Floor Statements

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the votes on confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 254 and the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 383.

On vote No. 272, had I been present, I would have voted nay on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 254.

On vote No. 273, had I been present, I would have voted nay on the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 383.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the votes on confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 159 and the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 254.

On vote No. 270, had I been present, I would have voted nay on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 159.

On vote No. 271, had I been present, I would have voted nay on the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 254.

Mr. President, I am grateful to be joining with a lot of my colleagues today to talk about the urgency and the importance of what has happened in the aftermath of horrific hurricanes--Hurricane Harvey more than 2 months ago and Hurricane Irma and Hurricane Maria over a month ago. They have wreaked havoc on millions of lives. They have destroyed billions of dollars of property. They have created pain, suffering, and loss--loss of life everywhere from Texas, to Florida, to Puerto Rico, to the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Right now, too many of our citizens are still living in not just unacceptable conditions for an American, but they are really living on the brink of homelessness--food and water insecurity, scarcity, and facing the ravages of poverty, where you have lost everything and you are in a dependent state, dependent upon relief aid, dependent upon your neighbors.

Thousands of families have lost everything, and I believe they have yet to receive the kind of support they deserve from their government. Governments were formed in this country. This Nation was founded on this ideal of common defense. It is literally written into our founding documents, this idea that we are coming together for the protection and the strength of our communities. Right now, we are not doing enough, and that is not the American way.

I have seen it. During the storm that hit New Jersey, Superstorm Sandy, I still remember seeing us at our best, seeing neighbors open their homes, reaching out to one another. They were Americans standing up for Americans and not worrying about what their political parties were, not worrying about the risk there might be to themselves.

In fact, I still remember, as the storm was still raging, driving around my city in an SUV, checking in. I was coming up a hill, and I got a call from the President of the United States checking in on Newark. As the hurricane was beginning to leave, as the superstorm was beginning to leave, I got a call right after that from Governor Chris Christie expressing the same empathy, the same concern, checking in to see how I was doing.

I remember coming up on a hill, and just as I was finishing the last of those two conversations--talking to the most powerful person on the planet, the President, and the most powerful person in our State, the Governor; two different parties, two different backgrounds, but they are Americans--I remember coming up to a street corner where a massive tree had fallen, had torn down lines, and I saw a person in a raincoat standing there by the lines trying to wave me by to make sure my SUV didn't hit what could have been a live wire. I pulled the car over to the side in the wind and the rain, and I saw that it was an elderly man standing there in the streets feeling as if it was his obligation to protect his community. I stood there in the rain and looked at this elderly, African-American man who was standing there trying to protect people who were driving through and thought to myself: I talked to the most powerful guy in the country. I talked to the most powerful person in my State. But the true power that I saw was in an American who was working to take care of his community in a time of trial.

That was the spirit that stayed with me and lifted me during this crisis when I was staying up day after day--seeing his commitment to his community.

Martin Luther King said so eloquently that the ultimate measure of a man--and I would like to expand that and change that for a second--the ultimate measure of a person is not where they stand in moments of comfort and convenience but where they stand at times of challenge and controversy. That is where we are right now.

Tens of millions of us are very comfortable right now. This is a time of comfort and convenience for many. I got up this morning, I turned on my shower, and hot water came out. When I opened my fridge, there was food there. But how can we sit idly by while there is an urgency going on of epic proportions?

Let me tell you about Puerto Rico. As my friend from Florida said, 80 percent of their island remains without power. I saw firsthand what 1 week without power did in my community. It literally led to the deaths of people--not the storm itself, but the lack of power was directly related to the deaths in the city of which I was mayor. There are people who don't have access to things we take for granted, whether it be a bank account or food. It was profoundly stated by my colleague that just access to clean water--right now, there are people who are falling ill and dying in Puerto Rico because of a lack of access to clean water. Sanitation systems, water, roads, bridges, electric grids--all of these urgently need Federal investment.

One of my staffers has a son who is a medic in the Puerto Rico National Guard, and he has told her that people in hospitals have died. The loss of life, the loss of American lives--our fellow citizens have died because of their lack of access to electricity and the lack of access to oxygen.

We are Americans. I know our character. I know our spirit. But right now, there are hundreds of thousands of people in our country who are suffering. They may not be proximate to us in geography; they may not be next to us in sight. But the spirit we need right now is the spirit of that man standing in the storm, watching over his neighbors, watching over people passing through, being there for their own.

We have work to do. We have an urgency. Where children are suffering without the basics, where schools are closed, where crops have been destroyed, where access to food has been destroyed, we have work to do. So my sense of urgency right now is believing that, as a first step, we must have a comprehensive aid package--not just to help our fellow Americans in Florida and Texas where there are urgent crises still going on. The gravity of the pain and suffering in the Virgin Islands and in Puerto Rico right now is unimaginable for those of us who are not experiencing it, and it is unacceptable for us, as Americans, not to be there for our fellow citizens.

We are just 5 days away from the fifth anniversary of the storm that hit New Jersey, and we have made great strides in New Jersey over the past 5 years. But the reality is that today in New Jersey, we are still recovering from that storm.

This is going to be a long process, an urgent process. It is going to be a process that necessitates resilience, necessitates endurance, and necessitates persistence. But it starts with this body, the Congress of the United States of America, putting together an aid package that includes direct grant funding for rebuilding our country. For Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, it

must include making sure the island is strong enough. From telecommunications, to energy sources, to schools, we must make sure that the aid package includes all that is necessary for these islands to stand up again and get to work for the many months and years to come of rebuilding.

I support my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I am encouraged by the spirit I encountered that night, having a Democratic President and Republican Governor call me as concerned Americans. But the spirit I call on tonight is that of the elderly Black guy on a street in a storm who said: The storms may howl; the rain may come; the water may rise. But when it comes to my country, I will stand for America and stand for Americans.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate the words from all the colleagues I have seen. It is great to see bipartisan sentiments about dealing with the most powerful hurricanes in recorded history. These hurricanes have left thousands of families homeless, destroying infrastructure, and leaving most people without power for the foreseeable future. There are thousands of individual stories of loss of life, of loss of possessions, of everything people own, devastated by this storm.

What is important to me now is that we turn these words into action. I am grateful for the leadership we are seeing from the State of Texas and the State of Florida, but I want to focus in on what is happening in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. We know, right now, close to 31.5 million American citizens on these islands are on the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe, including the 3.4 million people who live in Puerto Rico and over 100,000 Americans on the U.S. Virgin Islands. The American citizens living in Puerto Rico are part of a population that is bigger than the States of Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, and Alaska combined, but they don't have eight Senators representing them in this body--working for them, fighting for them.

When Superstorm Sandy hit New Jersey, I know the constant work Senator Menendez, I, and my predecessor Senator Frank Lautenberg put into working on making sure our communities could recover. We don't have direct Senators representing this incredible population of Americans. They don't have folks here every single day who are pressing for the interests of these Americans, for their safety, their security, their lives. We have to--the 100 of us--step up to make sure that we are focusing on the interests of our fellow Americans after what has been one of the worst storms in recorded history.

The Americans in Puerto Rico pay taxes. They love this country. They serve in the military. In fact, they serve in the military at a rate almost twice as high as the general U.S. population. These are patriots. They are our brothers and our sisters. These Americans deserve action from this body and from the President of the United States.

Puerto Rico's Governor has spoken directly to this crisis, noting that just 40 percent of the residents of Puerto Rico have access to drinking water--meaning that 2 million American citizens right now in Puerto Rico do not have access to clean drinking water. This is a serious crisis.

More than this, we know the vast majority of Puerto Rican residents still don't have electricity. They are struggling to access food. They do not have basic means of communications on the island, even to family here. They can't access bank accounts. Their sanitation systems have come to a complete standstill. Access to basic medications--often urgently needed medication and healthcare--is under threat.

It is estimated that it is going to take months before power comes back, and recovery and rebuilding will take years for the islands. The next few weeks of recovery are critically important in the effort to save lives.

I saw in Superstorm Sandy how it wasn't just the hurricane itself that took lives; in fact, in my city, it was in the hours and days after that people lost lives. We know that right now in Puerto Rico, every minute, every hour, every day we wait to get critical aid-- necessary aid--our failure to act could mean the difference between life and death or between grave suffering and relieving that suffering for hundreds of thousands of people in Puerto Rico, as well as the U.S. Virgin Islands.

We cannot afford to wait any longer to better mobilize support and resources and help our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands right now. I hope that over time we are able to develop larger and more comprehensive aid packages, such as those being discussed for survivors of the hurricanes in Florida and Texas. The urgency we have in Puerto Rico right now, the urgency we have to provide vital security, energy, food, and health needs--we must answer that urgency with action.

Puerto Rico needs U.S. military, disaster, and humanitarian assistance to maintain order and provide security, water, food, and fuel. Puerto Rico needs additional first responders, and they need generators, emergency vehicles, and fuel. Also, Puerto Rico needs to see that its government--the U.S. Government--will respond the way we have for other disasters.

There cannot be a double standard when it comes to Americans. We are one country. We are one Nation. Whether it was Hurricane Sandy in New Jersey and New York or Hurricanes Harvey and Irma that ravaged Texas and Florida, when our Nation sees a natural disaster destroy the homes of thousands, take lives, knock down power--when a challenge like that comes to the United States of America, we must be there for our citizens. Yet I have read so many heartbreaking stories. This shows the lack of urgency, the lack of being present, the lack of being there when we are needed.

The Washington Post reported that when journalists were looking to go and provide coverage--somehow journalists are making it there to report on the extent of the damage--they were in a remote area of Puerto Rico when local residents saw them. Their first response was simply to ask: Are you FEMA? Are you our government? Are you coming to address the crisis?

Right now Americans are suffering. Right now Americans are facing devastation and potentially death in these hours and these days.

I worry about this body now heading toward Thursday or Friday. How can we in good conscience go back to our homes this weekend, knowing that hundreds of thousands of American citizens in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands may be homeless, may not have shelter, may not have food, and may not have water? We cannot allow our fellow Americans to fall deeper into this crisis.

Nosotros somos gente de esperanza; somos gente de fe. Pero nuestra historia siempre ha sido una que conecta oraciones y palabras con acciones. Necesitamos actuar ahora.

We are a people of hope; we are a people of faith. But our history has always been one of matching prayers and words with actions. We must act now.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I have watched as this body has recently begun to really work in a bipartisan fashion on trying to stabilize the insurance markets under the Affordable Care Act.

Under the leadership of Senator Murray, the ranking member of the HELP Committee, and Senator Alexander, the chairman of the HELP Committee, efforts have been going on, and a number of hearings have been held on what needs to be done to stabilize and strengthen the Affordable Care Act. This is coming about because of a crisis.

In January of this year, leading from December, we have had people-- like Standard & Poor's--talking about how stable these exchanges were. Over the last months, we have seen many actions--threatening cost- sharing, not advertising the markets--many actions taken by the Trump administration that have weakened the markets and put the markets in crisis. But it is actually not the markets that are in crisis; it is fellow Americans. People want the same thing. Whether Republican or Democrat, from the West, East, North, South, or the heart of our country, they want the same thing: They want quality, affordable care.

We have come a long way to where we are right now. Under the Affordable Care Act, we have increased the number of Americans with health insurance by over 20 million. We have been able to bend the cost curve.

The Affordable Care Act has taken us out of days that no American-- very few--wants us to go back to, the days where people could be denied coverage based on a preexisting condition.

The Affordable Care Act created an essential set of benefits, which Americans from both sides of the aisle think is very important. These essential benefits include such things as healthcare for women who are having children. They include things like putting parity between mental healthcare and what might be called physical healthcare.

There have been so many improvements because of the Affordable Care Act, and I have heard about them from constituents all over my State, as well as voices from around the United States of America, difficult stories about people who had lifetime caps; people who, because their child had an illness as a child--when that child became an adult, they couldn't find insurance; people who were being denied insurance because of a preexisting condition; people who were declaring bankruptcy in this country, at rates significantly higher than we are seeing now, because they could not afford their health insurance. In fact, personal bankruptcy in our Nation has been cut by about 50 percent. These are all gains we have achieved through the Affordable Care Act. There is the expansion of healthcare to millions more and the security of knowing that your health insurance won't be cut off because of a preexisting condition, knowing that when you pay for health coverage, it will carry essential benefits that every American should get. There are these gains and many more.

What has happened after the failure of TrumpCare, after the failure of Republican plans--what actually came out of that was something that was encouraging to me as a Senator who has been here for 3-plus years: seeing statespeople from our Senate--Lamar Alexander and Senator Murray--come together and say: Hey, we have a crisis in our country. Some of these markets are losing stability. We should work together, put aside partisan differences, and try to find a pathway forward to make sure that in some States millions of folks don't lose health insurance.

We heard--at least I did--some of the best commentary in this body. Perhaps most notable was a speech by John McCain, who stood up and strongly talked about regular order, talked about us doing things in the Senate in a way that brought us together, that invited in the public, that had a wide range of people participating in the crafting of policy--policy that affects nearly 20 percent of our economy, policy that affects hundreds of millions of Americans, policy that is critical to the success of our Nation.

I am grateful that Senators Murray and Alexander have been holding bipartisan hearings to try to stabilize the marketplace. Through this process, over the past month, we have had bipartisan Governors-- Governors from both parties--insurance commissioners, consumers--all have had the opportunity to come in and begin to weigh in on different proposals and their impact on the health insurance marketplace. This shows we can work together to try to improve the Affordable Care Act-- not this idea that we throw it out, hurting not just a few people but literally tens of millions of Americans. This is the way it should be done.

Past proposals that have failed in this body were done the wrong way--people crafting legislation behind closed doors in a noninclusive manner, in a partisan manner, not holding hearings, not bringing in experts. That is not the way this body was meant to work.

In fact, for those who criticized the Affordable Care Act, for the Affordable Care Act, there were dozens of bipartisan hearings. Over 100 amendments from the Republican Party were included in the ultimate legislation. It was a process that took months and months. The President of the United States even met with Republican Senators and Congresspeople to discuss and debate the legislation, and it was aired on C-SPAN. This showed the best of who we are, that when we come together as a body and go through a process, good legislation--not perfect legislation but good legislation--can advance us toward our principles. Those principles were principles that were discussed during the last Presidential campaign by both candidates. Donald Trump himself, our President, said time and time again: I want us to have a health system in which everyone is covered, in which everyone has affordable and quality healthcare.

These values aren't debatable, and I am disappointed, I am frustrated, and I am angry that we are here again while a bipartisan process is going on, and, as a great New Jerseyan, Yogi Berra, once said, it is deja vu all over again.

Here we are now coming back this week, and we are hearing about another Republican bill that has not gone through regular order, that has not had hearings, that has not had a bipartisan process. Another bill is coming to the floor. People are whipping up votes, and we might have yet another dramatic moment in this body that millions of Americans will watch, holding their breaths because their families-- their children, their senior citizen parents--are being held in the balance on a decision this body will make--not going through regular order, not bringing in experts--on legislation that hasn't even been scored by the Congressional Budget Office.

The CBO hasn't scored this bill. We don't know what its total impact would be on health coverage or on costs. We don't know exactly how many people could lose their coverage, how much premiums could skyrocket for the middle class, and just how much Medicaid would ultimately be gutted.

This is the bill that is coming before us. This is the threat right now to our Nation and to millions of people. But we do know enough about this bill, and previous versions of the repeal plan that looked very similar to this bill give us many hints--more than hints--give us much evidence about what this bill would do and how this bill would cause millions to lose their coverage and premiums to skyrocket. And the millions who rely on Medicaid for everything from opioid addiction treatment to maternity care would suffer.

Let me go through some things we know about this legislation which is being threatened to be brought to the Senate floor and which now casts a

shadow over the coverage earned and gained by millions of Americans.

This legislation would still take coverage away from millions of Americans. We know this destructive version--this partisan repeal plan--would take coverage away from millions of people. Experts have already projected that after 10 years, this partisan repeal plan could cause over 30 million Americans to lose their coverage--30 million Americans cast back into a world where one illness, where one injury could devastate their families, could send them into bankruptcy. That one illness, that one injury could have the worst of results; could cast us back to a time when so many Americans were using emergency room doctors as their primary care physicians; could cast us back to a time when many Americans were delaying seeing doctors because they couldn't afford to, allowing preventable diseases or treatable diseases to get worse and worse. Thirty million Americans losing their health insurance means more Americans will die. That is not a dramatic, hyperbolic statement; that is the truth. When health coverage rates go down, American mortality rates go up.

What else do we know about this legislation? It still raises costs like the other versions of TrumpCare. This version of this partisan repeal plan will still force hard-working Americans to pay more for, actually, worse care. It would abruptly end the critical assisted subsidies that have allowed millions to afford care. It would end support for people in the very marketplaces about which two other bipartisan Senators, through the HELP Committee, are trying to discuss how we are going to stabilize those markets to give people that very access.

We know that as a result of this repeal plan, Americans will see their deductibles increase by several thousand dollars. We could once again--once again, with those increases--see bankruptcy rates increase after dropping dramatically under the Affordable Care Act.

What else do we know about this legislation, this newest version of TrumpCare? It still ends Federal protections, as the other plans did, for people with preexisting conditions. TrumpCare's latest version would still enable insurance companies to charge folks who are sick or who have been ill or who have a preexisting condition for their care. States could waive that restriction on discrimination against people with preexisting conditions. This plan will still subject millions of Americans with those preexisting conditions to price discrimination, meaning Americans who may have had cancer, Americans who are pregnant, Americans who have a child with autism could be forced to pay thousands and thousands of dollars more just to get coverage.

What else does this newest piece of legislation do? It ends the Medicaid expansion, and it establishes a per capita cap and reduction of Medicaid. By ending Medicaid as we know it after over 50 years of this program, by suddenly capping it and ultimately giving block grants to States, we know it will affect dramatically the people whom this program and these expansions have covered.

Who gets covered by Medicaid? Who will be affected? In America right now, over half of all low-income families rely on Medicaid. Two out of three of our seniors living in nursing homes rely on Medicaid. Half of all the births in the United States of America--our children, our future, our greatest natural resource--half are covered by Medicaid.

Here is our reality. We are gutting a program that benefits us all-- our seniors, our children, as well as the disabled. The cruel Medicaid cuts proposed in this bill--the cuts and the caps in this version--will still put those who have the most to lose in the most serious jeopardy: those seniors in nursing homes, working families, communities of color, women, Americans with disabilities, those folks who are already struggling with illness, elder Americans, Americans living in rural areas, Americans living in our cities. This is not who we are. These are not our values. This kind of draconian action is unacceptable in a nation this great.

What else does it do, this newest version of TrumpCare? What else does it do? In this version, this bill--just like the ones before-- still erodes critical patient protections established by the Affordable Care Act by allowing States to apply for a waiver to opt out of the ACA's essential benefits requirement for things as basic as maternity care, substance abuse services, prescription drugs, emergency services, hospitalizations, and rehabilitation services.

This repeal plan could essentially give insurers the green light to once again charge for junk insurance plans that don't actually cover needed care. You may have health insurance, but it may be so limited and so constricted that when you actually get sick, you find out it does not cover your illness, your health challenge, your injury.

This newest version of TrumpCare, this newest version of a partisan repeal plan, also still threatens women's health. Women comprise two- thirds of all adult enrollees in Medicaid. They would be essentially hurt by the gutting of that program. This repeal plan, like previous versions, would still cut off low-income women from accessing critical preventive and healthcare services from Planned Parenthood, health centers that provide essential preventive care and, often in many counties, the only avenue to contraceptive services. It singles out Planned Parenthood by not allowing them to be reimbursed for basic health services, making it so much more difficult for women all around our country to access important care.

What else does this most recent version of TrumpCare do, this partisan bill that is not going through regular order? Just like the other ones, it would still weaken the Federal prohibition on lifetime limits, lifetime caps on the insurance that one can receive. That means Americans with chronic diseases and conditions and children with unique medical needs and challenges who still need continued lifesaving care could be forced, once they hit that cap, to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on continued care, even though they are insured, thus devastating families, sending them into bankruptcy, spiraling them into financial catastrophe.

A couple of months back, one of my constituents tweeted me a photo of her son's medical bill after a recent surgery. The bill was for $500, but it showed that without the coverage she got because of the Affordable Care Act, she would have owed over $230,000. That was just for her child's heart surgery. Her son Ethan, who was born with a rare genetic disorder, has had four of those surgeries.

Under this partisan plan, not only could essential health benefits, like hospitalizations and prescription drugs, be denied Ethan, but lifetime caps on coverage would disqualify Ethan from accessing the care he needs.

As Ethan's mom put it, the lifetime cap is the equivalent of saying: ``Sorry, you're not worth keeping alive anymore. You're just too expensive.''

That is what this plan would allow insurance companies to do, essentially saying to Americans: If you had a problem when you were a child, if you had surgeries as a child, once you hit that cap, you are not worth covering anymore.

We had a vote on the floor today. It was for national defense. It was a major bill. There were strong statements and speeches on both sides of the aisle. At the end of the day, the overwhelming majority of us joined together to provide for our Nation's national defense; that is, to provide for our Defense Department.

It is a common ideal in this body that this government, formed by our forefathers and foremothers, the Constitution upon which we stand proclaims that this government was formed for the common good, for the common defense.

As we have seen in recent days, the idea of defense isn't just protecting us against the threat of North Korea, isn't just protecting us from the efforts of the Russians. It is not just protecting us from terrorist organizations. We have seen that the national defense also means the challenges of natural disaster.

It was profound for all of us to see the crisis faced from Texas to Florida and how we--as a nation, hero after hero in communities large and small--stood up during this time and were

there for fellow Americans, never asking their party, never asking or questioning what different religion they might have. People from all different ethnic backgrounds banded together because that is what Americans do. When we are threatened, when we are attacked, when there is a natural disaster or an enemy from afar, we stand up and take care of each other. The very formation and foundation of our government is based on the ideals that we are stronger together when we stand together, when we fight together, when we invest in each other and sacrifice for each other.

I am one who believes the defense of this Nation isn't just a powerful military abroad and at home. The defense of our Nation also means that for a vulnerable child, who has a terrible disease that we can cure--we, our Nation, should take care of our own.

The defense of our country means that our elder citizens, two-thirds of whom are in nursing homes and rely on the Medicaid Program--the defense of our Nation, the preservation of our ideals is evidenced in the care of the elderly, the dignity that we acknowledge and afford them. That is the very definition of who we are as Americans.

I am one of those people who believes that the ideals of this Nation are evident not just in the strength of our military but also in the strength of our system of healthcare. It is a violation of our principles and values as a nation when our healthcare system breaks down--not to the ideals we see in our military where we protect all of our country; we stand for everyone, rich or poor. But, suddenly, with our healthcare system, with accessing lifesaving medicines and procedures, critical preventive care, it suddenly boils down to those who are very wealthy getting access, and people who are struggling in minimum-wage jobs, fighting every day to raise their kids--somehow that should not be covered in our ideals.

We are a nation that professes the most profound values--the oldest constitutional democracy, which put forth ideals that we are not a theocracy, a nation based upon privilege, based upon how you pray. We are not a monarchy. We are the oldest constitutional democracy that put ideals forward that became lights to other nations.

This ideal that we believe in liberty and justice for all--what justice is there in a piece of legislation that would cast millions of Americans, our poorest Americans, our sickest Americans, our elderly Americans into a world where they no longer have the security of healthcare? Is that justice in this country?

What is the concept of liberty in our Nation if some people are shackled to fear and worry that if their child gets sick, they will not have access to care? What is freedom if people are imprisoned by an illness or disease that they cannot get adequately treated because they do not have health coverage? Essential to the ideals of our country-- the ideals of life and liberty and happiness--is having a system of healthcare that provides a stable foundation for life.

When half of the children born in this country are beneficiaries of a Medicaid Program, why would we slash that program if doing so undermines the very start of the lives of our children? That is against our values as a country. We are a nation in which every generation has expanded access, has expanded opportunity.

Over 50 years ago, when Medicare and Medicaid Programs were formed, expanding access to healthcare for the elderly, expanding access to healthcare for the sick, expanding access to healthcare for hard- working, low-income people, that was an advancement forward. When this body passed the Affordable Care Act--and 20 million more Americans gained access to healthcare, to lifesaving procedures, to the stability that comes from having that security--we advanced this Nation more toward its ideals.

This body should be coming together to take the imperfections of the Affordable Care Act, to find where it has fallen short, and work together to build upon that foundation so everyone in this Nation can have justice and opportunity; that everyone, when it comes to the grip of illness or disease, can find the freedom that comes with the security and the ease of mind in knowing they can afford to go to a doctor. That is a national aspiration. That is national defense. That is who we are and what we stand for.

So now here we are again. The most frustrating moments of my time as a U.S. Senator were to have seen legislation not in any way coming through the processes set up by our forefathers and foremothers in this place. How can we usurp the traditions of the Senate and rush to the floor to vote on legislation that hasn't benefited from the wisdom and the genius and the experience of medical professionals or experts? It was just pushed to the floor. Even nonpartisan experts say it would rip healthcare from millions and would raise costs for the elderly. How can we as a body do this to ourselves?

We are in this situation again, where legislation is being proposed, where votes are being counted, where people are discussing if can we bring a bill to the floor, another version of those that have fallen and been defeated. Can we bring this version forward? I say it is time we stop. It is time we understand that in the same way we hammered out a bill today and passed legislation--billions of dollars to protect our country from threats of wrongdoing--that we make the same kind of effort to work together, to talk, to hold hearings, to listen to each other, to try to make sure we are defending each other, supporting each other, and helping each other so that we are a generation, like our forefathers and foremothers, expanding concepts of liberty and freedom and access for more people.

Instead, here we are, with millions of Americans now turning their attention back to the U.S. Senate--Americans with disabilities; parents with children like Ethan who worry that should they need another operation, if the rules change, if legislation changes, they will not have that access; young people with parents in nursing homes, wondering will Medicaid expansion survive yet another attempt to gut the program. At a time when we need to be encouraging each other and strengthening our commitments to one another, we face a time of jeopardy, a decision point, a crossroads--not just in the pragmatic realities of healthcare that will come forward but a crossroads of our values and a crossroads of our ideals. Will we go forward as a nation together, expanding opportunities, securing justice, defending each other, empowering each other, or will we go back?

I end with saying this. What I have learned is, the decisions made here are not always easy, and they are often dependent upon the engagement of the Nation as a whole. I stand here, the beneficiary of courageous Americans, who stood and fought for all of our values and all of our ideals, fought to expand access and equality and opportunity, fought to defend this Nation at home and abroad, and to insist that every child have certain basic rights and opportunities.

This is yet another moral moment for our Nation. I believe every child should have access to affordable, quality healthcare. I believe every senior citizen growing old should have the security and the dignity of healthy environments. I believe people should not be denied the justice of healthcare because they have a preexisting condition.

I don't think these are radical beliefs in any way. I don't think it was radical to stand up in the late 1800s and say women should have the right to vote, that it was radical to think children should not have to experience child labor. It wasn't radical to say that Black Americans should have equal access to restaurants and hotels. These are not radical ideas. The reason this body stood up, generation after generation, securing privileges and expanding opportunities and opening access--the reason this body did that was not just because of the decisions of the people on this floor, it was because Americans stood up and demanded these changes, demanded this progress, and fought for every inch of ground.

That is the moment we are in right now, a call to the conscience of our country. This is not a time to be silent. This is not a time to be indifferent. This is not a time for apathy. This is a time for all of us to make a decision about who we will be as a nation. Will we be a nation that provides affordable, quality healthcare to all or will we slide back into that basic right being only available to a smaller and smaller group of people? That is the decision,

and the decision will be made, not just by the votes on this floor or the decisions made by the 100 in this body, it must be made collectively, through our engagement and through our activism and what we demand from our representatives.

Here we are in this moral moment with this decision before our country. My prayer and my hope is that all of us, with a collective voice, with a chorus that resonates with that of our ancestors--that we fight for the defense of our Nation, that we stand up and take responsibility for ideals of equal justice, ideals of liberty and freedom, ideals of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness, ideals that have made this Nation shine and have shown our greatness and our character. That doesn't happen by accident or some inevitability of history. It happens because we fight for it and work for it.

If there is any moment in American history where we need that spirit, that American grit, that toughness and that fight, it is this moment right now.

Mr. President, thank you.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr.President, today I rise to speak about the introduction of the Confederate Monument Removal Act. This legislation would properly remove certain statues on display in the Capitol as part of the National Statuary Hall Collection so they can be exhibited elsewhere in the proper historical context. I am proud to introduce this legislation today and I want to thank Representative Barbara Lee for her leadership in the House on this bill.

On July 2, 1864, a law was enacted that created the National Statuary Hall Collection, which allows states to select two statues of deceased individuals to be displayed in the Capitol. States are supposed to choose people ``who have been citizens thereof, and illustrious for their historic renown or for distinguished civil or military services.'' Figures like George Washington, Samuel Adams, and Dwight D. Eisenhower grace the collection and are prominently on display in the Capitol. The collection is meant to honor patriots who served, sacrificed, or made tremendous contributions to our Nation.

People who served the Confederate States of America do not deserve that honor. These are individuals who took up arms against the Union and inflicted catastrophic death and suffering among United States citizens. Simply put, they fall well short of that high bar.

Moreover, the presence of these statues in the National Statuary Hall Collection ignores the context in which

these monuments were first erected. Statues of Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis were erected across the United States in the post- Reconstruction era and during the civil rights movement as symbols of white suppression and defiance of Federal authority. They do not represent Southern heritage and those who advocate thus are engaging in revisionist history and are whitewashing our past.

That is why I am introducing the Confederate Monument Removal Act, a bill that would mandate the removal of all eleven statues of people who voluntarily served the Confederate States of America from the National Statuary Hall Collection in the Capitol within 120 days. The list of statues that would be removed includes Joseph Wheeler of Alabama, Uriah Milton Rose of Arkansas, Edmund Kirby Smith of Florida, Zebulon Vance of North Carolina, Alexander Hamilton Stephens of Georgia, Edward Douglas White of Louisiana, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, James Zachariah George of Mississippi, Wade Hampton of South Carolina, Robert E. Lee of Virginia, and John Kenna of West Virginia.

The legislation would allow a State who selected the statue to be displayed in the collection to reclaim the statue if they pay for its transportation back to the State. If a State declines to reclaim it back, it would turn possession of the statue over to the Smithsonian, an institution that is more than capable of displaying the statues in the proper historical context and where a constructive dialogue can take place about our Nation's history.

I am grateful that this legislation is endorsed by organizations such as the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.

Some have argued that this will lead to the removal of other statues and monuments of prominent figures who played an important role in our Nation's history. That is plainly false. This bill only touches on those who were traitors against their Country and whose statues were erected as a symbol of white supremacy.

It is true that the Confederate Monument Removal Act does not remove certain statues in the Capitol that some people find offensive and who arguably should not be honored in such a way. For instance, the bill would not remove the statue of John C. Calhoun, a white supremacist and a vigorous defender of slavery. This is a conversation we as a Nation must have regarding how to best tell the truth of our past.

But surely we can all agree that people who took up arms against their Country should not be venerated in the Capitol, a place all Americans should feel welcomed, encouraged, and inspired. These statues must be moved not just because of who they were in the past, but because of who we are now as a Nation and who we must be to ensure an even better and brighter future for generations to come.

I am proud to introduce the Confederate Monument Removal Act and I urge its speedy passage.

Mr.President, today I rise to speak about the introduction of the Confederate Monument Removal Act. This legislation would properly remove certain statues on display in the Capitol as part of the National Statuary Hall Collection so they can be exhibited elsewhere in the proper historical context. I am proud to introduce this legislation today and I want to thank Representative Barbara Lee for her leadership in the House on this bill.

On July 2, 1864, a law was enacted that created the National Statuary Hall Collection, which allows states to select two statues of deceased individuals to be displayed in the Capitol. States are supposed to choose people ``who have been citizens thereof, and illustrious for their historic renown or for distinguished civil or military services.'' Figures like George Washington, Samuel Adams, and Dwight D. Eisenhower grace the collection and are prominently on display in the Capitol. The collection is meant to honor patriots who served, sacrificed, or made tremendous contributions to our Nation.

People who served the Confederate States of America do not deserve that honor. These are individuals who took up arms against the Union and inflicted catastrophic death and suffering among United States citizens. Simply put, they fall well short of that high bar.

Moreover, the presence of these statues in the National Statuary Hall Collection ignores the context in which

these monuments were first erected. Statues of Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis were erected across the United States in the post- Reconstruction era and during the civil rights movement as symbols of white suppression and defiance of Federal authority. They do not represent Southern heritage and those who advocate thus are engaging in revisionist history and are whitewashing our past.

That is why I am introducing the Confederate Monument Removal Act, a bill that would mandate the removal of all eleven statues of people who voluntarily served the Confederate States of America from the National Statuary Hall Collection in the Capitol within 120 days. The list of statues that would be removed includes Joseph Wheeler of Alabama, Uriah Milton Rose of Arkansas, Edmund Kirby Smith of Florida, Zebulon Vance of North Carolina, Alexander Hamilton Stephens of Georgia, Edward Douglas White of Louisiana, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, James Zachariah George of Mississippi, Wade Hampton of South Carolina, Robert E. Lee of Virginia, and John Kenna of West Virginia.

The legislation would allow a State who selected the statue to be displayed in the collection to reclaim the statue if they pay for its transportation back to the State. If a State declines to reclaim it back, it would turn possession of the statue over to the Smithsonian, an institution that is more than capable of displaying the statues in the proper historical context and where a constructive dialogue can take place about our Nation's history.

I am grateful that this legislation is endorsed by organizations such as the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.

Some have argued that this will lead to the removal of other statues and monuments of prominent figures who played an important role in our Nation's history. That is plainly false. This bill only touches on those who were traitors against their Country and whose statues were erected as a symbol of white supremacy.

It is true that the Confederate Monument Removal Act does not remove certain statues in the Capitol that some people find offensive and who arguably should not be honored in such a way. For instance, the bill would not remove the statue of John C. Calhoun, a white supremacist and a vigorous defender of slavery. This is a conversation we as a Nation must have regarding how to best tell the truth of our past.

But surely we can all agree that people who took up arms against their Country should not be venerated in the Capitol, a place all Americans should feel welcomed, encouraged, and inspired. These statues must be moved not just because of who they were in the past, but because of who we are now as a Nation and who we must be to ensure an even better and brighter future for generations to come.

I am proud to introduce the Confederate Monument Removal Act and I urge its speedy passage.

Madam President, I rise to talk about the Marijuana Justice Act--a bill I introduced today that would end the Federal prohibition on marijuana and start to end the War on Drugs. For far too long we have approached drug use and addiction as something we can jail ourselves out of. It is beyond clear that approach has failed. It is time we start to address the persistent and systemic racial bias that has plagued our criminal justice system and adopt policies that will move us forward, not backward. It is time to de-schedule marijuana.

Since 2001, arrests for marijuana have increased across the Country and now account for over 50 percent of all drug arrests in the United States. The ACLU conducted a thorough study of over 8 million marijuana arrests between 2001 and 2010. It found that 88 percent of those were for marijuana possession. Alarmingly, the study also found that African Americans are 3.73 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than their white peers, even though they use marijuana at similar rates.

Over the last five years, States have begun to legalize marijuana in an effort to push back on the failed War on Drugs and combat the illicit drug market. Currently, eight States and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana and more States are taking up measures to follow suit. We know from the experiences of States that have already legalized marijuana that we will gain far more than we lose--these States have seen increased revenues and decreased rates of serious crime, and a reallocation of resources toward more productive uses. In Colorado, arrest rates have decreased and State revenues have increased. Washington saw a 10 percent decrease in violent crime over the three-year period following legalization.

However, the Federal government still treats marijuana as an illegal substance. It is time for the Federal government to end the Federal prohibition of marijuana.

Today, I introduced the Marijuana Justice Act, a bill that would remove marijuana from the list of controlled substances, thereby ending the Federal prohibition. The bill would also automatically expunge records for people who were convicted of Federal marijuana use and possession offenses. We must help people with criminal records get back up on their feet and obtain jobs, and expunging their records is an important step in that process.

The legislation would allow individuals currently serving time in Federal prison for marijuana offenses to petition a court for a resentencing. One of the greatest tragedies from the Fair Sentencing Act was that it did not provide retroactive relief to individuals serving time under the old crack and powder cocaine sentencing laws. The Marijuana Justice Act would allow people currently serving time for a marijuana offense to seek immediate relief.

The bill would also use Federal funds to encourage States where marijuana is illegal to legalize the drug if they disproportionately arrest or incarcerate low income individuals or people

of color. Too often drug laws are enforced disproportionately against minorities and the poor. This is unacceptable and belies our values.

Finally, the Marijuana Justice Act would establish a community reinvestment fund, which would invest money in communities most affected by the War on Drugs. Building new libraries, supporting job training, and investing in community centers will improve public safety and is the right thing to do after decades of failed drug policies.

The Marijuana Justice Act is a serious step in acknowledging, that after 40 years, it is time to end the War on Drugs. It is time to stop our backward thinking, which has only led to backward results. It is time to lead with our hearts, our heads, and with policy that actually works.

Madam President, I rise to talk about the Marijuana Justice Act--a bill I introduced today that would end the Federal prohibition on marijuana and start to end the War on Drugs. For far too long we have approached drug use and addiction as something we can jail ourselves out of. It is beyond clear that approach has failed. It is time we start to address the persistent and systemic racial bias that has plagued our criminal justice system and adopt policies that will move us forward, not backward. It is time to de-schedule marijuana.

Since 2001, arrests for marijuana have increased across the Country and now account for over 50 percent of all drug arrests in the United States. The ACLU conducted a thorough study of over 8 million marijuana arrests between 2001 and 2010. It found that 88 percent of those were for marijuana possession. Alarmingly, the study also found that African Americans are 3.73 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than their white peers, even though they use marijuana at similar rates.

Over the last five years, States have begun to legalize marijuana in an effort to push back on the failed War on Drugs and combat the illicit drug market. Currently, eight States and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana and more States are taking up measures to follow suit. We know from the experiences of States that have already legalized marijuana that we will gain far more than we lose--these States have seen increased revenues and decreased rates of serious crime, and a reallocation of resources toward more productive uses. In Colorado, arrest rates have decreased and State revenues have increased. Washington saw a 10 percent decrease in violent crime over the three-year period following legalization.

However, the Federal government still treats marijuana as an illegal substance. It is time for the Federal government to end the Federal prohibition of marijuana.

Today, I introduced the Marijuana Justice Act, a bill that would remove marijuana from the list of controlled substances, thereby ending the Federal prohibition. The bill would also automatically expunge records for people who were convicted of Federal marijuana use and possession offenses. We must help people with criminal records get back up on their feet and obtain jobs, and expunging their records is an important step in that process.

The legislation would allow individuals currently serving time in Federal prison for marijuana offenses to petition a court for a resentencing. One of the greatest tragedies from the Fair Sentencing Act was that it did not provide retroactive relief to individuals serving time under the old crack and powder cocaine sentencing laws. The Marijuana Justice Act would allow people currently serving time for a marijuana offense to seek immediate relief.

The bill would also use Federal funds to encourage States where marijuana is illegal to legalize the drug if they disproportionately arrest or incarcerate low income individuals or people

of color. Too often drug laws are enforced disproportionately against minorities and the poor. This is unacceptable and belies our values.

Finally, the Marijuana Justice Act would establish a community reinvestment fund, which would invest money in communities most affected by the War on Drugs. Building new libraries, supporting job training, and investing in community centers will improve public safety and is the right thing to do after decades of failed drug policies.

The Marijuana Justice Act is a serious step in acknowledging, that after 40 years, it is time to end the War on Drugs. It is time to stop our backward thinking, which has only led to backward results. It is time to lead with our hearts, our heads, and with policy that actually works.

Mr. President, I stand today sort of feeling like a great New Jerseyan named Yogi Berra, who has a saying that ``this is deja vu all over again.'' The reason why it feels like deja vu all over again to me is because I have been watching this process move along. When the House first tried to push through a healthcare bill, I was so proud that the American public--Republicans and Democrats--were outraged and stopped that version 1 in the House. But then version 2 was rushed through without a CBO score, and they got it done. We heard Republicans in the House literally saying on the record: I so hope that they will fix this in the Senate; maybe something will happen in the Senate that this will get fixed.

Well, now I have deja vu all over again, and it is because we see a whole bunch of folks--and now we have heard Republican Senators say this on the record: Gosh, we know what we are doing is flawed; we know what we are doing is wrong; we know the process has been outrageous, but our hope is, if we can get it into the conference committee, then they will fix it in the conference committee.

Well, I am proud to be a U.S. Senator. But, dear God, this is not what this body is about--to push their responsibilities off, to derelict their duties, and to not make legislation happen here that puts people first. We all know this process is broken. We all know that what we are doing here is not just imperfect. Many of us see this, like the CBO, as a serious threat to millions of Americans.

We are about to do something that is unconscionable to me to be in the Senate, where I have seen this place work, I have seen regular order, I have seen hearings, I have seen witnesses brought in, and I have seen people work hard on crafting actual legislation. So now this is just going to be shoved over with the hope in this body that, even though the House didn't do their job and the President of the United States even criticized what the House did and called it ``mean,'' it gets kicked over to the Senate, and the Senate is refusing to do their job. They are just passing the buck to something called a conference committee, where they are going to hope again.

So I stand here, and I just have to confess that this has been 2 days for me where I haven't just been frustrated and angry like so many Americans. I have actually been struggling with being a little sick. I started feeling it about 2 days ago. By yesterday my throat was so sore, I went to bed. I had a horrible night, got up, and could barely even swallow. I had the worry in my head that maybe I had strep throat.

But guess what. Unlike the thousands of New Jerseyans who have reached out to me, for me to worry about an illness, maybe that I have strep throat--I went to a doctor today. I had myself tested for strep. You see, we, in this body, enjoy health coverage, which right now millions of Americans are worried about losing, and many other ones worry, as we heard said tonight, about copays and prescription drug costs. I wonder where the justice is in that.

What are the American values that hold us all together? I know we pledge allegiance to that flag. We put our hands on our hearts, and we swear this oath to liberty and justice for all. Where is the justice in this country, where some people who are favored and privileged enough and wealthy enough to afford good health coverage can have it, but for other folks, a night with a bad sore throat or, worse, with a disability or disease--where is their justice in the wealthiest country on the planet Earth? We can't even, in this body, come together and do what the President said in his campaign that he would do--everyone would be covered and have healthcare that--I think the quote was this-- was terrific.

Well, it brings me back to what our values are as a country, and I wonder: For we who believe in life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness, how can we have life when we see millions of people about to be thrown off their health coverage? We in this Nation hold these values so dear. We believe that all are created equal and, in my belief, should have equal rights and equal opportunities for the basics that are necessary to succeed and to compete, and that is health insurance.

I wonder how we have gotten to a point as a body on an issue like this that is not just one-sixth of our economy, that will not just affect millions and millions of lives, but that really goes to the core of who we are as a country.

This great man, Patrick Henry, said: ``Give me liberty or give me death.'' Those words have been coming back to me a lot in the last months of this debate and this discussion: ``Give me liberty or give me death.''

Well, what is the quality of the liberty in this country, where there are people who are shackled with preventible disease and conditions that could be treated because they don't have access to healthcare? What is the quality of liberty in this country, where people are chained to poverty, have to sell their cars, have to sell their homes, and go into bankruptcy because they can't afford their healthcare coverage?

``Give me liberty or give me death.'' What is the quality of the liberty when people are imprisoned by fear and worry and stress because they have a sick child or they have a parent who is elderly and needs care? These are the values of this country, and I don't understand how we could be at this moment right now with the ideas that I have heard on both sides of the aisle to make healthcare better, to improve upon the Affordable Care Act, to extend health coverage to even more people, to make this Nation live up to its most powerful and profound values that made us a light unto nations, and how we could have gotten to this point now after gaining ground, after having more people experience the freedom and the liberty that comes from not having to worry about your health coverage, from having access to quality healthcare? How can we have moved forward and now be about, in a matter of hours, to push this Nation back? I don't understand how we could be here where no one can justify the process and no one can justify this body having gone through such a contorted process that bends our traditions and breaks our values. I do not understand how we could have gotten here.

Who will be hurt? Who will be hurt? I have read lots of studies recently about how, when health insurance rates goes down, mortality rates go up, and when health insurance rates go down, mortality rates go up. It makes me wonder about the duty that we each have to each other as Americans. As a man of faith, it makes me wonder about all of us who profess our faith and how we could be allowing a process

to go forward where the most vulnerable among us will face fear and deprivation and will see things that will cost life and have them surrender liberty. We are better than this. This Nation is greater than this.

This moment casts a shame and a shadow over the soul and the heart of America, and I will fight even in these last hours with every breath that I have, like the patriots before us, not to allow this to happen to my fellow Americans. This is unjust, this is wrong, and we can and must in these hours do better.

Let's send this bill into committees. Let's do this process as this institution was designed to have it done. Let's open the doors of the Capitol and invite America to come--the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, hospital associations. Let's invite the AARP. Let's have America come down here. Let's join together like our forefathers and foremothers have done to expand liberty, to expand opportunity, to extend hope. We can do that. All of us collectively have that power, and it is what the people want right now. This is not what the people want.

What we are about to vote on has only seen the light of day for a matter of minutes now--a matter of minutes.

This Nation was founded with a proclamation that we the people--this idea that all of us together--can do better, that when we join together, when we stand together, when we fight together, and when we work together, we can create a transcendent reality. That is the story of America, and this is not. This is the betrayal of our values. This is the betrayal of our history. This is the betrayal of the great body in which we all are Members.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Madam President, I intend to offer the following motion to H.R. 1628, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record. The motion is supported by Senators Blumenthal, Duckworth, and Van Hollen.

Mr. President, I intend to offer the following motion to H.R. 1628, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record. The motion is supported by Senators Blumenthal, Casey, Menendez, Shaheen, and Van Hollen.

Madam President, I intend to offer the following motion to H.R. 1628, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record. The motion is supported by Senators Blumenthal and Van Hollen.

Madam President, I intend to offer the following motion to H.R. 1628, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record. The motion is supported by Senators Blumenthal, Duckworth, Markey, Shaheen, and Van Hollen.

Madam President, I intend to offer the following motion to H.R. 1628, and I ask that it be printed in the Record. The motion is supported by Senators Stabenow, Blumenthal, Menendez, Shaheen, and Van Hollen.

Madam President, I intend to offer the following motion to H.R. 1628, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I rise to introduce the Dignity for Incarcerated Women Act (Dignity Act), a critical criminal justice reform bill that would provide much needed reforms to address the unique needs women face in Federal prisons. This legislation helps shed light on the unique challenges women face behind bars, which seldom receive the attention they deserve in our criminal justice reform efforts. It is time we begin to remedy the barriers incarcerated women face, and that's what this bill would do. I thank Senators Warren, Durbin, and Harris for cosponsoring this bill, and I am proud to have their support.

America is truly exceptional when it comes to incarceration. The United States has 5 percent of the world's population and 25 percent of the globe's prison population. Since 1980, our Federal population has grown by nearly 800 percent.

But let's look specifically at incarcerated women. Only 5 percent of the world's female population live in the United States, but nearly 30 percent of the world's incarcerated women are in our Nation--twice the percentage of China and four times as much as Russia. Since 1978, the number of women incarcerated in State and Federal prisons in the United States has increased by 716 percent, twice the growth rate of men. America currently has 110,000 women behind bars, and women account for a larger proportion of the prison population than ever before in our Nation's history.

The numbers of women in our Federal prisons has seen substantial growth. Although women represent a small percentage of Federal prisoners, the proportion of women in the Federal system rose from 12.1 percent in fiscal year 2009 to 13.3 percent in fiscal year 2013. Based on the most recent Sentencing Commission data, 9,400 women were in Federal prisons as of fiscal year 2013. In 2013, more than two-thirds of women in Federal prison were behind bars due to nonviolent drug, fraud, or immigration crimes and over 70 percent of women in Federal prisons had little or no prior criminal history.

An urgent need exists to address the unique challenges women face while behind bars. Women are often primary caretaker parents, meaning their incarceration impacts children. Incarcerated women face the unconscionable choice of either calling home to talk to their children or using commissary funds to buy sanitary napkins. Women in prison are frequently victims of trauma. According to data from Vera Institute of Justice, women in jails face high-levels of trauma: 86 percent experienced sexual violence, 77 percent report partner violence, and 60 percent were survivors of caregiver violence. These troubling statistics deserve our attention.

Today, I'm proud to introduce the Dignity Act, a comprehensive bill that would begin to remedy the unique challenges faced by women behind bars. The bill would require the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to consider the location of children when placing an incarcerated parent in a Federal prison, which helps alleviate the great distances children and other loved ones often have to travel to visit incarcerated parents.

The bill would mandate the BOP create more generous and uniform visitation hours for primary caretaker parents to provide more easy access to loved ones while a woman is behind bars. We know family visitation is a critical part of a successful reentry strategy, so this commonsense provision would help maintain family contact when parents are behind bars. As a result, this provision makes it less likely that returning citizens commit crimes, which would enhance public safety.

The Dignity Act would ban solitary confinement and shackling of pregnant women in Federal prison. Studies confirm serious psychological and physical harm are likely to occur when these harsh practices are used on pregnant women. It is time we ban the use of solitary and shackling on pregnant women and treat these women with the dignity and respect they deserve.

The bill would also require the BOP to provide parenting classes to primary caretaker parents, provide trauma-informed care to victims of trauma, and allow returning citizens to mentor incarcerated people. It would mandate the BOP train correctional officers in how to identify trauma victims in prison. This bill would help ensure people behind bars receive the critical programming they need to prepare for reentry into society.

The Dignity Act contains numerous other reforms. It would create an ombudsman at the Department of Justice to look into abuses associated with solitary confinement, prisoner transportation, strip searches, and other civil rights abuses. The bill would require the BOP to eliminate prison phone rates and mandate all prisons be equipped with video conferencing, which the bill ensures would be made available free of charge to incarcerated people. The legislation would require the BOP to make certain health products available for free, such as sanitary napkins, toothpaste, and ibuprofen.

Other reforms in the bill would preclude correctional officers of the opposite gender of the incarcerated individual from conducting strip searches or entering a restroom of the opposite gender. The bill has a common-sense exception for when an incarcerated woman's health is in danger and for other exigent circumstances. The bill would require the BOP to allow primary caretaker parents access to the Residential Drug Abuse Program, a critical drug treatment program, even if they fail to admit to having a substance abuse disorder prior to their incarceration. Finally, the Dignity Act would require the BOP to create a pilot program for overnight visits for incarcerated parents and children.

The legislation has broad support from organizations like the National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls, the ACLU, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

The Dignity Act would provide critical reforms to address challenges women behind bars face. Again, I thank Senators Warren, Durbin, and Harris for their leadership. I am proud to introduce this important criminal justice reform bill, and I urge my colleagues to support its speedy passage.

Madam President, I rise to introduce the Dignity for Incarcerated Women Act (Dignity Act), a critical criminal justice reform bill that would provide much needed reforms to address the unique needs women face in Federal prisons. This legislation helps shed light on the unique challenges women face behind bars, which seldom receive the attention they deserve in our criminal justice reform efforts. It is time we begin to remedy the barriers incarcerated women face, and that's what this bill would do. I thank Senators Warren, Durbin, and Harris for cosponsoring this bill, and I am proud to have their support.

America is truly exceptional when it comes to incarceration. The United States has 5 percent of the world's population and 25 percent of the globe's prison population. Since 1980, our Federal population has grown by nearly 800 percent.

But let's look specifically at incarcerated women. Only 5 percent of the world's female population live in the United States, but nearly 30 percent of the world's incarcerated women are in our Nation--twice the percentage of China and four times as much as Russia. Since 1978, the number of women incarcerated in State and Federal prisons in the United States has increased by 716 percent, twice the growth rate of men. America currently has 110,000 women behind bars, and women account for a larger proportion of the prison population than ever before in our Nation's history.

The numbers of women in our Federal prisons has seen substantial growth. Although women represent a small percentage of Federal prisoners, the proportion of women in the Federal system rose from 12.1 percent in fiscal year 2009 to 13.3 percent in fiscal year 2013. Based on the most recent Sentencing Commission data, 9,400 women were in Federal prisons as of fiscal year 2013. In 2013, more than two-thirds of women in Federal prison were behind bars due to nonviolent drug, fraud, or immigration crimes and over 70 percent of women in Federal prisons had little or no prior criminal history.

An urgent need exists to address the unique challenges women face while behind bars. Women are often primary caretaker parents, meaning their incarceration impacts children. Incarcerated women face the unconscionable choice of either calling home to talk to their children or using commissary funds to buy sanitary napkins. Women in prison are frequently victims of trauma. According to data from Vera Institute of Justice, women in jails face high-levels of trauma: 86 percent experienced sexual violence, 77 percent report partner violence, and 60 percent were survivors of caregiver violence. These troubling statistics deserve our attention.

Today, I'm proud to introduce the Dignity Act, a comprehensive bill that would begin to remedy the unique challenges faced by women behind bars. The bill would require the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to consider the location of children when placing an incarcerated parent in a Federal prison, which helps alleviate the great distances children and other loved ones often have to travel to visit incarcerated parents.

The bill would mandate the BOP create more generous and uniform visitation hours for primary caretaker parents to provide more easy access to loved ones while a woman is behind bars. We know family visitation is a critical part of a successful reentry strategy, so this commonsense provision would help maintain family contact when parents are behind bars. As a result, this provision makes it less likely that returning citizens commit crimes, which would enhance public safety.

The Dignity Act would ban solitary confinement and shackling of pregnant women in Federal prison. Studies confirm serious psychological and physical harm are likely to occur when these harsh practices are used on pregnant women. It is time we ban the use of solitary and shackling on pregnant women and treat these women with the dignity and respect they deserve.

The bill would also require the BOP to provide parenting classes to primary caretaker parents, provide trauma-informed care to victims of trauma, and allow returning citizens to mentor incarcerated people. It would mandate the BOP train correctional officers in how to identify trauma victims in prison. This bill would help ensure people behind bars receive the critical programming they need to prepare for reentry into society.

The Dignity Act contains numerous other reforms. It would create an ombudsman at the Department of Justice to look into abuses associated with solitary confinement, prisoner transportation, strip searches, and other civil rights abuses. The bill would require the BOP to eliminate prison phone rates and mandate all prisons be equipped with video conferencing, which the bill ensures would be made available free of charge to incarcerated people. The legislation would require the BOP to make certain health products available for free, such as sanitary napkins, toothpaste, and ibuprofen.

Other reforms in the bill would preclude correctional officers of the opposite gender of the incarcerated individual from conducting strip searches or entering a restroom of the opposite gender. The bill has a common-sense exception for when an incarcerated woman's health is in danger and for other exigent circumstances. The bill would require the BOP to allow primary caretaker parents access to the Residential Drug Abuse Program, a critical drug treatment program, even if they fail to admit to having a substance abuse disorder prior to their incarceration. Finally, the Dignity Act would require the BOP to create a pilot program for overnight visits for incarcerated parents and children.

The legislation has broad support from organizations like the National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls, the ACLU, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

The Dignity Act would provide critical reforms to address challenges women behind bars face. Again, I thank Senators Warren, Durbin, and Harris for their leadership. I am proud to introduce this important criminal justice reform bill, and I urge my colleagues to support its speedy passage.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the city of Paterson's 225th anniversary. Through the dedicated service of municipal employees, elected leaders, local volunteers, community activists, and, most importantly, the incredible residents who have supported and loved the city through many generations, the city of Paterson has grown and prospered, earning its reputation as an outstanding community in my home State.

The town of Paterson was officially established in 1792 through a charter signed by then-Governor of New Jersey, William Paterson. Paterson was one of the Nation's first planned industrial cities, a brainchild of one of our Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton, and the Society for Establishing Useful Manufacturers.

Because of Paterson's proximity to what was then called the Great Falls of the Passaic River, the city was at the forefront of the development of water power systems for industrial use. In fact, the energy harnessed from the Great Falls was crucial in the effort to establish industrial freedom from Britain. Today the Paterson Great Falls, a scenic and historic waterfall on the Passaic River, continues to be just as important to the city as it was when Paterson was first founded.

As a regional industrial epicenter, Paterson became the birthplace of many ``invention firsts,'' including the first steam and electric- powered model trains. After milling steel for the Union effort in the American Civil War, Paterson refocused to become the center of our Nation's silk industry, thus earning its nickname the ``Silk City.'' The city also played a vital role during our Nation's Second World War, serving as a hub for the aircraft engine manufacturing industry.

Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park served as the primary inspiration for William Carlos Williams' five-volume epic poem, Paterson. In 1950, Williams received the first National Book Award for Poetry for Paterson, Book III. Our beloved Silk City has weaved its way into the works of many other renowned American writers including Junot Diaz, John Updike, Jack Kerouac, and Allen Ginsberg.

In addition to literature, Paterson natives have served as esteemed representatives in these hallowed halls. I would be remiss if I recognized the city of Paterson without mentioning the contributions of two of its favorite sons, Congressman Bill Pascrell, Jr., and the late Senator Frank Lautenberg, who have served New Jersey and our country with honor and distinction.

From Downtown Paterson's commercial historic district, to our national historical park, to Larry Doby Field, the architectural, natural, and cultural landmarks are abundant across this great city. Paterson is among our most diverse communities, attracting residents from dozens of different cultures who have greatly enriched the abundant tapestry of diversity and pluralism in the city of Paterson and across the entire State of New Jersey. I am delighted to have the opportunity to stand before you today to celebrate the profound history and legacy of New Jersey's third-largest city. I invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating the city of Paterson on this important milestone, sending our warmest greetings as it celebrates its incredible history and extending our best wishes as it looks toward the future.

Madam President, I have a parliamentary inquiry. Am I correct in stating that the text of S. 1796 and S. 1679 were posted on the websites for the respective committees, each for 6 days? The Affordable Care Act was posted on the websites of the respective committees, each of them, actually for 6 days prior to committee consideration?

Madam President, with the hope for regular order, the hope for committee process, the hope for transparency, the hope for the chance for the Senate to work as it was intended, I ask unanimous consent that no motion to proceed to Calendar No. 120, H.R. 1628, be in order until the bill has been the subject of executive session meetings in the Committee on Finance, during which amendments from the majority and minority received votes, and the bill has been favorably reported from the committee.