Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, as our students return to in-person instruction, they also will return to school sports. We encourage our students to be active and play schools sports to promote healthy habits, team-building skills, and socialization, which are especially important after a year of remote learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet every year, more than 140,000 estimated student athletes sustain a concussion, and that is just the reported count. We can be sure that many more go unreported and untreated.

The health benefits of competing in school sports are undermined if students are staying out on the field after an injury, especially concussions. Unfortunately, many student athletes return to play prematurely, and there is growing evidence that untreated concussions can have detrimental, long term effects on their health and academic performance.

That is why last week I reintroduced the Protecting Student Athletes from Concussions Act. My bill would direct states to develop concussion safety plans for public schools that include a concussion safety awareness component. Certain States, like Illinois, already have such procedures in place, but it is high time we make this true for all States. By equipping our schools and communities with evidence-based guidance for responding to concussions, we can keep our students and their futures safe.

The bill also would require States to adopt a ``when in doubt, sit it out'' policy. If there is even the possibility that a student athlete has suffered a concussion, their health and safety ought to be the No. 1 priority. That means, if an athlete is suspected of having sustained a concussion, they should sit out and not be allowed to return to play the same day. They should return to play only once evaluated and cleared by a qualified healthcare professional.

Let's be clear: A concussion is a traumatic brain injury that affects brain function. It is, by no means, something we can simply shake or walk off. Getting your ``bell rung,'' like they used to say in my day, is a serious threat to a young person. The still-developing brains of students make them more susceptible to injury, making concussions all the more dangerous.

A ``when in doubt, sit it out'' policy, endorsed by the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Academy of Neurology, will put the decision to return to the game in the hands of qualified healthcare professionals. It will prevent student athletes from experiencing successive injuries by staying in the game when they are not fit. It will give student athletes time to heal and help ensure that short-term symptoms do not become long-term effects.

As we return to in-person instruction, we must use common-sense and evidence-based approaches to ensure student safety. For school sports, this means we have to put the necessary procedures for preventing, detecting, responding to, and treating concussions in place. This bill would help do that.

It is why my bill is endorsed by the American College of Sports Medicine; American Academy of Neurology; National Football League (NFL); National Basketball Association (NBA); Major League Baseball (MLB); National Hockey League (NHL); National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA); American Academy of Sports Physical Therapy; Academy of Neurologic Physical Therapy; American Physical Therapy Association; Easterseals; Illinois High School Association; National Association of School Psychologists; National Association of Secondary School Principals; National Disability Rights Network; National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association; National Parent Teacher Association; Pop Warner Little Scholars; U.S. Soccer Federation; USA Cheer; USA Football; Safe Kids World Wide; and Sports & Fitness Industry Association.

I hope my colleagues will join me in this common-sense, evidence- based approach to protecting student athletes. Thank you.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Sentator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I would like to speak on another topic that, sadly, is still relevant today as it has been for so many years. And I want to start by recalling 35 years ago, when I was a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, I was faced with one of the most troubling votes in my whole career.

It was the height of the war on drugs. A new narcotic showed up. It was called crack cocaine. We didn't know much about it, but we knew several things: First, highly addictive; second, dirt cheap; third, if a woman who was pregnant used it, she could cause permanent harm to the baby she was carrying.

We started worrying that this was going to become the drug of choice across America and that the war on drugs was going to be lost forever.

And just about the time we were debating this, an event took place that really had no direct connection to crack cocaine, but it rocked the Capitol.

There was a basketball player at the University of Maryland, whose name was Len Bias. He was a very good basketball player, destined for the NBA. Sadly, he overdosed and died. It shocked everyone all across this region, and it certainly was felt in the House of Representatives. And, perhaps, it was part of the impetus for a measure that we enacted, which I later came to really regret.

Congress took action in 1986. I joined 400 of my House colleagues. We decided to take a stand--a really powerful stand--against crack cocaine. We decided to create a sentencing regime for crack cocaine that would be so overwhelming that anyone across America who considered using it would think twice. We went to an extreme. We decided to impose a 100-to-1 disparity between crack cocaine and powdered cocaine.

What does that mean?

If you are arrested with 5 grams of crack, you were subject to the same mandatory sentencing as someone arrested with 500 grams of powder cocaine, a 100-to-1 sentencing disparity. Our logic was there. If people knew that that kind of penalty awaits, they will surely stay away from this deadly new narcotic.

It turned out we were completely wrong. The net result of our 100-to- 1 disparity against crack cocaine didn't drive the cost of the drug up on the street. It drove it down. It didn't lessen the number of people who were addicted. It increased the number of who were addicted-- exactly the opposite of what we expected to happen.

And then for a decade, maybe two decades, we reaped the whirlwind. The 100-to-1 disparity meant that we were filling our prisons to a level we had never seen in the history of the United States, and, frankly, a level the world had never seen in terms of prison population. Sadly, the vast majority of them were African Americans. We stole away one or two generations of African-American males--and some females, too--in the process of making this terrible mistake.

It didn't make America any safer at all. In fact, it worsened the racial inequities in our justice system. Black Americans and White Americans use drugs at the same rates. Yet Black Americans are six times more likely to be imprisoned for drugs.

Fortunately, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle recognized this was a true injustice. I tried to undo some of the damage done by this war on drugs. We came together in 2010, on a bipartisan basis, to pass a bill I called the Fair Sentencing Act. It lowered the Federal drug sentences for the first time since the war on drugs.

Through bipartisan negotiations, we were able to significantly reduce the crack-powder sentencing disparity, but we didn't eliminate it. We reduced it from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1.

You say: How did you come up with the number of 18?

Two opposing Senators--one, myself; and the other, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, negotiated it literally in the Senate gym. We came to this agreement. We will make it 18-to-1 instead of 100-to-1. It is still dramatically higher than it should have been, but it was also dramatic progress.

Now, more than a decade later, we can finish the job with the EQUAL Act, a measure I introduced this year under the leadership of my friend and colleague, Senator Cory Booker. Once again, we have been able to come together on a bipartisan basis, only this time we agreed we needed to finish the job and end this disparity.

We have help on the Republican side--how about that, a bipartisan approach--with Senators Portman, Paul, Tillis, and Graham joining us.

Our House colleagues overwhelmingly agreed on a bipartisan basis themselves to change this once and for all, to go back to one-to-one in terms of sentencing on crack and powder cocaine. The legislation passed 361 to 66 in the House. Not bad, certainly in this divided political atmosphere.

It is amazing. By passing the EQUAL Act, the Members of the Senate can prove that we can learn from our mistakes.

Addiction, we have come to learn, is not a moral failing. It is a disease--a treatable disease. And if our Nation's laws encourage people to seek treatment instead of incarcerating them for seeking self- medication, we can potentially save tens of thousands of lives every year.

If I had said to the people back in Illinois 10 or 15 years ago, I went to them and said, ``Did you hear somebody downtown last night died of a drug overdose?'' 15 years ago, you would have said, ``Oh, that is a darn shame.''

And if I said, ``Try to describe to me what you think that person looked like, who that person was,'' they would have said, ``My guess is it is an African American, probably a male. He is probably between 20 and 35 years of age.''

And you would have been right 15 years ago.

But now we are seeing overdoses, particularly with opioids and fentanyl, that really belie that image, that stereotype of the drug addict. We are finding drug addiction to opioids reaching every corner of society--Black, White and Brown, young and old, people who have a lot of money, and people who are dirt poor.

And so we started looking at addiction differently. It isn't a problem with the minorities. It is a problem with America that we have to cope with. And we need to deal with it honestly, not with stiff criminal penalties so much as treatment that can deal with these addictions, and that is critically important.

The war on drugs took its toll on America. It directly fueled the crisis of mass incarceration, and we wasted--wasted--billions of Federal dollars in the process, dollars that could have been spent on actually making America safe.

We need to replace criminalization with commonsense and compassion. We can start by passing the EQUAL Act.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I have good news. This week, the U.S. Senate is going to consider five highly qualified Federal district court nominees. Before briefly speaking on their records, I want to make a few broad observations.

First, each of these nominations was recommended by the White House, by their home State Senators, or, in the case of the D.C. District Court, by District of Columbia Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton. I want to commend my colleagues--they did their job. They continued to identify and recommend nominees who have the experience and the temperament needed to serve on the Federal bench.

Second, these nominees represent an important cross-section of professional diversity. They have served as public defenders. They have also been prosecutors, civil rights attorneys, municipal lawyers, and even sitting judges.

Third, all five of these nominees received bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee. How about that, bipartisan support in the committee. That is a testament to their abilities, qualifications, and character. I thank my Republican colleagues who made that possible.

Finally, these nominees understand the limited role a judge plays in our judicial system. They have to be guided by evenhandedness, impartiality, and fidelity to the rule of law. We have seen that in their records. These records have been scrupulously reviewed by staff on both sides--Democrat, Republican, in addition to the White House, obviously. We have seen it in their testimony before the Judiciary Committee, and we have seen it in the broad support they had from the legal communities where they live.

Let me tell you a bit about each of them.

First is Jia Cobb, nominated to the District Court for the District of Columbia. Ms. Cobb has more than 15 years of experience as a trial litigator. She has tried more than 30 cases to verdict in both civil and criminal cases. This depth of experience is one of the reasons she was rated unanimously--unanimously--``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association.

For nearly a decade, she has represented people seeking to uphold their rights when it comes to the Nation's housing, disability, and employment discrimination laws.

Critically, Ms. Cobb understands the distinction between being an advocate and a judge. As a judge on the District of D.C., she has promised to rule based on the law and facts of the cases before her.

Next is Judge Karen Williams, nominated to the District of New Jersey. Like Ms. Cobb, Judge Williams was unanimously rated ``well qualified'' by the ABA. That is a testament to her integrity, temperament, and experience, which includes 12 years as a Federal magistrate judge and another two decades as a practicing litigator.

She has the strong support of both Senators from New Jersey, Menendez and Booker, and many throughout the New Jersey legal community.

We will also be voting this week on the nomination of Patricia Giles to the Eastern District of Virginia. Ms. Giles has a deep understanding of the district which she has been nominated to serve. As a Federal prosecutor, she tried more than 20 cases to verdict, and prosecutors and defense counsel alike have praised her fairness and her tenacity.

Ms. Giles also received a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association and has the strong support of her Senators, Warner and Kaine.

The Senate will consider Judge Michael Nachmanoff, nominated to the Eastern District of Virginia. He has served as a Federal magistrate judge since 2015, following an accomplished career as the district's appointed Federal defender.

Judge Nachmanoff also received a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating from the ABA. He has the strong support of both Virginia Senators. Like Ms. Giles, Judge Nachmanoff received praise from prosecutors and defense attorneys alike. It is a testament to his integrity and evenhandedness.

Finally, the Senate is going to consider Sarala Nagala, nominated to the District of Connecticut bench. Ms. Nagala is an accomplished Federal prosecutor. She has devoted her career to very serious cases involving human trafficking, child exploitation, identity theft, hate crimes, and fraud.

Like each of the nominees, she received a unanimous rating of ``well qualified'' from the ABA and has strong support from Senators Blumenthal and Murphy.

I ask all my colleagues to join me in supporting these five extremely high-qualified nominees. With their record, experience, and evenhanded approach, they will be ready on day one to serve in the critically important role of district court judge.

Finally, let me say that for many of these people, this decision to move forward and ask for appointment to the Federal judiciary carries with it status and admiration from many people--most people--but it also may mean some personal sacrifices. They are now going to be officially in public life, and that brings with it, as we all know, some burdens. They are willing to accept that and their families are willing to accept it as they continue to serve as Federal judges.

I hope my colleagues will join me in approving them. I hope it is done this week in a timely manner.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.