the Northeast corridor. In New Jersey alone, 110 trains run daily along this route. New Jersey Transit works in cooperation with Amtrak to move trains along the Northeast corridor, where New Jersey Transit customers take 288,000 trips on the corridor each day and 63.6 million trips a year. Yet, none of these numbers--none of them--are as important today as that number of 243, the number of people riding on and working on Amtrak train No. 188 last evening, or the 7 people who died. We are in a time of great sadness. As the ranking member of the Senate subcommittee that has jurisdiction over rail safety, I want to also say that my colleagues and I have been working in the Senate to develop policies and implement new safety technologies that will improve rail safety and save lives, and we have been working diligently to finalize a draft of a passenger rail authorization bill. Congress has not passed a passenger rail bill since 2008, and authorization for that bill expired in 2013. It is unacceptable that Congress has not acted to provide the needed improvements, investment, and long-term certainty for Amtrak, and I will work hard to make sure that we pass passenger rail, that it is a priority for this body. In fact, today we had intended to introduce this bill authorizing funding and improvements to passenger rail in the United States. Today, that was our intention. However, in light of this tragic event, Senator Wicker and I have decided to monitor the incoming information and take this opportunity to evaluate what other actions might need to be taken as a part of the legislation. I am proud of my colleagues who have worked so diligently to ensure we get this bill done, and I thank the leadership, Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson, for their support. If there is an action that needs to be taken to improve safety in the wake of this tragedy as we are finalizing this bill, I know we can work together to make it a reality. That said, I must say I am disappointed in the direction of the House appropriations process, which risks starving Amtrak of vitally important funds at the very moment we need to be investing more in passenger rail and our country's crumbling infrastructure. Failing to make the proper investments in our Nation's infrastructure is indeed crippling our competitiveness in a global economy. A 2012 Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco report estimated that every dollar invested in our national infrastructure increases economic output by at least $2. Failing to invest properly in infrastructure improvement is threatening the public's safety. My thoughts and prayers are with the family, friends, and loved ones of the individuals who were killed or injured in last night's train derailment. We still aren't certain of the exact cause, but this incident is a searing reminder of the fragility of life. It is important that we also remember that we should do everything necessary to safeguard life, to make sure we have it and have it more abundantly. Nothing can fix the damage that has been done to these families and their communities. We all grieve as a nation for the loss of life and pray for those injured, that they recover. I say now that we must work tirelessly to prevent another tragedy like this from occurring and that we must do everything necessary so we as a nation can have a rail infrastructure and highways, roads, bridges--have an infrastructure as a whole that reflects the greatness of the people of our country. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I take this occasion to honor Rear Admiral Kevin S. Cook of the U.S. Coast Guard for his 36 years of dedicated service to our country. He is a man who, throughout his career, has led from the front, and our Nation has benefited greatly from his efforts. A native of Freehold, NJ, Rear Admiral Cook earned his bachelor of science degree in ocean engineering and his commission from the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in 1979. Rear Admiral Cook spent his early years in the service afloat on ``work boats,'' the Coast Guard's black hull/aids to navigation fleet. He served as a deck watch officer on the Coast Guard Cutter Madrona, as Executive Officer on the Coast Guard Cutter Bittersweet, and as commanding officer of the Coast Guard Cutter Cowslip. After his afloat career, Rear Admiral Cook developed proficiency in the Coast Guard's marine safety missions. His first operational ashore tour was at Marine Safety Office Hampton Roads. He was later assigned as executive officer and, subsequently, commanding officer of Marine Safety Office Houston-Galveston--the position he held at the time of the September 11, 2001, attacks. Under his leadership, the Marine Safety Office Houston-Galveston developed integrated tactics, techniques, and procedures to ensure the safety of the ports under its purview. In the years immediately following 9/11, Rear Admiral Cook directed homeland security operations while commanding the Regional Task Unit covering waters from Freeport, TX, to Lake Charles, LA. He carefully balanced safety and security with the need to facilitate commerce in the largest petrochemical complex in the United States. He executed these duties without any substantial disruption to the waterways or the more than 150 facilities that comprise the Port of Houston. His work established the foundation for Coast Guard maritime security operations today. Rear Admiral Cook also spent time developing policy for the Coast Guard and the international maritime community. He was an engineer for, and later the Chief of, the Coast Guard's hazardous materials division. He also served as the director of prevention policy, where he was responsible for many of the Coast Guard's Marine Safety, Security, and Stewardship missions affecting waterways management, domestic and international shipping, recreational and fishing boats, and port facilities throughout the Nation. During this tour, our Nation would once again need Rear Admiral Cook's leadership and, as before, he would answer that call, serving as the national incident commander's representative to BP headquarters for oversight of well containment activities during the 2010 Deep Water Horizon response. His specialty knowledge and incident response expertise was instrumental to the management of the first-ever designated Spill of National Significance, SONS, in U.S. history. Rear Admiral Cook later served as deputy commander of the Atlantic area in Portsmouth, VA, overseeing operations spanning five Coast Guard districts and 40 States, from the Rocky Mountains to the Arabian Gulf. Rear Admiral Cook presently serves as the commander of the Eighth Coast Guard District. Headquartered in New Orleans, the Eighth District is responsible for Coast Guard operations spanning 26 States, from North Dakota to Brownsville, TX; more than 1,200 miles of Gulf of Mexico shoreline from South Padre Island to the Florida Panhandle; and more than 10,300 miles of inland waterways, including the entire lengths of the Mississippi, Ohio, Missouri, Illinois, and Tennessee river systems. It also oversees more than 179,000-square-miles of the Gulf of Mexico and the associated oil and gas exploration activities that occur on the Outer Continental Shelf. Unique to the Eighth Coast Guard District are the wide and varied missions carried out daily across the gulf and heartland of America. Rear Admiral Cook has provided strategic vision and critical operational support to ensure that the nearly 10,000 Active Duty, Reserve, Civilian, and Auxiliary members under his charge have the necessary tools and direction to protect some of our Nation's busiest ports and waterways. In fact, the Eighth District oversees 17 of the top 40 busiest U.S. ports in terms of gross tonnage shipped annually-- ports such as Houston, Lake Charles, Corpus Christi, New Orleans, and Mobile that are vital to our Nation's economic prosperity. The Eighth District's boundaries also contain the majority of our Nation's river systems, which facilitate the movement of 880 million tons of cargo annually via towboat and barge traffic. His responsibilities stretch 200 miles from shore into the Gulf of Mexico, where there are more than 6,500 oil and gas wells, over 100 mobile offshore drilling units, and approximately 30,000 people working on the Outer Continental Shelf every day. This is a vast area to command, but Rear Admiral Kevin Cook does so admirably. A lifelong learner, Rear Admiral Cook has taken advantage of every opportunity to improve himself for the betterment of the Coast Guard and his community. He earned a master of science degree in chemical engineering from Princeton University, and he is a 1999 graduate of the U.S. Army War College. He later served a 1-year appointment as the Coast Guard fellow to the chief of naval operations strategic studies group. Rear Admiral Cook has earned numerous military honors, including the Legion of Merit, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Coast Guard Commendation Medal, and the Coast Guard Achievement Medal. Rear Admiral Cook is a Coast Guardsman, but that is not all he is. He is husband to Kristen, and, together, they are the proud parents of three grown children: Erin, a second-grade teacher at Rosa Parks Elementary school in Woodbridge, VA; Peter, a technician at a TV station in Winter Park, FL; and Megan, who followed in her father's footsteps and serves as a lieutenant junior grade on the Coast Guard Cutter Juniper in Newport, RI. This week, Rear Admiral Kevin Cook will leave his post in New Orleans and retire after 36 years of exemplary service to the Coast Guard and our Nation. Including his Coast Guard Academy time, Rear Admiral Cook has served our Nation for 40 years. Just as he has stood the watch and has been ``Semper Paratus . . . Always Ready'' during his career, I am sure that he is ready for the next phase of his life. The Coast Guard will carry on, as will his service legacy, through the men and women who he has led and mentored for the past four decades. I ask my colleagues in the Senate to join me in thanking Rear Admiral Cook for his distinguished service and, in Coast Guard tradition, wish him fair winds and following seas.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Gillibrand in support of the introduction of the Voter Registration Modernization Act of 2015. This bill would improve the fabric of our democracy and bring our election procedures into the 21st century by eradicating barriers to voter registration and expanding access to the franchise for millions of voters who were previously unregistered to vote. I thank Senator Gillibrand for her leadership on this issue. The right to vote is the bedrock of our democracy. In our representative form of government, the right to participate in the democratic process is fundamental to who we are and what we believe. That is, our belief in being a nation grounded in the idea of equal justice under law. Voting is a fundamental right because it is preservative of all other rights. Without access to the ballot, our civil rights and freedoms of religion, speech, and press could be eroded and our faith that those rights will be fully protected lost. In 2012, our Nation witnessed cracks in the foundation of our democracy. Millions of people watched television coverage of our presidential election in disgust as voters stood in lines for hours, mainly due to problems with the paper-based voter registration system. No American in the 21st century should have to use paper ballots or stand in lines for hours in order to exercise their fundamental right to vote. The President's bipartisan commission to improve the election process concluded that no voter should have to wait more than 30 minutes to vote. We should be making voting easier, not harder. We can begin that process by ensuring that States modernize their voter registration process and give citizens the choice to register to vote online. When the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 was passed two decades ago, the revolution in data sharing and integration was just beginning. It is time to incorporate the commonplace experience of online transactions into the election process. By implementing online voter registration, the Voter Registration Modernization Act addresses a key problem with paper-based systems--the inaccurate transfer of information to election authorities. This bill would ensure that voters' votes count and help election authorities who rely on accurate voter registration lists to better detect problems. Currently, 20 States have online voter registration systems. One of the greatest benefits we have seen so far is the saving of taxpayers' money. Arizona, for example, which launched the Nation's first online voter registration system, saved its taxpayers almost $1.4 million. Kansas noted no expenses at all. It is now time for the Federal Government to follow their lead and adopt these common-sense, cost cutting reforms. The Voter Registration Modernization Act amends the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to provide for online voter registration systems. It provides funding for States to implement the bill and directs the National Institute of Standards and Technology to conduct an ongoing study on best practices for Internet registration. With passage of this bill, States are required to adopt pro-technology measures, including taking steps to ensure the online availability of voter registration forms, provide online assistance, and allow voters to update registration information online. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said ``The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.'' But that arc does not bend towards justice without effort. We must put in the necessary hard work--and build the foundation and infrastructure--for justice to prevail. We can improve the health of our democracy by supporting this critical legislation, which would expand the ballot and update our voting technology. I urge all Senators to support the Voter Registration Modernization Act of 2015.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of legislation offered by Senators Cornyn and Franken, the Comprehensive Justice and Mental Health Act. This critical piece of bipartisan legislation would promote alternatives to incarceration by helping identify and treat Americans suffering from mental illness. For far too long our criminal justice system has been a substitute for a mental health system. That practice is costly, wastes limited resources, and is contrary to evidence-based practices proven to make our communities safer. I thank Senators Cornyn and Franken for their hard work on this important criminal justice reform bill. Today, law enforcement is ill-equipped and not properly trained to deal with individuals suffering from severe mental disorders whose conditions can cause them to commit crimes. The mentally ill are too often treated as common criminals and are not given access to the critical treatment they need. The Comprehensive Justice and Mental Health Act would save taxpayers' money and effectively use limited resources by ensuring our prisons contain violent offenders as opposed to those who suffer from mental illnesses. When more than four of five inmates with a mental illness are not treated in jail, we waste resources by incarcerating them. This bill would make the public safer and save taxpayers' money by ensuring that we continue to support vital programs, such as mental health courts, veterans' courts, and crisis intervention teams. The bill would also improve public safety. Persons with complicated psychiatric problems that are thrown in jail can have their mental state deteriorate even further. If incarcerated without treatment, some mental illnesses can lead people to be a danger to the public once released. But with proper treatment, they can lead ordinary, law- abiding lives even absent incarceration. The bill would help to reduce jail overcrowding caused by warehousing people for low-level crimes, which often includes the mentally ill. For example, from 2009 to 2013 in New York City, about 400 people were sent to jail on at least 18 occasions each. That amounts to more than 10,000 jail admissions and 300,000 days in jail. In Chicago, from 2007 to 2011, 21 percent of the people sent to jails accounted for 50 percent of jail admissions. Because a significant number of people in jail are mentally ill, reducing recidivism for this population is critical. By supporting state and local efforts to identify and direct them to the appropriate mental health services, this bill would reduce recidivism and, in turn, help reduce jail over-crowding. The bill would also encourage the development of curricula on mental health conditions for police academies and orientations. Finally, the legislation would include new grant accountability measures and emphasize the implantation of evidence- based practices. It is time we address mental illness in our country through treatment, not incarceration. Passing this common-sense bill would reduce recidivism, save taxpayer money, and make our communities safer. That is why I support this bill and I urge its speedy passage.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and pay tribute to the heroic first responders of Edgewater, NJ, and surrounding communities, who successfully extinguished one of the largest fires in the history of Bergen County. On Wednesday, January 21, 2015, a massive fire destroyed an apartment building and displaced over 1,000 Borough residents, leaving many homeless during the bitter mid-winter months. At 4:20 p.m. that day, smoke billowed along the western skyline of the Hudson River as Edgewater first responders rushed to the scene of a 7-alarm fire. Mayor Michael McPartland declared a local state of emergency, and the Edgewater Fire Department fought to control the blaze, which ultimately destroyed 240 of the 408 apartments in the complex. While civilians and first responders reported no serious injuries, hundreds of residents lost their homes, pets, and possessions. Were it not for the quick response of Edgewater's dedicated first responders, there could easily have been loss of life, and property damage would have been far greater. By the end of the event, 35 departments and agencies from across the region had responded to the call for help. Over 500 police officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, and other emergency personnel were on the scene, many of whom stayed until 7 a.m. the next morning. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and honor some of these brave individuals for their fearless service to our community: Chief of Police William Skidmore, head of the 27-member Edgewater police force, who made sure his officers secured the fire perimeter and controlled crowds, ensuring that both emergency personnel and residents remained at a safe distance. Emergency Management Coordinator Robert Christiansen, who worked closely with Chief Skidmore to lead coordination efforts among the many county, State, and Federal emergency services that responded to the fire. Fire Chief Tom Jacobson, who managed the overall firefighting response and coordinated 250 firefighters, 2 fireboats from the Fire Department of the City of New York, 2 Jersey City marine units, and 1 New Jersey State Police boat in fighting the blaze. First Aid Squad Captain Kathy Frato, who led her team of EMTs in assisting residents and those firefighters who continued to battle the fire into the morning hours. The firefighters of the Edgewater Volunteer Fire Department, who worked through the night to battle this massive blaze. All of the first responders of the Edgewater Fire Department, Police Department, and First Aid Squad, in addition to the first responders from the 35 assisting municipalities, who helped to protect life and property. Their courage and commitment to their community is an example to all, and I could not be more grateful for their service.

Mr. BOOKER

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

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, I rise with some excitement as I get to tell a story that is an American story. This story is, in fact, a love story. The first time Jim Obergefell met the love of his life, John Arthur, neither of them were swept off their feet. As is the case with a lot of couples, they met at a bar through mutual friends. They met then a second time, but the sparks didn't really fly then either. It wasn't until a few months later that they met for the third time at a New Year's Eve party. This time, they fell in love. Jim and John like to joke that theirs was a story of love at third sight. Following the New Year's Eve party, John and Jim began building their lives together in Cincinnati, OH. The next 20 years they spent doing so many of the things that connected couples do. They said ``I love you'' for the first time. They had their first fight. Their bond grew and grew, and this incredible couple moved in together, buying their first home, selling that home, buying another home, and working together, building lives together. They moved from job to job, but they stayed together. Traveling, making friends, becoming involved with their community, they built a life of love together. Jim and John's love story is a familiar one. They crossed familiar relationship milestones and faced so many of the same probing questions many couples often get: Why aren't you married? Have you thought about getting married? Hey, what about marriage? Well, of course, they had thought about marriage. Their bond was that strong; they were so deeply in love and committed. But their response, unfortunately, was that they had thought of it, but they wanted it to actually mean something legally. They wanted it to be right and just. They wanted their marriage to be affirmed before all, and for it to have meaning under the law. They wanted it to be recognized just as it was for other American citizens. They wanted that ideal that exists deep in our country's heritage, flowing through all of our roots, that they together as a couple could have a life, could have liberty, and could pursue their happiness. However, for them at that time, equality and freedom for all in our country was an ideal that was seemingly far off. But I will tell my colleagues this: What I love about America is that we cannot slow down the dream of freedom and equality. It marches forward. Look at history and we see all of the attempts to stop these fundamental ideals of freedom and equality under the law. People and tyrants, with brutality, try to chain our freedom, try to beat it back. They try to assassinate its advocates, but just as the Statue of Freedom sits on the Capitol dome, freedom rises, and it will come. Jim and John watched the progress march in our country as so many of us did with encouragement. Painfully slowly but steadily it marched forward. As they watched and waited, they went on living their lives of love together. For almost 20 years, their union, their bond as committed people with unconditional love continued. Unfortunately, though, John began having problems walking. After months of tests, doctors' appointments, prodding and probing, John was diagnosed with ALS. The typical prognosis for a patient with ALS is 2\1/2\ to 5 years. Jim became John's primary caregiver. He leapt up. He had unconditional love. There were trying times, but he said he considered it a privilege to care for his life's love. Two years after John's diagnosis in 2013, when he was receiving hospice care and was confined to a hospital bed in their Cincinnati home, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Edith Windsor, declaring that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. That decision set the stage for an even greater national movement toward marriage equality. It set the stage--after years of struggle and fights and sacrifice for equal rights--for equality under the law, for love to be affirmed in marriage between two Americans, to be affirmed and equally recognized, not condemned, not banned, not made illegal. So on a warm day in June, after 20 years of love, commitment, and building a life together, it was at this moment that Jim leaned over to John, sitting there in his hospital bed, kissed him, and proposed: ``Let's get married.'' Because Ohio has yet to recognize marriage equality, and with John confined to his bed, this was going to be challenging. Their options were limited. Transporting John to a State that would recognize their marriage would require a special medically equipped airplane, and it would require a lot of money they did not have. Jim asked for ideas on Facebook, and people came forward. Unprompted, Jim and John's friends raised $13,000 to cover the entire cost of a specially chartered medical plane. A few weeks later, Jim, John, and John's Aunt Paulette, who became ordained to perform the service, boarded a plane in Ohio that took off and landed nearby in Maryland. In this State, they recognize marriage equality. In this State, they recognized the love of two American citizens. And for 7\1/2\ minutes, on the tarmac at Baltimore-Washington International Airport, John and Jim, two Americans, had their wedding. Sitting on the tarmac, Jim, holding the hands of his partner of 20 years--whose hands lacked dexterity and strength--said this to John: We met for the first time, my life didn't change, your life didn't change. We met a second time, still nothing changed. Then we met a third time, and everything changed. As you recently said, it was love at third sight, and for the past twenty years, six months and eleven days, it's been love at every sight. In a cramped medical airplane, John's aunt began the formal vows. She started to say, ``Take each other's hands,'' but then realized they had never let go of each other's hands. They exchanged their rings, Jim helping John place the ring on his own finger, and after the ceremony they left that Maryland tarmac to fly back. Jim and John arrived home to the realities of a disease like ALS. John was dying. And while they had taken their eternal vows together, while their marriage was affirmed by love, affirmed by this unbreakable commitment, affirmed by loving family and by friends, affirmed to be legal by the State of Maryland, their marriage was disavowed by their home State--the State John would eventually die in. These men at this time decided to work with a civil rights attorney because they feared that even after their actions on their part, John's death certificate would list him as unmarried--an assault on the dignity of two great men. His life with his partner--their 20 years of love and commitment and ultimate affirmation of those years--their marriage would mean nothing according to the government. They feared that on this document--the last documentation of his life--that their life of love and commitment would be denied by their government. On this paper their marriage would be denied--negated, disallowed. John, who married to the love of his life, died in his home State and was listed on that final government document as single. With their attorney, the men filed a lawsuit to have John and Jim's marriage legally recognized in Ohio. A week and a half after their marriage, a district judge in Ohio ruled to recognize their wedding, but that was just the start of a long legal fight. In the last few months of John's life, Jim worked with the attorney to continue to fight for recognition of their citizenship rights as Americans. People would ask Jim: Why, when your husband is dying, would you use your last days together to fight this? Jim's response was simple: Why not? Jim could not think of any better way to honor his husband, to live up to his vows, and to demonstrate the power of his love, the power of their commitment, the power of love in our world, other than to fight this injustice. A little over 3 months after their marriage, the inevitable eventually arrived. John passed away at the young age of 48. Amidst his overwhelming grief, Jim found a small but substantive source of consolation. On his death certificate he was listed as married with Jim's name listed as his surviving spouse. The State of Ohio appealed the decision to list John as married. Their government went to court to strip him and his beloved of this recognition and won. State officials made it their mission to change John Arthur's death certificate. Jim Obergefell now stands as a named plaintiff in an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest Court in the land, to have he and his husband's fundamental rights recognized--that their vows and commitment be worthy of recognition as American citizens. They have joined with cases from three other States also seeking that affirmation of citizenship, of equality under the law. Together, all these cases have come to represent the cause of paving the way for marriage equality to become a reality in our Nation. Jim and John's story is moving. It is being heard in a building across the street with these words emblazoned over its doors, ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' Their story is heartbreaking. It is inspiring, but unfortunately in our Nation right now it is all too common. This story of theirs about the persistent, unyielding, and indefatigable love conquering indifference about our ideals of equality conquering inequality in our country. This call is in their hearts for each other reflects the larger call for our country for itself, for us to live our truth. It calls that question forward, what kind of country will we be? Will we be the Nation of love and freedom and equality? Will we be the Nation that every single generation has had people standing up for these ideals, people pushing to March forward for our country these ideals. This is not a question about sexual orientation or race or gender, it is a question about whether our country will live up to the ideals we say every time we pledge allegiance to our flag: ``. . . liberty and justice for all.'' Will we have equality under the law or will we tolerate a government that denies some citizens fundamental rights while granting them to others? This is the question that is being called. It is a question that echoes throughout our history--Sojourner Truth, standing in Akron, OH, at the Women's Convention, calling the question, ``Ain't I a woman?'' It is a question by my family members that I heard, standing strong, saying defiantly: I am a man. I, too, am an American citizen. Proclaiming those words, generation after generation have strained at chains, have fought Jim Crowe. It is what Susan B. Anthony said when she said, ``It is we the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union. . . . '' This is the ideal--the love of our country, the sacrifice for our principles, this ideal that has been fought for generation after generation. The question was called by abolitionists, by suffragettes: Will we be a nation with liberty and justice for all? Throughout our history the question would call: Will we have freedom for all? Will truth march on--as it did in Selma, as it gathered in church basements and protested at Stonewall and came together at Seneca Falls. Will we live our truth, despite the assassinations of its advocates such as Milk and King, Matthew Shepard or Emmitt Till? Will our march come to fruition to fight for recognition of full citizenship beyond race, beyond creed, beyond color, beyond orientation? It is this dream that must be secured for all of our citizens as Langston Hughes said so clearly: ``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.'' We fight for this dream here. The time is now. The anguish has gone on long enough. And I will tell you I found out just preparing my remarks that we still face these weary years and too many silent tears. I sat with staff members and learned of some of their struggles right here as Capitol Hill employees. One of my young staffers shared that he entered his adult life unsure if his full citizenship rights would be an option in his lifetime. Could he have equality under the law? Could he be married? Similar to many gay men and lesbians decades before him, he was afraid his country would cast his love as less meaningful at best or at worst vile and immoral. Yet today, in this case before the Supreme Court, it makes him hopeful that we can live in a country that one day recognizes his love, his value, his dignity, as being equal under the law. Another staff Member told me he feared that his coming out as gay would mean his own family would never accept him. He shared what he described as a defining moment in his own valuation of his self-worth when he came out as gay to his deeply religious grandmother. She held his hands tightly in her own and looked him in the eyes and proclaimed, ``I will always love you, and I will love anyone who loves you.'' All across America right now there are weary years, silent tears, unspoken pain in the country that does not value the dignity, worth, and citizenship rights of too many. What message does it send? How many stand in uncertainty and fear and despair that threatens to consume the potential of young people? I see the data of suicide rates rising for our gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender teens. We cannot give any implicit support for any idea that they are worth less or are lesser citizens, and we all should come together and condemn so-called therapies that purport to change who people are at their core, as if it is not enough, as if they are not worthy. All across the country this struggle is going on, from intimate, personal struggles to public fights--stories of love meeting fear, stories of hope meeting despair, our families and communities coming together to stand and say that I am an American. I am a citizen. I deserve equality under the law. As Jackie Robinson said then, and it is true now: ``The right of every American to first-class citizenship is the most important issue of our time.'' Jim and John and all Americans have a right not to second-class citizenship but first-class citizenship, to honor their first-class love. I am a prisoner of hope today. I am not going to let disappointment after disappointment undermine my infinite sense of hope for our country. The history of our Nation is a screaming testimony of a perpetual achievement of freedom and light and truth overcoming inequality and hatred. Just 3 years ago, only six States and Washington, DC, had marriage equality, with 34 million Americans living in marriage equality States. Now 37 States and DC have marriage equality, meaning 224 million Americans now live in States that honor equal rights to marry. This movement has been a strong validation of our country's history. It is a shining example of progress. However, just because the arc of history always bends toward justice does not mean it will not meet resistance. As King said, ``Change never rode in on the wheels of inevitability.'' We are the architects of our Nation. We are the truth tellers, life workers, and lovers that must exult our principles. We cannot fail now. Love is on the line. Citizenship is on the line. We are interdependent. We need each other. We cannot deny the worth of one American without denying the worth, dignity, and strength of our Nation as a whole. The story of Jim Obergefell and John Arthur is a story not just of unconditional love and unconditional hope, it is not just about the two of them, but it is about our country. This is the story of all of us-- of America. It is a story of what our truth will be. One member of this incredible partnership has passed away, but I know their love marches on. I believe in this country our truth will march on, and equality and justice will have its way. Madam President, I yield to my colleague, the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, earlier this month, Senator Rand Paul and I introduced the Record Expungement Designed to Enhance Employment--or REDEEM--Act, a bill that takes important new steps to ensure that youth and adults caught up in the criminal justice system have an opportunity at a second chance to turn their lives around rather than returning to a life of crime. I thank Senator Paul for joining with me to craft this legislation. This important bipartisan legislation would establish much needed, sensible, pragmatic reforms that keep kids out of an adult system in the first place, protect their privacy so a youthful mistake does not haunt young people throughout their lives, and make it less likely that low-level nonviolent offenders reoffend. As the former mayor of Newark, I believe strongly in holding people accountable for breaking our laws, but I also believe it is important that we do everything possible to ensure that when people leave prison and return to their communities, they have every chance at becoming productive members of our society. No one deserves more of an opportunity to leave their past behind than our children. Far too often, kids are easily manipulated into making a youthful mistake that should not follow them for the rest of their lives. That is why I advocate that we fix our Nation's broken criminal justice system, a system that has taken an unimaginable and I believe unsustainable toll on families and communities. The United States is home to between 4 and 5 percent of the entire globe's population, but we have 25 percent of the world's prison population. This phenomenon is unacceptable, that the land of the free would have 25 percent of the globe's imprisoned people. What is startling about that is the majority of those people are nonviolent offenders. In fact, the majority are nonviolent drug offenders. This phenomenon has largely emerged since around 1980, a period during which the Federal prison population has grown nearly tenfold. Since 1980 we have seen a 10-time increase in our prison population. The sad reality is that nearly three-quarters of Federal prisoners are nonviolent and have no history of violence whatsoever. What is worse and what is anguishing is that once they are convicted of a crime, American citizens then face daunting obstacles to successfully rejoin society, to being able to raise their family, put food on the table, provide for themselves. As a result of that, our State and Federal prison exits have now become revolving doors, with two of every three ex-offenders getting rearrested within 5 years. Two- thirds of those nonviolent folks leaving our prisons come back within 5 years. When ex-offenders return to prison again and again, they are not just paying a price; we all pay the price. We are contributing so much of our resources to rearresting the same people over and over, to reincarcerating the same people over and over. A recent Pew report concluded that if just 10 States cut their recidivism just 10 percent, taxpayers would save $470 million--money this Nation could use to either return to taxpayers or invest in our crumbling infrastructure. To further public safety, reduce recidivism, and protect the future of our children, I am proud to reintroduce the REDEEM Act. This bill would incentivize States to raise the age of original jurisdiction for criminal courts to 18 years old. Trying juveniles who have committed low-level, nonviolent crimes as adults is counterproductive. They do not emerge from prison reformed and ready to reintegrate into a high school. The criminal record they have will not help them as they try to get a job. We need a system that treats juveniles toughly and fairly, with an eye toward a productive adulthood. This change in law is important for protecting our children's futures. For kids in the dozen States that treat 17- and even 16-year- olds as adults, no longer would getting into a schoolyard scuffle result in an adult record that could follow an individual for the rest of their life, restrict access to a college degree, limit employment prospects, and increase the likelihood of engaging in further criminal activity. The bill would enhance Federal juvenile record confidentiality and provide for automatic expungement of records for kids who commit nonviolent crimes before they turn 15 and automatic sealing of records for those who commit nonviolent crimes after they turn 15. The bill would ban the very cruel and counterproductive practice of juvenile solitary confinement that can have immediate and long-term detrimental effects on youth detainee mental and physical health. In fact, the majority of suicides by juveniles in prisons occur when young people are placed in solitary confinement. Other nations even consider it torture. The bill would, for adults, offer the first broad-based Federal path to the sealing of criminal records. A person who commits a nonviolent crime will be able to petition a court and make his or her case. The bill would enhance the accuracy of criminal justice records. Employers requesting a background check from the Federal Bureau of Investigation will be provided with only relevant and accurate information thanks to a provision that will protect job applicants by improving the quality of the Bureau's background check. Think about this: 17 million background checks were done by the FBI in 2013, many of them for private providers, and upward of half of them were inaccurate or incomplete, often causing people to lose a job, miss an economic opportunity, and be trapped with few economic options other than to reoffend in order to feed a child. Finally, the bill would lift a ban on receiving Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits. The intent of this program is to keep low-income families from going hungry. Yet those convicted of drug use or possession lose the right to obtain such benefits. Once an individual has paid his or her debt to society, a path to the reinstatement of those benefits should be available. As President George W. Bush said in his 2004 State of the Union Address, ``America is the land of the second chance, and when the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life.'' This bill would do just that. Taken together, these measures will help keep kids who get in trouble out of a lifetime of crime and help adults who commit nonviolent crimes become more self-reliant and less likely to reoffend. This bill is supported by 27 organizations, including: the ACLU, the National Employment Law Center, the Sentencing Project, the Center for Children Law and Policy, the Legal Action Center, the Coalition for Juvenile Justice, the General Board of Church and Society, National Juvenile Justice Network, and the National Catholic Social Justice Lobby. The time to act is now. We cannot afford to let our criminal justice system continue to grow at the rate that it is. We cannot afford to sap billions of taxpayer dollars from a broken system that is locking people up and then doing nothing to empower them to succeed. We cannot afford to waste human potential and human productivity. We have seen how other individual States--like Georgia, Texas, and North Carolina--are taking significant steps to address this issue and are lowering both recidivism and the size of their prison population, while at the same time lowering actual crime in their States. It is time that the Federal Government act to do the same. I urge my fellow Senators to support the REDEEM Act so we can make our communities safer and stronger and empowers our citizens to live productive and strong lives of contribution.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to call up my amendments Nos. 720, 721, and 722 en bloc.

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I hope to have the opportunity to speak about amendments Nos. 720 and 722 later, but I would like to speak now about No. 721, which is a freight rail amendment. I am very happy to see the Presiding Officer, Senator Rubio, whom I have worked with on other legislation. Having bipartisan work on important critical issues is essential. I am happy to join with Senator Fischer on this important amendment. It focuses on the urgency to improve the movement of freight and strengthen our competitiveness by investing in a comprehensive multimodal national network that includes not just our major highways but our rails, seaports, local roads, and intermodal facilities. I am happy to see Senator Sanders, who has the courage to stand and speak about the infrastructure deficit in our country and calls for bold, fiscally sound investment. I want to make sure, as we move forward, that freight planning and investment as seen by this amendment is prioritized. Along with Senator Fischer, I support broadening our approach to freight policy that would promote greater national productivity. Why is this important? Hundreds of millions of tons of freight are annually shipped through our ports, rails, and highway networks. The Great Corridor runs from my State of New Jersey to New York, to Philadelphia, moving over $55 billion in goods each year, and is one of the most significant chokepoints in the U.S. transportation network that moves $17 trillion of goods between metropolitan areas each year. The incredible freight network drives our economy, boosts economic competitiveness, and creates jobs in America, thousands and thousands of jobs. With a slight adjustment of our priorities and a strong national commitment to investing in our infrastructure, we can dramatically reduce congestion, improve the health of our American communities and make sure goods get where they need to go faster, cheaper, all while strengthening our economy and creating jobs. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important amendment and look forward to continuing to work on critical transportation and infrastructure priorities.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, today I voice my concerns on an important rail safety issue that we have been working on in the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. While railroads and commuter rails may face the immense challenge of implementing appropriate PTC precautions, now and always we must place the safety of our citizens above the fear of difficulties incurred by necessary technological change. We must face these difficulties head-on in order that our citizens' lives be ensured safety in public transportation. New Jersey runs on rail. Our economy simply could not sustain itself without it. Our Northeast corridor alone moves more than 700,000 people a day. Without the necessary PTC safeguards, these people will face the threat of a devastating crash more so every day. The sheer volume of commuters itself presents momentous concern for the State to be able to successfully guarantee the well-being of its rail lines. Knowing now that crashes like the Metro-North accident could have been prevented by PTC protections, I can say with bursting resolve that it is time for us to do better. The application of PTC directly translates into lives saved. To me and for many, that is an easy trade--as easy as it ever gets. But it is rarely ever that simple. I recognize that for many in the rail industry, who share my commitment to improving safety, the reality is that difficult investment decisions need to be made and the current timeline is not achievable, even for those with the best of intentions. Implementation will take time. We cannot expect these complex technological improvements to come overnight. In spite of this, we can still hold these improvements to a reasonably tight schedule, one that is attainable. I am hopeful that in the time between today's committee vote and before the final passage of PTC legislation, we can work to shorten the extension and find a better balance. I look forward to working with the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee chairman, ranking member, and the rest of my colleagues to improve this initiative.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. I thank the Presiding Officer for recognizing me. Mr. President, I, too, wish to rise in support of this amendment. In a nation that is finding itself increasingly with global competitors, where other nations--some of the most active economic competitors we have are doing everything they can to keep the cost of college low. In Germany, 4 percent to 5 percent of median income is the cost of college. In Canada, 5 percent to 6 percent of median income is the cost of college. In England, 6 percent to 7 percent of median income is the cost of college. Other competitive democracies know to widen the avenues to greater college education. But here in the United States, the cost of college is over 50 percent of the median income. We are raising barriers to our children getting in the game, being on the field, and playing. I say that when you field a team--when Stanford would compete in football, we didn't leave four or five of our players on the side lines; we got everybody on the field. That is what we need. This amendment is common sense. We should not be profiting as a government off the backs of our students. We should allow them to refinance their student debt. That is why I support it, and I am grateful for my colleagues' support as well.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, our Nation faces an infrastructure investment crisis across the board, but one aspect of our infrastructure that has been particularly neglected by the Federal Government is rail. While the Nation's large freight rail carriers are able to invest in infrastructure with their own funds, the infrastructure used by passenger and many smaller freight railroads is deteriorating at an alarming rate. We need to be doing more to repair and modernize these tracks, roadbeds, bridges, tunnels, and train cars. Nowhere is the investment crisis more pressing than in New Jersey, where a set of tunnels constructed under the Hudson River in 1910-- badly damaged by Hurricane Sandy--must either be replaced or shut down sometime over the next two decades. The shutdown scenario is unacceptable to the economy of not only my State, but the entire northeast region, if not the country. Amtrak has a plan, known as the Gateway Program, to replace these tunnels, as well as the century old Portal Bridge. Executing the Gateway Program will take a significant funding commitment from the Federal Government, and I stand ready to fight for that funding. But, given the significant upfront cost, and the long-term benefits and revenue potential, it makes sense to explore financing opportunities in addition to funding. The Federal Government already has an established financing program in the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program, or RRIF. However, the RRIF program is fraught with limitations, particularly in its ability to finance fixed infrastructure projects like a bridge or tunnel. The program is significantly underutilized, especially relative to other Federal financing programs. That is why I am introducing the Railroad Infrastructure Financing Improvement Act. This bill would incorporate into RRIF the policies that make other Federal loan programs more successful. For instance, it will establish new creditworthiness criteria focused on the merits of the project, increase repayment flexibility, help leverage private financing opportunities, speed up the process of applying for and receiving a loan, and improve access to the program particularly for smaller applicants. The bill is meant to start a conversation about the tools we currently have available for investing in rail infrastructure, and the improvements we can make to start getting critical projects like the Gateway Program off the ground. I look forward to working with my colleagues and rail stakeholders to build upon this proposal and move forward on a comprehensive passenger rail reauthorization bill.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, our Nation faces an infrastructure investment crisis across the board, but one aspect of our infrastructure that has been particularly neglected by the Federal Government is rail. While the Nation's large freight rail carriers are able to invest in infrastructure with their own funds, the infrastructure used by passenger and many smaller freight railroads is deteriorating at an alarming rate. We need to be doing more to repair and modernize these tracks, roadbeds, bridges, tunnels, and train cars. Nowhere is the investment crisis more pressing than in New Jersey, where a set of tunnels constructed under the Hudson River in 1910-- badly damaged by Hurricane Sandy--must either be replaced or shut down sometime over the next two decades. The shutdown scenario is unacceptable to the economy of not only my State, but the entire northeast region, if not the country. Amtrak has a plan, known as the Gateway Program, to replace these tunnels, as well as the century old Portal Bridge. Executing the Gateway Program will take a significant funding commitment from the Federal Government, and I stand ready to fight for that funding. But, given the significant upfront cost, and the long-term benefits and revenue potential, it makes sense to explore financing opportunities in addition to funding. The Federal Government already has an established financing program in the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program, or RRIF. However, the RRIF program is fraught with limitations, particularly in its ability to finance fixed infrastructure projects like a bridge or tunnel. The program is significantly underutilized, especially relative to other Federal financing programs. That is why I am introducing the Railroad Infrastructure Financing Improvement Act. This bill would incorporate into RRIF the policies that make other Federal loan programs more successful. For instance, it will establish new creditworthiness criteria focused on the merits of the project, increase repayment flexibility, help leverage private financing opportunities, speed up the process of applying for and receiving a loan, and improve access to the program particularly for smaller applicants. The bill is meant to start a conversation about the tools we currently have available for investing in rail infrastructure, and the improvements we can make to start getting critical projects like the Gateway Program off the ground. I look forward to working with my colleagues and rail stakeholders to build upon this proposal and move forward on a comprehensive passenger rail reauthorization bill.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I support the Democracy Restoration Act. This important legislation would restore a voice in our democracy for millions of Americans who cannot vote simply because they have a criminal conviction. I thank Senator Cardin for his leadership on this issue. I am honored to be an original cosponsor of this important criminal justice reform legislation. The right to vote for all is a principle that goes to the very heart of all democracy. Voting is a fundamental right because it is the right from which all other rights derive. Participation in the political process is about giving a voice to the voiceless. It is about who we are as a Nation and whether we want citizens that contribute to our society to have a say in who represents them in the Federal Government. The road to extend voting rights to all Americans has been long and not without bumps. Our country was founded at a time when African Americans were denied the right to vote. For over a hundred years, we silenced entire populations of Americans and deemed them unworthy of participating in the political process merely because of their race. During his famous Gettysburg Address, President Lincoln called for the country to have a ``new birth of freedom.'' After the Civil War, the States ratified the Civil War Amendments to the Constitution to honor President Lincoln's promise. One of those amendments, the Fifteenth Amendment, gave African Americans the right to vote. Decades later, the Nineteenth Amendment gave women suffrage. Despite this progress, many States passed laws during the Jim Crow era to disenfranchise African Americans, including literacy tests, poll taxes, and grandfather clauses. These States also passed laws that banned people with certain convictions from voting. With the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, many of these State disenfranchising laws were outlawed. But the ban on voting for people with certain convictions was not touched and it remains the law in many States. Today, 35 States restrict voting rights of persons who were formerly incarcerated. In fact, felony disenfranchisement laws prevent 5.85 million Americans from voting. This is a staggering number of Americans that do not have a say in our political process. Punishment is a legitimate goal of our justice system. But once someone has served their time and been released, we must help our fellow citizens get back on their feet. As President George W. Bush said in his State of the Union Address in 2004, ``America is the land of second chance, and when the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life.'' To further punish people who are back in the community by denying them the right to vote counters the expectation that citizens have rehabilitated themselves after a conviction. The Democracy Restoration Act would restore voting rights in Federal elections to millions of disenfranchised Americans who have been released from prison. It would require prisons receiving Federal funds notify people about their right to vote in Federal elections upon leaving prison or being sentenced to probation. It would empower the Department of Justice and former offenders harmed by a violation of this legislation with the right to sue. This bill corrects a civil rights wrong. It would sweep away the last vestige of Jim Crow laws. It would outlaw State disenfranchisement laws that have a disparate impact on racial minorities. It would provide a uniform standard to govern the restoration of voting rights. This bill reforms the criminal justice system. Every year, over 600,000 people leave prison. We must find ways to reintegrate them back into the community. Civic participation gives ex-offenders a stake in government, which motivates law-abiding behavior and reduces the likelihood of future crimes. No evidence exists that denying voting rights to people after release from prison reduces crime. To the contrary, it makes sense that people who have paid their debt to society should reclaim their rights. This bill builds off of the progress in the States. Recently, 8 States have either repealed or amended lifetime disenfranchisement laws. Two states expanded voting rights to persons on probation or parole. Ten States eased the restoration process for people seeking to have their right to vote restored after the completion of their sentence. The Federal Government should follow their lead. Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come. This Congress can remedy the barriers to full citizenship faced by millions of formerly incarcerated people in our country, if this bill is enacted into law. Restoring the right to vote is good public policy. To protect basic public safety and strengthen the core of our democracy, I urge my fellow Senators to support the Democracy Restoration Act and quickly pass this important legislation.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for those incredibly generous words. I recognize the Presiding Officer, Senator Perdue. I am grateful to be able to serve with him, and it is great seeing him in the captain's chair, to use my ``Star Trek'' parlance. I am happy to have the chance to formally welcome the Senator from Georgia to the Senate. It is good to serve with him as well. Lynch Nomination Mr. President, I am honored to stand on the Senate floor to express my strong support for the historic nomination of Loretta Lynch to be the Attorney General of the United States. Our Nation is fortunate to have Ms. Lynch as the nominee for Attorney General. She is seasoned, competent, wise, extraordinarily dedicated, and has already served this Nation for many years, receiving accolades from across the country. She is historic in and of herself and exceptionally well qualified. I wish to tell everyone a little bit more about her. First, though, I want to ask--and this should not be necessary, but I want to ask: Why do we almost have a double standard for Ms. Lynch's nomination? She is the first African-American woman appointed to head the Department of Justice. She has had her nomination pending on the Senate floor longer than any nominee for Attorney General going back three decades. Ms. Lynch has had to wait 81 days for a hearing in committee--longer than any of President George W. Bush's nominees for Attorney General had to wait; more than twice as long for Attorneys General John Ashcroft and Michael Mukasey; and 24 days longer than Alberto Gonzalez. She waited 27 days for a committee vote after her hearing, again longer than any of George Bush's nominees to be Attorney General. Now her nomination has lingered on the Senate floor without a vote for 20 days, which is again longer than the wait for any of the last five Attorneys General combined. Her historic nomination has now been pending in the Senate for more than 130 days since the President first nominated her. I have not heard a single good reason germane to her qualifications, to her values, to her views, and to the kind of service she has rendered or will render, as to why she should not be promptly confirmed. She comes before the Senate having been twice appointed by two different Presidents and twice unanimously confirmed by this very body, to be a U.S. attorney. She has been a career Federal prosecutor for almost a decade, a partner at a prestigious law firm, and led one of the finest Federal prosecuting offices in the country, the Eastern District of New York. Her nomination has the support of dozens of law enforcement organizations, civil rights organizations, and outspoken citizens from across the country. So, again, I wonder why are we here today still waiting? Why does this President's exceptionally well-qualified nominee deserve such unfair treatment? Attorneys General are important because they lead the Department that keeps us safe and secure and protects our rights. From securing the right to vote to combating the violence of organized crime, to bringing terrorists to justice, this position is too important for any kind of political games and for any kind of delay. Seventy-five years ago, another Attorney General, Robert H. Jackson, spoke eloquently about the qualities of a good Federal prosecutor and hence a good Attorney General, when he said: ``The citizen's safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches her task with humility.'' This is the type of prosecutor Ms. Lynch has always been and the type of Attorney General she will be. This appointment is historic. Once confirmed, Ms. Lynch will be the first Black woman to serve in the Nation's highest law enforcement position. She will be only the second woman and second African American to be Attorney General. Her story is our story. It is an American story. It reflects a long history of our Nation, the distance we have traveled as a country. It is a story of a Black woman who grew up in the Jim Crow South, the daughter of a fourth-generation minister and segregation-fighting mother who overcame discrimination and achieved the American dream despite the early obstacles she faced. Once, while a student at a predominantly White elementary school, her standardized test scores were so high that the disbelieving school demanded she retake her test. The great thing about that story is she retook the test and got a higher score. On one other occasion, she was named the valedictorian of her high school class which was a predominantly White high school, but the White administrators in the school did not think it was appropriate to have a Black girl as the top student, so they asked her to share that honor with a White student, and she did so with dignity and grace. She would go on to earn an Ivy League education, climb the highest ladders of her profession, and stand today nominated by the President of the United States of America, and when confirmed by the Senate, she will be our 83rd Attorney General. Only in this great Nation can a story such as this be possible, can a story such as this be told. Today, we continue our efforts. All of us--Republicans and Democrats--in this body are committed to building a more perfect Union. I know this confirmation will inspire people all across our country-- people who may have lost their faith in law enforcement or in our government's ability to get things done, to know that despite the odds or challenges, we are still a great nation, that we are devoted to overcoming our challenges. We celebrate someone who has broken glass ceilings, who has broken barrier after barrier, and now as a qualified candidate will hopefully soon ascend to this position. It is a reaffirmation of the American dream. While history is important, I don't want to overshadow those qualifications. I want to reiterate them. She is a well-qualified nominee. She graduated with Harvard College and Harvard Law School degrees, and went on to gain exceptional experience as a prosecutor and as a manager. As U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, she led one of the Nation's most challenging prosecutorial offices. I know this. I live right across the river from where she works. Her tough approach to fighting crime became almost legendary. She won acclaim throughout our metropolitan region as well as in the law enforcement community. In that office she established a record that would make any prosecutor proud. She led an office that had the tenacity to take on violent criminals, to confront political corruption, and to disrupt organized crime. At a time when the Senate is considering legislation to combat human trafficking, we need an Attorney General who will vigorously, unapologetically, and courageously prosecute traffickers. Ms. Lynch has been a leader on that very issue. Her office prosecuted over 100 child exploitation cases and brutal global trafficking cases. Her office tried more terrorism cases since 9/11 than any other office in the country. I was impressed when she first came to my office. She was candid, straightforward, and down to earth. What is clear from Ms. Lynch's record is not just that she is a tough prosecutor but that she is a leader with a vision and the right values to be Attorney General. Too many Americans distrust the ability of law enforcement to fairly enforce our laws. Ms. Lynch believes in the principles of equality and justice first and foremost, and she will restore even more faith in our system. In her committee testimony she articulated a vision about how in a great time of tension in our country we can rebuild the trust between dedicated, committed law enforcement officers on the streets and the communities they serve. Too many Americans, as I said time and again, go to prison for far too long. The majority of people incarcerated today in Federal prisons are there for nonviolent offenses. We have a nation that leads the globe in incarcerating people, and we do it often in a way that is discriminatory against poor people and minorities. Ms. Lynch has a vision of alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders that are based on facts and based on her experience. She supported her district's drug court with a diversion program taking first-time nonviolent offenders out of the prosecution system and giving them access to drug treatment. Her innovation and successes speak volumes about her commitment to saving taxpayer dollars and addressing our swelling prison population while also driving down crime. So I say in conclusion, she has sterling character. She has incredible credentials. She has unflappable integrity. I am confident that as Attorney General she will ensure that the Department leads in a way that will make us proud. The road to building a more perfect Union in this country has been long, and the work still continues. We are at a time in this Nation when cynicism with government is at an all-time high. One of the highest-ranked concerns that Americans have right now--issues of employment and education are now being caught up to by concerns that Americans have about whether their very government will work together to do what is right. The delay in her nomination undermines the integrity of this body. It gives a signal to all those who are cynical to further surrender to that emotion. This great candidate passed through committee in bipartisan fashion. She is a great woman, a great African American, and most of all a great American and she should not be delayed on the sidelines when there is work to be done, when her very delay begins to undermine what we say this body can do when we all work together and put petty partisan politics aside and stand up for something far more important, which is the work to make this country a more perfect Union. We can do that together, all of us in the Senate, by confirming Ms. Lynch who will use that post to do the very same. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. I appreciate that, and I hope we all in the Senate can deal with the same set of facts. We are entitled to different opinions and different conclusions regarding the facts, but we should not be debating facts when we have them here before us. So let's take a look at those facts. In 2011, the sentencing commission issued a comprehensive study about mandatory minimum sentences. The study found that almost 55,000 people were in Federal prisons serving mandatory minimum sentences for a drug crime. That was more than 50 percent of all Federal drug offenders and more than a quarter--25 percent--of all Federal prisoners, period. Second, the great majority of Federal drug offenders do not use violence. Let me say that one more time because it is very important. We are talking about in this bill nonviolent offenders, and the great majority do not use violence. The sentencing commission's most recent data shows that less than 1 percent of offenders used or threatened violence in committing their crime, and no weapons--no weapons--were involved in more than 80 percent of drug cases. Third, many of those serving mandatory minimum drug sentences are low-level offenders. It is true that certain low-level offenders such as the couriers don't often receive mandatory minimums. But other low- level offenders frequently are sentenced to mandatory minimums. For example, among those who are most likely to receive a mandatory minimum sentence are street-level dealers--those who sell less than 1 ounce of a drug. Almost 45 percent of street-level dealers are serving mandatory minimums in Federal prison. Finally, these mandatory minimum sentences are lengthy. They are costly. They drain taxpayer resources. A recent sentencing commission study shows that the average sentence for mandatory minimums was 132 months--11 years in Federal prison without parole. Some claim also that mandatory minimum prison sentences are not a major factor in the massive increase in the Federal prison population and overcrowding in Federal prisons. Remember, in the last 30 years, we have had an explosion in our Federal prison population--800 percent. Some people say that mandatory minimums have had nothing to do with that. I look to my colleague from Utah to respond. Is that true?

Mr. BOOKER. This incredible convergence of people from all different stripes in our country, all different backgrounds, races, religions, and political philosophy--let's just start with the bipartisan U.S. Sentencing Commission and the Judicial Conference have both urged Congress to reduce mandatory minimum penalties and both have stated their support for this legislation, the Smarter Sentencing Act. It is supported by faith leaders such as the Justice Fellowship and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. It is supported by advocacy groups across the political spectrum and has been endorsed by conservative leaders such as Grover Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform, Eli Lehrer and the R Street Institute, Pat Nolan, former president of the Justice Fellowship, Marc Levin of the Texas Public Policy Institute, and Freedom Works. It is supported by law enforcement leaders, including the Major Cities Chiefs Association and the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, which represents many of the largest district attorney's offices in the country--big cities. They represent county, Federal, State, and local prosecutors--prosecutors at every level. The bill is supported by the Council of Prison Locals, which represents more than 28,000 correctional workers in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The bill is also supported by crime victims themselves, including the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, a coalition of more than 1,000 different organizations that advocate on behalf of victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. As they explain, mandatory minimum drug sentences are draining the resources needed for victims. Women who are victims of domestic violence sometimes end up serving long sentences that the Congress intended for kingpins and other drug organization leaders. All of that unity in this country supports this act. I wonder, is there anything else Senator Lee would like to say about this bipartisan, widely supported by both the data and the advocates across the quantum spectrum--is there anything else the Senator would like to add?

Mr. BOOKER. I appreciate that question. This is one of the reasons I am so passionate about the legislation originally introduced by Senator Lee and the Senator from Illinois, because the mandatory minimums are patently unfair to people all across America. Whether one is White or Black, to have a disproportionate sentence unnecessary to punish a person and prevent a person from doing a future nonviolent crime is bad enough, but when we are talking about, as the Senator from Illinois was before, so negatively concentrated in certain urban areas, it creates an invasive belief that begins to undermine faith in our criminal justice system alone. As we said earlier, the overwhelming majority of drug users and sellers are White, but the overwhelming number of people incarcerated and arrested for it are Black, as well as those receiving mandatory minimums. But what people have to understand is that this has a punishing effect on us all. No. 1, it is hurting families. A friend of mine brought to my attention a ``Sesame Street'' clip where even the educators in public broadcasting are seeing that certain communities have so many of their men--nonviolent offenders--being sucked into the prison system for these long sentences that we have created a generation of children growing up without their parents. That has a difficult impact when it comes to the poverty of that family, when it comes to the challenges of having a provider pull away. So the Smarter Sentencing Act is a tool to help to relieve that problem, as well as the costs to us all. What is wonderful--at a time when we have debt, when we need to invest in infrastructure and many other needs, the current system is costing us hundreds of billions of dollars annually. This legislation I have signed on to as a cosponsor offers a savings that can be redirected to community efforts that prevent crime in the first place-- evidence-based programs that undermine crimes in the first place--as well as to helping people coming out of prison stay out of prison. We can save money and still protect public safety with lower rates of incarceration and a greater reliance on community revision and treatment. The wonderful thing about this is that what I am saying is not speculation. It is the facts we are experiencing in States that have already embraced reducing mandatory minimums. In fact, many of these States--and it is wonderful that this is bipartisan legislation--many States are red States. We are seeing this path of reducing crime, reducing prison populations, creating savings, being shown to us in State after State model that the Federal Government should follow-- models seen in Texas and in Georgia. Senator Flake encouraged us to pay attention to overcriminalization in the Federal system. He too is a champion of reforming the system and making it better. I wish to ask the Senator from Arizona: How does the Smarter Sentencing Act address the problem of overcriminalization?

Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, I wish to pick up where my friend left off. I thank, from the bottom of my heart, the leadership of Senator Lee and Senator Durbin on what is an extraordinary piece of legislation in terms of its impact. My colleagues have made it clear time and again--in the last Congress and in this Congress--that the application of mandatory minimum sentences, especially in drug cases, feeds the perception of pervasive unfairness in our criminal justice system just for the points that Senator Lee was making. This perception is based in that reality. When I was mayor, I used to always say, ``In God we trust,'' but everyone else, ``Bring me data.'' The data is clear from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which shows that mandatory minimums have a disparate impact on minority communities. Let's be clear. The majority of illegal drug users and dealers in our country are white, but three-quarters of all the people incarcerated for drug offenses are Black and Latino, and the large majority of individuals subject to Federal mandatory minimum penalties are African American and Hispanic. That perception is fed by this reality: African Americans are granted relief from mandatory minimum penalties as are other citizens under the so-called safety valve, but Blacks get the safety valve far less than other groups. For example, the data shows that in 2010, 63.7 percent of White offenders received the safety valve relief while only 39.4 percent of Black offenders received that benefit. In 2012, Blacks were 26.3 percent of all drug offenders, but they were 35.2 percent of the drug offenders who received no safety valves whatsoever--no relief from the mandatory minimum penalties. I will now yield back for Senator Lee, again, the lead sponsor of this bipartisan legislation, and I ask the Senator: What does this legislation do, specifically, to address mandatory minimums?

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I wish to introduce the Compassionate Access, Research Expansion, and Respect States Act CARERS Act. This commonsense legislation would make our Federal marijuana criminal laws fairer and more in line with our values and ensure that medical marijuana is more accessible to the millions of Americans who need it for treatment purposes. I thank Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Senator Rand Paul for joining me on this bill, and I appreciate their hard work on this legislation. The CARERS Act would clarify how the Federal Government handles medical marijuana in the States. Currently, 23 States and the District of Columbia have passed laws legalizing medical marijuana for qualified patients. But the Federal Government still bans medical marijuana and treats the people who use it with contempt. It is time we end this backward approach toward a substance that helps treat millions of Americans, including veterans, who suffer from debilitating diseases. Today, the Federal Government classifies marijuana as a schedule I drug, meaning it lacks a recognized medical value and it has a high potential for abuse. Incredibly, marijuana shares the same classification with such drugs as heroin or LSD-substances that no one disputes are incredibly dangerous and harmful. Schedule II is the next controlled substances category for drugs deemed to have some medical use, such as cocaine and methamphetamine. The view that marijuana has no medical use whatsoever, but the methamphetamine has some medicinal use is troubling and contrary to science. We can do better. In 2013, the Department of Justice issued guidance to Federal prosecutors and regulators to refrain from prosecuting individuals that use, purchase or sell marijuana in States where it is legal as long as a State regulatory framework exists that maintains certain standards, such as a ban on sales to minors. As a result of this guidance, more and more States have taken steps to legalize medical marijuana. Sadly, despite this guidance, the inability of Federal and State law to be on the same page regarding the legality of medical marijuana has resulted in confusion and uncertainty for State regulators and the public about what the law requires. This lack of clarity is only part of the problem. Individual users of medical marijuana in States with legalized medical marijuana continue to be targeted by the Drug Enforcement Agency. That is unacceptable and must change. Individuals who use medical marijuana in States where it is legal should not fear prosecution simply based on prosecutorial discretion. We can do better. I am encouraged that the winds of change are blowing at the Federal level on whether to prosecute medical marijuana, but confusion remains. While the 2013 guidance likely trumps the prior two memorandum, what message do these documents send? Is medical marijuana legal or not? Is it right that the law can be changed at a moment's notice by an unelected Federal prosecutor? And what protection does State law afford medical marijuana users when State and Federal law collide, especially when marijuana is classified by the Federal Government as a schedule I drug? This legislation brings certainty and uniformity to these issues. Another problem with current law is that medical marijuana operates largely in the shadows because financial institutions are scared to do business with legitimate marijuana businesses. Banks and other financial institutions are hesitant to do business with legitimate marijuana businesses because they are concerned about losing their Federal depository insurance or facing Federal prosecution. As a result, the medical marijuana industry operates largely as a cash business which is bad for the economy and endangers public safety. Dealing with high quantities of cash and having to transport it leaves these businesses and their operatives as easy targets for criminals. The current medical marijuana situation in America is untenable. It is unfair for the Americans that operate legitimate marijuana businesses. It is unfair to people with disabilities, including veterans with post-traumatic stress, traumatic brain injury or missing limbs who rely on medical marijuana for treatment. It is unfair to children with intractable epilepsy who need cannabidiol-known as CBD-to control their seizures. This issue has a real impact on the lives of ordinary Americans. Recently, my staff met with Jennie Stormes, a woman recently forced to leave my home State of New Jersey because of our restrictive medical marijuana laws. Ms. Stormes' son Jackson suffers from Dravet syndrome, a severe and debilitating form of epilepsy. Without medication, Jackson can have multiple seizures in a day. This condition has affected Jackson's development and put him through a tremendous amount of pain. Jeannie Stormes and her family shared with my staff the hardships of living in a State where it is hard to gain access to the medication Jackson needs. Jackson has tried 23 different drugs in 60-plus different combinations, but nothing worked to control his seizures. She talked about how medical marijuana was the first drug that controlled his seizures and changed their lives. Unfortunately, Jennie announced her family was moving to Colorado because it was too difficult in New Jersey to access the medicine Jackson needed to stay alive. We need this legislation to help the Jackson Stormes of the world. No child in America with a debilitating disease deserves to live a life of pain without access to the medication that he or she needs. Jennie and Jackson's story pains me. It tells me that we have a long way to go. But their story also gives me hope. It gives me hope because despite all the hardships they have gone through, they remain strong and committed to their cause. It is people like Jennie and Jackson who make our country great. It is for them that we need to continue to fight to move our country forward. The CARERS Act would take significant steps towards addressing the situation that Jackson and Jennie went through. First, the bill would end the Federal prohibition of medical marijuana. Millions of Americans need to gain access to the medicine that works best for them. The Federal Government's current stance on medical marijuana has only created confusion and uncertainty. This bill would prohibit the Federal Government from prosecuting persons who are in compliance with State medical marijuana laws and let people, like Jackson, gain access to the care they need. The bill would reschedule marijuana as a schedule II drug. The Drug Enforcement Agency insists that medical marijuana is a fallacy. It insists that marijuana is a dangerous substance and it is properly classified as a schedule I drug. Doctors know that is wrong, I know that is wrong, Jennie and Jackson know that is wrong. It is time we finally properly classify marijuana. The bill would also allow States to import CBD. CBD is an oil substance made from a marijuana plant that contains virtually no THC- meaning you experience no high from the drug. CBD is the medicine Jackson needs-along with thousands of other individuals with Dravet syndrome-to control his seizures. We must make this important drug more available so people can access the medication they need. The bill would create a safe harbor for banks and financial institutions that want to do business with legal medical marijuana businesses. It is not safe that these businesses are forced to deal only in cash. It is bad for our economy and it is bad for law enforcement. The bill would institute protections that these institutions need to feel comfortable doing business with medical marijuana establishments. The bill would promote research. A large problem for our Nation is that not enough research exists on the impact of medical marijuana. We know there are legitimate medical uses of the drug, but we can learn much more. We need to allow experts to access the drug to conduct tests and clinical trials to fully understand the effects of the drug and how it can best be utilized. This will only benefit the doctors who prescribe it, the lawmakers who regulate it, and the people who need it. Finally, the bill would allow VA doctors to prescribe medical marijuana to veterans in States that have legalized medical marijuana. Many men and women in uniform who have bravely served our Nation come home with invisible wounds of war and they deserve the best care available. This means allowing them access to the medicine they need to heal or control their condition. Those who have served our country deserve to be served by us, and that means receiving the best care available. I want to thank Senators Paul and Gillibrand for working on this legislation with me and I urge my colleagues to work with us to help ensure the CARERS Act is signed into law.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I wish to introduce the Compassionate Access, Research Expansion, and Respect States Act CARERS Act. This commonsense legislation would make our Federal marijuana criminal laws fairer and more in line with our values and ensure that medical marijuana is more accessible to the millions of Americans who need it for treatment purposes. I thank Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Senator Rand Paul for joining me on this bill, and I appreciate their hard work on this legislation. The CARERS Act would clarify how the Federal Government handles medical marijuana in the States. Currently, 23 States and the District of Columbia have passed laws legalizing medical marijuana for qualified patients. But the Federal Government still bans medical marijuana and treats the people who use it with contempt. It is time we end this backward approach toward a substance that helps treat millions of Americans, including veterans, who suffer from debilitating diseases. Today, the Federal Government classifies marijuana as a schedule I drug, meaning it lacks a recognized medical value and it has a high potential for abuse. Incredibly, marijuana shares the same classification with such drugs as heroin or LSD-substances that no one disputes are incredibly dangerous and harmful. Schedule II is the next controlled substances category for drugs deemed to have some medical use, such as cocaine and methamphetamine. The view that marijuana has no medical use whatsoever, but the methamphetamine has some medicinal use is troubling and contrary to science. We can do better. In 2013, the Department of Justice issued guidance to Federal prosecutors and regulators to refrain from prosecuting individuals that use, purchase or sell marijuana in States where it is legal as long as a State regulatory framework exists that maintains certain standards, such as a ban on sales to minors. As a result of this guidance, more and more States have taken steps to legalize medical marijuana. Sadly, despite this guidance, the inability of Federal and State law to be on the same page regarding the legality of medical marijuana has resulted in confusion and uncertainty for State regulators and the public about what the law requires. This lack of clarity is only part of the problem. Individual users of medical marijuana in States with legalized medical marijuana continue to be targeted by the Drug Enforcement Agency. That is unacceptable and must change. Individuals who use medical marijuana in States where it is legal should not fear prosecution simply based on prosecutorial discretion. We can do better. I am encouraged that the winds of change are blowing at the Federal level on whether to prosecute medical marijuana, but confusion remains. While the 2013 guidance likely trumps the prior two memorandum, what message do these documents send? Is medical marijuana legal or not? Is it right that the law can be changed at a moment's notice by an unelected Federal prosecutor? And what protection does State law afford medical marijuana users when State and Federal law collide, especially when marijuana is classified by the Federal Government as a schedule I drug? This legislation brings certainty and uniformity to these issues. Another problem with current law is that medical marijuana operates largely in the shadows because financial institutions are scared to do business with legitimate marijuana businesses. Banks and other financial institutions are hesitant to do business with legitimate marijuana businesses because they are concerned about losing their Federal depository insurance or facing Federal prosecution. As a result, the medical marijuana industry operates largely as a cash business which is bad for the economy and endangers public safety. Dealing with high quantities of cash and having to transport it leaves these businesses and their operatives as easy targets for criminals. The current medical marijuana situation in America is untenable. It is unfair for the Americans that operate legitimate marijuana businesses. It is unfair to people with disabilities, including veterans with post-traumatic stress, traumatic brain injury or missing limbs who rely on medical marijuana for treatment. It is unfair to children with intractable epilepsy who need cannabidiol-known as CBD-to control their seizures. This issue has a real impact on the lives of ordinary Americans. Recently, my staff met with Jennie Stormes, a woman recently forced to leave my home State of New Jersey because of our restrictive medical marijuana laws. Ms. Stormes' son Jackson suffers from Dravet syndrome, a severe and debilitating form of epilepsy. Without medication, Jackson can have multiple seizures in a day. This condition has affected Jackson's development and put him through a tremendous amount of pain. Jeannie Stormes and her family shared with my staff the hardships of living in a State where it is hard to gain access to the medication Jackson needs. Jackson has tried 23 different drugs in 60-plus different combinations, but nothing worked to control his seizures. She talked about how medical marijuana was the first drug that controlled his seizures and changed their lives. Unfortunately, Jennie announced her family was moving to Colorado because it was too difficult in New Jersey to access the medicine Jackson needed to stay alive. We need this legislation to help the Jackson Stormes of the world. No child in America with a debilitating disease deserves to live a life of pain without access to the medication that he or she needs. Jennie and Jackson's story pains me. It tells me that we have a long way to go. But their story also gives me hope. It gives me hope because despite all the hardships they have gone through, they remain strong and committed to their cause. It is people like Jennie and Jackson who make our country great. It is for them that we need to continue to fight to move our country forward. The CARERS Act would take significant steps towards addressing the situation that Jackson and Jennie went through. First, the bill would end the Federal prohibition of medical marijuana. Millions of Americans need to gain access to the medicine that works best for them. The Federal Government's current stance on medical marijuana has only created confusion and uncertainty. This bill would prohibit the Federal Government from prosecuting persons who are in compliance with State medical marijuana laws and let people, like Jackson, gain access to the care they need. The bill would reschedule marijuana as a schedule II drug. The Drug Enforcement Agency insists that medical marijuana is a fallacy. It insists that marijuana is a dangerous substance and it is properly classified as a schedule I drug. Doctors know that is wrong, I know that is wrong, Jennie and Jackson know that is wrong. It is time we finally properly classify marijuana. The bill would also allow States to import CBD. CBD is an oil substance made from a marijuana plant that contains virtually no THC- meaning you experience no high from the drug. CBD is the medicine Jackson needs-along with thousands of other individuals with Dravet syndrome-to control his seizures. We must make this important drug more available so people can access the medication they need. The bill would create a safe harbor for banks and financial institutions that want to do business with legal medical marijuana businesses. It is not safe that these businesses are forced to deal only in cash. It is bad for our economy and it is bad for law enforcement. The bill would institute protections that these institutions need to feel comfortable doing business with medical marijuana establishments. The bill would promote research. A large problem for our Nation is that not enough research exists on the impact of medical marijuana. We know there are legitimate medical uses of the drug, but we can learn much more. We need to allow experts to access the drug to conduct tests and clinical trials to fully understand the effects of the drug and how it can best be utilized. This will only benefit the doctors who prescribe it, the lawmakers who regulate it, and the people who need it. Finally, the bill would allow VA doctors to prescribe medical marijuana to veterans in States that have legalized medical marijuana. Many men and women in uniform who have bravely served our Nation come home with invisible wounds of war and they deserve the best care available. This means allowing them access to the medicine they need to heal or control their condition. Those who have served our country deserve to be served by us, and that means receiving the best care available. I want to thank Senators Paul and Gillibrand for working on this legislation with me and I urge my colleagues to work with us to help ensure the CARERS Act is signed into law.

Mr. BOOKER

Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I rise today in partnership with Senator Thad Cochran from Mississippi having just submitted a resolution recognizing and celebrating Black History Month here in the United States of America. I wish to take a few moments before that to address an issue that very poignantly has been anguishing my heart for my entire life. From the time I was growing up in the small town of Harrington Park, NJ, through my career in school and college, this has been grieving my heart. It has been grieving my heart since I started working in a predominantly minority city--a city I love--Newark, NJ. I bring this up in the context of a previous speech I gave about our broken criminal justice system that makes us singular, among all of humanity on planet Earth, for the amount of our population that we incarcerate. We have 5 percent of the globe's population but about 25 percent of all of the globe's imprisoned people. This explosion is not consistent with our history. In fact, it is inconsistent with our history. It is incongruent with our values. To be very specific, the explosion of our prison population is because of the war on drugs. The bottom line is that there were fewer people incarcerated in 1980 for any reason than there are today in prison and jails for drug offenses alone. Let me say that again, we have more people incarcerated today, either in prisons or in jails, just for drug crimes than all of the people incarcerated in the year 1980. In fact, due to this drug war our Federal prison population has exploded about 800 percent. In the context of what I am about to talk about in this resolution recognizing African-American history, I wish to particularly point to today this grievous reality that our war on drugs has disproportionately affected African Americans, Latinos, minorities, and the poor in general. It is painful for me to have seen in my lifetime, in the town I grew up in or at Stanford or Yale, many of my friends using drugs such as marijuana, many of them buying drugs such as marijuana, and many of them selling drugs such as marijuana. But the reality is the justice system they experienced for breaking the law was very different than the justice system I saw in Newark, NJ. The reality is we don't have a system of equal justice under law, but a system that disproportionately affects minorities in a way that is stunning and an affront to our nation's values. Arrest rates for drug use have a disparate impact on people of color. There is no questioning that. This is unacceptable. When it comes to people who break the law in America, there is actually no difference between blacks and whites who have committed drug crimes--none whatsoever, but African Americans, for example, when it comes to marijuana, are arrested at 3.7 times the rate that whites are in this country. While their usages were similar in Newark or Stanford, law enforcement has arrested and incarcerated far more minorities living in urban communities than whites living in suburban communities. Between 2007 and 2009, drug sentences for African American men were longer than those for white men. Drug sentences for black men were 13.1 percent longer for the same crime than those for white men. So not only are more African Americans and Latinos and people of color being targeted and arrested at higher rates than whites for the same crimes, but they are also getting and serving longer sentences. Human Rights Watch put it simply. They found that even though the majority of illegal drug users and dealers nationwide are white, three- quarters of all people imprisoned for drug offenses are minorities. This should call out to the conscience of everyone in our country. We believe fundamentally, at the core of our American values, in this ideal of equal justice under the law. The punishing thing about this is that not only are arrest rates higher, not only are they receiving longer sentences, but when we get such a disproportionate amount of people being arrested and incarcerated, the collateral consequences which they see at the end of the system become even more punishing on those communities. We now have cities in America that for certain age demographics, almost 50 percent of African American men have been arrested, and over 40 percent of Latino men have been arrested. And what that means is that once someone has a felony conviction for the nonviolent use of drugs, one's ability to go to college, to get a Pell grant, to get a job, and even to get many business licenses, is undermined. Right now we see this punishing impact destroying many communities. Instead of empowering people to succeed, we are getting people trapped in our criminal justice system. Instead of the solid rock of success, people are being sucked into the quicksand of a broken criminal justice system. For example, the blacks and Latinos in the United States are 29 percent of the population but make up almost 60 percent of the prison population. In New Jersey, blacks and Latinos are 32 percent of the total State population, but blacks and Latinos make up 81 percent of our prison population. An often overlooked group in this discussion on the disproportionate impact on minorities is Native Americans. For instance, in North Dakota, Native Americans make up 5 percent of the total State population but 29 percent of the prison population. These numbers, again, go against the truth of who we are as a country. So at this moment, when we are celebrating our history, when blacks and whites and Christians, Jews, and Muslims come together to advance our Nation--indeed, I stand here today because of the collective conviction of this country to live up to its values and ideals that all of us are created equal under God and that all of us should have an equal opportunity to succeed and be seen equally by our government. It is at this moment that I say we can and must do better. In fact, many States, including red States, led by Republicans, are showing that there is a different way. For example, States such as Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina are leading on this issue. Texas is known for its law and order, but it has made tremendous strides in adopting policies that have decreased its prison population and positively affected minorities in the State. In fact, the Governor of Georgia continually talks about the fact that he has been able to lower his black male incarceration rate by about 20 percent over the past 5 years. So as I prepare to join with the great Senator from Mississippi, I just want to say from the bottom of my heart that it is time to reform our legal system to make it truly a justice system. We want it so that everyone under the law faces equal treatment and so that we empower our entire community in America to be successful, not tie them up unnecessarily when even though they have paid the price for their crime. Punishment should not haunt someone for the rest of their existence. I remember these words spoken by the great Langston Hughes, one of our great American poets, an African-American man who once said: There is a dream in this land with its back against the wall; to save this dream for one, we must save it for all. This is the dream of America. We can do better. Indeed, many communities are committing themselves to creating a justice system which we can be proud of. We know in the Senate--Members on both sides of the political aisle; whether it is Senator Lee or Senator Durbin or whether it is Senator Cornyn or Senator Whitehouse--that together we can evidence these values. With that, I recognize and yield for a moment to a friend and an ally, the Senator from Mississippi, Thad Cochran.

Mr. BOOKER. I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.