Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am grateful to the Presiding Officer for recognizing me.

I want to say I am excited to be standing up tonight and talking, along with Senator Wyden, Senator Hassan, and we just heard from Senator Casey who is marking this 13th anniversary celebration with extraordinary determination not to see these great programs cut.

I was not in Congress when the ACA was passed into law. But in an affirmation of that old adage about politics being local, I saw in my local community of Newark, NJ, the powerful difference that the ACA made, the difference that health reform had on my community.

Folks would come up to me immediately in the months and years afterwards and talk about how they were finally able to get the healthcare that they needed, not only for themselves, but for their loved ones--how they moved from anxiety and fear to security and strength.

You had folks with preexisting conditions who were discriminated against in the United States of America before the law's passage, but now they had a pathway for quality, affordable healthcare.

Folks had to choose often between putting food on the table, paying rent, or just visiting a doctor; a choice between buying school supplies and getting their prescription drugs. Choices that, in this Nation--the richest Nation on the planet Earth--are outrageous, unacceptable, and fiscally irresponsible. What I saw as Newark's mayor is that, often, people would let their healthcare needs go until they ended up in the emergency room, which was a cost then borne by them and their family for unnecessary illness, but also to all of us. This should not be the Nation we live in, and we are celebrating the fact that 13 years ago this body made a difference.

I have seen this passion for the Affordable Care Act echoed in my 9 years as a U.S. Senator. One of my constituents told me, as a registered nurse from New Jersey, she spent her entire professional life caring for patients. Before the ACA, she witnessed those in need delay or simply refuse healthcare until it was too late. Soon, though, she almost became one of those patients herself after she retired and confronted her own health challenges and their accompanying costs. It was only thanks to the Affordable Care Act that she didn't have to resort to emptying her retirement accounts in order to afford the healthcare. She said it best herself:

The Affordable Care Act saved my life.

Another constituent of mine, a recent widow, wrote to me a few years ago. After losing her husband, she relied on the marketplace to get insurance--the Affordable Care Act marketplace. She was diabetic, had preexisting conditions, and told me:

I'm afraid of having no coverage. I could lose my home and

everything I have saved during my 35-year marriage.

Now, despite the partisan attacks that you hear against the Affordable Care Act, despite the challenges in the courts, we know the Affordable Care Act has worked. The data is clear. From 2010 to 2021, the number of uninsured, nonelderly individuals has decreased substantially in the United States of America from 46.5 million to 27.5 million. That number has been nearly cut in half.

We also know that the ACA has been invaluable in the fight to achieve just greater healthcare justice by dramatically decreasing the uninsured rate for many ethnic minorities in our country. For example, those rates have gone from 20 percent uninsured in 2010 to just 11 percent in 2021; for Black folks, 33 percent to 19 percent; for Latino folks, 17 percent to 6 percent. We have seen a dramatic decrease for Asian Americans, Latino Americans, Black Americans, and more.

The law has saved lives, unequivocally. A 2014 study showed that the ACA prevented an estimated 50,000 preventable patient deaths in just 3 years from 2010 to 2013. And in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, the ACA marketplace was a lifeline to folks who were laid off and had no insurance.

One of the most important things that this law has done is to get people insured, to reduce deaths, to lower healthcare costs, and to expand access to Medicaid to people who were previously ineligible.

I live in a State that was one of the first to expand Medicaid to more of our citizens. We did it under a Republican Governor who recognized just how important it was that we expand Medicaid, how lifesaving it was, how good for the empowerment of families and children it was. It has helped so many more people in New Jersey obtain health insurance, and it has helped my State fight the opioid crisis by providing us the vital resources to do so.

New Jersey is one of 39 States, plus the District of Columbia, that has chosen to expand Medicaid. By all accounts, these 39 States with Medicaid

expansion are outperforming those who have inexplicably--you might say outrageously--chosen to reject Medicaid expansion, despite the overwhelming evidence that it helps countless Americans stay healthier and better access quality affordable care.

Perhaps that is one reason why the State of North Carolina, with a Republican-led legislature and a Democratic Governor, are in the middle of a bipartisan process to expand Medicaid in their State, right now as we speak.

States that expanded Medicaid have continuously shown to have lower uninsured rates, lower premiums on exchange policies, to have lower mortality rates. States that expanded Medicaid better live up to the ideals of this country that, fundamentally, we are about life--life-- liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Expanding healthcare access lowers death rates. It is about life. Expanding healthcare access is about liberty, freeing people from fear and anxiety, from being chained to the worry that comes from not being able to afford even an ambulance ride. And, ultimately, it is about happiness.

People in these States are going to the doctor more often for preventive screenings, visiting the dentist for dental care, getting mental health treatment. They have seen an increase in early stage cancer diagnosis when cancer is more treatable. People in those States have lower medical debt than in States that have neglected to expand Medicaid. It has actually had a positive effect on the overall economy. And I have led the charge to make sure that those States which expand Medicaid also provide coverage for birthing people, for moms, for a year postpartum.

We live in a country that shamefully has a maternal mortality rate that is far higher than our peer nations and especially higher for marginalized communities.

New data was recently released showing a significant increase in the maternal mortality rate in 2021. This problem is getting worse, with maternal mortality rates nearly doubling in the United States since 2018. The maternal mortality rate is bad for all Americans, and it is even worse for African Americans.

Given that Medicaid coverage covers half the births in the United States, the continuing expansion of coverage and care will help address these concerning trends and address those disparities and help ensure that more women can get access to the reproductive care that they need, and we could have more healthy births with healthy moms.

The bottom line is clear: Medicaid is integral to helping Americans get the care they need and to affirm our common values.

We love our children in this Nation, and the data for their births, for the children and their mothers, should reflect that love.

What does love look like in public? It looks like justice. It looks like healthy children being born. It looks like lowering the death rates for women giving birth.

Look, we have much work to do. We should note the progress on this 13th anniversary. We should stop the politicization of healthcare in this country when we make strides that belie all the outrageous claims that were made about what the Affordable Care Act would turn into. All of the lies that were said about this legislation, all the dire predictions have not come true.

Look, when I think about the ACA, I think back to the night I sat with my dear friend John Lewis, a hero to people on both sides of the aisle in this Chamber, a truly great American. When the Affordable Care Act was in crisis and threatened to be repealed, we sat on the Capitol steps, opened up Facebook Live, and started having a conversation.

I will never forget. Hundreds of people came to join us on the steps of the Capitol, and I will never forget that John Lewis made it clear to this large crowd of people and to a live, online audience--he said:

Affordable healthcare is the birthright of every American.

At stake are not just the details of policy but the character

[the character] of our country.

Think about that for a second, the character of our country.

Who are we? What do we stand for? Not just those unbelievable words on those founding documents, not just the spirit of America, but, in truth, you can judge the greatness of a country by the well-being of its people.

I believe that when we talk about healthcare, we aren't just talking about policy and legislation and politics, but we are taking about the very fabric--the moral fabric--of this Nation. We cannot be a nation that stands for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if people don't have access to what is fundamental to those ideals, which is quality healthcare.

We are a nation that should be a beacon to the world. I believe we are. We are a nation of promise, a nation of hope, a nation of possibility, a nation of infinite potential. But there are still too many people in this country where that potential and that possibility are undermined by the mere fact that they cannot access a doctor, preventive care, birthing care. That is wrong.

I am endlessly grateful for the Affordable Care Act for helping us to make a stride toward our ideals, for bending the arc of the moral universe more toward justice, for making this a more perfect union.

Yes, tonight is a 13-year anniversary, but we should commit ourselves to going from doing good work, from making progress, to ultimately doing what we are called to be, which is a nation that is a light unto all nations. It sets the highest standards for healthcare and health outcomes; that we are not a nation that proclaims a nation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness but demonstrates it relative to all other nations in the true fabric of our living. That is a cause that calls this body and the House of Representatives and our Federal Government that should call us not just to celebrate a 13-year anniversary but to continue to improve upon the good work that was done.

I am concluded with my remarks. I am just a warmup act for the Senator who is coming right now, from my second favorite ``new'' State after New Jersey, the great State of New Hampshire.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to ask consent--I know we have an order to vote at 1:45--to speak for about 5 minutes.

Madam President, this Saturday, March 18, will mark the 60th anniversary of the unanimous and landmark Supreme Court decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, which held that every American has the constitutional right in criminal cases, regardless of their wealth and where they were born--they have a right, fundamentally, to the public defense system that we know today.

Before Gideon was decided, people accused of crimes were left to fend for themselves, having to navigate arraignments, plea bargains, jury decisions, trials, cross-examination of witnesses--every part of the criminal prosecution, they had to do it themselves while facing government prosecutors who had the legal upper hand.

Clarence Earl Gideon was a 51-year-old with an eighth grade education who ran away from home in middle school. History describes him as a ``drifter'' who spent time in and out of prison for nonviolent crimes, but history would also come to know him as someone who fundamentally transformed our legal system so that any person without resources accused of a crime has a due process right to a fair trial. You can't have a fair trial without counsel.

In 1961, Gideon was arrested for stealing $5 in change and beer, allegedly doing so from the Bay Harbor Poolroom in Panama City, FL. As James Baldwin would write the same year as Gideon's arrest, ``Anyone who has ever struggled with poverty knows how extremely expensive it is to be poor.''

Gideon, who had spent much of his life in poverty, was too poor to hire an attorney and asked the trial court to appoint one for him. The court denied his request, saying that only indigent defenders facing the death penalty are entitled to a lawyer.

Gideon assumed the burden of defending himself at trial, becoming his own lawyer. He made an opening statement to the jury and cross-examined the prosecution's witnesses. He presented witnesses in his own defense. He declined to testify himself and made arguments emphasizing his innocence.

Despite his valiant efforts, the jury found Gideon guilty of this $5 theft, and he was sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment. But Gideon felt he had been fundamentally deprived of his due process rights.

Determined to prove his innocence, Gideon penciled a five-page, handwritten petition asking the nine Justices of the Supreme Court to consider his case. Against all odds, the Supreme Court granted Gideon's petition.

Gideon would tell the Supreme Court:

It makes no difference how old I am or what color I am or

which church I belong to, if any. The question is I did not

get a fair trial. The question is very simple. I requested

the court to appoint me [an] attorney and the court refused.

In the Court's unanimous decision, they held that ``reason and reflection require us to recognize that in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him.''

Gideon's case was sent back to the lower court, where he had a lawyer to defend him. It took the jury only 1 hour to come to a verdict and acquit him.

From that time on, the public defense system as we know it today came into existence. Folks who couldn't afford a lawyer 60 years ago are now guaranteed basic legal protection. Public defenders play a sacrosanct role in our society. Every one of America's public defenders embarks on the noble work that is the cornerstone of our legal system, ensuring that every citizen has a right to a fair trial, that every citizen has access to justice within the justice system.

Yet the promise of Gideon, the promise of this decision, still remains unfulfilled. The public defense is under such strain that in many places, it barely functions.

Justice Black declared that ``lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries.'' But too often across our country, adequate legal representation is a luxury only afforded to those who are wealthy enough to hire a lawyer.

Despite their important and essential work to the cause of justice, public defenders carry crushing caseloads that strain their ability to meet their legal and ethical obligations to provide effective representation. According to a 2019 Brennan Center report, only 27 percent of county-based and 21 percent of State-based public defender offices have enough attorneys to adequately handle their caseloads. There are counties and States in America where public defenders are responsible for more than 200 cases at one time.

The quality of public defenders also varies from State to State, town to town, case to case. Compared to prosecutors and other attorneys, public defenders are woefully underresourced and underpaid. That is why today, with my friend and colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, I am introducing the Providing a Quality Defense Act to provide funding to local governments to hire more public defenders so that those accused of crimes can receive adequate representation.

The bill will provide funding to increase salaries for public defenders so that they can have pay parity with the prosecutors they face. It will require

the Department of Justice to conduct evidence-based studies and make recommendations for appropriate caseloads for public defenders and for adequate compensation.

Public defenders don't just represent their clients with zealous advocacy; they get to know their clients and see the impact of convictions on their families and loved ones. This experience is invaluable and helps to inform sentencing should there be a conviction. However, unlike the majority of State sentencing commissions, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, an independent Agency tasked with establishing sentencing policies and practices for the Federal court, lacks a representative from a public defender background who would provide an essential perspective on the criminal justice system.

Today, again, along with Senator Durbin, I am reintroducing the Sentencing Commission Improvements Act to add a member to the U.S. Sentencing Commission with a public defender background who will bring a new and valuable perspective to the Commission.

I urge my colleagues to support both of these bills, which will bring us one step closer to a justice system that is fairer, more humane, and more just. Such a criminal justice system is part of the legacy of a so-called drifter, a 51-year-old who spoke truth to power, who challenged a system that seemed impossible to beat, who challenged the very idea of what it means to have a just justice system. If the moral arc of the universe bends towards justice, then Clarence Earl Gideon is one of the arc benders.

Madam President, this Saturday, March 18, will mark the 60th anniversary of the unanimous and landmark Supreme Court decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, which held that every American has the constitutional right in criminal cases, regardless of their wealth and where they were born--they have a right, fundamentally, to the public defense system that we know today.

Before Gideon was decided, people accused of crimes were left to fend for themselves, having to navigate arraignments, plea bargains, jury decisions, trials, cross-examination of witnesses--every part of the criminal prosecution, they had to do it themselves while facing government prosecutors who had the legal upper hand.

Clarence Earl Gideon was a 51-year-old with an eighth grade education who ran away from home in middle school. History describes him as a ``drifter'' who spent time in and out of prison for nonviolent crimes, but history would also come to know him as someone who fundamentally transformed our legal system so that any person without resources accused of a crime has a due process right to a fair trial. You can't have a fair trial without counsel.

In 1961, Gideon was arrested for stealing $5 in change and beer, allegedly doing so from the Bay Harbor Poolroom in Panama City, FL. As James Baldwin would write the same year as Gideon's arrest, ``Anyone who has ever struggled with poverty knows how extremely expensive it is to be poor.''

Gideon, who had spent much of his life in poverty, was too poor to hire an attorney and asked the trial court to appoint one for him. The court denied his request, saying that only indigent defenders facing the death penalty are entitled to a lawyer.

Gideon assumed the burden of defending himself at trial, becoming his own lawyer. He made an opening statement to the jury and cross-examined the prosecution's witnesses. He presented witnesses in his own defense. He declined to testify himself and made arguments emphasizing his innocence.

Despite his valiant efforts, the jury found Gideon guilty of this $5 theft, and he was sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment. But Gideon felt he had been fundamentally deprived of his due process rights.

Determined to prove his innocence, Gideon penciled a five-page, handwritten petition asking the nine Justices of the Supreme Court to consider his case. Against all odds, the Supreme Court granted Gideon's petition.

Gideon would tell the Supreme Court:

It makes no difference how old I am or what color I am or

which church I belong to, if any. The question is I did not

get a fair trial. The question is very simple. I requested

the court to appoint me [an] attorney and the court refused.

In the Court's unanimous decision, they held that ``reason and reflection require us to recognize that in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him.''

Gideon's case was sent back to the lower court, where he had a lawyer to defend him. It took the jury only 1 hour to come to a verdict and acquit him.

From that time on, the public defense system as we know it today came into existence. Folks who couldn't afford a lawyer 60 years ago are now guaranteed basic legal protection. Public defenders play a sacrosanct role in our society. Every one of America's public defenders embarks on the noble work that is the cornerstone of our legal system, ensuring that every citizen has a right to a fair trial, that every citizen has access to justice within the justice system.

Yet the promise of Gideon, the promise of this decision, still remains unfulfilled. The public defense is under such strain that in many places, it barely functions.

Justice Black declared that ``lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries.'' But too often across our country, adequate legal representation is a luxury only afforded to those who are wealthy enough to hire a lawyer.

Despite their important and essential work to the cause of justice, public defenders carry crushing caseloads that strain their ability to meet their legal and ethical obligations to provide effective representation. According to a 2019 Brennan Center report, only 27 percent of county-based and 21 percent of State-based public defender offices have enough attorneys to adequately handle their caseloads. There are counties and States in America where public defenders are responsible for more than 200 cases at one time.

The quality of public defenders also varies from State to State, town to town, case to case. Compared to prosecutors and other attorneys, public defenders are woefully underresourced and underpaid. That is why today, with my friend and colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, I am introducing the Providing a Quality Defense Act to provide funding to local governments to hire more public defenders so that those accused of crimes can receive adequate representation.

The bill will provide funding to increase salaries for public defenders so that they can have pay parity with the prosecutors they face. It will require

the Department of Justice to conduct evidence-based studies and make recommendations for appropriate caseloads for public defenders and for adequate compensation.

Public defenders don't just represent their clients with zealous advocacy; they get to know their clients and see the impact of convictions on their families and loved ones. This experience is invaluable and helps to inform sentencing should there be a conviction. However, unlike the majority of State sentencing commissions, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, an independent Agency tasked with establishing sentencing policies and practices for the Federal court, lacks a representative from a public defender background who would provide an essential perspective on the criminal justice system.

Today, again, along with Senator Durbin, I am reintroducing the Sentencing Commission Improvements Act to add a member to the U.S. Sentencing Commission with a public defender background who will bring a new and valuable perspective to the Commission.

I urge my colleagues to support both of these bills, which will bring us one step closer to a justice system that is fairer, more humane, and more just. Such a criminal justice system is part of the legacy of a so-called drifter, a 51-year-old who spoke truth to power, who challenged a system that seemed impossible to beat, who challenged the very idea of what it means to have a just justice system. If the moral arc of the universe bends towards justice, then Clarence Earl Gideon is one of the arc benders.

Madam President, I have six requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Madam President, I want to just say that I respect and am grateful for the generosity of the chairman, the Senator from Oregon, for allowing me to slip in and say some remarks.

I want to thank Senator Van Hollen for his incredible leadership on this issue.

I have the distinction of being the only one of the 100 Senators who was actually born in Washington, DC. This is the city my parents met in. This is the city they married in. My mom worked for the DC Public Schools. My father was one of the first Black salesmen hired in the entire DC region by the company IBM. I owe this city so much, and I am disappointed that there is nobody in this body who was officially elected to speak for this city.

Washington, DC, is suffering, as it has, from a violation of one of our most sacrosanct principles of the country, which is this idea that this democracy is rooted in the ideal of representative democracy, the separation of powers, and most certainly the idea that you can't have taxation without representation. In fact, DC residents pay more

per capita in Federal taxes than any other State, but yet they have no say in the Federal Government.

Madam President, 700,000 Americans, in one of the only expressions of representative democracy available to them, have 13 council people who were part of a process. As was said already by my colleague, the council members completed the monumental task of modernizing the 120- year-old DC Criminal Code to make it more consistent, clarifying conflicting provisions, and bringing it in line not just with current best practices reflected in the majority of States' criminal codes but in trying to address the urgencies of the moment wherein you have a city that is deeply concerned about the crime in its community.

DC's efforts are not unique. There are 37 States that have gone through similar processes--so-called red States, so-called blue States, and purple States.

The process was spearheaded, as my colleague said, by the independent DC Criminal Code Reform Commission, which was a nonpartisan agency that was very representative of prosecutors and victims' rights advocates. All of these nonpolitical people came and unanimously endorsed what we have before us today.

Now, the first time any partisan politician got involved was with the City Council just voting to confirm this nonpartisan body's unanimous recommendations. It was to that process that the Republican leader said: Oh, it looks like, with what they did, they are in need of adult supervision.

Think of how patronizing and paternalistic that is for this body, not being any part of this process, now suddenly saying they need adult supervision as if they are children.

The DC Criminal Code was about keeping DC safe. It is what the prosecutors involved said and what the U.S. Attorney's Office said: We need to do this to create a safer city because of the confusion in the code and the lack of having criminal penalties at all for certain crimes. All of these things opened up opportunities for DC not to have the security they wanted. So this was about DC's safety.

Unfortunately, it is now embroiled in scare tactics, where political, opportunistic actions are taking place to try to use this as a way to win political points. Even the media, for whom I have tremendous respect for its role, has been more keen on asking questions about the political analysis than actually the facts of what DC has done.

What DC has done in this bill is to actually create a tougher element on crime, tougher laws on crime. In looking at the totality of this bill, it is impossible to say that it isn't about making DC safer and having tougher penalties on crime.

My colleague went through some of this. It actually quadruples the maximum penalty for attempted murder, and it triples the maximum penalty for sexual assault because people in DC see those as serious crimes, and they want to seriously increase the consequences for them.

DC is pro-police officer, so what did they do? They doubled the maximum penalty for misdemeanor assaults on police officers, and they increased by 40 percent the maximum penalty for a felony assault on a police officer.

Washington, DC, knows that there is too much gun violence and that they need to take action against it, so it quadruples the maximum penalty for the possession of assault rifles, for ghost guns, for restricted explosive devices. I know the NRA doesn't want laws like this, but DC residents do. It doubles the maximum penalties for possession of a firearm or a bump stock--tougher laws on guns, more serious penalties.

DC's Criminal Code actually modernizes and creates new categories of offenses that aren't currently crimes. It creates new offenses for negligent homicide. It creates new offenses for reckless endangerment with a firearm. It creates new offenses by expanding liability for sexual assault, including for the sexual abuse of a minor. It expands liability for the possession of sexual images of children.

This is a city that came together and said: We want to protect our children. We want to protect sexual assault victims. We want to better protect our police officers. We want to better protect people from murder. But no. This body now, in a rush of politics, is going to prevent a city from protecting itself.

It actually increases the protections for domestic violence victims. It criminalizes strangulation as a felony, which is currently very difficult to even prosecute. In fact, every State but South Carolina has closed this loophole, but this body is going to stop them from doing it today. It criminalizes nonconsensual conduct as a felony and quadruples the maximum penalty. It helps the victims of domestic violence better obtain civil protection orders because the current law lacks clarity and makes it very hard to do this.

Let me say this again. By rejecting this law today, by voting against this, people, in the name of being tough on crime, are actually the people who are preventing a city from better protecting itself--from better protecting its children, its sexual assault victims, its police officers. I mean, think about that.

I have not, in my 10 years in the Senate, seen such a distortion of facts, such a misrepresentation of what something is. The RCCA sets new maximum penalties for armed carjackings--my friend talked about that-- and their carjacking laws now have a maximum penalty higher than Georgia, Kansas, North Dakota, and Kentucky. Maybe we should do a unanimous consent request right now saying that Kentucky is too soft on crime because DC wants higher maximum penalties.

It sets new maximum penalties for unarmed carjackings higher than Georgia, higher than Iowa, higher than North Dakota, higher than Tennessee and Kentucky. The very Senators coming down here to criticize laws--Senators from Tennessee I have seen today, from Kentucky, from Iowa--actually, their States have lower maximum penalties than what DC is trying to do, but they are going to stop DC from doing it.

Armed robbery, the same thing--higher maximum penalties than North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio.

The same thing for unarmed robbery--higher than Kansas, higher than South Dakota, higher than Tennessee, the sponsor of this bill, and Kentucky.

Yes, they may be lowering the maximum penalty, but it is still higher than so many States of the Republicans pushing this bill and not speaking to the facts of it.

I am a former big-city mayor, and there are communities like Washington, DC, all over this country that are trying to fight crime. Many of them have significant numbers of African Americans as a percentage of their population who have higher rates of victimization. Those cities are grappling with this. They feel a sense of urgency.

That is why this bill actually is raising penalties, putting in new criminal statutes, and making sure that so many of their laws are tougher than even many of the red States, like Kentucky and Tennessee here.

That is what happens in a city that has elected representatives that know that their No. 1 job is to protect the community because those communities often are being more victimized than Senators and their families are in their States.

Give DC what we believe was a revolutionary idea then but not a revolutionary idea now, which is to let them protect themselves. Don't strip them of their ability to protect themselves. Don't take away their ability to protect their children. Don't take away their ability to create laws that protect their police officers. Don't take away their ability in this law to protect their citizens--700,000 residents who do not have a voice in this body, 700,000 residents who are about to have a law that will better protect them overturned because of politics, because of opportunism, because of the big divisions in our country that tear our Nation apart.

But DC is united in its fight for self-determination, for representation, for safety, and security. Those are the ideals that started America, and this body shouldn't interrupt a city trying to live its American ideals that we take for granted but they, obviously, today, are still fighting for.

I yield the floor, and I give my apologies to the great Senator from Oregon.

Madam President, I have 17 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Madam President, I appreciate the recognition more than you know. I would like to ask unanimous consent that a detailee of the Senate Judiciary Committee--that would be one Douglas Miller--be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 118th Congress.

Mr. President, I really appreciate you recognizing me for a moment. We are about to adjourn the Senate. Many Senators will travel back to their home States to do work, to meet with constituents, to go forward, but something is happening tomorrow that I wanted to recognize, which is the graduation of this class of Senate pages.

Many people watch the functioning of the Senate, and what draws attention is not many of the people that do the work of this place. We have an incredible parliamentary staff. We have incredible people that serve the different caucuses. We have incredible people who provide security for this place who often don't get the attention they deserve.

Senators come and go, but one thing that stays consistent is the incredible human beings, the patriots who make this place work.

I am humbled every day to meet people who so love the institution of the Senate that they have chosen to serve it, and I am sure you can agree with me: They are not doing it for the pay, and they are not doing it for the glory. They do it for the love of country, and, especially, in particular, the love of this institution.

There is another group, though, that does come and go that I think play a very special role here, and that is about twice a year--then there are some summer pages--we see the pages come in from all over the country to serve this institution in a way that has been done for generations.

And what is remarkable about them, in their suits, is that they are not young adults, they are teenagers who have made an irrational choice, in my opinion. They have decided to leave their high schools, their comfort, their technological devices, their extracurricular activities, their sports teams, their homes, and come and live in Washington, DC, where the rigors of their lives are extraordinary.

Literally, our Senate pages, during the two sessions that are during the year, they are doing a full class of academics. They actually are studying difficult topics that--I am not sure how Senators would do on calculus or chemistry, but they are taking a full load of classes, and then they are working the equivalent of a full-time job.

And at times, they are up at 5 in the morning, and then they service this institution. And the jobs they do, I would say, are essential. In fact, if they were not here--the people that would have to do those jobs--the Senate would have to hire people to fill those roles.

During my 10 years in the Senate, I have to say, I have met some remarkable young people. They call them Democratic and Republican pages, but there is no partisanship here. These are patriots first who probably ascribe to many different ideals and parties and dependents and what have you, but when they are here, they are participating in the Senate.

I often say to Senate pages, it is an honor to have served in the U.S. Senate with you, and I mean that very meaningfully when I talk to them.

Now, on a personal note, I have to say the Senate pages adore me. I tell horrible jokes. I make it a goal to try to embarrass them on the floor of the Senate as often as I can. I try to get them to encroach the rules--never break them, just encroach them. But during the course of my time here, I have watched some of these young people blow me away with their intellect and their acumen, with their dedication and their knowledge, but, most importantly, with their hearts.

I look at this class of pages right now as they are about to graduate and go on to do incredible things in life. How do I know this? With 10 years in this body, I bump into pages every once in a while. They try their best to pretend like they don't know me, but I call them out, and I see them doing great things.

I now know Senate pages who have gone off to college, who have graduated from college, who have now gone into the work world and continue to distinguish themselves, not by having a common experience of serving in the Senate but having taken the inspiration of working in this body into their work as American citizens and living a life of committed patriotism.

And so to this class, I just want to say to you as well: It has been an honor to serve this institution with you. You all are some of the best of our Nation. You have shown a grit and guts while you were here, handling your coursework and the demands. You have dealt with sometimes the indignities of being treated like you are wallpaper. But the truth of the matter is, you guys have risen in service through your course and your experience here.

For that, on behalf of this entire body, I want to give you my thanks.

And I want to encourage you to think of yourselves as always a part of this body. Lots of people have passed through here. We have had former pages become U.S. Senators. We have former pages that sit on that dais now. I hope you will always consider this not just your Capitol, but also your community. And I look forward to seeing you all about in the world, and I hope for old times' sake, you will at least let me tell you one bad ``dad'' joke.

With that, I ask unanimous consent to submit a list of names of the pages to the record.

And I would like the Congressional Record to say that the junior Senator from New Jersey told them that they are great people, but they need better senses of humor.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 1255, Elizabeth Frawley Bagley, of Florida, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Federative Republic of Brazil; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2116 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed on the motion.

Before I do this, sir, I would like to just read a brief statement if I may, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I am really proud to be New Jersey's junior Senator. Even more so, I am proud that I have called Newark my home for most of my adult life. I can talk about my community for weeks on end. I know the Presiding Officer has heard me talk about Newark for some time.

It is an incredible community where we do not mistake wealth with worth. We know the value of goodness and decency. And a lot of members of my community in the city of Newark are Black and Brown folks, and the special relationship they often have to their hair denotes deep cultural traditions. You go to my city right now, and you will find hairstyles of different types: locks, cornrows, twists, braids, bantu knots, and, of course, what I once had, Mr. President, afros.

You will find barber shops and hair salons aplenty that are dedicated to the upkeep of these beautiful hairstyles. One of my favorite things to do is to go to barber shops to sit in community with folks and connect.

I can write almost a dissertation probably, sir, right now about the role of barber shops in Black and Brown communities. They are incredible community cultural convening places.

But I also want to say that it is not always a source of joy. At times, the conversation has turned to a deep source of hurt and pain. There is a decades-long problematic practice of discrimination against natural hair in this country.

It was brought to the forefront in 2018 when a New Jersey student named Andrew Johnson was forced to cut his dreadlocks in the middle of a wrestling match. The entire ordeal was caught on camera. And as the scissors were brought out to cut Andrew's hair, you can see the deep hurt and pain on the face of this young man. It is the pain felt by many, traumatic at times, of hurtful experiences that make you question your very belonging in a community--the beauty of your hair, its natural style, your immutable characteristics, your cultural beliefs, your connection to your heritage.

No person in America should have to deal with this pain, and that is why I stand here today, urging this body to pass legislation that is dear to my community's heart, dear to communities all across the country. It is named the Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act, otherwise known as the CROWN Act.

This bill is ultimately a matter of justice. Hair discrimination is real. It is a continuing and a pernicious problem for Black and Brown people in our country. It can lead to lost employment opportunities. It can lead to violations of students' civil rights. In short, it forces people to change parts of their very being so as to avoid harassment or punishment.

A recent study from Michigan State University found that Black women are 50 percent more likely to be sent home

from the workplace because of their hair, and 80 percent of Black women feel the need to change their hair from its natural state to fit in at the office.

Another study from Duke University found that Black women with natural hairstyles are less likely to land job interviews than White women or Black women with straightened hair.

Many students, other than Andrew, have had their civil rights violated. There have been cases in schools that have changed their dress code midyear to place restrictions on hairstyles, targeting Black students with locks and expelling them from school when they refused to cut their hair. Although existing law prohibits some forms of hair discrimination as a type of racial or national origin discrimination, Federal courts, at times, have narrowly construed this protection in a way that has allowed schools, workplaces, and other Federal institutions to discriminate against people of African descent who wear certain types of natural or even protected hairstyles.

That is where the CROWN Act comes in. This commonsense pragmatic piece of legislation is necessary. This legislation clarifies that discrimination based on a hair texture or hairstyle that is commonly associated with a particular race or natural origin--including hair that is tightly coiled or tightly curled, locks, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, and afros--is a prohibited form of discrimination.

Since the moment I first introduced the CROWN Act with Members of the Congressional Black Caucus, while I am grateful for their work and leadership, we have worked to build more support. In the House, this bill passed with broad bipartisan support because of the strength of the lead of my colleague and friend from New Jersey, Congresswoman Bonnie Watson Coleman. Here in the Senate, Senator Collins has signed onto the bill, making it a bipartisan effort. And it is an effort that replicates what has already been done in 19 States--so-called blue States, such as mine or California, to so-called red States, like Nebraska, Tennessee, and Louisiana.

At its core, the CROWN Act is a commonsense policy. It is legislation that further protects the civil rights of Americans. But on a more profound and deeper level, it is a celebration of what makes up the wonderful fabric of our Nation: the rich, cultural diversity and the connections people have to their very identity.

We know the significance that hair plays for the communities that make up the diverse American fabric. For Black folks, hair is rooted in stories of strength and resistance. During the time of slavery, in Colombia, hair braiding was used to relay messages, including as a way to signal that one wanted to escape the lash of bondage.

As one person eloquently described, the hair of Black women is ``a crown that tells a story--a story of struggle, triumph, pain, pride, and comfort.''

The CROWN Act is a chance for us to make sure that story and the stories of so many other cultures are told, a chance to make sure that those stories aren't punished but become more of an integral part of the larger American story. It is a chance to make sure that those stories aren't stigmatized to the point that some have to make the difficult decision to change their natural hair just to have a chance to land a job, to succeed in school, or to escape discrimination overall.

This is a chance for us to make for a more perfect union, to bend the arc of the Nation just a little bit more toward justice, to end another chapter, another area, of deplorable discrimination, which is why today I ask for unanimous consent to pass the CROWN Act.

And so, I guess, as in legislative session, I now ask for unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2116 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

I would like to say a couple of things.

Thank you very much for the recognition, Mr. President-- the Presiding Officer.

I really heard the point about workplace safety. This bill does not prohibit employers from addressing safety concerns. Instead, it accounts for employers' legal obligations to ensure workplace safety. Written in the bill, section 6(b) of the bill expressly prohibits that the employment nondiscrimination provision ``shall be enforced in the same manner and by the same means, including with the same jurisdiction, as if such subsection was incorporated into Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.'' In other words, employers will be no more burdened by this bill than they are under the current employment discrimination law.

Under the longstanding, burden-shifting scheme applied by the courts in title VII cases, the employer may defeat a discrimination claim by asserting the workplace safety as a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for taking adverse employment action against an employee, with the burden then shifting to the employee to prove that the asserted reason was a pretext for discrimination.

So this is addressed, and I appreciate that. But as it was passed in a boldly bipartisan way, it was shown to have incorporated that concern in the bill itself.

Again, this is something that has been passed in States like Tennessee and Louisiana. This has been shown to have wide bipartisan support. It is shown to be needed in the Federal context. And I am hoping that we, through continued deliberations, can actually get that passed.

Mr. President, if I may have leave to say one more thing, I would like to just wish you a Merry Christmas, to the Presiding Officer. I appreciate the cheer and good will that is in this Chamber, and I look forward to happy holidays for everyone.

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

Without objection, it is so ordered.

I ask for the yeas and nays.