Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill ) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, McHenry, IL, lost one of its favorite sons on November 21. Donald Doherty was the mayor of McHenry from 1961 to 1973. He was a county board member for 20 years. He was a husband, a father, grandfather, a veteran of the U.S. Army, and someone who truly loved his community. He was 91 years old. If you go down Green Street in McHenry, you will come to the intersection of Pearl Street and Green Street and a sign for Honorary Donald P. Doherty Drive. Donald loved living in McHenry. People could always find Donald along Green Street at St. Patrick's Church or at city hall or at his family's drug store, Bolger Drugs. McHenry and his family were his life. Before Donald became mayor in 1961, he ran the Bolger Drug Store. He was famous for going out of his way to help customers. If his store didn't have it, he would make sure the customer got it. The community rewarded him by choosing him to be mayor for 12 years. His love of the community continued well after his time as mayor. He went on to serve as a member of the county board, the Knights of Columbus, and the McHenry Area Chamber of Commerce where he received the chamber's highest honor, the Frank E. Low Award. Donald often would consult succeeding mayors if they needed help. During McHenry Fiesta Days, you could find him as the parade marshal. Donald helped make McHenry a better place to live for people. He loved car rides, playing bingo with his friends at the McHenry Country Club, and he missed playing Scrabble with his late wife, Rosalie. He leaves behind 10 children and 21 grandchildren.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to thank a remarkable woman whose commitment to justice has helped more people in my State and in our Nation than she will probably ever know. Her name is Cathy Hurwit. For the last 20 years, she has served as chief of staff to my friend from Chicago, Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky. Cathy Hurwit is retiring from public service at the end of this year. This week, as she was packing up her office in the Rayburn building, a coworker happened to see her pull a photo from a drawer and pack it away with her books and files. It was a signed photo of Cathy with President Barack Obama. That small incident tells you a lot about Cathy Hurwit. You see, for Cathy, public service has never been about personal gain. She has no use for ``vanity walls'' covered with photos of herself with powerful people. Where others might hang a photo of themselves with a President, Cathy Hurwit hangs a poster from a rally to save Social Security and Medicare. For her, public service has always been about helping others and making our government better and fairer. Cathy Hurwit is an icon in the progressive movement. She is committed to her values, and she is a genius at organizing and legislating. She knows how to use power to help others, whether in the minority or majority. She didn't set out to work on Capitol Hill. Her first job after college was working as an AmeriCorps VISTA volunteer, helping migrant laborers in Utah. She went back to school to earn a master's in journalism. After her first year, she was hired as a summer intern by Congressman Toby Moffett. She never went back to ``J school.'' She worked as Congressman Moffett's energy policy director for 3 years. She then worked as adviser to the Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources of the House Government Operations Committee, followed by 2 years as legislative director for then- Congressman, now Senator, Ed Markey. Cathy left Capitol Hill to become legislative director for Citizen Action, a coalition of progressive organizations, from 1988 to 1997. After that came 2 years as legislative director and healthcare policy expert for the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, one of the great public employee unions in our country. Cathy had vowed never to return to Capitol Hill. Thank goodness, Congresswoman Schakowsky persuaded her to change her mind. Few people know more than Cathy Hurwit about the complexities of healthcare policy or about the consequences of the healthcare policy decisions we make in Congress for ordinary people. If you are among the millions of Americans who are grateful that insurers can no longer deny you coverage or charge you astronomically more for health insurance because of a preexisting medical condition, you can thank Cathy Hurwit. She was fighting for a Patients' Bill of Rights more than 20 years ago. With Congresswoman Schakowsky and others, she helped to include that and other essential protections in the Affordable Care Act. Her work has improved the lives of millions of Americans. While Cathy is leaving the Hill, she is not leaving the fight. I hope that she will find a little more time to enjoy a good show at the Kennedy Center. I know that she will continue to be a force for social justice.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, let me first acknowledge my good friend and my colleague Chuck Grassley, who has just paid tribute to a member of his staff who has served for more than 30 years. I don't know her personally, but we can tell his words were heartfelt and could tell of his appreciation for her public service. On behalf of the Senate, I want to thank her and all of the staff people who make our careers possible. As talented as we may think we are, we wouldn't be anywhere without staffers who are determined to serve the people and serve us. His tribute to his chief of staff--chief of everything, as he described her--was certainly heartfelt from a man I know is a very sincere and positive individual. I just wanted to say those words. Tribute to Joe Donnelly

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I also wanted to add my comments to what was said earlier by the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer, about our departing colleague Joe Donnelly. We are really going to miss him. We are going to miss all four who are not going to be back with us. Joe is my neighbor in the State of Indiana. There is hardly a meeting of Democratic Senators where you don't hear some laughter and look at the center of the meeting and see that it is Joe Donnelly. He makes us all feel good about who we are and what we do, even when some of these assignments we receive are pretty tough. I want to join Chuck Schumer in saying thanks to Joe Donnelly for serving Indiana and for being such a great colleague during these last 6 years. We will miss him.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, on a separate subject, this bill, S. 3747, is a bill which is historic. It is 149 pages, and the first 60 are pages that address prison reform. This bill in its entirety has been endorsed by the political spectrum of America. I would say to Senator Grassley that I can't remember another bill that had this kind of support, left and right, liberal, conservative, Republican, Democrat. It is all there, supporting this legislation. To have a bill that Senator Grassley and I worked on with Senator Lee and Senator Booker tells a story in and of itself--the four leaders on this legislation--but then to consider the fact that President Trump has endorsed it, that Vice President Pence has come to the Republican conference lunch saying he is behind it and urging the Republican caucus to support it as well, really speaks to the political bipartisanship that we rarely, if ever, have seen in Washington. The groups who are behind it are equally amazing. To have the support, on an important criminal justice reform bill, of the Fraternal Order of Police is a great starting point, as far as I am concerned. Then to have the leading prosecutors--the leading criminal prosecutors association--join with the police really tells us that on the law enforcement side, we have the major players. On the other side, incredibly, we have the American Civil Liberties Union supporting this and most of the major civil rights organizations. I think we have really struck a good point here where we have worked and compromised for 5 or 6 years to reach this moment. It is possible that as early as today, this bill will be up for us to vote on, but before we reach that point, there is the possibility of amendments that are going to be offered--three amendments, as we understand it, under the current procedure. I would like to address generally the amendments that will be offered. Senator Cotton of Arkansas is the lead sponsor of these amendments. There are three amendments because Senator Cotton took his original amendment and literally divided it into three pieces, which is his right under the Senate Rules of Procedure. I have taken a look at those--a very close look, I might add--and I want to put on the record some facts that I hope Members of the Senate on both sides will consider when the Cotton amendments come before us on the floor. One of the major elements in Senator Cotton's amendment is ``notification of victims.'' In other words, if we are going to change the status of a person in Federal prison to the point where they may be released early, Senator Cotton suggests that we must--we must--notify crime victims. It sounds reasonable on its face, and it is. In fact, it is so reasonable that we currently have a law that guarantees that. The Crime Victims' Rights Act is the Federal statute, and under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, we say to victims: You have the right to know if a criminal defendant who perpetrated a crime against you is going to have a change in their status as a prisoner. We spell out many other things in about 10 different provisions giving rights to crime victims. This isn't the only guarantee of crime victims learning what is happening to the criminal defendant who perpetrated the crime. It turns out that the Bureau of Prisons does the same thing. They notify crime victims of change in status of the criminal defendant. What is the difference? What is Senator Cotton trying to add to this? He is adding to it an element that is very worrisome, and I am afraid he hasn't thought it through clearly. You see, under the Crime Victims Act, it is up to the crime victim to determine whether they want to be notified. It turns out that over the last 5 years, 10 percent of the crime victims, when given the offer of being notified about a change in status of the criminal defendant, 10 percent of them--about 160,000--have said: No, we don't want to be notified. We have consciously decided. Don't notify us. Why? Why would a crime victim say: Don't notify me. Well, there are a myriad of reasons. Consider the possibility that the victim is an infant or a child who has gone through the horrible experience involved in this crime, and the guardians or parents of that crime victim, who is a child, have decided that they don't want their child to be exposed to all of this information about some criminal defendant, for whatever reason. It could be as a result of psychological counseling. It could be that they don't want them to face retraumatization by going through--reliving that horrible criminal experience. Think of an adult who decides as a crime victim: I want to put this behind me. I don't care to hear anything more about this. My life is going to go on on a separate track, and this is the past. I want to look to the future. So a crime victim--even an adult--can decide, don't notify me. It is their decision. It is not a government decision; it is an individual decision. We give to crime victims the respect and the freedom to decide if they will be notified. Senator Cotton does not. Senator Cotton mandates notification, requires notification of the change in status. That is serious, and it could have a serious impact on someone who has already been victimized, forced into some horrible condition in their life that they would be forced again to revisit again when they do not want it, when they consciously do not want it. What have the crime victims associations said about the Cotton amendment? It is universal--they have said it is wrong, and they have said that in very explicit terms. Let me tell you one group that I think is important for us to consider: the Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice. We believe it is the leading, largest crime victims organization in America. Over 30,000 crime victims are part of this organization to stand up for the rights of those who have been victimized by crime. What do they have to say about the Cotton amendment that would force notification on people who do not want it? Here is what they say: A mandatory notification requirement is contrary to the victim-centered approach of avoiding re-traumatization. Current law and DOJ policy permit a victim to determine whether he or she wants notification of release. A mandate-- The Cotton amendment-- like this requires notification for those who may not want it and could trigger trauma for thousands of victims many years later after the crime. They go on to say: [Bureau of Prisons] data on the release date of any prisoner is publicly available on the [Bureau of Prisons] website. Victim notification is already required by law if victims choose to receive the notice. The Crime Victims' Rights Act provides the right to timely notice of any release. Victim notification already occurs through the [Department of Justice's] Automated Victim Notification System if victims opt to receive the notice. This system is a partnership with the [Bureau of Prisons], the FBI, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and the United States Attorney's Office. It is a free, computer-based system, which provides victims with information on scheduled court events, the outcomes of events, custody status and release dates. In other words, all of the information about the disposition of a criminal defendant is currently available online, easily accessible by crime victims if they choose to receive it. Ten percent of them--1 out of 10--say: No, we don't want to receive it. Senator Cotton, with his amendment, does not respect that decision by the 10 percent and says they will be required to receive it. That is not good for crime victims. It certainly violates the spirit of the Crime Victims' Rights Act, where we leave that decision, when it comes to minors and even adult victims, to the families affected. Why would we override that provision in the law? There is another group who has come forward, a woman by the name of Tricia Forbes, a regional training manager with the Texas-based Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice. In The Hill newspaper that was published this morning, she has a lengthy article opposing the Cotton amendments. Here is what she says: Cotton and Senator Kennedy claim they are trying to protect victims with an amendment to force the Federal Bureau of Prisons to notify victims of a crime when the perpetrator is being transferred to pre-release custody, but their real goal is simply to delay, dilute, and derail the bill. The existing draft of the FIRST STEP Act was the result of careful, bipartisan and bicameral negotiations. By adding their last- minute amendments, Cotton and Kennedy want nothing more than to break up the broad bipartisan coalition that has come together to support this bill. There is also a letter from Anne Seymour, project director for Fairness, Dignity & Respect for Crime Victims & Survivors. This letter, which she sent to all Members of the Senate, says: I write today to urge you to vote No on Senators Cotton and Kennedy's ``Victim Notification'' Amendment. It is clear that Congress can and must do more to support the needs and rights of crime victims and survivors. I am disappointed that almost no elements of the FIRST STEP Act are tailored specifically to the needs of victims. However, Senators Cotton and Kennedy's proposed amendments neither comply with best practices in trauma-informed victim services, nor improve this bill. She closes by saying: I urge you to vote No on Senators Cotton and Kennedy's amendments, and encourage you to offer solutions that are better tailored to identify and address the critical needs of crime victims and survivors in a manner that is survivor- centered and trauma-informed. So crime victims groups have come forward and said that the Cotton amendments would be harmful to crime victims. Those who wish to be notified have every right to be, and they are provided that notification under statute and under existing policy of the Bureau of Prisons. Those who opt out and say ``I don't want to be notified'' should be respected. We should not force this on them. I encourage my friends--those who are considering this bill and discussing it with their staffs--to look closely at what the crime victims organizations say about the Cotton amendments and understand that if we are going to be respectful of these people who have been victimized by crime, we have to vote no on those amendments. The second element that has been raised by Senator Cotton in the amendments relates to the crimes that are listed as making someone ineligible for prison reform programs or early release programs. Our bill is 60 pages long. More than a third of the bill is filled with a list of over 60 different Federal crimes, and we say: If you committed this crime, you are not eligible as a Federal prisoner for the rehabilitation program in this bill. There are 60 different ones that we have added. Members would come up to us--Senator Grassley, myself, Senator Booker, Senator Lee--and say: We think you ought to add such-and-such crime. We would take a careful look at it, and in most cases, we agreed to do it. Let me give an example. Senator Ted Cruz, a conservative Republican from Texas--and I think he wears that label proudly--said he would consider voting for our bill if we would consider adding a number of crimes to the list of crimes that would make a criminal defendant ineligible to ask for help under this bill. We looked at it carefully. There were about six or eight of these that we thought were acceptable. We asked if we could add those to the list--a list of already 60 crimes. Unfortunately, Senator Cotton objected. He did not want that added to the bill. Now it turns out he is going to argue in his amendment that he wants part of the Cruz list to be added at this point. Well, we had a chance to do it, and it was a bipartisan measure, but he objected to our adding it. However, he has one provision in his amendment that goes far beyond Senator Cruz's list or the enumerated crimes that we said make you ineligible. He has created a new category of crime. I have read a lot of definitions over the years, but it is really hard to follow what he is trying to achieve here because, in addition to the enumerated crimes that would make you ineligible, he adds the following: any offense that is not otherwise listed in the subsection for which the offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than 1 year and ``has as an element, the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.'' I have never seen that definition--``physical force against the person or property of another.'' We went to the Sentencing Commission and said: How many crimes would that include? They said: It is impossible to calculate. But we think that at least 30,000 people would be ruled ineligible--by those words that I have just read--who might otherwise be eligible for earlier release. So what he has come up with is his own definition of criminal standard, one which we have never seen before, and he wants that to apply to this bill, which we worked on for 6 years. So I would say, when it comes to the Cotton amendments, Members of the Senate really have a very clear and stark choice: They can support a bill that has been worked on on a bipartisan basis and enjoys the support of police, prosecutors, and those groups which protect our constitutional rights--all together, right and left, supporting; they can support a bill that has bipartisan support here on the floor of colleagues and Members who rarely come together, but we have come together on this bill because we found a good compromise; they can support a bill that has the support of survivors and criminal victims organizations; or they can vote for the Cotton amendments. Supporting the Cotton amendments that are being offered--opposed by crime victims' rights groups across the board, by the leading crime victims' rights groups--is basically saying to these crime victims: We are going to force this information on you whether it is in the best interests of your family, whether you want it or not. That is not respectful of crime victims. I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing the Cotton amendments.

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator. Yesterday, our colleague Senator Cornyn, a Republican from Texas, came forward and said that his State of Texas and other States are showing that they can reduce recidivism--in other words, committing another crime after you are released--by treating prisoners differently in their State prisons. As I said on the floor, you may be shocked to think that Texas would be a leader in this, but they have been, and they have seen a reduction in the incidence of crime and a reduction in the incidence of incarceration--things we like to see happen. Reduce the cost to taxpayers of the prisons, but reduce crime on the streets too. Make sure you do both. He believes they have achieved it. What they did was they looked at programs that work. So what we did was the same thing. Senator Grassley and I, as well as, as you mentioned, Senator Cornyn and Senator Whitehouse, looked at these prison reform programs in the States and said: What can we learn from them? What we did was to establish the obligation of the Attorney General-- this is not the obligation of social workers but the obligation of the Attorney General of the United States to take a hard look at the programs that work for prisoners. What can we do to make sure they don't commit another crime, create another victim, and come back to prison? We spell out exactly what we are looking for: the most effective and efficient, evidence-based recidivism-reduction programs. That is a long title. What that basically means is that we don't want to waste any more time here. We want to focus tax dollars on programs that have proven results, and unless they commit one of the crimes that make them ineligible, we offer these to prisoners. By participating in them, they can reduce the time they serve or be released to a halfway house or something similar to that. That is what this is all about, start to finish, and we believe this will work. What if they mess up in the course of being enrolled in the program? We have a provision in here that says: You are done. You are either going to do this in good faith, positively, without any violations of your responsibilities as a Federal prisoner--we will give you a chance for less time but no nonsense. Good program. Good participation. We hope good results, and we are going to measure it. We are going to come back. The General Accounting Office is going to give us a report on our success--of those who are released, how many turned around and committed another crime? So we are going to take a hard look at this--an honest look, I might say. I believe this is the best way to do it. Make sure it is evidence-based. Make sure it is a fair opportunity for those who want to participate and turn their lives around to do just that. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wanted to thank the Senator from Florida for his kind words of encouragement on this criminal justice reform bill that is pending before the Senate. I thank him. I know his personal interest in this subject. I am going to miss his service and his friendship here in the Senate Chamber. I want to thank him for his many years of serving the people of Florida and for standing by me in many causes. It is rare that one of these causes is so bipartisan, and this one is. I heard the testimony or the statement earlier by the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Kennedy. I count him as a friend. We have cosponsored bills together, and I like him. We disagree on some issues, but we do it in a very positive way, and in the comments I am about to make, I want to be as positive as possible. Senator Kennedy brought a chart to the floor and suggested that there was no support by national law enforcement for the bill that is before us, and he said that most of the State and local law enforcement groups were opposed to it as well. I beg to differ with him. I would like to submit for the record that currently we have the support on this Grassley-Durbin bill from the American Correctional Association, the American Federation of Government Employees, the AFL- CIO, and the Council of Prisons. The very prison guards whom Senator Kennedy referred to on his chart are in support of our position. The Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, the Association of State Correctional Administrators, and the Fraternal Order of Police supports our bill, and, in addition, the International Association of Chiefs of Police. I ask unanimous consent to submit for the Record the remainder of these law enforcement, corrections, and government groups.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, at the heart of the amendments being offered by Senators Cotton and Kennedy is an effort to provide notification to crime victims. I spoke to this early this morning, and I think it bears repeating. It is interesting to note that they are arguing that their amendments are necessary for the sake of crime victims. At the same time, virtually every leading organization in America representing crime victims supports our bill and opposes the amendment being offered by Senators Cotton and Kennedy. Why do they oppose it? Because we already have a law. The law says if you are a victim of crime, you have certain rights written into the statute--some 10 specific areas where you have the right to be consulted or notified if you are a victim and you want to know what is going to happen to the person who is accused of the crime of which you were a victim. It is only right that we do that, and we have done it for a long time. We also have regulatory provisions where the Bureau of Prisons will not release someone without notification to the crime victims. So there is a healthy pattern established by law that victims of crime in the United States have the right to receive all of this information and, in some cases, can actually participate in the proceeding. We voted on that on a bipartisan basis years ago. That is the way it should be. So what does the Cotton-Kennedy amendment add when it comes to crime victims? It adds something that the crime victims organizations oppose. Let me tell you what it is. You have a right as a crime victim to be notified, but you are not mandated and required to be notified. That is your call. It turns out that 10 percent of crime victims over the last 5 years--over 160,000 American crime victims--have chosen not to be informed. They don't want to be notified. Why? Why would they not want to be notified? What if the victim is a child in your family who was the victim of a crime at an early age and you have decided, for the sake of that child or our family, that you want to put this behind you? Don't put me on the list, then, to notify me about what happens with a criminal defendant. We want to put that chapter behind us. We want to move forward as a family. Or perhaps as a crime victim you are dealing with psychological trauma--understandable. You are going through counseling, and you believe that constant reminders about the criminal defendant don't help you get well and don't help you move forward. You can make an individual personal decision--you have the right to make it--that you don't want to be notified. Then, comes the amendment that will be on the floor tonight or tomorrow. The amendment by Senators Cotton and Kennedy says: Forget that; you are going to be notified whether you want to or not. I think that is wrong. Don't take my word for it. Go to the crime victims organizations and ask them what they think. They think this mandatory notification will retraumatize many crime victims. They respect the right for a crime victim to say: I don't want to learn this. I don't want to know about it. Don't send me these notifications. They respect the crime victims and the circumstances, and the Cotton- Kennedy amendment does not. So at the heart of their amendment process, in an effort to ``help crime victims,'' they have drafted a provision that the leading crime victims organizations oppose. No Senator of either party should vote for the Cotton-Kennedy amendments in this bill and believe they are helping crime victims. They are not. The existing law gives all crime victims the right to know and the right to be informed, as well as the right to say: I don't want to know. Don't contact me anymore. I want to put that behind me. That is up to the individuals. The Cotton-Kennedy amendment, unfortunately, moves into new territory and forces this information on people who are not looking for it. In addition to that, they have a list of crimes, if you have committed these crimes and have been convicted--a list of crimes that would be ineligible. You couldn't get the prison reform package that we are talking about, the possibility of early release, if you commit certain crimes. Well, we tried to take care to create a process that was sensitive to this, and we started with a challenge. There were 5,000 Federal crimes. You wouldn't believe how many there are. We had to go through and pick those that clearly should disqualify you from getting any special treatment when it comes to your prison sentence. We came up with a list that was 20 pages long of specific crimes--over 60 crimes--and after we produced the list, Members would come to us and say: Well, what about this crime? Well, if we thought it was a legitimate concern, we added it to the list. So we tried to be as inclusive as possible and to cover the most serious crimes, whether they involve violence or harm to an individual, and to be sensitive to them. Along the way, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas produced a list that he wanted included. We took a good-faith look at it, and we agreed with him on about 8 or 10 of the provisions he made. We said: We will include these in our list. If you committed the crimes that Senator Cruz came up with, you would be ineligible for this prison recidivist program. So we started to put it in the bill, and we thought it was in the bill, incidentally, and we learned it had not been included. We asked for unanimous consent to amend our own bill to include these new categories and, unfortunately, the Republican leadership and Senator Cotton objected. They wouldn't let us include a new list of crimes which would make a person ineligible. That is unfortunate. Sadly, the provision of one of the amendments from Senator Cotton is now attempting to include some of those crimes in his list. We made a good-faith effort to do this on a bipartisan basis, and we will continue to do that. I see the Senator from Pennsylvania has come to the floor. The last point is that there is a provision in one of the Cotton- Kennedy amendments that redefines the crimes that would make you ineligible to participate in this program. It is a new definition. It includes a reference to something that you don't see often--violence to property. I am not sure what that means. The use of physical force on property is in the law in many places, but the terms ``violence against property'' is something that I am not sure what Senator Cotton is trying to achieve with this. It is going to create confusion. Unfortunately, if you add every crime that might involve some damage to property, you can see that it would expand the list dramatically and go way beyond what we are trying to achieve. We are trying to give those incarcerated who truly want to turn their lives around and who truly want to have training and be ready to move forward the opportunity to do just that. So at this point I am going to conclude my remarks. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, when I spoke to Senator Toomey about this issue, it personally struck a chord with me. I recognize that we have had this same debate in the Appropriations Committee. Its champion in the committee is Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma, who has at least for 2 years, or maybe longer, suggested the change the Senator from Pennsylvania brings to the floor. I think he made a compelling argument, and I voted with him for the change he wished to see in the law. We did not prevail in the Appropriations Committee--at least didn't prevail in changing the budget rules--but Senator Lankford, with his effort in the committee, has prevailed in changing the allocation of funds. The amendment Mr. Toomey, the Senator from Pennsylvania, offers creates a new point of order against any CJS appropriations bill if it doesn't spend at least the 3-year average of collections in the Crime Victims Fund. There is good news. Because of Senator Lankford's effort and the support of Senator Shelby, which the Senator from Pennsylvania noted, the amendment is not necessary. Since fiscal years 2015 through 2018, the CJS appropriations bill has spent at least the 3-year average of collections--a total of $12.4 billion--which has been returned to crime victims. So we have, in fact, changed the budget policy that governs how the Crime Victims Compensation fund is distributed. What I would suggest, though, is that this good, worthy issue and battle, which I would be happy to join, does not belong on this bill. In fact, the result could complicate this bill and its passage. We have been working to put this measure together for 6 years, Democrats and Republicans. There were some 82 or more Senators--I know the Senator from Pennsylvania was not one of them--who voted for cloture on this bill because we felt we should move forward in this debate. I might say, some of the amendments the Senator from Pennsylvania said he is going to support for this bill are not helpful. They are opposed by those who are behind the bill. Let's save this budget debate for another day. On behalf of myself and the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I object.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to respond to the statements made by the Senator from Arkansas in terms of the pending business before the Senate. We are close to reaching agreement to bring the underlying bill--the criminal justice reform bill--for a vote this evening. It is a bill that has been literally years in the making. I believe we have discussed it at great length, and we are prepared to make a decision in the Senate. There will be three amendments offered by the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Cotton. After those amendments are offered, then we will launch into another consideration of a change to the bill which has been characterized as a Cruz-Lankford amendment. For the record, we reached an agreement with Senator Cruz about this amendment. We reached an agreement with Senator Lankford about his amendment on a bipartisan basis, and I included a provision in there which required annual reports on the success of this program, so we can measure it carefully and see if it is working as we hoped it would. There were three pieces to this for Senator Cruz, for Senator Lankford, and a piece I offered for this annual report. We accepted that language which will be considered in the Senate. I certainly hope that when the request is made to include that language, the annual report will be included in it so we can move forward very quickly on the three Cotton amendments, as he suggested this evening. We can agree on the Cruz, Lankford, and Durbin amendment. I think that would not create any burden to move on that, and we are in a position to consider final passage this evening. That seems to be the lineup. As I said to Senator Grassley and Senator Lee, my partners in this effort, as well as Senator Booker, worked long and hard on this. We have had police groups, prosecutors, civil liberties groups--all have carefully reviewed this. No one is getting what they wanted completely. This is a product of compromise. That is how you pass a bill in the Senate--at least, that is my experience. This is the strongest bipartisan bill I have seen in terms of Democrats and Republicans working for final passage. It will be significant and historic if we are successful, but I will not presume that until we go through the process of the amendments this evening. I, again, thank my colleagues who have patiently waited for us to reach this moment, but I think we have a chance to even move forward this evening if we reach a basic agreement. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

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

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Rachel Rossi, a detailee on my Judiciary Committee staff, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Congress.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Let me start by joining my colleague, the Democratic leader, in his words about Lamar Alexander--a great Senator and a personal friend, someone I am sorry is going to bring his Senate career to an end in 2 years because he has done so many good things. I could spell out many of those things, but one comes to mind immediately. A few years ago when I was deciding whether to run for reelection myself, I thought one of my goals would be to increase the Federal investment in medical research. That is right in the wheelhouse of the committee jurisdiction of Lamar Alexander. I went to him and his counterpart on the Democratic side, Senator Patty Murray of Washington, and Roy Blunt of Missouri, and we put together an informal team pushing for increases in medical research. We have had amazing success. It has been bipartisan, and it has been an enthusiastic effort all around. We couldn't have done it without Lamar's wholehearted participation. He was committed to medical research, and as a result, we have had more than a 5-percent increase each year for the last 4 years in the budget and appropriations for the National Institutes of Health. That is going to end up creating more opportunities to spare people suffering and to cure disease and to save lives than we can possibly imagine. That is the kind of thing people expect of us, don't they, in the Senate? The Democrats and Republicans will find a common goal and work together to achieve it. Lamar Alexander was part of that successful effort. I am going to hold him to it for the next 2 years, as I am sure he will hold me to the same goal. I look forward to working with him but certainly with some pain in my heart, as the Democratic leader said, with the knowledge his career is coming to an end. He has been an extraordinary public servant as a Governor, as a Presidential candidate, as a Cabinet member, and as a Member of the U.S. Senate. I am sorry for his decision, but I certainly understand why he would make that on a personal and family basis. First Step Act Madam President, I wish to say a few words about the legislation currently pending before the U.S. Senate. Every once in a while--it doesn't happen very often--the stars line up and the Democrats and Republicans and the conservatives and the progressives and the President and the Congress agree on something. I am not talking about Flag Day or apple pie or whether Lassie was a collie dog. It really comes down, occasionally, to something that is meaningful. We are in the midst now of a debate on the floor of the Senate, which will culminate probably tomorrow in some historic votes on the whole question of criminal justice reform. How important is this issue? It is so important that we rarely take it up more than once a decade; that we sit down and look at criminal justice standards and laws in America and decide whether we can make them better and more effective. Just a few minutes ago, my colleague from Texas, Senator Cornyn, a conservative Republican, came to the floor and explained how the State of Texas engaged in prison reform and found out they could not only reduce the prison population but reduce the incidence of crime at the same time. That is what we are setting out to do at the Federal level as well. Senator Cornyn's prison reform measure, which he introduced with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, has been a central part of our conversation on criminal justice reform. I had another part of criminal justice reform that I have been working on for a long time. Three decades ago, Congress responded to our Nation's drug epidemic by creating the harshest mandatory minimum sentences in our history. Consider what happened next as we made the penalties for drug use and sales higher than ever in our history. What happened next was the use of illegal drugs in the United States of America actually increased, just the opposite of what we were trying to achieve. The availability of heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine increased, despite harsh criminal penalties. Crime rates for Federal drug offenders did not go down. In other words, longer prison terms did not deter drug use or drug crime, but they did lead to an explosion in our Federal prisons. Since 1980, the Federal prison population has grown by over 700 percent. Federal prison spending has increased by nearly 600 percent in that period of time. Today, the United States of America holds more prisoners, by far, in prison than any country in the world. America has 5 percent of the world's population, 25 percent of the world's prisoners--more than Russia or China. Our overcrowded Federal prisons consume one-quarter of the Justice Department's discretionary budget. This undermines other important priorities, like preventing crime in our neighborhoods and treating drug addiction. The largest increase in the Federal prison population is for nonviolent drug offenders. This is largely because of the inflexible mandatory minimum sentences. These mandatory penalties don't allow judges to distinguish between drug kingpins, who should be our focus when it comes to criminal penalties, and lower level offenders. That isn't fair. It isn't smart. It isn't an effective way to keep us safe. We also have to consider the racially disparate impact of these laws. Listen, the majority of illegal drug users and dealers in America are White, but three-quarters of the people serving time in prison for drug offenses are African American or Latino. The majority of the users and dealers are White, and three-fourths of those who go to prison for drug crimes are African American and Latino, and the large majority of those subject to Federal mandatory minimum penalties fall into that same group of African Americans and Latinos. As a result of mandatory minimums, the families of nonviolent offenders are separated for years on end. Most of these families are people of color. This has a destructive impact on their communities and erodes faith among them in our criminal justice system. Most Senators don't come to the floor and say what I am about to say, but let me tell you the worst vote I ever cast. I was a Member of the House of Representatives, and it was about 25 or 26 years ago when I voted for a law that established what became known as the crack powder sentencing disparity. That jumble of words means that under this law, it took 100 times more powder cocaine than crack cocaine to trigger the same minimum sentence--100 times. This came to be known as the 100-to-1 crack-to-powder disparity. Under this law 80 percent of the people sentenced for crack cocaine offenses were African American. In 2010 I worked with an unlikely ally, then-Senator Jeff Sessions from Alabama. He was a Republican Senator and a member of the Judiciary Committee, and he felt strongly about this issue. I said to him: Senator Sessions, 100 to 1 isn't fair--that for a tiny handful of crack and a handful of powder cocaine, the handful of crack would get 100 times the sentence as the cocaine doesn't make any sense. We debated back and forth. I thought it should be one to one in the sentencing. He didn't agree, but the day finally came when we had to make a decision. We actually bargained in the Senate gym. I know the Democratic leader referred to that gym earlier. We get a lot of business done there. We were bargaining in the gym on the day of the committee markup--back and forth and back and forth. Finally, the two of us agreed that it would go from 100 to 1 to 18 to 1. I can't tell you why 18, but it was a compromise. It dramatically reduced the disparity in sentencing between crack cocaine and powder cocaine. That Fair Sentencing Act passed the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Senate, the House Judiciary Committee, and the House, and it was signed into law in a very private ceremony by President Obama, which Senator Sessions and I attended. For the last 5 years, I have been working on the next step--a bipartisan coalition of Republican and Democratic Senators to take the next step on reforming our Federal drug sentencing laws. Five years ago I joined up with another unlikely ally--Mike Lee, a very, very conservative Republican from Utah--to introduce a bill called the Smarter Sentencing Act. We had a problem. There was a Republican Senator who didn't like the bill at all. His name? Chuck Grassley, from Iowa, a conservative Republican. Coincidentally, he is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. After a while, I said to Senator Lee: We are going nowhere without Grassley. We have to get him on board if we are going to change the law. It took a year, which is just a few minutes in Senate time. It took a year of negotiating for us to finally reach an agreement that Chuck Grassley and Mike Lee and I all signed on to for sentencing reform. We were joined by Senator Cory Booker in the last year or two, a Democrat from New Jersey. After more than a year of negotiations, we introduced the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act, legislation approved by the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 16 to 5 earlier this year. Around the same time, the House of Representatives passed bipartisan legislation to reform the Federal prison system. This bill was supported--listen to this--by President Donald Trump, cosponsored by Republican Congressman Doug Collins, Democratic Congressman Hakeem Jeffries of New York, and Republican House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte of Virginia. I didn't like the original version of this bill because I thought we could do better and we should add criminal sentencing to prison reform. Then we did something that is rare. We sat down, Democrats and Republicans, and worked it out. We believed that we could come up with a common bipartisan bill by combining the two. The result is the most extraordinary political coalition I have ever witnessed in the time I have been in Washington. The so-called FIRST STEP Act--the revised FIRST STEP Act--is a bipartisan sentencing and prison reform bill that is sponsored by 34 Senators--17 Republicans and 17 Democrats. It is supported by President Trump and a broad spectrum of stakeholders. Listen to who is supporting this bill on criminal sentencing reform and prison reform: the Fraternal Order of Police. That is a good starting point. It is the largest police group in America. There is the National District Attorneys Association, the largest group of prosecutors in America. So we have the police and the prosecutors, and we also have the American Civil Liberties Union. Go figure that a bill we put together could bring these folks together in common purpose to pass it. Our bill would reduce Federal mandatory minimum sentences in a targeted way. We don't repeal any mandatory minimum sentences, and we don't lower any maximum sentences. We would simply allow Federal judges to determine in certain low-level cases, on a case-by-case basis, when the harshest penalties should apply. The bill also puts in place a recidivism reduction program and prison reform that will facilitate the successful rehabilitation and reentry of prisoners, which Senator Cornyn addressed just a few minutes earlier. Let me tell you a story about this man here. His name is Alton Mills. In the year 1994, at the age of 24, Alton Mills was given a mandatory life sentence without parole for a low-level nonviolent drug offense. When Alton Mills stepped into that Federal prison cell with a life sentence, he was stepping into a jail cell for the first time in his life, and he was bound to stay there for the rest of his life. I ended up being contacted by his public defender. She has this wonderful name. She is from Chicago. Her name is MiAngel Cody. MiAngel Cody contacted me and told me Alton Mills' story--how this kid growing up in Chicago, a decent kid in high school, made a bad turn, got mixed up with a drug gang, was a sales runner on the street, which is just the lowest possible level, and on a third offense got a life sentence to spend the rest of his life in prison. I asked President Obama to take a look at this and consider commutation. In December of 2015, after serving 22 years in prison, Alton Mills came home to Chicago. What has he done since then? He has become a mechanic at the Chicago Transit Authority. He got married. He is contributing to society. He has a granddaughter. He is working as a community college student pursuing an associate's degree. If he hadn't received a pardon, Alton Mills was destined to die in prison because of the Federal sentencing laws that we are setting out to change. The FIRST STEP Act would eliminate this mandatory life sentence for nonviolent drug offenders like Alton Mills, and the bill would also give a chance to thousands of people still serving sentences for nonviolent offenses involving crack cocaine under the 100-to-1 standard I mentioned earlier. I am going to have more to say about the pending amendments, which will be brought up tomorrow. The Senator from Arkansas is going to offer three amendments that I consider to be poison pills. After 6 years of hard work putting these bills together--Democrats and Republicans, police, prosecutors, the ACLU, and President Trump and Senator Durbin together on a bill--now comes the Senator from Arkansas, who has introduced three amendments which I think are very destructive to this bill. I am going to oppose all three of them, and I hope he will think twice about them. We have an opportunity to do something significant, historic, and bipartisan here for the good of this Nation. We could end up reducing the crime rate in our country and do it in a smarter way with sentencing and prison reform. The amendments that he will propose tomorrow--the Senator from Arkansas--have been opposed by groups across the board--left and right, conservative, progressive, Republican, and Democrat. They all oppose his amendments. I am not going to get into a specific discussion about them until later, but I wanted to let the Senator from Arkansas know that we are hopeful that he will take a more constructive approach. If he goes with the amendments that we have seen, we are going to have to do our best to oppose him. Some are going to suggest that the underlying bill doesn't go far enough to unwind the harsh mandatory sentencing that I mentioned earlier. I agree. But that is the nature of legislation. It is the nature of compromise. It is what the Senate is all about. A Republican- controlled Senate is considering a bill supported by Senators from both sides of the aisle, and we have a chance to do something. Congress should make this bipartisan legislation a fitting ending to this year. For all of the cynicism and skepticism about what Congress can achieve, we can prove as soon as tomorrow, with one of the most historic changes in criminal justice legislation in our history, that we can work together for the good of this Nation. Our people who send us to this job expect no less. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I rise today to address the saddest and one of the most depressing issues of the moment, and that is the drug epidemic that faces America. The reality of this drug epidemic is felt in every corner of this country. There is no suburb too wealthy, no town too small, no place in this country that hasn't been touched by the opioid and heroin epidemic. The Centers for Disease Control put out a statement this morning that is important for us to truly understand this drug epidemic. What the Centers for Disease Control said is that fentanyl has become the deadliest drug in the United States. On Wednesday, they reported that fentanyl was involved in more deadly drug overdoses in 2016 than any other drug. There was a total of 63,632 drug overdose deaths in 2016, with fentanyl found to be involved in nearly 29 percent of those cases. By comparison, fentanyl was involved in only 4 percent of drug fatalities just 7 years ago--in 2011. That year, oxycodone ranked first; it was involved in 13 percent. Lawmakers are struggling to deal with the sweeping opioid epidemic, and the CDC data shows that the problem goes further than the overprescription of opioid drugs. From 2011 to 2016, cocaine consistently ranked second or third. During the study period, the age-adjusted rate of drug overdose deaths involving heroin more than tripled, as did the rate of drug overdose deaths involving methamphetamine. Why do I bring up this issue of fentanyl? Because if you are discussing border security in America, you are talking about a number of things. You are talking about those who would assault our borders for a variety of reasons. You are talking about people who present themselves at our borders for a variety of reasons. Let me try to make several concessions here that I think both parties agree with. First, America needs border security. We cannot allow every person in the world who wishes to come to this country entry into this country. Second, we know people are trying to ship into this country things that are deadly and items that are contraband, that should not be part of America. Third, we don't want anyone who is dangerous outside of our country to knowingly come into this country. Those who are here undocumented, if they are dangerous to our country, should be removed. I hope that you would agree there is unanimous consensus on those three points. The third point I am going to make and not dwell on at this moment is the fact that our immigration legal system is in shambles. It is awful. We currently are placing in tent camps on the border with Mexico hundreds and hundreds of children because of a circumstance created by this administration, which is almost impossible to understand or to explain. But I want to focus specifically on fentanyl--on this drug fentanyl, which the CDC has told us is the deadliest drug in America today, overwhelmingly the deadliest drug in America today. Where does it come from? Much of the production is in China, but it is produced in other places. Much of it transits into the United States across that Mexican border. So when we talk about border security and stopping the drug epidemic in America, let's be honest about it. Building a wall from one side of the United States to the other does not stop the flow of fentanyl into our country. Fentanyl is coming in through ports of entry--openings, legal openings--in the wall. We heard yesterday from the experts that some 80 percent of the drugs that flow into the United States from Mexico come through our ports of entry. They are not putting them in backpacks and storming across the desert at night, trying to come across the Rio Grande. That may be a part of some effort, but when it comes to the deadliest of drugs coming into the United States, they are coming through our ports of entry. What can we do about it? Well, the interesting thing we can do about it is to look at the obvious. I asked one of the experts, a Mr. McAleenan, who is with the Customs and Border Protection system--he does this for a living. I asked him last year: If I gave you a blank check and said ``Make our borders safer with Mexico,'' what would you spend it on? He said two things immediately: technology and personnel. That makes sense. I said: Give me an idea of the kind of technology you think would make America safer. He said: There is something called a Z-Portal. I had never heard the term before. A Z-Portal is a scanning device; if you drive a car or a truck across our border, it scans it, x rays it, and can tell basically what is inside. If you are trying to smuggle people in the back of a semitruck, it will show it. If you have firearms, it will show it. It will show contraband that is not supposed to be part of the declared shipment that is coming into the United States. Doesn't it sound like a good idea to try to make sure that anything entering this country has been scanned? Well, it turns out that 98 percent of the railroad cars that come into the United States are scanned. That is good news. I wish it were 100 percent, but 98 percent is good. What percentage of other vehicles coming into the United States are scanned currently? Eighteen percent. Fewer than one out of five vehicles are scanned. I asked Mr. McAleenan, when he appeared before our Judiciary Committee this week: Why not more? He said: Well, we need to buy more technology. We need to buy more scanners so that we can spot those who are trying to ship people or contraband or drugs into the United States. I said: Well, I looked at President Trump's request for your Agency, and he asked for $44 million for scanners. What would it take, Mr. McAleenan, to have scanners to make sure that all of the vehicles coming into the United States are scanned? He gave me the number: $300 million. That is a lot of money. But when you consider the cost of our drug epidemic and the deadly results of that drug epidemic, it is not a lot of money. And when you put it to the idea of a $5 billion wall, it is laughable that this administration is insisting on a medieval wall as opposed to the technology that lets us look inside the vehicles that are shipping these deadly drugs into the United States and killing people in our country. That is the reality of what we face today. I would say to this President: Don't shut this government down over border security; make smart border security choices. Listen to your professionals. Put aside your campaign speeches about ``a wall from sea to shining sea'' and listen to the professionals who will tell you, Mr. President, as they educated me, that there are better ways to keep America safe than to build a god-awful wall. Walls can be overcome by ladders and tunnels underneath, but this technology we are talking about is inescapable. When you bring your vehicle through these scanning devices, we know a lot more about what you are trying to do. And while we are on the subject, the hearing yesterday was about Mexican drug cartels. Some of the things that were told to us in that Judiciary Committee hearing were stunning. They estimate that the current economic activity of the Mexican drug cartels is part of a transnational network whose global revenue exceeds the gross domestic product of Mexico. What they are doing in creating this narcotic trade and exporting is now surpassing the entire Mexican economy's production of goods and services. Breathtaking, isn't it? And it turns out that 10 years ago, we identified Mexican drug cartels as our greatest criminal threat at that time, and it still is today. How do they do it? How do they produce so much narcotics in Mexico at our expense? Well, certainly the answer is obvious: We pay for the drugs. American dollars flow back into Mexico so that the cartels can keep in business, and something else flows back into Mexico: guns from America. Seventy percent of the crime guns that were seized in Mexico-- 70 percent of them had come from the United States. How did they get across the border? Well, first, it is not legal to export guns across that border. Secondly, it turns out they buy them the same way they buy them in the Midwest and come to Chicago to shoot up our streets. They go to gun shows where there are no background checks, and they buy these guns in volume, and they surreptitiously ship them across the border to the Mexican drug cartels. So it is a circle. The narcotics come here; the money and the weapons go from here back to Mexico. That circle is growing in size and in intensity. So I asked an obvious question: Do we check on the vehicles that are southbound out of the United States, headed down to Mexico? The answer is almost not at all. How are we going to deal with this drug epidemic and how are we going to deal with border security if, instead of addressing these very real issues that directly impact the drug epidemic in America, we are sitting here talking about $5 billion for a wall? All of us have voted for the Department of Homeland Security to build barriers where needed, to build fences--and they tell us they don't need a wall; they need a fence they can see through. We put money on the table for that year after year, and I will continue to because I think it is a smart thing to do, to have a border that is actually secured. But this President is prepared to shut down the Government of the United States not for the technology that I have described to you-- the successful technology that can reduce the flow of fentanyl, this deadliest of chemicals into the United States, not for the technology that could detect in these vehicles if they had a trailer full of people who are being smuggled in for whatever reason--no. This President is fixed on one issue: a $5 billion wall. I hope someone close to the President will sit down with him and explain the reality of border security. It goes way beyond a campaign speech. There are plenty of votes, Democrats and Republicans, for border security that is smart and border security that will work. The hearings this week in the Senate Judiciary Committee really told the story. I am sure the President didn't follow those hearings, but I hope someone at the White House can and did convince him: Don't shut down this government to build a wall. Appeal to Congress on a bipartisan basis to give our government the resources to make America safe. If we could stop the deadly flow of fentanyl across that border, we will save American lives. We can do it. We know the technology that will accomplish it. Now, all we lack is the political will to get it done. Tribute to Jeff Flake Madam President, I am sorry I wasn't here earlier when he was on the floor, but I know that my friend and colleague, Senator Jeff Flake, gave his farewell address to the Senate, and he will be leaving soon. I wanted to honor him for his service in the Senate and thank him for all the things we have worked on together. When the political history of our time is written, I think one of the most interesting chapters will be about my friend, Senator Jeff Flake, of Arizona. I hope that history will be able to explain to me how one of the ideological sons of Barry Goldwater, who was, in fact, the father of modern American conservatism--how this ideological son named Jeff Flake came to be viewed as a suspect conservative in Senator Goldwater's home State of Arizona. I have always found Jeff Flake to be a conservative with a conscience, and I have been privileged to work closely with him on some of the most important questions of our time. Most people, in observing Washington, think all we do is fight like cats and dogs, and Democrats and Republicans won't work together. That is not true. Jeff Flake and I were members of something called the Gang of 8. We produced a comprehensive, bipartisan immigration reform bill that passed on this Senate floor overwhelmingly 15\1/2\ years ago. Other members of the Gang of 8 included our current Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer; Mike Bennet, the Senator from Colorado; Lindsey Graham, the Senator from South Carolina; Bob Menendez of New Jersey, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida; and that old iconoclast himself, Senator John McCain. We met day after day and night after night to write an immigration reform bill. We fought like cats and dogs over some of the provisions, but in the end we agreed. We came up with a compromise bill, and it passed overwhelmingly. We spent hundreds of hours together because we knew that America needed immigration reform. Senator Flake was a voice of conservatism in those discussions, but he was also a voice of conscience, compassion, and reason. I had to laugh at the description of my friend, Senator Flake, in an article in the Atlantic magazine last year. The reporter wrote: Flake doesn't relish criticizing other people, but when he does, it is usually in a fatherly tone of disappointment. . . . He sometimes seems as if he just crash-landed here in a time machine from some bygone era of seersucker suits and polite disagreements. Country before party--that is the North Star of Jeff Flake's political life. Adhering to that principle may have made him a one-term Senator from Arizona, but it also made him an extraordinarily good Senator and public servant. The problems Jeff Flake tried honorably to solve haven't gone away. They still demand our attention. If we can approach these challenges with the same principles and openmindedness of Senator Jeff Flake, America will be a winner. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we recently heard a farewell speech from my colleague and friend, Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri. I grew up across the river from St. Louis in the town of East St. Louis, IL, and feel a familiarity with Missouri and St. Louis probably more than most residents of my State. We have had many great reminisces about the city and her life, and I wanted to say a few words on the floor today as she ends her service in the U.S. Senate. My boyhood hero was Stan Musial--``Stan the Man''--St. Louis Cardinals Hall of Famer and one of greatest ball players who ever lived. He retired in 1963 holding National League career marks for games played, at-bats, and hits. Asked to describe the habits that kept him in baseball for so long, Musial once said: ``Get eight hours of sleep regularly. Keep your weight down, run a mile a day. If you must smoke, try light cigars. Then cut down on inhaling.'' ``One last thing,'' he added: ``Make it a point to bat .300.'' Claire McCaskill has always brought the same sort of natural-born talent and relentless work ethic to public service that Stan Musial-- ``Stan the Man''--brought to baseball in St. Louis. She has stood for office 24 times--lost twice. That makes her batting average considerably better than .300. Five years ago, Senator McCaskill and I teamed up to suggest a name for a beautiful new bridge that spanned the mighty Mississippi River between her State of Missouri and mine of Illinois, near St. Louis. Thanks to Claire's leadership, it is called the Stan Musial Veterans Memorial Bridge. Locals all call it the Stan Span for short. It is a well-deserved, fitting tribute to my boyhood hero and a fitting tribute to Claire McCaskill's tenacity. In an age of hyperpartisanship, Claire McCaskill is a bridge builder. She doesn't ask whether ideas come from the left or the right; she asks whether they will work. Like her own political hero, Harry Truman, she is a straight talker, and she can be a bulldog when it comes to demanding accountability for the people who pay for this government and those who rely on it. She has cast historic and heroic votes on the Senate floor. She voted for an economic stimulus package that helped prevent a second Great Depression. She voted to create the Affordable Care Act--one of the most important social and economic justice laws of our lifetime. One story about Claire McCaskill seems especially telling. Nearly 2 years ago, she was ready to vote to confirm Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, to the U.S. Supreme Court. In Missouri, a red State, that was a pretty good vote for her politically. But when she met privately with then-Judge Gorsuch, she asked him about a case in which he had ruled that a trucking company was within its rights when it fired a driver who left his broken-down truck briefly on a sub-zero night to find help. Senator McCaskill asked Judge Gorsuch: Did you ever think about what you would do if you had been that truckdriver? The judge said: No. Senator McCaskill changed her vote to no. It cost her politically, but that is the kind of Senator Claire McCaskill is. Her idea of governing is to spend money wisely, punish misbehavior, and give people what they need in order to get through their daily lives. She has been a voice for truckdrivers and farmers and factory workers and a lot of ordinary people who work hard and still struggle to pay their bills. She has been a fearless champion of my Dreamers, and for that I will forever be grateful. Her votes to help these young people always were risky politically, but she never ever flinched. I will forever be in her debt for her show of courage on that one issue. Incidentally, she showed the same courage and compassion when calling for an end to this administration's cruel policy of separating immigrant families at our border. This past year, she used her influence as ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to investigate the causes of the opioid epidemic devastating America. That investigation showed how pharmaceutical companies knowingly sold dangerous and addictive pain killers in order to maximize profit. She worked diligently on a bipartisan basis to ensure passage of a law that will help combat the opioid epidemic and provide treatment for those who are addicted. And she has never ever wavered in her efforts to protect Americans with preexisting medical conditions. Results, not just rhetoric--that is Claire McCaskill. As Stan Musial approached the plate for the last time before he retired, legendary sportscaster Harry Caray said: ``Take a look, fans. Take a good long look. Remember the swing and the stance. We won't see his like again.'' As Senator McCaskill leaves the Senate, take a look. Remember Claire McCaskill and her personal brand of Missouri courage. May we all try to be bridge builders, as she has been. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, the Senate is voting on a resolution of disapproval that would rescind a dangerous decision made by the Treasury Department and restore a vital tool in the fight against illegal spending in U.S. elections. In July, the Treasury decided to reverse decades of precedent and eliminate a requirement that certain tax-exempt organizations must report the identities of their major donors to the Internal Revenue Service as part of their annual returns. Why is this important? Because the 501(c)(4) ``social welfare organizations'' and 501(c)(6) business leagues that now are no longer required to disclose their donors to the IRS are the very same groups that have poured nearly one billion dollars of dark money into U.S. elections since 2010. Dark money makes it nearly impossible for the public to find the true sources behind the shady attack ads and political campaigns that these organizations fund. But by at least requiring these groups to disclose their major donors to the IRS, the rule ensured that the government could monitor the groups' compliance with campaign finance laws, such as the ban on foreign contributions. Now that this enforcement tool has been lost, it will be much easier for foreign powers to illegally funnel money into our elections through dark money organizations. At a time when we know the U.S. remains under threat of foreign interference in our elections, why would we make it harder for the IRS, law enforcement, and our nation's intelligence organizations to monitor the movement of money in our political system? The answer is clear--we shouldn't. The Senate must act to rescind Treasury's misguided decision and restore an essential tool in the fight against illegal money in politics and ward off the threat of foreign funds influencing U.S. elections. I am proud to join Senators Tester and Wyden in support of this resolution and urge my colleagues to cast their vote in support of today's CRA. Tribute to Bill Nelson Mr. President, I would like to enter into the Record a tribute to my colleague and friend Bill Nelson of Florida. Bill is leaving the Senate after an amazing career. We served together on the House for 8 years, 17 years in the Senate--a quarter of a century working together. He is an extraordinary man who has represented the State of Florida so well, served as one of the few congressional astronauts in 1986 when he was on the Space Shuttle Columbia. He is a courageous, hard-working man. With his wife Grace by his side, they have done so many good things. They went to Haiti together, and I respect his commitment to public service and his commitment to the people of Florida. Senator Nelson and I go back a long ways. We served together in the House for 8 years--and 17 years in this Senate. A quarter-century together in the arena. I remember then-Congressman Bill Nelson made the gutsy decision to fly in space aboard NASA's Space Shuttle Columbia in January 1986. To give you an idea of how much courage that took, consider this: That was the last shuttle mission before the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. A number of people who have flown in space talk about something they call ``the overview effect''--a shift in perspective that occurs when you see the Earth hanging like a tiny, fragile ball in the black void of space. From the heavens, there are no boundaries, and you see that all of us on this planet are part of the same whole. I think that seeing the Earth from that perspective would make anyone a better Senator. It may explain why Bill Nelson has always been so willing to reach out to other Senators--including our friends on the other side of the aisle--to solve problems for the people of Florida and for our Nation. He knows that our common humanity is bigger than our differences of opinion. Senator Nelson displayed a different kind of courage in the Senate. He voted for the economic stimulus package that helped pull America and the world back from the brink of a Second Great Depression. He voted to create the Affordable Care Act--a vote that was politically risky, but has saved lives. NASA and America's manned space program has had no greater champion-- save possibly John Glenn himself. Bill Nelson has been a champion for: Working families; economic fairness; and good schools and affordable college education. He has fought for: Clean oceans; safe and sustainable energy; reasonable, responsible action to prevent climate chaos; and for scientific integrity. He has given most of his adult life to public service. He is a reasonable man in an unreasonable time. I will miss his courage in our caucus and in this Senate. I wish my old friend all the best as he begins the next chapters in his remarkable life. He will be missed. Border Security Mr. President, let me also say at this moment that we are debating the question of border security. Yesterday, the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr. McAleenan, who has been the Commissioner, is a professional. I respect the fact that he has a world of experience. When he came to my office last year, I said to him: If I gave you a blank check for border security to make us safer in the United States, what would you buy? He said: More technology, more people. You will note that he didn't say a wall because he knows, as we do, that a wall is a 19th century answer to a 21st century challenge. We can make America safer, and should, with a secure border, using technology and personnel--well trained. This notion that we need to build a $5 billion wall came up yesterday during the course of the hearing. I noted the fact that for the first time in my life, it was being reported publicly that the life expectancy of Americans has gone down. You wonder why, in this great, progressive, prosperous Nation, it is the case. It is because of the drug epidemic--an epidemic which has been fueled by opioids and heroin and fentanyl. Some 40,000 or more Americans lose their life annually to this epidemic--more than we lose in traffic accidents, for example. When you look at the source of the narcotics, you find the most deadly chemical, fentanyl, is coming into the United States over our borders, where it is then mixed with other chemicals and sold to those on the street, ultimately leading to their death. My question to Customs and Border Protection was: What more can we do to stop the flow of fentanyl into the United States from China, through Mexico, and other places? What I heard from Mr. McAleenan was not encouraging because it says to me he knows what can be done, and yet he doesn't have the resources to address it. Let me be specific. He told me last year there is something called a Z Portal. This is a scanning device which can literally scan railroad cars, trucks, and cars coming into the United States to see if they detect anything suspicious--whether it is narcotics or contraband or guns or individuals hidden away. Currently, almost 100 percent of the railroad cars go through the scanning before they come into the United States, but fewer than one out of five other vehicles are scanned. I asked Mr. McAleenan, if we are going to put more money into border security, wouldn't we put money into these Z Portals; wouldn't you ask for more money to fund this technology? He said he would, and he wanted to. I asked him how much it would cost to really make sure we have border protection to stop these deadly narcotics from coming into the United States. His answer was $300 million. Put that next to the President's outrageous demands for $5 billion for a wall that all of us agree--at least most agree--is an ineffective and wasteful expenditure of taxpayers' money. The President may think he made some campaign pledge that he has to keep come hell or high water, but that pledge also included a promise that Mexico was going to pay for this wall. Now the President wants us to pay for this wall. That is $5 billion for his campaign promise instead of $300 million to keep America safe from more narcotics flowing across our borders. That, to me, is a ridiculous option that the President is demanding. If we want a safe border, if we want to stop this drug epidemic which is killing so many people, let us put the technology in place which will keep us safer. That technology is not a wall from sea to shining sea that the President demands. Saudi War Powers Bill Mr. President, regardless of who is serving in the White House--a Democrat or Republican--I have long felt the Constitution is very clear. The American people--through Congress, and through Congress alone--have the constitutional responsibility to declare war. Whether I was holding President Bush in the Iraq war or President Obama in our interventions in Syria or Libya to this standard, it really came down to the same basic principle. The Constitution is clear. Article I section 8 states: ``The Congress shall have the power . . . to declare War.'' What we are doing later today is a debate over the future of the U.S. involvement in the war in Yemen. It is long overdue and deeply important. It occurs as we are entering the 18th year of the war in Afghanistan. That is an incredible fact. I was on the Senate floor and voted some 18 years ago, after the 9/11 occurrence, to go after those responsible for killing 3,000 innocent Americans and who were believed to be in Afghanistan at the time. I voted with a clear conscience, understanding no one can strike the United States and kill innocent people without being held accountable. I had no idea when I cast that vote that beyond Osama Bin Laden, we would continue using that authorization against terrorism 18 years later to prolong the longest war in the history of the United States-- the war in Afghanistan. I don't believe anyone who voted, as I did, in 2001, for that authorization of force could have imagined that 18 years later we would still be engaged in a war in Afghanistan or that the authorization would be stretched beyond credibility to approve the U.S. military action in multiple countries around the world, which brings us to the war in question today. The disastrous and bloody Saudi-led war in Yemen is supported by the United States. Does anyone here remember voting to authorize U.S. military involvement in that war? Of course not. Did anyone who voted for the 2001 AUMF, authorization for the use of military force dealing with al-Qaida, believe we were including the Saudi-led quagmire in Yemen, a quagmire led by a reckless, young Saudi Crown Prince who I believe had direct knowledge of the brutal murder of journalist and U.S. resident Jamal Khashoggi? Not only was this war never authorized by the elected representatives of the American people, it is a humanitarian disaster. An estimated 85,000 children have already died of malnutrition in this war, and in a country of 28 million, nearly half are facing famine because of a war that was initiated by the Saudis and supported by the United States. Look at this heartbreaking photo. This is the photo of a 7-year-old, young Yemeni girl, named Amal Hussain. This photo was taken and featured in the New York Times in November. This young girl died shortly after this photo was taken. ``My heart is broken,'' her mother said. I know this is a difficult photo to display in the U.S. Senate, but I believe it is necessary. It shows the consequences of this war and the failure of Congress to speak out clearly to this administration and take the actions necessary to stop our involvement in this war and humanitarian disaster in Yemen. The malnutrition and innocent suffering that you see in this photo cannot be ignored. On Sunday, some may have read the New York Times columnist Nick Kristof's devastating piece ``Your Tax Dollars Help Starve Children'' about his recent and courageous trip to Yemen. Mr. Kristof writes about girls like Amal and notes how we typically think of war casualties as being men who have had their legs blown off. Yet, in Yemen, he writes, the most common war casualties are children who are dying of starvation and that in the conference room in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and here in Washington, officials, simply, don't fathom the human toll of their policies. Maybe some think that this war in Yemen is justified, that Iranian influence and the Houthis in Yemen are credible threats to U.S. security interests. Ultimately, this is not about the merits of any such fight. It is not about soldier against soldier or combat against combat. It is about the innocent bystanders who are dying by the thousands. It is also not any way to vindicate the Houthis' troubling role in the horrible Yemeni civil war or their likely support from Iran. I don't try to do that, and I won't. It is about our constitutional duty and responsibility to debate and vote to participate in this war or in any war. Our Founding Fathers were wise and knew that the decision to send someone's son or daughter into war must not be made by a King or a supreme executive, but in our case, it is by the United States, by the elected Representatives of the people. Just think of how many battles in human history--how many deaths, how much blood and destruction--have occurred to satisfy vanity or the narrow interests of a despot or an unelected ruler. Our Constitution makes it clear that we are different. The American people are given the voice and the responsibility to decide if their sons or daughters will participate in the war, and they do it through the U.S. Congress, including this very organization, body, in which I serve. We have utterly failed as the U.S. Senate in this responsibility. So we are long overdue to have this debate, which is coming up today or tomorrow, and a vote, which will ultimately reflect whether we should continue with the war in Yemen. I will be voting against that war. I believe we have to put an end to this humanitarian disaster, and the American people, especially those in Illinois, have sent me here to Congress to express that clearly. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to join my colleagues in thanking our friend, Senator Joe Donnelly, for his service to his State and our Nation. When he was about 30 years old, while he was practicing law in South Bend, Joe Donnelly sought the Democratic nomination for attorney general in Indiana. Two years later, he ran for State senate. Both times, he lost. Then he did something truly astonishing: He walked away from politics. For 10 years, he practiced law and ran a small stamp-and-ink business. In 2003, local party officials asked him to run for Congress. They didn't expect him to win--just be a respectable sacrificial lamb. He came closer to winning than anyone but he expected. Two years later, he was elected, in a rematch, to the U.S. House. As someone who also ran and lost three times before winning an election, I feel a natural camaraderie with my friend from Indiana. I think I may also have some insight into why he was willing to try one more time. You see, Joe Donnelly grew up in New York. He moved to South Bend for college, and he is a Hoosier, through-and-through, but he is also a member of the great White Sox Nation. In 2005, the Chicago White Sox won the World Series for the first time in 88 years--proof, some would say, that anything is possible if you persevere and work hard. The next year, it was Joe Donnelly's turn to score the upset victory by winning election to Congress from a red district in a deep-red State. In his 6 years in the House, he voted to create the Affordable Care Act. During the financial crisis of 2009, he voted for the American Recovery Act, to stop America's slide into a second great depression that could have brought down the entire global economy. When free market hardliners said, ``Save Wall Street but let the American auto industry die,'' Barack Obama said no--and so did Joe. In November 2012, Hoosier voters sent Joe Donnelly to the U.S. Senate, the first Democrat to hold his seat since 1977. In a political era that often seems often to reward snark over substance, Joe Donnelly is a soft-spoken throwback to an earlier era, when working across the aisle was viewed as a talent, not as treason. Joe is decent, honest, and direct. You may disagree with him on an issue, but you will never doubt his motives. His values are classic Hoosier: hard work, common sense, bipartisan compromise, and a disdain for grandstanding. As a Senator, he has done what he believes is needed to level the playing field for ``regular Joes,'' for farmers and factory workers and, as he says, ``the people who go to work in the dark and come home in the dark.'' I particularly want to thank him for his work to improve mental health care for military members and veterans. That work will save lives and families. Like all nations, the White Sox Nation has some laws. One of my favorites is: ``Respect the past . . . people that are shoeless . . . and anyone named Joe.'' That last edict is a reference to one of the legends of White Sox history, Shoeless Joe Jackson, but it applies equally to our friend and colleague, Senator Joe Donnelly, who has served his State and our Nation well and earned our great respect.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in thanking Senator Heidi Heitkamp for her service to her State and our Nation. I remember one of the first conversations Senator Heitkamp and I had after she joined the Senate. I told her: ``I would really like your support on a bill to help the kinds of mom-and-pop stores that are the heart of so many small towns in your state and mine.'' I was about to give her my ``elevator pitch'' on the Marketplace Fairness Act. It wasn't necessary. Heidi said: ``Uhm, Dick, you know the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision that makes the Marketplace Fairness Act necessary. I'm the petitioner in the case. `Quill v. North Dakota?' That's me. I was the North Dakota tax commissioner who started that lawsuit.'' As I was quick to learn, helping Main Street, mom-and-pop stores stay in business in the age of Amazon is just one of many causes that Heidi Heitkamp had been working on, tenaciously, for years before she was elected to this Senate. Heidi Heitkamp came to Washington with a to-do list. She worked doggedly, with Democrats and Republicans, to whittle down that list. It was clear from the day she arrived here that she meant to use her new position as a U.S. Senator to right as many old wrongs and fix as many intractable problems as she could. She leaves knowing that she made a difference in the lives of countless people, in North Dakota and far beyond. She has been a champion for Native Americans, whose voices are so rarely heard in the halls of power. The first bill she sponsored in the Senate created a new and long overdue Commission on Native Children, to try to rectify the conditions that cause one-in-three Native American and Alaska Native children to live in poverty, with suicide rates 2.5 times the national average. Like so much of her work here, that was a bipartisan effort. Her partner in that case was Lisa Murkowski. When the Violence Against Women Act was reauthorized in 2013, it was Heidi Heitkamp who pushed successfully to close a loophole that allowed non-Indians who commit sexual assaults on Indian Reservations--very often--to go unpunished. Her commitment to ``make a better future'' for Native children--and all children--is what motivated Heidi to become my partner on a bill to increase and improve the treatment of childhood trauma, the root of so much suffering and violence. We are proud that our trauma bill was included in the new law to combat the opioid epidemic. It will save lives. Heidi has said that her proudest achievement as a U.S. Senator was when she was able to help a Korean war veteran receive the Purple Heart and other medals. The man, Corporal Andy Shaw, was a Native American elder who had served in World War II, was wounded in a gunfight in South Korea at the start of that conflict, and spent nearly the entire Korean war as a POW, but never received the thanks or medals he should have. After 60 years, Heidi Heitkamp was able to right that wrong. She and her staff tracked down the facts needed to document Corporal Shaw's heroism and sacrifice, and she travelled to the Spirit Lake Sioux Reservation in North Dakota to present Corporal Shaw's medals to him personally. Andy Shaw has a little trouble standing now, but he stood proud and straight as his Senator presented his Purple Heart. Heidi cried because she knew how much he had sacrificed for that medal and what it meant to him. That is who Heidi Heitkamp is: a woman who uses her power to help the underdog. I wish she were not leaving so soon. She has been a force for progress, a friend, and a leader for whom I have great respect. I know that she has a lot of grit and determination still in her, and I look forward to seeing what her next chapter will bring.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on November 28, Quincy, IL, lost a legend in Coach John ``Jack'' Butler Mackenzie at the age of 77. Jack was the architect of an amazing soccer program at Quincy University. He led the Franciscan school's soccer program to nine National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics, NAIA, National Championships and 516 victories, making him the tenth all-time in NCAA history for wins, regardless of division. He did all of this while setting examples as a coach, a father, grandfather, and leader. Jack was born on February 26, 1941, to John ``Scottie'' and Mary Jane Mackenzie. He attended McBride High School in 1959 and earned a scholarship to play football at the University of Missouri. After a year, Jack left to attend Washington University in St. Louis, earning both a bachelor's degree in physical education and a master's in education. Jack married his high school sweetheart, Sharon Bechtold, in June of 1962. He enjoyed telling people that he fell in love with her in sixth grade. Jack worked at Augustinian Academy in St. Louis and was on the cusp of making a big decision. In 1969, at the urging of his best friend, Frank Longo, who introduced soccer to Quincy, Jack moved from St. Louis to run the Quincy University soccer program. QU had already won two NAIA national championships in the program's first 5 years of existence when Jack arrived, but the QU Hawks reached new levels of success under Jack. Jack's Hawks finished in the top three in the national tournament 12 times, including nine championships. They won five consecutive titles from 1977 to 1981. During his four-decade career, Jack won the NAIA National Coach of the Year four times. Thirty one All-American athletes came out of his program. Jack loved the game of soccer, and soccer's popularity in Quincy exploded. The Quinsippi Soccer League formed in the late 1960s, helping young kids learn about soccer in elementary school. Jack helped teach adults who volunteered to coach the league, offered practice drills and strategies for helping boys and girls learn the game. With QU's success, the school moved to NCAA Division I in 1984 and then to Division II in 1995, joining the Great Lakes Valley Conference. Quincy University didn't dominate as they did in the early days of Jack's tenure, but they regularly made the playoffs and had winning records. In 2011, Jack's Hawks won the Great Lakes Valley Conference for the first time since joining the conference. It was Jack's last season coaching the team full time. It wasn't the biggest victory he had ever had, but it was one he loved like the others. In retirement, Jack remained active in the community. He helped out with Special Olympics teams. He rarely missed a home game of QU's soccer team. Jack was inducted into the NAIA Hall of Fame, NCAA Hall of Fame, United Soccer Coaches Hall of Fame, St. Louis Players, and QU Hall of Fame. Legends Stadium, where QU plays soccer, has its playing surface named after Jack. Jack Mackenzie had a gift for storytelling and the ability to make someone's day more enjoyable. He loved his ``beautiful game,'' the kids who learned from him, and his family. His best story was really his own. When kids play on Jack Mackenzie field, it will be remembered as a game based on love. Jack is survived by his wife of 56 years, Sharon, and six children-- Scott; Christopher, wife Leigh, and their children, Julian and Isabella; Kevin, wife Susan, and their sons, Andrew, Tyler, and Luke; Brian, wife Bonnie, and their children, Kate and Jack; Beth Hilbing, husband Chad, and their children Jake, Grace, and Sam; and Megan Henke, husband Adam, and their daughter, Genevieve.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, on Saturday, at least 29 tornadoes reportedly touched down in Illinois in Cass, Christian, DeWitt, Fulton, Macon, Macoupin, Mason, McDonough, McLean, Montgomery, Pike, Schuyler, and Tazewell Counties in central Illinois. The National Weather Service is still surveying nearby areas but reports this is the biggest December tornado outbreak in the history of Illinois. One of the touchdowns in Taylorville caused major damage. I spoke with Taylorville mayor Bruce Berry. Thankfully, no fatalities have been reported, but 20 to 30 people were injured and early reports indicate more than 400 homes and buildings were damaged. Several homes have had roofs damaged and torn off, and others were tragically destroyed. Two days after the storm, 310 households still did not have power, and the schools in Taylorville were closed as a result of the damages. The community is busy cleaning up and utility companies are working to get electricity back on. I am grateful for the dedication of the local first responders, who rescued residents that were trapped inside their homes due to the tornado damage. These responders still have task forces searching for anyone that might need assistance. Local officials and the Illinois Emergency Management Agency are also working to make sure communities have the resources to protect critical infrastructure and begin to repair damage, a feat that could take months. American Red Cross volunteers are also providing food, shelter, and water to those in need. Across the region, friends and family have stepped up to help those whose homes and businesses were damaged. The Illinois delegation and I stand ready to assist in any way we can. I want to thank everyone who has been engaged in the response efforts so far, and all those who will take part in rebuilding damaged homes, businesses, and schools. Illinoisans always rebuild and endure, as we have done many times before--and we are stronger for it.