John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the Senate has before it a bill called the FIRST STEP Act. The name is significant because it shows that this is not a comprehensive fix for the problems of our criminal justice system but, rather, a first, critical step in the right direction. A study by the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that nearly half of the people released from Federal prison in 2005 were arrested again in the next 8 years--half of the people released from Federal prison since 2005 were rearrested within 8 years. Considering that 95 percent of State and Federal prisoners at some point will be released, those odds are pretty bleak, but here is the reality: Almost everybody in prison will serve their time and get out of prison. The question for us is, Will they be better prepared to live life on the outside in a productive way or will they simply reengage in a turnstile--or as one gentleman referred to himself in Houston, TX, a few years ago when we were talking about this issue--he called himself a frequent flyer in the criminal justice system. Unfortunately, we see that in the Federal system, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, half of the people repeat their mistakes within 8 years. This is bleak but not hopeless because we know there are reforms that will work that help improve the chances that more people will be able to live a lawful life productively outside a prison system and will not reoffend. We have seen these changes implemented across the country at the State level, including my home State of Texas, which has yielded incredible results. This might cause some people a little bit of a shock because Texas, of course, has a reputation for being tough on crime. People don't run for public office saying: I am going to be soft on crime in Texas and get elected. But what we have seen is that people have said: I think we can be smarter about crime and produce better results at a lower cost. That message and those things that have followed have been enormously successful. So let me talk about that a little bit. In Texas, the initial interest in criminal justice reform was first cost-driven. In other words, people were wondering: How are we going to continue to pay for 17,000 more prison beds that we think we are going to need because of our growing population? The growing prison population was simply outpacing the corrections budget, so State legislators were faced with a very difficult financial choice. But as it turned out, the reforms that we adopted did a lot more than alleviate the budget strain on the criminal justice system. Using recidivism reduction programs, including job training and vocational education, we reduced our incarceration rate and our crime rate by double digits at the same time. So using the sorts of recidivism reduction programs that are included in the FIRST STEP Act at the State level, we were able to reduce our incarceration rate and our crime rate by double digits at the same time. I remember a few years ago, when former Attorney General Michael Mukasey testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he said that the single most important measurement of whether the sentencing practices are working is the crime rate--the crime rate. This was at a time when people were talking about ``Well, we put too many people in prison, so we have to let some out,'' but they weren't paying attention to how that impacted the crime rate. That stuck with me over these many years because I think he is exactly right. If these programs do not protect the public safety, then we shouldn't be doing them. If they don't lower the crime rate, they are not worth the effort. But our experience in Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Rhode Island--in places that have implemented these programs, they have seen their incarceration rate and their crime rate drop at the same time. So we are trying to replicate those successes at the Federal level through the FIRST STEP Act. In so doing, we hope to allow people to transform their lives as we allow low-risk offenders to lead productive lives in their communities once they leave prison, assuming they comply with all of the rules and regulations. I believe this legislation will lead the way for additional steps that we will take afterward, but this is an important first step. This bill will provide funding for the Federal Bureau of Prisons to develop risk assessment tools to pair individuals with programs proven to reduce the risk of recidivism. This isn't just social engineering or some hope that we have. This is based on proven examples of programs that will help people, for example, deal with their drug or their alcohol addiction. Senator Cassidy from Louisiana has put in this bill some very important provisions relating to the diagnosis and treatment of people with dyslexia. I am convinced that there are people in prison who were told as they were growing up that they were too stupid to go to school because they couldn't read, and they simply dropped out, and their dyslexia, which was holding them back, was not diagnosed and properly treated. So I am grateful to Senator Cassidy for some of the provisions in the bill relating to the identification of people with dyslexia and providing them access to programs that will help them learn and succeed and improve their lives and, at the same time, reduce the likelihood that they will end up back in prison after having been arrested again. By spending time in prison, completing evidence-based programming, as I have mentioned--education, job training, drug treatment, life skills, faith-based programs--we can give people an opportunity to prepare themselves for their transition to life after prison. This is because the incentives in this program are really important. I think we, as human beings, all operate based on incentives, and the incentive for prisoners is to go through the program, gain the earned credit so that they can be released--not to shorten their sentence but in less confining conditions, for example, a halfway house. I want to remind our colleagues that not all offenders, of course, are eligible for these credits. The bill specifically lists 48 offenses that disqualify offenders from earning time credits, including crimes like murder, assault, carjacking that results in injury and death, and the unlawful possession or use of a firearm by violent criminals and drug traffickers. In other words, by focusing our efforts on low-risk offenders and by giving them the opportunity to access these programs--these education programs, these addiction treatment programs--we can focus our attention and our money on the truly violent and high-risk offenders, which I think is also an important feature of this legislation. But it is important to remember that just because a specific crime is not included in the exclusion list of 48 offenses, it doesn't mean that the offender is automatically entitled to the earned-time credit. The person must first be determined to be low risk; in other words, that is the failsafe. But notwithstanding whether the offense is listed, if you are not a low-risk offender, as determined by the testing that is done by the Bureau of Prisons, you will not be eligible for these less confining conditions. This is not a determination made by Washington bureaucrats or even politicians. It is left to experienced law enforcement officers and wardens who work with these individuals on a daily basis. We want to give the opportunity to those who would take advantage of it to turn their own lives around, but we will not do so at the cost of public safety. That is exactly what these risk assessment tools are designed to do, to tell us who is at highest risk of reoffending. I believe this legislation is an investment with the potential for astronomical returns. We are not just talking about money, we are talking about human potential. We are investing in the men and women who want to turn their lives around once they are released from prisons, and we are investing in so doing for stronger and more viable communities. We are investing tax dollars in a system that helps produce stronger citizens. When it comes to positive results, don't take my word for it. There is plenty of research that shows how valuable these programs can be. For example, in 2013, a study by RAND Corporation found that prisoners who participated in education programs were 43 percent less likely to return to prison than those who did not. Employment after release was 13 percent higher among prisoners who participated in these programs, and those who participated in vocational training were 28 percent more likely to be employed after they were released. Our prisons should be more than just a warehouse for human beings. They should also serve as places where rehabilitation takes place, and hopefully people can take advantage of the opportunity once they have made a mistake and served their time to transform their own lives into productive citizens. That is what this legislation tries to do, and that is why it has gained such broad support on both sides of the aisle. By investing in these education and training programs and these recidivism reduction programs, we can ensure that of the people who get out of prison, more will actually stay out of prison. This bill is our opportunity to make meaningful changes in our criminal justice system, our opportunity to begin fixing a problem that plagues our country, and an opportunity to take a model that has been working in the States for more than a decade and use it to benefit all Americans. The odds of these individuals leaving prison and becoming more productive members of society should be higher than the odds of a coin flip. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation, and I look forward to voting yes when it comes up for a vote later today or tomorrow. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, at 5:30, we will be voting on the first procedural step to take up criminal justice reform legislation that started back in 2013 when I introduced a bill we called Federal prison reform. This legislation is based on prison reform, but it has taken on some additional attributes relative to how we sentence and how judges sentence people convicted of various crimes. Let me explain a little bit about why this should be a priority for the Senate and for the Congress and for the country. We know the cycle of crime is all too common. People commit crimes. They serve time in prison. They get out of prison. They commit another crime. They serve time again in prison. They are released. A few years ago, this is what one young man in Houston said when he was talking about his own experience: He called himself a ``frequent flyer''--somebody caught in that revolving door of prison and crime. In Texas, in 2007, or thereabouts, we had some farsighted visionary leaders, actually, who decided instead of just being tough on crime, which Texas has always had a reputation for, we needed to be smart on crime too. A little more than a decade ago, Texas prisons were bursting at the seams. We had more people incarcerated in Texas prisons than any State in the Nation, and tragically we also had high recidivism rates. So it was obvious we were doing something wrong, and we needed to up our game. The Legislative Budget Board in our State estimated that in the next 5 years, Texas would need as many as 17,000 new prison beds to house the growing inmate population. So two options became clear: build more costly prisons with the same tragic results or fix the system, and we chose the latter. I would say, some of our colleagues and some of the critics of the underlying bill say: Well, the best way to keep communities safe is to keep criminals in prison. There are some people, sadly, who will never take advantage of the opportunity to transform their lives through faith-based programs, deal with their drug and alcohol addiction, learn a skill, get a GED; in other words, there are some people, unfortunately, we can't save, but there are others who understand they have made a mistake and paid their debt to society and want to turn their lives around. Those are the type of people this criminal justice reform bill speaks to. In the beginning in my State, the decision was largely driven by cost. The estimated pricetag to build new prisons exceeded $2 billion. You can imagine what that does to a State's budget, but instead of leaving taxpayers with the bill and just moving on, a visionary group of State legislators decided to dive further into the problem to try to understand it better and propose cost-effective ways to fix it. These fixes came in a number of forms which, looking back on it now, seem pretty obvious, pretty intuitive but, at the time, really was revolutionary. First were improvements in our parole system, which means that once people got out of prison, people were then supervised while out of prison to make sure they met the conditions of their parole. They didn't get involved with the same bad company that helped them get in trouble in the first place, and they didn't start using drugs again, and they kept fully employed. So this parole supervision targeted 10 percent fewer revocations and graduated sanctions for small rules violations such as missed meetings. That is particularly important because one of the first indications that somebody who is on parole is in trouble is when they don't show up for their meeting with their parole officer. In the past, that was just pretty much blown off until those missed meetings began to accumulate, and then, ultimately, that individual found themselves arrested, back in jail, and ultimately back in prison. So rather than letting these small infractions pile up, eventually sending the person back to prison, each misstep was dealt with swiftly and surely. In 2005, $55 million was appropriated to Texas probation departments to make improvements in how we supervise people who had once been in prison, with most of the funds going toward reducing caseloads. In other words, parole officers, probation officers, if they have to handle so many cases, they can't give them the individual attention they need and that the formerly incarcerated individual will benefit from. That brought the number of cases down from nearly 150 in some areas to 110 probationers per officer. This allowed for closer supervision and constant application of sanctions when called for. The results were pretty dramatic. In 2005, our State was paroling 21,000 prisoners, 11,000 of whom returned to prison after committing other crimes. So that means a little more than 50 percent were eventually going back to prison. A decade later, putting in place these reforms, the State paroled 28,000 prisoners, and about 4,500 came back--or only 16 percent. So we went from about half of the people in prison being paroled without much supervision and much help to only 16 percent because of these reforms. These reforms, as I said at the outset, may not look so obvious--and it seems so intuitive that it seems clear to us today--but at the time, it was pretty groundbreaking. As we all know, for many politicians, one of their biggest fears when it comes to their next election is being accused of being soft on crime, but, again, this is not about being tough on crime or soft on crime, this is about being smart on crime and getting the best results. The decline in revocations led to the savings of $119 million for Texas taxpayers--more than double the initial investment in these programs. Second were improvements to prison alternatives for low-level, nonviolent offenders. Judges and prosecutors and corrections officials were frustrated by the number of these individuals who kept ending up right back where they started, with no real change in their trajectory and certainly no more hope for their future. So the State started to provide funding to increase access to things like substance abuse treatment, drug courts, and mental illness treatment. Again, the reason why people end up in prison often has very little to do with their desire to live a life of crime; many of them feed their addiction by theft and other crimes. People who are mentally ill who go to jail or prison, without a diagnosis in treatment, don't get any better, and when they get let out of jail and prison, they just go back deteriorating until they become a danger to themselves and others. In addition, mandatory prerelease programs were expanded to reduce the backlog of inmates waiting to complete these requirements. In other words, there were a lot more people who wanted to go through these programs because they recognized the benefit to themselves and their families, but they just simply couldn't get into the programs because there weren't enough slots. For example, the expansion of a drug treatment plan brought down wait time from 1 year to 4 months. If you are somebody with a drug problem, and you are told: ``We don't have room for you. Come back in a year,'' that can be, obviously, discouraging and not result in getting them the help they need. Moving the wait time for drug treatment down from 1 year to 4 months moved two-thirds of the waitlist into treatment, after which they were released, only to see a more hopeful and better outcome. In Texas, the model worked. Not only did we avoid building new prisons, we have actually closed eight prisons in Texas. Again, this sounds a little shocking if you are from other parts of the country where you hear about our tough-on-crime reputation, but because of these reforms, we were actually able to close eight prisons because they were no longer needed. We quickly saw a reduction in both incarceration and crime rates by double digits at the same time. To me, this is the essence of criminal justice reform. There are some who say: We need to do criminal justice reform because, well, we simply imprison too many people. There are others who say: Well, we imprison people for offenses that are disproportionate to what they have done. To me, the essence of criminal justice reform is reducing the crime rate--in other words, increasing and improving public safety. Other States took notice of what was happening and started to do the same. Georgia, Rhode Island, and North Carolina quickly followed suit, and we have seen several other States across the United States adopt similar reforms. When I say we saw a reduction in both incarceration and crime rates, let me give a couple of numbers. From 2005 to 2016, Texas's FBI index crime plummeted by more than 34 percent. In the same period, the incarceration rate dropped 23 percent. Those are pretty shocking and surprising numbers. The crime rate went down 34 percent, and the incarcerate rate dropped 23 percent. You would think the opposite would be true--that with incarceration rates going down, the crime rate would go up--but because of these visionary programs and reforms, they simply worked in tandem to both reduce the incarceration rate and improve public safety at the same time. It is clear now, based on experience, that these reforms and outcomes are real. I have been working with my colleagues in the Senate Judiciary Committee since 2013 to try to bring these reforms now to the national level. The FIRST STEP Act is our opportunity to do just that this week in the Senate. Thanks to the primary sponsors of the FIRST STEP Act--the Senator from Illinois, who has joined us here in the Chamber, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley, Mike Lee, Pat Leahy, and others who have worked on this bill. Sheldon Whitehouse and I worked primarily on the prison reform bill. The current bill has undergone some major improvements over the last few weeks, which I am very proud of. The previous version of this legislation had a number of very positive attributes. In fact, more than three-quarters of the bill was based on the CORRECTIONS Act that Senator Whitehouse and I introduced in 2014, which is the prison reform component of the legislation. But the remainder--the sentencing elements in the bill--was more controversial, and many of my concerns were shared by members of the law enforcement community. As I was gauging where Members stood on the bill, it was clear that many could not support the old version of the bill and needed the primary sponsors of the bill--whom I mentioned a moment ago--to work with them to try to make it more acceptable to law enforcement, which was going to send a signal to many other Senators about whether they should get behind the bill. We have all learned how to get things done here in the Senate, and that is not to just point out the problems with legislation but to listen and work together to find solutions, and that is exactly what we did. We spent a lot of time talking to national law enforcement organizations and those in Texas. I know we all value the input of our sheriffs, police chiefs, and other law enforcement professionals, and we tried to work with them to figure out how we could make this bill stronger. I listened to feedback from our Nation's police officers and sheriffs, and we all got to work. We had meetings, we negotiated, and we compromised with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as well as friends across the Capitol in the House. We also worked with the White House, whom we have all stayed in constant contact with on this issue since the Trump administration took office nearly 2 years ago. Jared Kushner, the President's son-in-law, has been relentless in his pursuit of getting this criminal justice reform bill done, and I know each of us who has been involved in this legislation has talked to him almost on a daily basis, sometimes many times in a given day. This bill is the product of those negotiations and those changes, and I am not the only one who is happy with the result. Since these improvements have been made, the bill has been endorsed by a number of important groups, including the National Association of Counties, the Texas Municipal Police Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the Council of State Governments. I appreciate the dedication and hard work of our colleagues who worked on this to get the bill to where it is today. Before tonight's cloture vote, I want to correct some misconceptions floating around about what this bill will and will not do. There are some who, for example, say that this legislation will put violent criminals and sex offenders back on the streets, which is completely false. Let me say that again because I think it bears repeating. This bill will not allow dangerous, violent criminals to be released early. That is pure fiction. Not everyone is eligible to earn the credits that lead to early release based on their participation in these programs which I talked about a moment ago. This bill specifically lists 48 offenses that disqualify offenders from earning time credits, including crimes such as murder, specified assault, carjacking that results in injury or death, and unlawful possession or use of a firearm by violent criminals and drug traffickers. Simply put, we use the most modern social science evaluation tools to find out who is at low risk of reoffending. They are the ones who get the benefit of these programs because we think these are the ones who are most likely to have a good outcome and not end up back in prison. We have disqualified violent offenders, including anybody who either used or displayed or happened to be carrying a firearm during the course of committing their offense. Those who have not committed one of those crimes aren't automatically eligible. In fact, nobody is automatically eligible for the benefits of this program. As I said, they have to be evaluated to be at minimum or low recidivism risk. That decision isn't made by Congress; it is made by the experienced law enforcement professionals and wardens in the Federal Bureau of Prisons who work with these men and women every day. It is important that we look at people who are at low risk of recidivism and low risk to public safety in the community because what we can do is use the resources not to keep people like that behind bars unnecessarily but to focus on the truly violent criminals who are not likely to be rehabilitated because, frankly, they don't want to be rehabilitated. Focusing on the most dangerous criminals and keeping them behind bars, while providing relief to those who earned that time credit, just makes common sense. Some people are falsely claiming that the FIRST STEP Act will retroactively release illegal immigrants and top-level drug traffickers by increasing the good time credit by 7 days a year. Again, that is simply not true. All the bill does is clarify Congress's original intent when it comes to good time credit. Good time credit is different from the earned credit for participating in these various programs. But you can imagine how important this is to the safety of the jailers, wardens, and public law enforcement officials in the prisons because it gives inmates hope that if they lead exemplary lives while in prison, they have greater hope of earning good time credit and getting out earlier. All this does is clarifies Congress's original intent that 54 days of good time credit be available rather than the 47 days that the Bureau of Prisons had interpreted under previous law that was more ambiguous. So that is not a change to what Congress intended but merely a clarification of preexisting congressional intent. In addition, some of the bill's detractors are claiming it will allow gang members and high-risk inmates to be transferred to lower security prisons in order to be closer to their homes. This, too, is false. Gang members and high-risk inmates will not be transferred to lower security prisons under this bill. While the bill does call for inmates to be transferred to a prison within 500 miles of their release residence, that only applies if there are no security concerns and is subject to availability of beds and other conditions. For example, a member of the dangerous MS-13 gang is held in maximum security over 500 miles from their release residence. There happens to be a minimum-security prison within 500 miles of their release residence. They would not be transferred. We simply don't transfer violent criminals to medium-security prisons because they happen to be within 500 miles of their residence. There has been a lot of mythology, misunderstanding, and misrepresentation of what is in the bill. The goal of this bill is not to release broad swaths of criminals--in fact, it is just the opposite. This legislation allows prisons to help criminals transform their lives, if they are willing to take the steps and responsibility to do so, so that we are not perpetuating the cycle of crime that continues to plague communities across the country and to drain taxpayer dollars in the process and damage public safety. I thank all of our colleagues who have worked so hard on this legislation. I think one of the most important attributes of a legislator--certainly of a Senator--is to listen to our constituents, listen to the feedback from our Members, and help build a better bill that will garner significantly more support than it otherwise would have had. I am confident that the Senate will pass this bill, and we can soon send it to the President's desk for his signature. Madam President, I yield the floor. Recognition Of The Minority Leader

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I can say with great confidence that Nevada and the Senate and the country are better for Dean Heller's service to our Nation. We know Dean is a smart guy. He is so smart that when I was chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2010 and was trying to get him to run for the U.S. Senate, he declined to do so, only to then run in 2012 and, obviously, he succeeded. I know there are many others who would like to speak and pay tribute to Dean, and I won't take but a moment. Of course, one of the things I remember most about Senator Heller is his optimism. I also particularly appreciate his comment about things he has done to help ordinary Nevadans that do not involve major pieces of legislation. He certainly played a part in major legislation like the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, but Dean's efforts to also pass legislation like the SAFER Act, which helps our law enforcement agencies reduce the rape kit backlog--Dean's efforts on the Federal level, coupled with State level reforms, played a role in making it possible for nearly 8,000 untested sexual assault kits in Nevada to be sent to labs for testing. Dean's commitment to our veterans led to his bill, the Veterans Urgent Access to Mental Healthcare Act. I appreciate his reminding us that sometimes the most important work we do is what we call casework. When veterans come to us and say ``I am not getting access to the healthcare that I have earned by virtue of my military service'' or when a senior says ``I am not getting my Social Security benefits'' or sometimes when people contact us and say ``I have relatives who can't enter the country because they can't get a visa''--these are the kinds of things that people will never forget. They are the sorts of acts of individual kindness and generosity that, with a true attitude of public service, people will never forget. Sometimes these efforts amount to some of the most meaningful work that we can do and that our staff can do. So I have every confidence that we will see and hear a lot more from Dean and Lynne, no matter what they do. It is clear to me that Dean has his priorities right: family first, faith, and then service to our country. Dean, we are going to miss you, but we look forward to staying in touch with you and Lynne, as friends do, and we wish you all the luck. Given your talent for working on cars, which is one of the things I think is particularly noteworthy, you will be my first call if I need my transmission fixed. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all future votes in the series be 10 minutes in length.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the joint resolution before us today will impact U.S. operations with allies beyond the Saudi-led coalition; it will affect our relationships with allies beyond the Saudi-led coalition against Houthi forces in Yemen, which is literally a proxy battle against Iran. Members of this Chamber assert that this resolution is confined to Yemen and sends a strong message to Saudi Arabia. I disagree with that. This resolution also sends a message to our allies that question the reliability of the United States as a partner. It brings into question valuable U.S. intelligence-sharing operations around the globe, including with Israel and other regional allies, like Jordan, Japan, South Korea, and NATO. Further, it risks emboldening Iran and global adversaries who intend to fill the voids left by our absence. Russia and China have been actively expanding their presence in the region and will see this as an opportunity to fill the vacuum. Senator Inhofe and I offer this amendment to reassure Israel and our regional partners that the United States intends to honor our commitments as the leader of the free world.

Mr. CORNYN. The amendment says: ``Nothing in this joint resolution shall be construed to influence or disrupt any military operations and cooperation with Israel.''

Mr. CORNYN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendments, Nos. 4090 and 4095, be made pending and reported by number.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be considered en bloc.

Mr. CORNYN. I appreciate the bipartisan support for the amendments and hope they can be adopted by voice vote, en bloc.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I have been sitting here listening to all of the accolades being given to our friend Orrin Hatch, and I didn't hear a word I disagree with. As a matter of fact, rather than offering my prepared remarks, I ask unanimous consent that they be made part of the Record following my verbal remarks. Let me just spend a couple of minutes talking about the Orrin Hatch that I know. I first met Orrin Hatch in 1990, when I was a candidate for the Texas Supreme Court. We had an event in Dallas, TX, and, lo and behold, who would be the star attraction? It certainly wasn't me. Who would be the star attraction of this event? It was Senator Orrin Hatch, famous for his work on the Senate Judiciary Committee, having served there for virtually his entire career in the Senate. Of course, he lent tremendous gravitas to that event, which would otherwise have been forgotten, including by me, in a short time. But it was indicative to me of the importance that Orrin has always placed on the independent Judiciary in our country, and we heard how many judicial nominations he has participated in and how many Supreme Court Justices whose confirmation proceedings he has participated in. What I will always remember about Orrin is his generosity, his kindness, and his faithfulness when it comes to the rule of law and the role of our independent Judiciary. Recently, we had a debate in our conference at one of our lunches. Orrin is so famous for encouraging, as we heard from the Senators from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe and Mr. Lankford. He is famous for being an encourager. I can't think of any one of us who hasn't had Orrin Hatch come up to us at some point during the day and say: You are doing a great job. Keep it up. Actually, the joke was that Orrin has told so many of us that he loved us, that one of our colleagues said: Well, he told me he loves me most--hoping we would be jealous, I guess. But the truth is, Orrin has a heart as big as all the outdoors. At a time when people wonder about the future of our country and the character of the people who serve our country and government, he is a shining example of exactly what should cause them to keep faith for the future of this country. As long as we have men and women of the character of Orrin Hatch serving in the U.S. Government, we have nothing to worry about. Let me just say to my friend Orrin, thank you for being my friend. Thank you for being a great example for all of us to emulate. There is nothing more powerful in life than a good example, as Orrin has helped us realize. We wish you and Elaine and your family all the best. As the Scripture says: You fought the good fight, you finished the race, and you kept the faith. We love you for it. Today, I have the difficult task of trying to sum up the work of a great Senator, a valued colleague, and a great friend. While this is a familiar reality every other December, it doesn't make the task any easier--especially when it comes to saying farewell to Senator Orrin Hatch. It is rare to find such a combination of wit and grace, humor and humility. But we find that in him, and the combination works. He is the American Dream personified, a shining example of where hard work and determination can get you in life. Orrin's story starts in Pittsburgh from humble beginnings with parents who worked for every cent they earned. Back then, in his words, he had to ``fight for everything,'' and he meant that both literally and figuratively. After a bully shoved a young Orrin on the playground, he went home, stuffed a duffel bag with sand, and hung it from a tree in his yard. He punched that bag for hours, and when it came time to stand up to another playground foe, he won. As he and his wife Elaine built their young family, he built a home for them himself, converting an old chicken coop. Elaine counts their time there as some of her happiest memories. It is this drive to succeed no matter what the circumstance that lit a fire in Orrin and made him a star in the courtroom and later, in this chamber. Orrin has served as a mentor to me and to so many others in Congress. Our friendship goes back before my time in the Senate to when I was running for the Texas Supreme Court. Orrin came to Texas to headline an event for me and the Chief Justice. It was an outsized act of kindness for someone of his stature in the U.S. Senate, and an act I have never forgotten. We have continued that friendship and partnership on a wide range of issue areas, but often on one topic we find increasingly important for both our states: trade. I have been fortunate to benefit from Orrin's leadership on the Senate Finance Committee as chair of the trade subcommittee, especially as we worked to pass Trade Promotion Authority. Although these trade agreements are complex, they are not faceless: they affect whether or not an American family can put food on their table. Orrin recognized that TPA is an integral trade tool to ensure American workers and businesses get the best deal possible in pending trade agreements. And passing it was a true team effort. Nearly everything I have done with Chairman Hatch on the Finance Committee has been to help American families, and that is something Orrin keeps at the forefront of his mind with each vote we take in committee or here on the floor. It drove his work during our efforts on tax reform, his most historic achievement to date. He led the entire conference masterfully, providing steady guidance and keeping our goal of putting more money back in the pockets of hard working Americans in mind. Orrin has also served as the Chairman of the Judiciary and HELP Committees and has had over 800 bills signed into law--more than any living Senator. He has not let party lines stop him from getting things done. He joined with Senator Ted Kennedy on the Children's Health Insurance Program. He worked to lower the price of prescription drugs. He pushed the Americans with Disabilities Act over the finish line. A lot of his ideas for legislation come from his deeply held convictions and his passions in life. A devout Mormon and believer that all Americans should be able to practice the religion of their choice, he worked across the aisle to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. His love of music led him to partner with fellow musician Senator Lamar Alexander on the Music Modernization Act, now law. It was the first sweeping update of our music copyright laws in 20 years, and it allows artists to get the royalties they are due. Orrin, a prolific songwriter, has had hits included in movies and his songs range from the serious, like a tribute to his brother Jesse who died in World War II, to the patriotic, like his ballad, ``America Rocks!'' Through all of his work, Orrin has been driven by a belief that he would make a difference in the lives of Americans. It is this service mentality--guided by his strong faithk--that continues to be an inspiration to us all. Although he attributes his success to hard work, he also knows he has been given special talents by his Maker. Orrin once said, ``There's no question that God has helped me throughout my life, and I don't want to let him down.'' I believe our colleagues would join me in saying that Orrin, you have not let him down. I challenge my colleagues to outwork Orrin Hatch. I am not sure it can be done, but we would be a better Chamber for it. I think it is safe to say that my colleagues and I will miss the laughter and wisdom of this man, and we are beyond grateful for his countless contributions to this country, this institution, and to his beloved state over an outstanding career. I want to thank him for his service and bid him farewell. Senator Hatch's legacy will live on through our work, we will make sure of it. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this morning the majority leader announced that the Senate will soon take up a revised version of the FIRST STEP Act, which will provide a number of long-needed reforms to our criminal justice system. I have long been a supporter of these reforms after I saw the positive impact in my home State of Texas back in 2007. Then, in response to a steadily growing prison population, Texas began enacting reforms to reduce recidivism through programs like job training and vocational education. This, of course, allows prisoners to spend their time in prison preparing themselves for life outside of prison. The results were pretty significant. We saw a reduction in both incarceration and crime rates by double digits at the same time. Let me say that again. We saw a reduction in both incarceration and crime rates by double digits at the same time. Not only does this lead to massive savings of taxpayer dollars, it is an investment in the men and women who are committed to turning their lives around. What we like to say is that Texas has long been known for being tough on crime. But in 2007, we finally decided to be smart on crime, too, recognizing that people who went to prison almost entirely got out of prison at some point. The question is, How prepared were those who were willing to work to turn their lives around for life on the outside? For years, I tried to bring this successful Texas model to Washington, DC, and now we have a piece of this legislation before us that will take these reforms nationwide. More than 75 percent of the bill we will be voting on is my prison reform legislation that I originally introduced with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. The great thing about the laboratories of democracy known as the States is that we can actually test some of our theories at the State level to see whether they work. In the case of prison reform, when they do work, we can then scale it up so it applies to the entire Nation. Today, there are more than 180,000 inmates in the Federal criminal justice system. The Federal Bureau of Prison's budget has doubled to approximately $7 billion over the last decade. We have an opportunity to save lives by reducing the crime rate for each of those prisoners who does not recidivate when they get out of prison and conserve tax dollars, as well as to create a criminal justice system that works for, not against, the American people. Let me be clear. This is not about letting people out of prison who shouldn't be let out of prison; this is about people who have served their time and are going to be leaving prison and making sure that they at least have available to them some of the tools they need in order to transform their own lives. I am not so naive as to think that every person will take advantage of that opportunity, but we know from experience at the State level that there is a significant percentage of offenders who will take advantage of the opportunity to turn their lives around. That is why I was proud to work with the White House and my colleagues here in Congress--especially, as I mentioned, Senator Whitehouse and Congressman Doug Collins in the House of Representatives--to advance these reforms. Earlier this year, we passed the bill out of the House with strong bipartisan support, and I have worked with my colleagues here in the Senate as the bill has changed and developed--and, I believe, for the better. Unfortunately, some members of the law enforcement community have raised concerns about the bill. Out of my respect for our law enforcement organizations, I spoke with many of my Republican colleagues about the bill. Originally, they said they were unable to support it or were undecided because they wanted to make sure we were doing everything we could to address the concerns raised by law enforcement organizations. So we went to work trying to make improvements in the bill, which I believe we succeeded in doing. I want to express my gratitude to Senator Durbin, who is the principal Democratic sponsor, Senator Lee, Senator Grassley, and others who worked on this and say how much I appreciate their willingness to try to get to yes and come up with something we can pass with strong bipartisan support. I also wanted to make sure we talked to the stakeholders--the police officers who patrol the streets, the sheriffs who work in each of our States and counties--about their concerns. I believe we have worked hard and successfully to address many of them. I don't necessarily believe all of them will agree with every single piece in this bill, but I think, on the whole, it does balance the interests of our law enforcement personnel with the needs of our society to better prepare people so that when they come out of prison, they will not likely repeat their mistakes, in every case that is possible. As I say, I think we made some big improvements. The revised legislation will keep dangerous and violent criminals who use guns to commit crimes from being released from prison early. They will not be eligible for any sort of earned time release. It will also limit the amount of time that offenders can spend on supervised release and ensure that the Bureau of Prisons will revoke prerelease custody for offenders who violate the terms of their supervision. I appreciate all of the work of our colleagues in the Senate who chose to roll up their sleeves and get to work rather than just complain about what was or was not in the bill. I am proud to announce that I will cosponsor this new and improved version of the bill, and I encourage all of my colleagues to review it and hopefully join me in supporting this legislation. I look forward to working with everybody in this body, as well as our colleagues in the House, to get this bill over the finish line. I know, when we produce the bill in the House and the Senate, President Trump will sign it. He has encouraged the majority leader, Senator McConnell, to put this bill on the floor even in this short window of time we have during the lameduck session, and the majority leader has accommodated the President's request by saying that we will address this before we go home for Christmas Funding the Government Mr. President, on another matter, the clock is ticking, of course, and we are quickly approaching the deadline to fund the Federal Government. My Republican colleagues and I stand ready to advance our remaining appropriations bills, but it really depends on what our Democratic colleagues decide to do. Seventy-five percent of the government is already funded through bipartisan cooperation on the passage of appropriations bills, and that is something we haven't done for a long time. But there is still critical funding--particularly for the Department of Homeland Security, for the FBI, and for the Department of Justice--that needs to be taken care of before we break for the holidays. Earlier today, we know that Democratic Leader Senator Schumer and Minority Leader Pelosi met with President Trump to figure out whether there is any room for agreement to resolve the dispute between them. The question is, really, What is the appropriate amount of money in this bill to fund border security? The President said he wants $5 billion. Senator Schumer has said $1.6 billion ought to be enough. Obviously, there is a gap between them. Some people have said: Well, we ought to just shut down the government over this dispute. I don't see the wisdom in that because when you shut down the government because you are unable to resolve a dispute, when you reopen the government, usually what happens is that same problem is staring you in the face. What we need to do is to work together with the administration to come up with a solution rather than resort to tactics like a government shutdown with all the complications that involves. I don't think shutdowns play well for either Republicans or Democrats, for the White House or the Congress. The problem, it seems to me, is that our Democratic friends are listening to some of the fringes of their own political party who are now telling them: Don't do anything that President Trump wants. Anything President Trump wants, the answer is no. Well, that is more about politics than it is about doing our job as legislators trying to solve problems. It also appears that they seem to think that the continued status quo along our border is good enough, and they are more than willing to gamble with a partial government shutdown than work with the President to ensure that our border is secure. Somewhere along the way, our friends across the aisle have forgotten that border security should be about protecting the American people from the drugs that come across the border--90-plus percent of the heroin consumed in the United States comes from Mexico--or the children and women who are trafficked for sex or the migrants who come from Central America, up through Mexico, and into the United States, and the cartels charging roughly $8,000 a person. It is a huge moneymaking business, but the people who are getting rich are the transnational criminal organizations and drug cartels. We have seen before what happens when the government shuts down. It affects millions of people across the country and often yields no different result. We have seen what happens when we fail to secure the border. That is why we need to finish our work funding the government and, by doing that, also recognize the importance of a secure border. This should not be about partisan politics or listening to your political base; this ought to be about doing our job. We had the midterm elections; now is the time to govern. Just a few weeks ago, our friends across the aisle wanted to magnify the migrant crisis by focusing narrowly on the news coming out of Tijuana, Mexico, across the border from San Diego. Some talked about the crisis as if it were a one-off event, an isolated event. They wanted us to look at this like we were looking through a soda straw and ignore all of the context and the consequences of failing to secure our border. They wanted to ignore how we find ourselves with this humanitarian crisis in the first place. The caravans of men, women, and children who left their homes in Central America and made the long, dangerous journey to the United States are sadly symptoms of a far greater problem. Our border has been exploited for years, contributing to this crisis. That is why ensuring additional resources for border security is an essential piece of the puzzle. My home State of Texas is on the frontline--1,200 miles of common border with Mexico. Texas is home to many vibrant border communities that greatly benefit from having some of the busiest land ports in the country, across which legitimate trade and commerce travels. As I said, we are also on the front row of the many challenges that come along with an unsecured border when it comes to public safety. Yesterday I talked about some of those challenges: striking a balance between a secure border and a completely closed border. A secure border maintains the flow of legitimate goods and services while deterring cartels from shuttling illegal contraband across our borders. A closed border would cut off trade and commerce that is the lifeblood of our economy, which brings me to another challenge--something that I think in Washington there is simply not enough awareness of; that is, the cartels, gangs, and the transnational criminal organizations that get rich exploiting our porous borders. Some like to think of these organizations as a ``them, not us'' problem because they have taken control over large parts of Central America and even Mexico, but the business of these groups does not stay there. What happens in Central America, what happens in Mexico does not stay in Central America and Mexico. It comes flooding across our borders. These gangs and cartels are very shrewd and adapt to changing circumstances. They found, the more our borders and ports of entry are clogged with migrants and migrant families, the easier it is to traffic people, drugs, and contraband into the United States. That has a reciprocal effect, too, causing legitimate trade, travel, and commerce to slow significantly at our ports of entry. It is not only exploitation of our border that poses a threat, it is the violence and the instability caused by the cartels and gangs. That makes it not just a border security issue but a national security issue as well. My friend and fellow Texan, Representative Henry Cuellar--a true blue dog Democrat, as he says--has a great saying for how we should think about this. He likes to say that border security starts in Central America and ends at our border. I think that is exactly right. In other words, you don't mount a goal line defense at a football game. You actually start contesting the game farther down the field. In this case, the game needs to be contested in the places where these migrants and the drugs emanate, from where they start. We are going to have to work more closely in partnership with Mexico and other Central American governments to address the violence these groups spread by restoring public trust in law enforcement and stabilizing the economy and these countries. I spoke with my friend, the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein. She represents a border State. She and I have partnered on a number of national security law enforcement matters. She said she was interested in working together in a bipartisan way to address the challenges presented by Central America and Mexico. I said: Absolutely. Sign me up. Representing a border State, as you might suspect, I make it a point to talk to those who live and work in our border communities. It is a unique part of the United States. I like to say, the concept that people in Washington, DC, have about the borders has been learned from movies and novels; it is not from talking to people or visiting with the communities along the border. That is not a criticism. That is just a fact of life. When I hear from people like Manny Padilla, who is the Border Patrol's sector chief for the Rio Grande Valley, I can better understand how much is required to maintain situational awareness and operational control of the border, not to mention personal safety of the Border Patrol, who more and more are frequently assaulted with rocks and other makeshift weapons that endanger their safety and their lives. For those who may not be at the border every day, it is hard to grasp the range of topography across the 1,200-mile border that Texas shares with Mexico. It can be hard to imagine how many resources are actually needed. In some places, there are high mountains and cliffs and others, there is thick brush. In the urban areas that surround our ports of entry, there is plenty of opportunity to race across the border and blend in, never to be heard from again. There will be places where physical infrastructure will make the most sense. In some places, technology or personnel is more effective than a fence. The point is, the border security is complex. Better enforcement of our border will require a combination of infrastructure, technology, and personnel. That begins with ensuring we have the resources we need to implement a border enforcement strategy. That is what this issue is all about--the discussion Ms. Pelosi, Senator Schumer, and President Trump had today. My question for our Democratic colleagues is, Why will you not help us secure the border? Are you satisfied with the status quo of drugs coming across the border through these transnational criminal organizations? Are you satisfied with the status quo of these caravans--thousands of migrants from Central America trying to storm our ports of entry and literally closing them down so legitimate trade and commerce cannot occur? Securing our border and protecting our country should not be a partisan issue; it is something we ought to be able to work out and agree on. We know the challenges our friend Senator Schumer has--the Democratic leader on the other side. He has a cadre of people auditioning for the Presidential nomination in 2020, and they are trying to outdo each other in their impending runs for President. I think, in many ways, his hands are tied. Like every leader, he has to decide when to say yes and when to say no to the people in your conference. Minority Leader Pelosi has a delicate task of trying to cajole her new and emboldened Members of the far-left wing of her caucus. They are both trying to fend off outside groups that think that even talking to President Trump on this issue may mean it will be subject for the next attack or perhaps a primary campaign. I don't envy the spot they are in, but it is a game of political chicken, and they are playing it among themselves. The reality is, President Trump is in the White House, and our Democratic colleagues need to work with him and us to try to move the country forward, to try solve these problems, as hard as they may be. The American people are the losers when their elected officials decide their political image and their political aspirations matter more than the people they represent in their respective States. As I said, so far, the Congress has worked together in a bipartisan manner to pass roughly 75 percent of the government funding. We shouldn't let that bipartisan spirit fail us now. Finishing our work and securing our border shouldn't be an occasion to turn the end of the year into a political sideshow. I think the American people do not need any more sideshows and circuses in Washington, DC. They want results, and they want us to own up to our responsibility and do our duty. Border security is an issue where we should be able to find common ground, and funding the government is, of course, one of our most basic responsibilities. The point should be made that we have already found common ground on many of these issues before. Several of our colleagues on the other side who are still serving in this Chamber, including Senator Schumer, supported passage of the Secure Fence Act in 2006. How that is different from what President Trump is requesting now is lost on me, when they agreed that 700 miles of border should be secured by a fence. I should also note that the Secure Fence Act was also supported by then-Senators Obama, Biden, and Clinton. This should not be a partisan issue. I hope all of our colleagues will choose to get to work, roll up our sleeves, and do our duty. Not only do we have the chance to fund the government and keep the lights on but we also have a chance to put ourselves that much closer to a secure border and helping end the migrant crisis. I yield the floor.