[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 198 (Monday, December 17, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7639-S7648]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       SAVE OUR SEAS ACT OF 2017

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the House message to accompany S. 756, which 
the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       House message to accompany S. 756, a bill to reauthorize 
     and amend the Marine Debris Act to promote international 
     action to reduce marine debris, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       McConnell motion to concur in the amendment of the House to 
     the bill, with McConnell (for Grassley) amendment No. 4108, 
     to provide for programs to help reduce the risk that 
     prisoners will recidivate upon release from prison.
       Division I of McConnell (for Kennedy/Cotton) amendment No. 
     4109 (to amendment No. 4108), to require the Director of the 
     Bureau of Prisons to notify each victim of the offense for 
     which the prisoner is imprisoned the date on which the 
     prisoner will be released.
       Division II of McConnell (for Kennedy/Cotton) amendment No. 
     4109 (to amendment No. 4108), to require the Director of the 
     Bureau of Prisons to notify each victim of the offense for 
     which the prisoner is imprisoned the date on which the 
     prisoner will be released.
       Division III of McConnell (for Kennedy/Cotton) amendment 
     No. 4109 (to amendment No. 4108), to require the Director of 
     the Bureau of Prisons to notify each victim of the offense 
     for which the prisoner is imprisoned the date on which the 
     prisoner will be released.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.


                        Tribute to Lynn Jenkins

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I am on the floor this afternoon to honor a 
friend, a colleague, and the senior Representative from Kansas, 
Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins, who has gracefully and honorably served 
Kansas for two decades in both our State and here in the Federal 
Government.
  While I am going to talk a little bit about Lynn's history and past, 
none of this should be taken just as something that is being read in 
her honor. She is a very special person who has served Kansas so well, 
and she brings such tremendous attributes to public service. We will 
miss her greatly, and Kansans will have benefited from her service, but 
she will also remain a role model for many who look for ways to make 
America and to make our State more prosperous, with a brighter future.

[[Page S7640]]

  Congresswoman Jenkins grew up on a farm outside of Holton, KS--a 
small town just about 100 miles away from Kansas City, just north of 
Topeka, where she learned the value of hard work and perseverance. You 
cannot meet somebody who grew up working on a dairy farm without 
determining that they have those attributes, and Lynn has exemplified 
that in every endeavor.
  She was taught that what needed to be done was something she would 
do. When you do it, you do it right, and every day you need to step up 
and do your job to make certain things get done. That is a dairy 
farmer, and that is Lynn Jenkins as a Member of the U.S. Congress.
  Before becoming a Member of Congress and before being elected in 
Kansas, Lynn was a CPA--a certified public accountant. She recognized a 
real need for financial reform as a result of that experience, and she 
used her skills as a CPA to benefit Kansas.
  In 2003, Lynn was elected the 37th Kansas State treasurer. Lynn then 
took that same tax and financial experience to Washington, DC, where 
she was elected the Congresswoman from the Second District of our 
State.
  After her election to the U.S. House of Representatives, Lynn quickly 
rose to become one of the highest ranking Members of Congress, serving 
today as the vice chair of the House Republican caucus; she served in 
that capacity for 4 years. She is a senior member of the House Ways and 
Means Committee.
  It goes without saying that in addition to her background as a CPA, 
her intellect, and her service-oriented mindset, Lynn is one of the 
most beloved Kansans we have. We meet with many of the same groups here 
in Kansas and in Washington, DC, and I know that visiting with Lynn is, 
without a doubt, one of the highlights for Kansans who come to 
Washington, DC.
  Lynn also understands that while it may seem that this environment is 
a loud and boisterous one and that making your appearances on national 
TV is an effective way of serving as a Member of Congress, she knows 
you can really serve your country, and especially Kansas, by rolling up 
your sleeves and just getting to work. It has been a privilege to 
witness this firsthand and to work on a number of issues with Lynn over 
the years. Together we jointly introduced the fair tax legislation, we 
worked together to protect rural healthcare in Kansas, we made certain 
our veterans received the benefits they deserve, and we are both chairs 
of our respective Hunger Caucuses. We are both lucky to have Bob Dole 
as a mentor, and we have made it a priority to carry on his legacy to 
end hunger in America and around the globe.

  Lynn was also a champion of the Mental Health First Aid Act, 
modernizing section 529 college savings plans, and was an integral part 
of passing major tax legislation for the first time in 30 years.
  Lynn and I often have shared flights back and forth from Kansas to 
Washington, DC. She has, like I have, chosen to remain at home in 
Kansas, and we are often on the same airplane. I could always count on 
Lynn to have the conversation of what was going on in the House and for 
her to explain to me what should be going on in the Senate that wasn't. 
We were able to take care of our constituents' business by being 
together on that flight to Washington, DC, and on the flight home.
  It also goes without saying that Lynn will be sorely missed as a 
leader and as a sensible voice in Congress and in our Kansas 
delegation. Her role will be so difficult to fill, but I know she is 
excited about spending more time with her kids, Haley and Hayden, in 
that place we so proudly call home, the State of Kansas.
  Lynn, I thank you for your many years of service and, on behalf of 
all Kansans, I want you to know we appreciate, respect, and admire you.
  Lynn, thank you for your friendship, advice, and your realness. I 
wish you the best of luck and countless M&Ms in your retirement from 
Congress, and in everything that comes next, may you have success and 
may you have joy. Please know you will be missed, and we look forward 
to spending time together as you tell me, still, what I should be doing 
in the U.S. Senate.


                         Tribute to Kevin Yoder

  Madam President, I want to speak this afternoon about another 
retirement from Kansas, Congressman Kevin Yoder, who has served the 
Third Congressional District of Kansas for four terms. He is a solid 
colleague and a good friend.
  I met Kevin when he was an intern in our office when I was a Member 
of the House of Representatives. I remember his tenacity, his spirit, 
and his passion for serving Kansans, which he continued to feel long 
after he was an intern in the Moran world.
  Kevin went on to serve his fellow students as student body president 
at the University of Kansas. He earned a law degree from the University 
of Kansas School of Law. He then served the Overland Park community in 
the State House of Representatives, and he became chairman of the House 
Appropriations Committee.
  As a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Kevin also served 
as a member of the Appropriations Committee, and there he was, and has 
been, a steward of Kansas taxpayers' hard-earned dollars.
  As a member of the Appropriations Committee, Kevin has made 
biomedical funding a top priority. I have enjoyed working with him as 
we advocated for the National Institutes of Health and for the 
University of Kansas Cancer Center, which was designated as a National 
Cancer Institute in 2012. Kevin served as a real leader in Congress in 
advocating for that designation, and it is a point of pride for our 
State and the hope of many in our region.
  He also serves as chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee 
on Homeland Security, where he has worked to help protect our borders 
and our homeland.
  Kevin has been a steady leader in his support for Head Start, 
understanding that education uniquely unlocks opportunity, and he has 
worked to give underprivileged children a path to success at an early 
age--an opportunity they unlikely would have otherwise.
  Understanding the complex and outdated nature of our country's 
immigration laws, Kevin has championed legislation that could garner 
the support of both Republicans and Democrats that would end per-
country caps on employment-based green cards, clearing the backlog of 
Indian and Chinese immigrant green card applications, some of which 
have been, unfortunately, sitting around untouched on a wait list for 
decades.
  Kevin also grew up in a small town in Kansas and was a farm kid, and 
he also learned the value of hard work and the issue of being 
responsible for the consequences of what you do. Kevin will be greatly 
missed in our Kansas delegation and here in Washington, DC, and his 
shoes will be hard to fill.
  Kevin, I hope you are able to spend some well-deserved time with 
Brook and your girls. I will miss our flights back and forth between 
Kansas in which you were showing me photos on almost every trip of your 
children. I wish the very best for Kevin, for Brook, his wife, and his 
daughters as they enter this new chapter.
  I also pay special tribute to Brook Yoder for her work side-by-side 
with her husband. They, together as a team, made a tremendous 
difference in Kansas and in Washington, DC.
  So on behalf of all Kansans, Kevin, I say thank you for your 
dedicated service to our State. Godspeed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The majority whip.


                        Criminal Justice Reform

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, at 5:30, we will be voting on the first 
procedural step to take up criminal justice reform legislation that 
started back in 2013 when I introduced a bill we called Federal prison 
reform. This legislation is based on prison reform, but it has taken on 
some additional attributes relative to how we sentence and how judges 
sentence people convicted of various crimes.
  Let me explain a little bit about why this should be a priority for 
the Senate and for the Congress and for the country. We know the cycle 
of crime is all too common. People commit crimes. They serve time in 
prison. They get out of prison. They commit another crime. They serve 
time again in prison. They are released.
  A few years ago, this is what one young man in Houston said when he 
was talking about his own experience: He called himself a ``frequent 
flyer''--somebody caught in that revolving door of prison and crime.

[[Page S7641]]

  In Texas, in 2007, or thereabouts, we had some farsighted visionary 
leaders, actually, who decided instead of just being tough on crime, 
which Texas has always had a reputation for, we needed to be smart on 
crime too. A little more than a decade ago, Texas prisons were bursting 
at the seams. We had more people incarcerated in Texas prisons than any 
State in the Nation, and tragically we also had high recidivism rates. 
So it was obvious we were doing something wrong, and we needed to up 
our game.
  The Legislative Budget Board in our State estimated that in the next 
5 years, Texas would need as many as 17,000 new prison beds to house 
the growing inmate population. So two options became clear: build more 
costly prisons with the same tragic results or fix the system, and we 
chose the latter.
  I would say, some of our colleagues and some of the critics of the 
underlying bill say: Well, the best way to keep communities safe is to 
keep criminals in prison. There are some people, sadly, who will never 
take advantage of the opportunity to transform their lives through 
faith-based programs, deal with their drug and alcohol addiction, learn 
a skill, get a GED; in other words, there are some people, 
unfortunately, we can't save, but there are others who understand they 
have made a mistake and paid their debt to society and want to turn 
their lives around. Those are the type of people this criminal justice 
reform bill speaks to.
  In the beginning in my State, the decision was largely driven by 
cost. The estimated pricetag to build new prisons exceeded $2 billion. 
You can imagine what that does to a State's budget, but instead of 
leaving taxpayers with the bill and just moving on, a visionary group 
of State legislators decided to dive further into the problem to try to 
understand it better and propose cost-effective ways to fix it. These 
fixes came in a number of forms which, looking back on it now, seem 
pretty obvious, pretty intuitive but, at the time, really was 
revolutionary.
  First were improvements in our parole system, which means that once 
people got out of prison, people were then supervised while out of 
prison to make sure they met the conditions of their parole. They 
didn't get involved with the same bad company that helped them get in 
trouble in the first place, and they didn't start using drugs again, 
and they kept fully employed.
  So this parole supervision targeted 10 percent fewer revocations and 
graduated sanctions for small rules violations such as missed meetings. 
That is particularly important because one of the first indications 
that somebody who is on parole is in trouble is when they don't show up 
for their meeting with their parole officer. In the past, that was just 
pretty much blown off until those missed meetings began to accumulate, 
and then, ultimately, that individual found themselves arrested, back 
in jail, and ultimately back in prison. So rather than letting these 
small infractions pile up, eventually sending the person back to 
prison, each misstep was dealt with swiftly and surely.
  In 2005, $55 million was appropriated to Texas probation departments 
to make improvements in how we supervise people who had once been in 
prison, with most of the funds going toward reducing caseloads. In 
other words, parole officers, probation officers, if they have to 
handle so many cases, they can't give them the individual attention 
they need and that the formerly incarcerated individual will benefit 
from. That brought the number of cases down from nearly 150 in some 
areas to 110 probationers per officer. This allowed for closer 
supervision and constant application of sanctions when called for.
  The results were pretty dramatic. In 2005, our State was paroling 
21,000 prisoners, 11,000 of whom returned to prison after committing 
other crimes. So that means a little more than 50 percent were 
eventually going back to prison. A decade later, putting in place these 
reforms, the State paroled 28,000 prisoners, and about 4,500 came 
back--or only 16 percent. So we went from about half of the people in 
prison being paroled without much supervision and much help to only 16 
percent because of these reforms.
  These reforms, as I said at the outset, may not look so obvious--and 
it seems so intuitive that it seems clear to us today--but at the time, 
it was pretty groundbreaking.
  As we all know, for many politicians, one of their biggest fears when 
it comes to their next election is being accused of being soft on 
crime, but, again, this is not about being tough on crime or soft on 
crime, this is about being smart on crime and getting the best results.
  The decline in revocations led to the savings of $119 million for 
Texas taxpayers--more than double the initial investment in these 
programs.
  Second were improvements to prison alternatives for low-level, 
nonviolent offenders. Judges and prosecutors and corrections officials 
were frustrated by the number of these individuals who kept ending up 
right back where they started, with no real change in their trajectory 
and certainly no more hope for their future. So the State started to 
provide funding to increase access to things like substance abuse 
treatment, drug courts, and mental illness treatment.
  Again, the reason why people end up in prison often has very little 
to do with their desire to live a life of crime; many of them feed 
their addiction by theft and other crimes. People who are mentally ill 
who go to jail or prison, without a diagnosis in treatment, don't get 
any better, and when they get let out of jail and prison, they just go 
back deteriorating until they become a danger to themselves and others.
  In addition, mandatory prerelease programs were expanded to reduce 
the backlog of inmates waiting to complete these requirements. In other 
words, there were a lot more people who wanted to go through these 
programs because they recognized the benefit to themselves and their 
families, but they just simply couldn't get into the programs because 
there weren't enough slots.
  For example, the expansion of a drug treatment plan brought down wait 
time from 1 year to 4 months. If you are somebody with a drug problem, 
and you are told: ``We don't have room for you. Come back in a year,'' 
that can be, obviously, discouraging and not result in getting them the 
help they need.
  Moving the wait time for drug treatment down from 1 year to 4 months 
moved two-thirds of the waitlist into treatment, after which they were 
released, only to see a more hopeful and better outcome.
  In Texas, the model worked. Not only did we avoid building new 
prisons, we have actually closed eight prisons in Texas. Again, this 
sounds a little shocking if you are from other parts of the country 
where you hear about our tough-on-crime reputation, but because of 
these reforms, we were actually able to close eight prisons because 
they were no longer needed. We quickly saw a reduction in both 
incarceration and crime rates by double digits at the same time.
  To me, this is the essence of criminal justice reform. There are some 
who say: We need to do criminal justice reform because, well, we simply 
imprison too many people. There are others who say: Well, we imprison 
people for offenses that are disproportionate to what they have done. 
To me, the essence of criminal justice reform is reducing the crime 
rate--in other words, increasing and improving public safety.
  Other States took notice of what was happening and started to do the 
same. Georgia, Rhode Island, and North Carolina quickly followed suit, 
and we have seen several other States across the United States adopt 
similar reforms.
  When I say we saw a reduction in both incarceration and crime rates, 
let me give a couple of numbers.
  From 2005 to 2016, Texas's FBI index crime plummeted by more than 34 
percent. In the same period, the incarceration rate dropped 23 percent. 
Those are pretty shocking and surprising numbers. The crime rate went 
down 34 percent, and the incarcerate rate dropped 23 percent. You would 
think the opposite would be true--that with incarceration rates going 
down, the crime rate would go up--but because of these visionary 
programs and reforms, they simply worked in tandem to both reduce the 
incarceration rate and improve public safety at the same time.
  It is clear now, based on experience, that these reforms and outcomes 
are real. I have been working with my colleagues in the Senate 
Judiciary Committee since 2013 to try to bring these

[[Page S7642]]

reforms now to the national level. The FIRST STEP Act is our 
opportunity to do just that this week in the Senate.
  Thanks to the primary sponsors of the FIRST STEP Act--the Senator 
from Illinois, who has joined us here in the Chamber, the chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee, Senator Grassley, Mike Lee, Pat Leahy, and 
others who have worked on this bill. Sheldon Whitehouse and I worked 
primarily on the prison reform bill.
  The current bill has undergone some major improvements over the last 
few weeks, which I am very proud of. The previous version of this 
legislation had a number of very positive attributes. In fact, more 
than three-quarters of the bill was based on the CORRECTIONS Act that 
Senator Whitehouse and I introduced in 2014, which is the prison reform 
component of the legislation. But the remainder--the sentencing 
elements in the bill--was more controversial, and many of my concerns 
were shared by members of the law enforcement community.
  As I was gauging where Members stood on the bill, it was clear that 
many could not support the old version of the bill and needed the 
primary sponsors of the bill--whom I mentioned a moment ago--to work 
with them to try to make it more acceptable to law enforcement, which 
was going to send a signal to many other Senators about whether they 
should get behind the bill.
  We have all learned how to get things done here in the Senate, and 
that is not to just point out the problems with legislation but to 
listen and work together to find solutions, and that is exactly what we 
did. We spent a lot of time talking to national law enforcement 
organizations and those in Texas. I know we all value the input of our 
sheriffs, police chiefs, and other law enforcement professionals, and 
we tried to work with them to figure out how we could make this bill 
stronger. I listened to feedback from our Nation's police officers and 
sheriffs, and we all got to work. We had meetings, we negotiated, and 
we compromised with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as well as 
friends across the Capitol in the House.
  We also worked with the White House, whom we have all stayed in 
constant contact with on this issue since the Trump administration took 
office nearly 2 years ago. Jared Kushner, the President's son-in-law, 
has been relentless in his pursuit of getting this criminal justice 
reform bill done, and I know each of us who has been involved in this 
legislation has talked to him almost on a daily basis, sometimes many 
times in a given day.
  This bill is the product of those negotiations and those changes, and 
I am not the only one who is happy with the result. Since these 
improvements have been made, the bill has been endorsed by a number of 
important groups, including the National Association of Counties, the 
Texas Municipal Police Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, and 
the Council of State Governments. I appreciate the dedication and hard 
work of our colleagues who worked on this to get the bill to where it 
is today.
  Before tonight's cloture vote, I want to correct some misconceptions 
floating around about what this bill will and will not do.
  There are some who, for example, say that this legislation will put 
violent criminals and sex offenders back on the streets, which is 
completely false. Let me say that again because I think it bears 
repeating. This bill will not allow dangerous, violent criminals to be 
released early. That is pure fiction.
  Not everyone is eligible to earn the credits that lead to early 
release based on their participation in these programs which I talked 
about a moment ago. This bill specifically lists 48 offenses that 
disqualify offenders from earning time credits, including crimes such 
as murder, specified assault, carjacking that results in injury or 
death, and unlawful possession or use of a firearm by violent criminals 
and drug traffickers.
  Simply put, we use the most modern social science evaluation tools to 
find out who is at low risk of reoffending. They are the ones who get 
the benefit of these programs because we think these are the ones who 
are most likely to have a good outcome and not end up back in prison. 
We have disqualified violent offenders, including anybody who either 
used or displayed or happened to be carrying a firearm during the 
course of committing their offense.
  Those who have not committed one of those crimes aren't automatically 
eligible. In fact, nobody is automatically eligible for the benefits of 
this program. As I said, they have to be evaluated to be at minimum or 
low recidivism risk. That decision isn't made by Congress; it is made 
by the experienced law enforcement professionals and wardens in the 
Federal Bureau of Prisons who work with these men and women every day.
  It is important that we look at people who are at low risk of 
recidivism and low risk to public safety in the community because what 
we can do is use the resources not to keep people like that behind bars 
unnecessarily but to focus on the truly violent criminals who are not 
likely to be rehabilitated because, frankly, they don't want to be 
rehabilitated. Focusing on the most dangerous criminals and keeping 
them behind bars, while providing relief to those who earned that time 
credit, just makes common sense.
  Some people are falsely claiming that the FIRST STEP Act will 
retroactively release illegal immigrants and top-level drug traffickers 
by increasing the good time credit by 7 days a year. Again, that is 
simply not true. All the bill does is clarify Congress's original 
intent when it comes to good time credit.
  Good time credit is different from the earned credit for 
participating in these various programs. But you can imagine how 
important this is to the safety of the jailers, wardens, and public law 
enforcement officials in the prisons because it gives inmates hope that 
if they lead exemplary lives while in prison, they have greater hope of 
earning good time credit and getting out earlier.

  All this does is clarifies Congress's original intent that 54 days of 
good time credit be available rather than the 47 days that the Bureau 
of Prisons had interpreted under previous law that was more ambiguous. 
So that is not a change to what Congress intended but merely a 
clarification of preexisting congressional intent.
  In addition, some of the bill's detractors are claiming it will allow 
gang members and high-risk inmates to be transferred to lower security 
prisons in order to be closer to their homes. This, too, is false. Gang 
members and high-risk inmates will not be transferred to lower security 
prisons under this bill. While the bill does call for inmates to be 
transferred to a prison within 500 miles of their release residence, 
that only applies if there are no security concerns and is subject to 
availability of beds and other conditions.
  For example, a member of the dangerous MS-13 gang is held in maximum 
security over 500 miles from their release residence. There happens to 
be a minimum-security prison within 500 miles of their release 
residence. They would not be transferred. We simply don't transfer 
violent criminals to medium-security prisons because they happen to be 
within 500 miles of their residence.
  There has been a lot of mythology, misunderstanding, and 
misrepresentation of what is in the bill. The goal of this bill is not 
to release broad swaths of criminals--in fact, it is just the opposite. 
This legislation allows prisons to help criminals transform their 
lives, if they are willing to take the steps and responsibility to do 
so, so that we are not perpetuating the cycle of crime that continues 
to plague communities across the country and to drain taxpayer dollars 
in the process and damage public safety.
  I thank all of our colleagues who have worked so hard on this 
legislation. I think one of the most important attributes of a 
legislator--certainly of a Senator--is to listen to our constituents, 
listen to the feedback from our Members, and help build a better bill 
that will garner significantly more support than it otherwise would 
have had. I am confident that the Senate will pass this bill, and we 
can soon send it to the President's desk for his signature.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.


                   Recognition Of The Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                          Government Shutdown

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, on another subject, we are 5 days away 
from a lapse in appropriations, and President Trump still doesn't have 
a

[[Page S7643]]

plan to keep the government open. In fact, the only indication he has 
given is that he wants a government shutdown.
  At the moment, the situation should be clear to everyone: President 
Trump does not have the votes for his wall. He certainly doesn't have 
the votes in the Senate, and it doesn't seem he has the votes even in 
the House, where he needs only Republican votes.
  Tellingly, the House is on recess until Wednesday night--just 2 days 
before the Trump shutdown would start. It is because the House 
leadership has no idea what to do, where the votes are, or where the 
people are. Many of them don't want to come back. Everyone knows the 
situation. Even with a Republican Congress, no threat or temper tantrum 
will get the President his wall.
  On the other hand, Democrats are all together. We have given a 
proposal to President Trump. We have given two alternatives to 
President Trump that could easily pass both the House and the Senate. 
We could pass the six bipartisan appropriations bills and a 1-year CR 
on homeland security, or we could pass a 1-year CR for all of the 
remaining Agencies. President Trump should support one of these options 
and spare innocent, hard-working Americans the pain of an unnecessary 
Trump shutdown. His temper tantrum will get him a shutdown but will not 
get him a wall. It is futile.
  Unfortunately, since our meeting last Tuesday, Leader Pelosi and I 
have still not heard from the White House whether they will accept 
either of these two options, nor have we even heard from our Republican 
colleagues in the Senate or House about what they might support to 
avoid a shutdown--not a peep. They are nowhere to be found.
  A reporter told me that Republicans said: What is the Democrats' 
plan? We gave them two. The real question is, What is the Republicans' 
plan? They don't have one. They don't know what to do. In the 
scuttlebutt, where we talk to one another, Senate Republican leadership 
has no idea what President Trump wants. Neither does House Republican 
leadership. And they don't have the courage, the strength, in my 
judgment, or the wisdom to tell the President he is wrong on this, and 
let's move forward. That amazes me more in the House than anywhere 
else. House Republicans lost 40 seats by just clinging to President 
Trump even when they knew he was wrong.
  Are they continuing this pattern of behavior, and are our Senate 
colleagues going to do the same? It makes no sense. My friends on the 
other side of the aisle know the President's wall is wrong, 
ineffective, and it cannot pass. The President's daily Twitter 
outbursts can't alter reality.
  My Republican friends need to step up and convince the President to 
pick one of the two sensible offers we have made. Right now, nobody 
seems to know what Republicans want or plan to do. It is shocking that 
Republicans haven't engaged yet in this process, considering they 
control the Presidency, the House, and the Senate. What a symbol, what 
evidence of disarray.
  Once again, I remind my Republican colleagues that going along with a 
Trump shutdown is a futile act. When Democrats take control of the 
House on January 3, they will pass one of our two options to fund the 
government, and then leader McConnell and Senate Republicans will be 
left holding the bag for a Trump shutdown. The onus for reopening the 
government will wind up on their lap. That is not what they should 
want. I don't think they do want it. They are just so fearful of 
departing from President Trump. I remind them, when the President 
wasn't mixing in, we did two good budget seasons. We did two good 
appropriations bills, which got large majorities of Democrats and 
Republicans in the House and Senate. You can't let the President 
interfere, particularly when he does it in a pound-table, tantrum-like 
way, without any plan or knowledge of how to get things done.
  If President Trump decides to shut down the government, there is no 
endgame in which President Trump gets the wall. There is no endgame for 
Republicans in which they can avoid their share of responsibility--
overwhelming share--for a shutdown. The time to solve this problem is 
now.


                               Healthcare

  Madam President, on healthcare, on Friday, in response to a suit 
brought by Republican attorneys general, a district court judge in 
Texas issued a bizarre and dreadful ruling that the Affordable Care Act 
was unconstitutional because of changes to the law made by 
congressional Republicans. If the ruling is ultimately upheld, the 
consequences would be disastrous for the American people. It would 
jeopardize health insurance for more than 20 million Americans who 
gained insurance on the exchanges or through expanded Medicaid. It 
would end protections for the 133 million Americans living with 
preexisting conditions. Can you imagine a mom and dad who have a 
daughter or a son with cancer, and we now allow the insurance companies 
to cut them off by not giving them new insurance as they watch their 
child suffer? That is not America. That is not the situation now 
because of what we all did in 2009 with the ACA. Are our Republican 
colleagues going to let that happen?
  Americans under the age of 26 could no longer stay on their parents' 
health insurance. That has been a sigh of relief a breath of fresh air 
for millions who get out of college and want to get a job but can't 
take the job they want because there is not adequate health insurance.
  It would reopen the prescription drug doughnut hole in Medicare. That 
would mean that seniors on Medicare--tens of millions--would pay more 
for prescription drugs, and essential health benefits would be gone.
  These are not just trivial things. They include guaranteed access to 
maternity care, free preventive cancer screenings, treatment for opioid 
addiction--crucial things that Americans need that allow them to go 
away.
  You can see the extent of the disaster if this court case prevails. 
Hundreds of millions of Americans would be hurt. Our healthcare system 
would be thrown into chaos, including for families who get health 
insurance from their employer.
  We Democrats believe the ruling is based on such faulty premises that 
it will not be upheld by a higher court once it is appealed, but given 
the potential consequences of their ruling, we cannot twiddle our 
thumbs and hope for the right result.
  The court, I would remind my colleagues, based a good portion of its 
decision on what Congress intended. We can clear that up in a minute--
in a minute. My friend, Senator Manchin, has a resolution which every 
Democrat in this body has signed onto, to petition the Senate legal 
counsel to intervene in the lawsuit and defend the Affordable Care Act 
on behalf of the Senate because the Trump administration refuses to 
defend the law and is in favor of it being overturned.
  President Trump was almost gleeful when this court case came out. Is 
he going to be gleeful to those parents with cancer, to that college 
graduate who needs healthcare, to a family who has a father on opioids 
and needs help? Is he going to be gleeful if they don't get it? I don't 
get him sometimes, much of the time.
  I hope our Republican colleagues will join us in this petition 
because if a majority of the House and a majority of the Senate tell 
the appeals courts our intention was not to overthrow healthcare, it 
will have a great deal of weight. Some say: Well, let's do legislation. 
We have all been through that before, with both Democrats and 
Republicans in charge, a very hard, long time--it takes a long time to 
get healthcare.
  By the way, the President and a lot of my Republican friends want to 
cut back on healthcare. That is their goal. They will never come to 
agreement with us--Democrats in the Senate or the House, which will be 
democratically controlled in a few weeks--if they stick with that.
  Legislation is not the best and first way to go; court intervention 
is. We will be watching. The American people will be watching, 
particularly so many of my colleagues who said: I am for preexisting 
conditions.
  We are going to let them know this idea of ``let's do legislation'' 
will not work. Where are they on the petition? That will determine 
whether they are hypocrites, saying they want to protect preexisting 
conditions but not doing the best thing for it or whether they really 
care about the people who will lose health insurance.

[[Page S7644]]

  The American people spoke loudly and clearly in the midterms: They 
want their healthcare protections, and they don't want Republicans to 
take them away. I believe Republicans will have no choice but 
eventually to join us. To not do so would be to jeopardize healthcare 
for hundreds of millions of Americans and risk a complete disaster for 
Republicans in future elections.


                       Tribute to Lamar Alexander

  Madam President, on Lamar Alexander, my dear friend, we received sad 
news today--sad for us, happy for him--that our friend, the senior 
Senator from Tennessee will not be running for reelection in 2020. 
There will be time to reflect on his life and career at a later date, 
but upon hearing the news this afternoon, as I was taking the Amtrak 
down from New York, I felt a pang of sadness. Lamar and I have been 
dear friends, and we worked so hard on many things together.
  I want to say a few words now. When Senator Alexander eventually does 
leave this body, the Senate will lose an incredibly capable legislator 
and statesman. He cares so much about legislating. He reminded me, when 
I talked to him this afternoon, that he will still be around for 2 
years and wants to work together to get things done--an 
``Alexanderian'' statement, if there ever was one.
  Senator Alexander has been in the midst of so many things for his 16 
years in the Senate, and that is not because he is some ideologue who 
stood all alone in his own corner and made a lot of speeches and didn't 
get things done. No. Senator Alexander seeks compromise almost 
reflexively, and he gets things done--the recent higher education bill 
and legislation dealing with opioids, which he was so passionate about, 
and he talked to me about it every day for about a month. He gets 
things done because of his passion, his intelligence as a legislator, 
and his persistence.
  Both sides of the aisle respect and trust Lamar. I do. We have worked 
together so many times in my years here, and hopefully, as he said on 
the phone, there will be a few more opportunities in the next 2 years, 
his last 2 years in the Senate, to work together successfully, 
hopefully, and God willing again.
  Even though he is not here at the moment, I salute my friend from 
Tennessee and look forward to seeing him in the gym tomorrow morning--
we always see each other in the gym--where I can convey these 
sentiments personally.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
  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

[[Page S7645]]

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.

[[Page S7646]]

  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. JONES. Madam President, I rise today to talk on two issues.
  First, I would like to talk about the criminal justice reform act 
that Senator Durbin just spoke of. Rather than repeating all that has 
been said and all of the positive things--and Senator Durbin did an 
outstanding job outlining all of the issues and how important this bill 
is for the criminal justice system and for the American public--I would 
like to take a moment just to commend my colleagues--particularly 
Senator Durbin and Senator Grassley, Senator Lee, Senator Booker, 
colleagues in the House of Representatives, and those at the White 
House who worked so tirelessly over the years to achieve this result. 
This is a remarkable achievement for the people of this country.
  I have worked, as most people in this body know, for a number of 
years as both a prosecutor and as a defense lawyer. In that capacity, I 
have seen firsthand the problems in a system of justice that seems to 
have gotten out of whack and that has incarcerated so many people--more 
than just about any civilized country in the world--and yields very 
little results.
  So what I see is an effort of Republicans and Democrats coming 
together. When I ran for this office last year, I talked consistently 
about a country and the State of Alabama that had more in common than 
we have to divide us. I talked more about reaching across the aisle and 
having dialogues, instead of monologues. This bill is the perfect 
example of that, and I hope the people of America see what this bill 
does and see how this body and the House of Representatives and the 
administration came together to pass this historic legislation.
  This is a historic moment, Madam President. This is one for the ages, 
there is no question. Sometimes it is so disappointing to go back home 
to Alabama and hear people say: ``All I want you to do is work 
together.''
  All they see are dueling press conferences among the leaders and 
dueling talk shows on Sunday mornings and on CNN and MSNBC and FOX 
News, and they think that all we do is stand here and fight each other. 
That is not the case. We have done some great things in the Senate 
since I have been here on January 3. Our appropriations process has 
been rolling on a bipartisan level. We passed the opioid crisis bill. 
We also have the farm bill done. Now, with criminal justice--it is the 
crowning achievement on what has been, over the years, one of the most 
contentious issues in America. Every year, I used to say that the 
system of justice in America that was damaged the most in election was 
our criminal justice system because it seemed that everybody wanted to 
demagogue it today. That is no longer the case in what has been done in 
this body, the House, and with the support of the White House.
  I want to commend all of those who have been involved in this over 
the years before I got here, both in and out of government. I worked 
for a number of years with the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU--
particularly the law enforcement leaders--to reduce crime and 
incarceration. We put in countless hours, and this is the culmination 
of a number of years of work. They should be commended for all they 
did.
  (Mr. MORAN assumed the Chair.)


                       Remembering Giles Perkins

  Mr. President, I want to talk about a matter that is a lot more 
personal. The last couple of weeks have been somewhat difficult for me 
on a very personal level. Not only have I been saddened that several of 
my colleagues whom I admire so much will be leaving this body, but 2 
weeks ago, I lost a dear friend and trusted adviser, Giles Perkins of 
Birmingham, AL.
  I so appreciate the fact that the day after his death, when I just 
could not hold up and hold it together to do so myself, Senator Schumer 
noted his passing in floor remarks. Giles' family appreciates those 
remarks as well, but because he meant so much to his adopted State of 
Alabama and the Birmingham community and the fact that he is the one 
who guided the effort to elect me to this office, it is only fitting 
that I honor his memory on the floor of the Senate.
  Giles was a former director of the Alabama Democratic Party and 
someone who worked for the last two Alabama Democratic Governors. 
Originally from Texas, he came to Alabama after marrying the love of 
his life, Hillery Head, in the early 1990s. Together, they have three 
children: Barton, Hugh, and Beverly. For all that he did in life and 
all that he accomplished, which was quite a lot, Giles was first and 
foremost a husband and father, a family man whose greatest love and 
source of pride were his wife and children.
  When he arrived in Alabama, he immediately began to get involved in 
the community and in politics. He got involved in the Folsom campaign 
for Governor, telling people that he simply wanted to make a 
difference. Over the next 25 years, he did just that. What a difference 
he made.
  While Giles was actively involved in numerous civic groups and 
projects, his greatest accomplishment was turning a few blighted blocks 
of real estate in the heart of the city of Birmingham into a stunning 
outdoor recreational area known as Railroad Park, which has not only 
provided a space for family enjoyment but spurred economic development 
and became a catalyst for revitalization in downtown Birmingham.
  Giles was an outstanding lawyer and community organizer, but he had 
politics in his blood, and he learned the ins and outs of the shark 
infested waters of Alabama politics like no other.
  It was Giles whom I first approached about running for a statewide 
office because I knew he shared my frustration with the state of 
politics and government in the State of Alabama. It was Giles and Doug 
Turner who sat me down to explain about running for the U.S. Senate--
where my heart has always been, having worked here just out of law 
school--why it was important to run for that office; why, given my 
background as a U.S. attorney and as a lawyer known for civil rights 
work, the special election would be so important. It was also Giles who 
brought in Joe Trippi, everyone else on my campaign team, and helped me 
staff my Senate office.
  But rather than calling him a political mentor, which just doesn't 
seem to capture all that he was, I often referred to him as ``Yoda,'' a 
political Jedi master, because of his vision and intuition for politics 
and how politics should translate into public service. He was certainly 
a master in teaching those around him how they could be wise in the 
ways of the force of politics. His strategy for my campaign and my 
Senate office and tenure was molded out of a vision of how Alabama and 
the South can move beyond the issues that have divided us and how we 
can lead the Nation in coming together and healing the partisan divide.
  Many think that my election was his greatest political achievement, 
but knowing him as I did, he would more likely say that it was not the 
election per se but the reaction that the election gave to so many 
people in Alabama and around the country who simply said that it gave 
them hope. That hope for a better Alabama, for a better South, and for 
a better America was his No. 1 priority.
  He was brilliant, philosophical, tenacious, stubborn, funny, and so 
straightforward that you thought he was sometimes just a little bit 
mean--a trait you often have to have in order to have a successful 
campaign.
  The absolutely remarkable thing about Giles, though, was that he 
managed my campaign on a daily basis--all of the calls, emails, and all 
of the meetings knowing he was living on borrowed time. At the time we 
began the campaign, he was a 2 year survivor of

[[Page S7647]]

pancreatic cancer, an aggressive form of cancer that takes no 
prisoners. Through it all, he suffered through a number of treatments, 
often texting or emailing orders or streams of consciousness while 
being hooked up to chemotherapy.
  When asked why he was doing all of this under the strain and pain of 
his cancer and his treatments, he matter of factly said: ``Because I 
want to show my children what is important and how to live.'' I am 
confident that his children got that, as did I and everyone else 
associated with our campaign.
  Giles lost his battle on December 2, having survived for 3\1/2\ years 
after being told he only had 1 month to live. In the world of 
pancreatic cancer, a 3\1/2\-year survivor is remarkable in itself, but 
Giles Perkins was a remarkable human who made such a positive impact on 
all who knew him.
  As a friend recently wrote me, ``It is because of unsung heroes such 
as Giles that democracy is sustained in America'' and that we are 
``grateful for his commitment and life's work to maintaining integrity 
in government.''
  I know this: When the history of Alabama and the politics of my State 
and the region are written, it will be Giles Perkins who will be 
credited for beginning a political change that will be felt for a long, 
long time.
  On a personal level, he will never leave my heart and soul.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remarks I made at 
Giles' memorial last Friday be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        Giles Perkins, Railroad Park Memorial, December 14, 2018

       It is, I believe, a rare occasion when someone stands 
     before a grieving crowd in an effort to memorialize more than 
     a relative or close friend but someone who was the driving 
     force behind making a lifelong dream come true. That folks is 
     the challenge I have faced the last twelve days-Giles was my 
     dear friend but as you all know he was also the person 
     primarily responsible for making my lifelong dream of being a 
     United States Senator become a reality.
       I have also faced the double challenge of not having Giles 
     around to help with my remarks. For the last 18 months or so 
     he helped me craft so many of my speeches, from the campaign 
     stump speeches to my maiden speech on the floor of the 
     Senate, to a broad speech about the South and our place in 
     history that could be adopted in a number of contexts. He was 
     always thinking of a bigger picture than most of us were 
     thinking of and regardless of who the messenger was going to 
     be, Giles wanted to control the message to the extent that he 
     could. He had the confidence and self assurance, and let's 
     face a little bit of arrogance--to craft the message that he 
     believed should be delivered. Giles knew he his fate several 
     weeks ago and was able to help plan this day, but when he 
     really started to go down, he went down rather fast. So that 
     is why I am convinced that he is looking down on us today and 
     somewhat cringing with anxiety of not really knowing what any 
     of us are going to say. For me in particular, knowing how he 
     has helped manage me the last 18 months my guess is that when 
     Hillery and the kids start going through his papers or his 
     notes on his IPad there will be something titled ``Notes for 
     Jones to say at my memorial.''
       Well my friend, I guess I will have to give it a shot 
     without you.
       One of the people in history that Giles admired most was 
     Robert Kennedy and in many ways his life mirrored that of 
     Bobby's.
       Giles was as tough as nails, who had as firm a grip on life 
     and people as anyone I have ever known. Louise often called 
     him a gunslinger who could quickly shoot you down with simply 
     an expression or comment. But he also had a very soft and 
     gentle side, especially with his family. Above all else Giles 
     was a family many totally devoted to Hillery and his children 
     Barton, Hugh and Beverly. He adored them all and no matter 
     what challenges he took on, from being a lawyer, a community 
     activist, a political candidate, a campaign strategist or a 
     warrior against cancer, Giles always made time for his 
     family. He not only loved them but he believed in them. For 
     all the successes he had in life, including the election of a 
     mayor, a Governor and a US Senator, his wife and children 
     were his greatest source of pride.
       Giles was also a visionary. One of Bobby Kennedy's more 
     famous quotes was ``Some men see things as they are and say 
     why, I dream things that never were and say why not?'' 
     Whether he did it consciously or subconsciously Giles was the 
     embodiment of that spirit. You only have to look around you 
     today and this magnificent park that has done so much for the 
     City of Birmingham and understand what I mean. Few could have 
     stood at the corner of an abandoned, almost blighted part of 
     town and see a vision of an outdoor park where people from 
     all walks of life can come and enjoy the outdoors, that would 
     be a safe gathering spot for fun and creativity, that could 
     attract the kind of development that allows a city to thrive. 
     But Giles did, simply seeing that vision and saying why not. 
     You can see it in the zoo, where he and others saw the 
     potential of having a world class attraction free from the 
     constraints of being owned by the city. But Giles, did and he 
     said why not. And today the zoo is on the verge of a 
     renaissance like it has never experienced. And I am standing 
     before you today as a Unites States Senator because along 
     with his political partners of many years, Doug Turner and 
     Joe Trippi, Giles saw an opening for a new Alabama, an 
     Alabama that puts aside the divisions of the past and 
     embraces our diversity and sense of respect and civility for 
     all people. An Alabama who could lead the South. When all of 
     the pundits looked at a Senate race in Alabama and dismissed 
     the idea saying that it was not possible for a Democrat to 
     win, saying why would anyone even try, Giles Perkins saw an 
     opening, with someone who shared his vision for a better 
     Alabama and a better South who could lead the nation out of 
     our divisiveness and he said why not.
       Giles got into politics for the right reasons. Not for ego 
     or power but to do good things. He got that from his mother, 
     who was a progressive member of the Texas state board of 
     education. When he first moved to Alabama after marrying 
     Hillery he approached the Folsom campaign about getting 
     involved. He told Peck Fox that he was from Texas but was 
     settling in Alabama and that he wanted to get involved in the 
     campaign because he wanted to make a difference. And for the 
     next 25 years what a difference he did make. Electing Don 
     Siegelman Governor. Re-electing Richard Arrington as Mayor. 
     Being Executive Director of the Alabama Democratic Party, 
     being a candidate for Attorney General and electing a US 
     Senator. But you can do all of those things when you are 
     in politics for the right reason, to make a positive 
     difference in people's lives. Giles believed that all 
     people, regardless of race or religion or gender of sexual 
     orientation or status in life should be treated equally 
     and with respect and he had no tolerance for those that 
     did not.
       That drive to make Alabama and the South a better place is 
     what drove him to know and understand all things that could 
     bring about political success. I called him Yoda for a 
     reason. He taught me and so many others the ways of the Force 
     in politics, to stay in our lane and to focus on that which 
     was truly important. That was especially tough for me as I 
     also had that type A personality and was constantly veering 
     off course because I had become so concerned about minutiae. 
     So even though my calling him Yoda was a term of affection 
     and respect he called me Chicken Little as a reminder of just 
     how much I did not know.
       He was a tough task master when it came to politics. His 
     firm grip on life and people became like a vise when he was 
     engaged in politics. He was smart, confident, efficient and 
     forgiving, at least to a point. He gave so many young folks a 
     chance but they had to perform and live up to his 
     expectations. They loved him and they feared him. Again, he 
     modeled himself after Bobby Kennedy who said about being the 
     campaign manager for JFK in 1960: ``I'm not running a 
     popularity contest. It doesn't matter if people like me or 
     not. Jack can be nice to them. I don't try to antagonize 
     people, but somebody has to be able to say no. If people are 
     not getting off their behinds, how do you say that nicely?''
       I am told that when Giles began hiring young talent to run 
     the Alabama Democratic Party that the kids began to notice 
     that Fridays were often the days where Giles would politely 
     but pointedly explain to someone that they were just not 
     working out and should hit the road. Instead buckling down to 
     make sure they weren't next they just quit coming in on 
     Fridays. As you might imagine with Giles at the helm that was 
     relatively short lived and the party prospered because of his 
     leadership.
       The same was true in our campaign last year. Because Giles 
     knew that we had to run a different campaign than any 
     Democrat had run in the last 20 years he did not rely on 
     those who had been in campaigns in the past, but a new 
     generation, one who understood social media and today's world 
     but yet could be taught the ways of the Force when it came to 
     old school politics. The kids we brought on had virtually no 
     real political experience but immediately set out to teach 
     them, bringing in books about RFK and Lyndon Johnson and the 
     modern political system. By his example of being engaged 
     everyday, whether in the campaign office or by phone or by e-
     mail or text, while also battling cancer and chemotherapy 
     treatments he taught them, and all of us, lessons of both 
     politics and life. But make no mistake, while they loved and 
     admired him they were also scared to death of him. One of our 
     young men said that every time Giles walked into the room his 
     male body parts seemed to retreat into his gut. Believe me, I 
     get that. While Yoda could be a gentle teacher we also have 
     scars from his light saber that came in the form of his e-
     mails or text messages or biting retorts if you were out of 
     line. I am quite sure that as word spread of Giles decision 
     to not seek further treatments for his cancer all of those 
     who worked with him or for him at any point in any of his 
     political endeavors were reminded of the words of Winston 
     Churchill who famously said: ``I am prepared to meet my 
     Maker. Whether my

[[Page S7648]]

     Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is 
     another matter.''
       But it was that same young staffer who also said that as 
     our campaign folks called to check on each other after Giles' 
     death each call ended with ``Love `ya'' and it was clear that 
     Giles built more than a campaign, he built a family that 
     would long outlive him.
       Over the last couple of years I came to love Giles like a 
     brother and came to know and appreciate him as a remarkable 
     human being who did so much for so many in his short time on 
     this planet. He died among the privileged but never, ever 
     forgot those less fortunate, constantly striving for a better 
     world for all. The words of Barack Obama at the funeral for 
     Ted Kennedy seem to have been written in advance for Giles 
     Perkins:
       We cannot know for certain how long we have here.
       We cannot foresee the trials or misfortunes that will test 
     us along the way.
       We cannot know what God's plan is for us.
       What we can do is to live out our lives as best we can with 
     purpose, and with love, and with joy.
       We can use each day to show those who are closest to us how 
     much we care about them, and treat others with the kindness 
     and respect that we wish for ourselves.
       We can learn from our mistakes and grow from our failures.
       And we can strive at all costs to make a better world, so 
     that someday, if we are blessed with the chance to look back 
     on our time here, we know that we spent it well; that we made 
     a difference; that our fleeting presence had a lasting impact 
     on the lives of others.
       This is how Giles Perkins lived. This world is better for 
     having pass here. We are better people because we knew him. 
     This is his legacy.
       So my friend, may you find new challenges to meet and new 
     visions to share, to see things not as they are but how they 
     can be. May God bless you and may you Rest In Peace.
       And for all eternity, May the Force be with you. Mr. JONES. 
I thank the Senate for this personal moment.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________