Tina Smith

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 422, which was introduced earlier today.

Ms. SMITH. I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 75, submitted earlier today.

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

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 6, S. Res. 70.

Ms. SMITH. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 11 a.m., Thursday, February 25th; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; that at 12 noon, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Granholm nomination; that there be up to 10 minutes for debate, equally divided in the usual form; and that upon the use or yielding back of time, all postcloture time be considered expired and the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination; that if the nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; finally, notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture vote on the Cardona nomination occur at 1:30 p.m.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of Senators Lankford and Portman.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 74, submitted earlier today.

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

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, section 20l(f) of the unemployment extension provisions of the bill we are considering this evening contains language limiting retroactive Pandemic Unemployment Assistance compensation for applicants that had not applied by the date of enactment of this bill. It is my understanding that this provision is intended to cover individuals who have known for months of their eligibility for benefits but failed to apply in a timely manner. However, it is also my understanding that this provision is not intended to apply in cases where the individuals have only recently learned they would be eligible for PUA and a State unemployment office had previously advised those individuals not to apply for benefits. This is the case, for instance, for secondary schools students in Minnesota, who were advised by the State that they were not eligible for PUA, but a court recently determined that the students were indeed eligible earlier this month. It is also my understanding that this provision is not intended to apply to individuals who have filed a regular State unemployment insurance claim that remains in adjudication, who later find out that they are ineligible for regular unemployment compensation and must apply for PUA instead. Senator Wyden was the lead Democratic negotiator on the unemployment provisions of this bill. Does he share the same understanding of the intent of this provision?

Ms. SMITH. Thank you for the clarification and for your work in drafting the unemployment compensation language in this bill.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I am honored to pay tribute to my colleague, Senator Lamar Alexander. When speaking about the Senate, Senator Alexander often says, ``It's hard to get here, it's hard to stay here, and while you're here, you might as well try to accomplish something good for the country.'' Over his 18 years in this institution, he has embodied those words and has served as a guiding force of principle and bipartisanship. Under his 6 years of leadership as chair, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee reported 45 bills that became law. It is a shining example of his commitment to working together and finding resolution on issues that directly impact Americans' lives. As a member of the HELP Committee, I am thankful to have had the opportunity to work with Senator Alexander on some of these bills, such as the Opioid Crisis Response Act of 2018 and the reauthorization of the Perkins Career and Technical Education law, among others. I am also thankful for Chair Alexander's, as well as Ranking Member Patty Murray's, support for my work to lower the cost of prescription drugs and improve access to mental health services. When I came to the Senate in 2018, Senator Alexander welcomed me as a colleague and friend, for which I will always be grateful. While I will miss his esteemed, bipartisan leadership, both on the HELP Committee and in the Senate, I am grateful for his service to our country and wish him and Honey the best in their next chapter.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, Doug Jones and I came to the Senate at the same time--a class of just the two of us arriving in an off-year to fill partial terms. We were sworn in together on January 3, 2018, with each of us accompanied by a former Vice President--Walter Mondale in my case, Joe Biden in Doug's. We shared the unique experience of arriving during an unprecedented period in the Senate's history, and I am fortunate to have spent the first 3 years of my Senate journey with a partner like Doug by my side. Doug and I both joined the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and we quickly found common cause in rural healthcare. Within months, Doug had introduced the Rural Health Liaison Act, which helped to unify Federal resources to better support the health of rural communities. This act, which became law through our collaboration on the 2018 farm bill, put the government in a better position to respond to crises like the one we are experiencing today. The foresight and compassion Doug displayed in leading this initiative were hallmarks of his time in the Senate. Whether he was working to lower the costs of higher education, helping me bring high-speed internet to rural areas, or passing legislation to support military spouses, I could always count on Doug to be a voice for rural communities on the HELP Committee. Doug and I also sat next to each other on the Banking Committee, where I have appreciated his thoughtful focus on rectifying racial disparities in income and wealth, particularly those caused by Federal policies of the past. In addition, Doug played a key role in leading a bipartisan effort to update Federal anti-money laundering laws, which I am hopeful will become law as part of the NDAA later this month. Thanks to his work, we are on the verge of finally putting a stop to the use of anonymous shell companies by traffickers, terrorists, and tax dodgers, and making numerous other reforms that will cut off funding for criminal actors and make Americans safer. I have been proud to call Doug a colleague and friend. I know that Americans in Alabama, Minnesota, and everywhere in between join me in thanking him for his service and wishing him a fond farewell.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a great advocate for the Mississippi River. After a distinguished career of public service at the Army Corps of Engineers and the National Park Service, Dr. John Anfinson will retire at the end of this month from his position as superintendent of Minnesota's Mississippi National River and Recreation Area. During my time as a board member for Friends of the Mississippi River, I saw firsthand Dr. Anfinson's tireless commitment to the river ecosystem. John has delighted in introducing people to the mighty Mississippi as it flows through the twin cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul and sharing stories about the historic, economic, and cultural significance of America's great river. In each of his roles, from historian for the Saint Paul District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to chief of resource management and superintendent of the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area of the National Park Service, Dr. Anfinson has shared his love for the Mississippi with countless people in the Twin Cities and beyond. Dr. Anfinson has been a leader in protecting the river ecosystem from invasive species and has been instrumental in saving and repurposing the Fort Snelling Upper Post buildings, which will soon come back to life as a new community, housing families and individuals. He and his work remind us of the cultural, commercial, and ecological importance of the river. It is fundamental to our very identities as Minnesotans. Through his work, Dr. Anfinson has educated countless Minnesotans about the unique cultural heritage of the Mississippi, and he has inspired the public to appreciate and take advantage of the treasures the river offers to our State and country. He has contributed to our understanding of the history of the river through his books, ``River of History'' and ``The River We Have Wrought.'' His impact will be felt as generations and generations of Americans have the opportunity to learn about the Mississippi enjoy all that it has to offer. As our climate changes and our State changes in countless other ways, it is vital that we prioritize good stewardship of the river. That means cleaning the waters. That means maintaining our river communities and the infrastructure--natural and manmade--necessary to protect them from flooding. We will be challenged to constantly envision, plan, and take action to make sure we have a Mississippi River worthy of the legacy we want to pass on to the next generation of Minnesotans. Dr. Anfinson and his work will continue to guide us for years to come. It is an honor to offer my sincerest congratulations to Dr. Anfinson on his retirement. Minnesota thanks him for his countless contributions to the environment and our treasured Mississippi River.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise in support of my colleague Senator Thune's request to pass the Impact Aid Coronavirus Relief Act, H.R. 8472, by unanimous consent. As we continue to respond to the coronavirus pandemic, we need to support schools so that students can keep learning. In Congress, we have a special obligation to federally impacted schools. As my colleague Senator Thune has said, these are schools that are located in districts with a significant amount of nontaxable land, which puts them at a significant disadvantage for raising education revenue. And we make this right by providing direct Federal payments which are crucial for their operation. What this bill does--what our bill does--is to provide a commonsense change. It allows school districts to use student counts from the previous academic year when they submit their impact aid applications. In light of the challenges of doing a safe and active count in the midst of this coronavirus pandemic, this only makes sense. I thank my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Thune. I have been so glad to work with him to support school districts that rely on Impact Aid Programs and to promote financial stability for these school districts during the pandemic. I hope we can pass this bill today and get it signed into law. I yield.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Madam President, I rise today to tell the people of Minnesota why I will oppose the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Our Constitution's most fundamental charge is to render equal justice under the law. This promise is so central to our justice system that those words are inscribed above the entrance to the U.S. Supreme Court. The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg devoted her life to advancing the principle of equality under the law, and I believe all nominees to our Nation's highest Court must share that dedication. Unfortunately, Judge Barrett does not meet that standard. Judge Barrett was nominated to fulfill President Trump's promise to appoint Supreme Court Justices who would do two things which I believe are antithetical to equal justice under the law: dismantling the Affordable Care Act and overturning Roe v. Wade. So let's be clear about what is happening. We know Judge Barrett was nominated because President Trump and Republicans believe that she will help them overturn the Affordable Care Act and take us back to the days when millions more Americans do not have health insurance and insurance companies can deny coverage or charge exorbitant rates to people with preexisting conditions, like cancer or heart disease. They could charge women more and seniors more, and they would be able to charge more to people with COVID as a preexisting condition. As we know, Judge Barrett was nominated because Donald Trump believes she will uphold laws that treat women as less capable of making independent decisions about their health, their personal beliefs, and birth control than State legislatures. A person who can pass these two Republican litmus tests does not sound like someone to me who is committed to equal justice under the law. Now, many of my Democratic colleagues have talked about the terrible impact of striking down the Affordable Care Act on American families. I share this commitment that they have--that we all have--to protect healthcare as a human right. But as the only Senator who has worked at Planned Parenthood, I want to take my time today to talk about what is at stake if the Supreme Court overturns or weakens Roe. When I worked at Planned Parenthood, I saw firsthand how comprehensive reproductive healthcare is essential for women to have the freedom and the opportunity to live the lives that they choose. I also saw how efforts to strip away these protections are an affront to the equal rights and dignity of women and their families. For all people, healthcare decisions are the most personal. It is your body and it is your life, and decisions about reproductive health and sexual health are even more personal and intensely private. There is still stigma and discrimination around reproductive health, especially abortion, and that makes it even more important that people have privacy and space and excellent care without judgment, which is what Planned Parenthood provides. I became aware during my time at Planned Parenthood how personal these decisions are for women and how the political debate around abortion is disconnected from the facts and the realities of women's lives. Here is an example. The battle over restricting access to abortion has nothing to do with the public health work to prevent unintended pregnancies and reduce the abortion rate. Indeed, the Guttmacher Institute has repeatedly found that restrictive State abortion laws are not causally associated with the decline in abortion rates. In fact, fewer unintended pregnancies and lower teen pregnancy rates are correlated not with restrictive abortion laws but with access to sexuality education and birth control and also to a healthy economy. Here is another example. Most restrictive abortion laws seem to be aimed at a stereotype of an irresponsible woman who hasn't been careful and somehow got herself into a mess. First of all, this is a sexist and disrespectful trope. Research shows that women from all walks of life seek abortion care. Over half are already mothers. Over 80 percent report using contraception. And over half report a religious affiliation. These women all have their own unique circumstances and needs and beliefs. What they have in common is that they deserve the dignity and respect to make their own judgments about what is best for them and their families in the course of their own lives. What I saw at Planned Parenthood were women, our patients, who were working really hard to make good decisions about their own health, and they wanted to take charge of their health and their lives. But this is really difficult when you can't afford basic healthcare, like birth control, if you don't have good insurance or any insurance. It is very hard if you have been shamed or threatened or harassed for seeking the care that you need. It is even harder when the government is looking over your shoulder, telling you what you can and cannot do with your body and your life, because the truth is, most laws restricting abortion are not about good healthcare. They are about substituting the judgment of government for the intensely personal, medical, and moral decisions that women, their doctors, and their families want and need to make for themselves. The truth is, these laws treat women as fundamentally unequal in their decision-making capacity, and they are an insult to women's individual dignity and freedom and body autonomy. I think this is why most Americans disagree with the Republicans' rush to roll back Roe. This anti-choice agenda is radically out of step with the American people. In 2019, Pew Research, which is a respected nonpartisan polling organization, found that 61 percent of Americans say that abortion should be legal in all or most instances. Now, some of my Republican colleagues must know that they are out of step with the American people, which must be why some have suggested that it is ``fearmongering'' to say that Roe might be overturned if Judge Barrett joins the Supreme Court. So, after promising over and over to confirm only anti-choice judges, judges who would overturn Roe, they now try to claim that we can't possibly predict how Justice Barrett would vote on this issue. Well, this is completely illogical and completely unbelievable, and I think the American people know better. Make no mistake, many conservative State legislatures have already passed laws specifically intended to create the opportunity for the Supreme Court to revisit and overturn Roe, and if Justice Barrett goes on the Court and becomes the definitive vote to overturn or weaken Roe, 22 States are poised to immediately ban all or nearly all abortions. There are 16 others that will immediately enact severe restrictions to dramatically reduce access, and more States are sure to follow. If the Supreme Court overturns Roe, who is hurt most? Poor women, women living in rural communities, and women without the means to travel to places where women's rights are respected, and this is the definition of unequal justice. This Supreme Court nominee will have a momentous effect on the lives and personal decisions of Minnesotans and Americans. There is so much at stake. So I urge all Americans to make your voices heard and to hold your elected representatives accountable in Congress, in the State house, and in local governments. Your voices are powerful, but only if you use them. I will always stand up for all Americans to have equal justice and opportunity to live the lives that you choose, and that is why I oppose this nomination. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the confirmation of Justice Barrett. I yield the floor.

Ms. SMITH

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

Ms. SMITH. I yield the floor.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to continue to lift up the voices of millions of Americans who are demanding policing reform as a necessary step on the path towards racial justice in this country. The challenges in defeating systemic racism can seem insurmountable, but there are clear next steps. We need to start by transforming our policing system to root out the systemic racism and the culture of violence that is killing Black and Brown and indigenous people and people of color. I want to talk today about four areas of this work that need our urgent attention. First, we need to bring justice, accountability, and change to police departments by passing the Justice in Policing Act. Second, we need to invest in new models of public safety by supporting community-led reform and innovation. I am asking the Senate to take up and pass my new bill to do just that. Third, we need to end the criminalization of poverty, which happens when other social systems fail. Finally, we need to root out racism in our systems of education, healthcare, housing, and economic opportunity so that everyone in this country can have the freedom and the opportunity to build the lives they choose. In order to bring justice, accountability, and change to policing departments around the country, we need to start by passing the Justice in Policing Act. Led by Senator Booker and Senator Harris, this bill is a comprehensive set of needed Federal-level reforms to a system that is designed to shield police officers from accountability and consequences and denies justice to victims of police violence. These reforms--like ending qualified immunity, establishing a national use-of-force standard, creating a registry of police misconduct, and banning dangerous practices like choke holds and no- knock warrants--are long overdue. Indeed, communities and activists have pushed for many of the reforms in this bill for decades. A few weeks ago, I spoke on this floor about the urgent need to pass this bill. Unfortunately, this critical legislation is still sitting on Leader McConnell's desk. But I promise that I will keep fighting until the Justice in Policing Act is signed into law. Policing needs other changes, too, like banning so-called warrior training, which encourages law enforcement officials to see the public as hostile enemies. We need to empower the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice to independently investigate police departments that systematically violate the constitutional rights of our communities We need to reform Federal sentencing to repeal 1994 crime bill provisions, like mandatory minimums and draconian sentencing enhancements, and we need to prohibit police union contracts that create unfair barriers to effective investigations, civilian oversight, and holding police departments accountable to the communities they are sworn to serve. In our work to transform policing, the second step we need to take at the Federal level is to support local community-led innovation in public safety. Although Congress has the responsibility to establish national standards for justice and accountability, Federal-level change can only go so far. State, local, and Tribal governments are responsible for overseeing policing in their communities. I believe that these communities know best what will work in their own cities and towns. The Federal Government, though, can play a catalytic role by supporting and funding innovative, anti-racist policing reform. With this in mind, today I am introducing a bill, the Supporting Innovation and Public Safety Act, which would help State, local, and Tribal governments reimagine policing in their communities by funding innovative projects and best practices that will transform how we deliver public safety and other social services. My bill would empower local governments to develop and implement projects to improve public safety through systemic change, not just by growing police department budgets. There are great examples of innovation already happening. Local jurisdictions are experimenting with new ways to provide mental health crisis response. They are addressing ways of dealing with gun violence as a public health issue and even how to enforce low-level traffic safety violations without involving an armed police officer. I have long believed that those who are closest to the work know best how to get the work done. Through these grants from the Federal level, we will be able to help local communities adopt new approaches to public safety, tailoring their needs and unique circumstances to what they need to do. Then we can develop robust evaluation of these community-led projects, which will generate new data and new models of public safety in policing and also sow the seeds of progress and broad transformation. The third thing we need to do at all levels of government is to work together to stop criminalizing poverty and using the criminal justice system as the solution for every social ill. For decades, we have dramatically underfunded efforts to support housing, mental health, and substance abuse. And then we criminalize the results of this lack of support. We ask police departments to control behavior like loitering or trespassing, public intoxication, and public nuisances--all offenses that largely don't threaten public safety. Then we put people in jail because they have a mental illness or lack a safe place to live. Poverty becomes the reason why people, especially people of color, get caught up in the criminal justice system. It is time that we stop criminalizing poverty and start investing in solutions to get to the root causes of social problems. We need to refocus policing on violence prevention and crisis response, which connects people to the services that they need. A good place to start is by dramatically reforming cash bail so that those who haven't been convicted of a crime don't remain in jail just because they can't afford bail. Almost 60 percent of the nearly 750,000 people currently in jail have not been convicted of any crime. They are in jail just because they cannot afford bail, and the data tells us that this is yet another burden that falls disproportionately on communities of color. Indeed, when we criminalize poverty, we facilitate the systemic racist harassment, surveillance, and control of Black and Brown, and indigenous communities. That is why we need to ban the use of quotas for law enforcement officers to enforce so-called broken windows offenses. These offenses do not threaten public safety, and they are disproportionately enforced on communities of color. A recent New York Times investigation found that in many large police departments, serious violent crimes make up only about 1 percent of all calls for service--1 percent. Many of those same departments are solving less than 30 percent of those serious crimes. We could actually improve public safety by devoting resources to combating violent crime rather than overenforcing low-level offenses in communities of color. Let's think about what this means for marijuana offenses. The Federal marijuana prohibition is a failed policy that contributes to mass incarceration and overpolicing of communities of color. White and Black people use marijuana at roughly the same rate, but a Black person is almost four times as likely to be arrested for a marijuana offense. The Federal Government is behind both State law and public opinion. Forty-two States and the District of Columbia already allow some type of marijuana use, despite the long-time Federal prohibition. It is time to legalize marijuana, and we should do it in a practical and commonsense way that protects the health and safety and the civil rights of our communities. We need to take up and pass Senator Harris's Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act, the MORE Act, which I am proud to cosponsor. The MORE Act would address the devastating impact on communities of color on the War on Drugs by expunging marijuana-related convictions and reinvesting in community. Also, I recently introduced a bill, the Substance Resolution and Safety Act, which would ensure that marijuana is regulated to protect the health and the safety of youth, of consumers, and of drivers. We do this without replicating the racist enforcement patterns of our current drug policy. Finally, we need to recognize that racial justice is not only about policing and criminal justice reform. We need to root out racist policies that are built into our systems of housing, healthcare, education, and economic opportunity. The legacy of slavery, of oppression, and of discrimination is pervasive in these areas and our communities bear the scars of these past crimes even as new injuries accumulate. This is why a Black or a Brown child living in the neighborhood where George Floyd was murdered has fewer opportunities than a White child living just a few miles away. The impact of generations of stolen labor, of systemic violence, and exclusion from opportunity is revealed today in legal disparities, achievement gaps, housing instability, and the dramatic difference in wealth and wages between White people and people of color. Addressing these challenges are crucial to the unfinished work of racial justice in our country. This means that we need to implement anti-racist practices and policies, like ending the use of armed police officers in schools, eliminating discipline disparities, and shutting off the school-to-prison pipeline. It means addressing the systemic exclusion of Black and Brown and indigenous people from the wealth- building opportunities of homeownership. It means tackling the root causes of racial health disparities, including environmental injustices and discrimination in healthcare. It means supporting economic opportunity for all by removing racist barriers to employment, entrepreneurship, credit, and capital. The scale of the injustice that we see in our country can sometimes feel overwhelming, and the path can seem very long. These are some concrete steps that we can take on that path, and they are necessary steps, to fulfill our country's promise of freedom and equity for all of us. Community leaders and activists are showing us the path forward, and following this path requires us to be courageous, requires us to be humble, and, at times, requires us to be uncomfortable. But it is a path rooted in love and trust and hope.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to continue to lift up the voices of millions of Americans who are demanding policing reform as a necessary step on the path towards racial justice in this country. The challenges in defeating systemic racism can seem insurmountable, but there are clear next steps. We need to start by transforming our policing system to root out the systemic racism and the culture of violence that is killing Black and Brown and indigenous people and people of color. I want to talk today about four areas of this work that need our urgent attention. First, we need to bring justice, accountability, and change to police departments by passing the Justice in Policing Act. Second, we need to invest in new models of public safety by supporting community-led reform and innovation. I am asking the Senate to take up and pass my new bill to do just that. Third, we need to end the criminalization of poverty, which happens when other social systems fail. Finally, we need to root out racism in our systems of education, healthcare, housing, and economic opportunity so that everyone in this country can have the freedom and the opportunity to build the lives they choose. In order to bring justice, accountability, and change to policing departments around the country, we need to start by passing the Justice in Policing Act. Led by Senator Booker and Senator Harris, this bill is a comprehensive set of needed Federal-level reforms to a system that is designed to shield police officers from accountability and consequences and denies justice to victims of police violence. These reforms--like ending qualified immunity, establishing a national use-of-force standard, creating a registry of police misconduct, and banning dangerous practices like choke holds and no- knock warrants--are long overdue. Indeed, communities and activists have pushed for many of the reforms in this bill for decades. A few weeks ago, I spoke on this floor about the urgent need to pass this bill. Unfortunately, this critical legislation is still sitting on Leader McConnell's desk. But I promise that I will keep fighting until the Justice in Policing Act is signed into law. Policing needs other changes, too, like banning so-called warrior training, which encourages law enforcement officials to see the public as hostile enemies. We need to empower the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice to independently investigate police departments that systematically violate the constitutional rights of our communities We need to reform Federal sentencing to repeal 1994 crime bill provisions, like mandatory minimums and draconian sentencing enhancements, and we need to prohibit police union contracts that create unfair barriers to effective investigations, civilian oversight, and holding police departments accountable to the communities they are sworn to serve. In our work to transform policing, the second step we need to take at the Federal level is to support local community-led innovation in public safety. Although Congress has the responsibility to establish national standards for justice and accountability, Federal-level change can only go so far. State, local, and Tribal governments are responsible for overseeing policing in their communities. I believe that these communities know best what will work in their own cities and towns. The Federal Government, though, can play a catalytic role by supporting and funding innovative, anti-racist policing reform. With this in mind, today I am introducing a bill, the Supporting Innovation and Public Safety Act, which would help State, local, and Tribal governments reimagine policing in their communities by funding innovative projects and best practices that will transform how we deliver public safety and other social services. My bill would empower local governments to develop and implement projects to improve public safety through systemic change, not just by growing police department budgets. There are great examples of innovation already happening. Local jurisdictions are experimenting with new ways to provide mental health crisis response. They are addressing ways of dealing with gun violence as a public health issue and even how to enforce low-level traffic safety violations without involving an armed police officer. I have long believed that those who are closest to the work know best how to get the work done. Through these grants from the Federal level, we will be able to help local communities adopt new approaches to public safety, tailoring their needs and unique circumstances to what they need to do. Then we can develop robust evaluation of these community-led projects, which will generate new data and new models of public safety in policing and also sow the seeds of progress and broad transformation. The third thing we need to do at all levels of government is to work together to stop criminalizing poverty and using the criminal justice system as the solution for every social ill. For decades, we have dramatically underfunded efforts to support housing, mental health, and substance abuse. And then we criminalize the results of this lack of support. We ask police departments to control behavior like loitering or trespassing, public intoxication, and public nuisances--all offenses that largely don't threaten public safety. Then we put people in jail because they have a mental illness or lack a safe place to live. Poverty becomes the reason why people, especially people of color, get caught up in the criminal justice system. It is time that we stop criminalizing poverty and start investing in solutions to get to the root causes of social problems. We need to refocus policing on violence prevention and crisis response, which connects people to the services that they need. A good place to start is by dramatically reforming cash bail so that those who haven't been convicted of a crime don't remain in jail just because they can't afford bail. Almost 60 percent of the nearly 750,000 people currently in jail have not been convicted of any crime. They are in jail just because they cannot afford bail, and the data tells us that this is yet another burden that falls disproportionately on communities of color. Indeed, when we criminalize poverty, we facilitate the systemic racist harassment, surveillance, and control of Black and Brown, and indigenous communities. That is why we need to ban the use of quotas for law enforcement officers to enforce so-called broken windows offenses. These offenses do not threaten public safety, and they are disproportionately enforced on communities of color. A recent New York Times investigation found that in many large police departments, serious violent crimes make up only about 1 percent of all calls for service--1 percent. Many of those same departments are solving less than 30 percent of those serious crimes. We could actually improve public safety by devoting resources to combating violent crime rather than overenforcing low-level offenses in communities of color. Let's think about what this means for marijuana offenses. The Federal marijuana prohibition is a failed policy that contributes to mass incarceration and overpolicing of communities of color. White and Black people use marijuana at roughly the same rate, but a Black person is almost four times as likely to be arrested for a marijuana offense. The Federal Government is behind both State law and public opinion. Forty-two States and the District of Columbia already allow some type of marijuana use, despite the long-time Federal prohibition. It is time to legalize marijuana, and we should do it in a practical and commonsense way that protects the health and safety and the civil rights of our communities. We need to take up and pass Senator Harris's Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act, the MORE Act, which I am proud to cosponsor. The MORE Act would address the devastating impact on communities of color on the War on Drugs by expunging marijuana-related convictions and reinvesting in community. Also, I recently introduced a bill, the Substance Resolution and Safety Act, which would ensure that marijuana is regulated to protect the health and the safety of youth, of consumers, and of drivers. We do this without replicating the racist enforcement patterns of our current drug policy. Finally, we need to recognize that racial justice is not only about policing and criminal justice reform. We need to root out racist policies that are built into our systems of housing, healthcare, education, and economic opportunity. The legacy of slavery, of oppression, and of discrimination is pervasive in these areas and our communities bear the scars of these past crimes even as new injuries accumulate. This is why a Black or a Brown child living in the neighborhood where George Floyd was murdered has fewer opportunities than a White child living just a few miles away. The impact of generations of stolen labor, of systemic violence, and exclusion from opportunity is revealed today in legal disparities, achievement gaps, housing instability, and the dramatic difference in wealth and wages between White people and people of color. Addressing these challenges are crucial to the unfinished work of racial justice in our country. This means that we need to implement anti-racist practices and policies, like ending the use of armed police officers in schools, eliminating discipline disparities, and shutting off the school-to-prison pipeline. It means addressing the systemic exclusion of Black and Brown and indigenous people from the wealth- building opportunities of homeownership. It means tackling the root causes of racial health disparities, including environmental injustices and discrimination in healthcare. It means supporting economic opportunity for all by removing racist barriers to employment, entrepreneurship, credit, and capital. The scale of the injustice that we see in our country can sometimes feel overwhelming, and the path can seem very long. These are some concrete steps that we can take on that path, and they are necessary steps, to fulfill our country's promise of freedom and equity for all of us. Community leaders and activists are showing us the path forward, and following this path requires us to be courageous, requires us to be humble, and, at times, requires us to be uncomfortable. But it is a path rooted in love and trust and hope.

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Texas. I appreciate his leadership on this. Juneteenth is among the oldest celebrations of emancipation and is certainly worthy of a Federal holiday. I want to read an op-ed from the Washington Post, written by the musician Usher, which I think eloquently sums up why it is not only important to honor this day as a Federal holiday, but it is also important to recognize it as a part of American history. I ask unanimous consent to introduce the Washington Post op-ed in full into the Record.

Ms. SMITH. Usher wrote: The liberation Juneteenth commemorates is cause for celebration, but it also reminds us of how equality can be delayed. On June 19, 1865, on the shores of Galveston, Tex., Union Gen. Gordon Granger arrived by boat to announce to enslaved African Americans that the Civil War had ended and they were now free. While President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was issued two and a half years prior, and the Civil War had ended in April of that year, it wasn't until June 19, 1865, that almost all of our ancestors were free. We should honor their lives and celebrate that day of freedom forever. Usher continues: Recognizing Juneteenth as a national holiday would be a small gesture compared to the greater social needs of black people in America. But it can remind us of our journey toward freedom, and the work America still has to do. We could observe it, as many black Americans already do, by celebrating both our first step toward freedom as black people in America and also the many contributions to this land. So thank you to my colleague from Texas. I am glad to stand with him in making Juneteenth a Federal holiday.

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is notable to me that we are gathered here today, while in Atlanta we are celebrating the life of John Lewis. In this moment, I think it is worth remembering that when Congress was debating whether to make a Federal holiday honoring Martin Luther King, Jr.--Dr. King, in the 1980s--people made this same kind of argument about its potential cost. Ronald Reagan made this argument. But President Reagan came around, and he signed into law this bill, and now that holiday is celebrated nationwide as a day of reflection and rededication to progress toward racial justice. Just as the civil rights movement is honored as an important milestone in the history of this country, so should be emancipation. Just as the argument that it is too expensive to give Federal employees a day off was wrong regarding Martin Luther King Day, it is wrong for Juneteenth. And just as Ronald Reagan got on the right side of history, I think that we will get on the right side of history, and we will finally have a full holiday to commemorate Juneteenth, not as a holiday with an asterisk, not as a half holiday, but as a full holiday; therefore, I object to this modification

Ms. SMITH

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the career of Minnesota Adjutant General Jon Jensen and to congratulate him on the next step in his career. On Friday, Major General Jensen will be promoted to lieutenant general and become our Nation's next Director of the Army National Guard. In this position he will oversee the national activities of the Army National Guard and work to ensure the Army Guard remains one of our finest public institutions. General Jensen joined the Iowa National Guard's 168th Infantry Regiment in 1989 before later transferring to the Minnesota National Guard in 2002. Through hard work and dedication, he rose to become the Minnesota National Guard's 31st Adjutant General in November, 2017. In this role, General Jensen has served as the head of Minnesota's Army and Air National Guard, where he has demonstrated the highest levels of duty, honor, and service. I have had the pleasure of working with General Jensen during my time in office at the State and Federal levels. He is a proven leader who has seen the Minnesota Guard through deployments, natural disasters, and preparing the Minnesota Guard to meet future challenges. We worked closely to preserve the National Guard's access to the Readiness and Environment Protection Initiative, REPI, a program which both ensures the Guard's ability to carry out critical training and also works to conserve the natural habitat surrounding military bases. General Jensen has been a strong advocate for this program and worked with my office to ensure National Guard installations across the Nation have continued access to the REPI Program. This is just one example that demonstrates General Jensen's dedication to service which makes him an outstanding choice to be the next Director of the Army National Guard. In addition to the outstanding job General Jensen has done running the Minnesota National Guard, he is also inspiring, intelligent, and optimistic--all important qualities in a strong leader and qualities that have helped General Jensen make outstanding contributions throughout his more than 30 years of service. Given his strong qualifications, leadership qualities, and extensive experience, I cannot think of a better candidate to become our Nation's next Director of the Army National Guard. On behalf of myself and all Minnesotans, thank you for your dedicated service to Minnesota and our Nation. I know you will excel in your new role, and I look forward to continuing to work with you for many years to come.