[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 199 (Tuesday, December 18, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7740-S7745]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  SAVE OUR SEAS ACT OF 2017--Continued

  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 senior assistant legislative 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 Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, because it has been announced that we 
have gone to the bill, it makes it necessary for me to ask to speak for 
a few minutes, as in morning business, on a subject that is unrelated 
to the bill before us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, before I go to that subject, I just 
heard Senator Schumer speak about the bill before the Senate, the 
criminal justice reform bill, but he has left the floor now. I thank 
him for his kind remarks and his backing of that bill--a very 
overwhelmingly bipartisan piece of legislation that is going to be the 
first major change in criminal justice legislation since the Clinton 
era of the early 1990s.


                         Tribute to Jill Kozeny

  Madam President, throughout my 38 years in the U.S. Senate, I have 
come to the floor tens of thousands of times. I have come to vote, to 
give speeches, to manage bills, and to debate issues that impact Iowans 
and the American people. As all of us do, I also vote from the Senate 
floor. Since 1981, I have cast 12,800 votes on behalf of Iowans. I take 
pride that I haven't missed a single vote since 1993. In fact, I hold 
the longest consecutive voting streak in Senate history. Since my 
reelection to a seventh term, I am now the longest serving U.S. Senator 
from Iowa.
  It is the privilege of my life to represent my home State. I wake up 
every day being grateful to work another day for my fellow Iowans. I am 
also grateful for the service, dedication, and loyalty of my Senate 
staff, who work every day to help me to serve Iowans. The work of my 
staff is what brings me to the Senate floor today. I am here to pay 
tribute to an extraordinary staffer who is also an extraordinary 
individual.
  Jill Kozeny has served on my staff for the last 30 years. To put that 
in perspective, she has worked on behalf of Iowans and the American 
people for more than half of her life and has done that right here in 
the Senate. Jill is a patriot and a public servant and has a servant's 
heart through and through.
  They say all good things come to an end, and at the end of the 115th 
Congress, Jill Kozeny, my chief of staff, will close this incredible 
chapter in her life.
  After graduating from the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, the 
Omaha native worked for Nebraska Senator David Karnes. Then she applied 
to be my assistant press secretary. I offered her the job. At first, 
she turned it down. She said she had decided she wanted to attend law 
school. Yet 24 hours later, she called back. She had changed her mind 
and wanted to come to work for me. She never looked back. Nebraska's 
loss was Iowa's gain.
  Jill first joined my Senate staff in 1989. She arrived to Hart 135 
under the name of Jill Hegstrom. After having worked for 30 years for 
the people of Iowa, I would say Jill more than qualifies as an honorary 
Iowan. In fact, she was married in Des Moines to Tom Kozeny, her 
husband. As many of my colleagues know, for the last 38 years, I have 
held a meeting in each of Iowa's 99 counties--at least 1 every year--
and for the last 30 of those years, Jill has staffed hundreds of those 
county meetings and Q and A's along the way. This is where the rubber 
meets the road--in sitting down and talking to Iowans and in meeting 
Iowans in their hometown communities to hear their concerns and doing 
it face-to-face.
  Day after day, Jill Kozeny has worked her tail off to make sure that 
our office and my staff have addressed the concerns of Iowans. Whatever 
uncertainty Jill had before joining my staff has evaporated completely 
through these years. Her confidence and her competence have grown as 
she has risen through the ranks. As press secretary and director of 
communications, she worked for years in leading my communications 
staff. She developed respect, trust, and credibility with reporters, 
and that is hard to do in this town. A request for information from 
even a weekly newspaper in Iowa was treated as importantly as one from 
a national correspondent or a television news anchor.
  Jill has been a loyal and trusted adviser to me and a trusted leader 
and mentor to my entire staff. In 2013, when the job opened up, I 
didn't hesitate to hire her to lead my office as chief of staff. Jill's 
tenure as a trusted and loyal adviser truly understates the depth of 
her contribution and service over these many years. At every turn, she 
has gone the extra mile--above and beyond the call of duty--to make 
sure my office has operated effectively and efficiently for Iowans. 
With Jill at the

[[Page S7741]]

helm, I have never once had to worry if the office has been working the 
way ``Grassley works.'' Those two words, ``Grassley works,'' are famous 
in Iowa because they have been my campaign slogan since 1978.
  Jill has set a tone of professionalism, courtesy, fairness, and 
integrity. As chief of staff for 15 staffers in Iowa and 25 here in 
Washington, Jill has set a tone of camaraderie, collegiality, respect, 
and confidence. Just ask members of my current staff or even people who 
had left my staff, maybe, 10 years ago about Jill Kozeny or ask her 
work colleagues in the press corps. They describe Jill's reputation and 
work ethic as dependable, substantive, thorough, and exemplary. 
Reporters say she is fair, patient, professional, and has ``set no 
better standard.''
  She has known how to build policy coalitions and how to navigate 
high-stakes political dramas that require a thick skin and a shrewd 
intelligence. It is a pressure cooker here in Washington, DC, on any 
day, and Jill has never rattled. Throughout her service, Jill's 
leadership has been instrumental in advancing the important legislative 
achievements and oversight work, including the historic tax cuts and 
the judicial confirmations achieved just this Congress. She has served 
as a pivotal political adviser to me in my last four political 
campaigns as well.
  Without a shadow of a doubt, I will miss having her by my side. I 
have total confidence in her ability and complete trust in her advice. 
As Jill has shared with staff through the years, I quote her: ``I grew 
up in the Grassley `cut-your-teeth school of work ethic,' where 
anonymity and hard work are the most effective way to serve and be 
effective.''
  For over 30 years, she has mentored scores of employees, from interns 
to entry-level staffers, to the most senior investigators and attorneys 
in my office. Both current and former staff have counted on her counsel 
and leadership. They say she has offered uncommon grace, goodness, and 
guidance. Jill has brought joy to the job, and it has shown in her work 
product and our workplace. She has been a highly skilled communicator, 
well organized, very articulate, and gracious. There is no other way to 
say it. For 30 years, Jill has brought 100-percent devotion to this job 
and 100-percent devotion to the people of Iowa, and I would have to 
say, without equivocation, that she has made me a better Senator.
  As a chief of staff in the U.S. Senate, Jill has reached the highest 
rungs of the congressional staff ladder on Capitol Hill. She has made 
her mark in these marbled hallways and has done so with an unassuming 
anonymity, with competence, and with a confidence that has been hard 
earned but has been very well deserved.
  My staff has become like family to one another. After so many years 
of working together at all hours of the day--you might say 365 days a 
year for the last 30 years--the professional relationship that I have 
grown to value tremendously has evolved into a warm friendship that 
Barbara, my wife, and I have valued even more. Capitol Hill staffers 
know that this workplace and its work pace are all-consuming. Yet life 
marches on. It is a true joy to share in the joys of life that my staff 
share with one another and with Barbara and me.
  Without a doubt, Jill takes pride in her work. After a long day's 
work, Jill goes home to her most cherished pride and joy. Jill and Tom, 
her husband, are proud parents to three beautiful children. Mary is a 
sophomore in high school, and their twin boys, Andrew and Teddy, are in 
the seventh grade. As Jill once said, ``a full nest is best.''
  Barbara and I have had opportunities to attend a couple of the boys' 
baseball games. They are very good athletes. They bring this same 
determined mindset to the game as their mom does to her job. As one of 
the boys approached the batter's box, he purposely tapped his bat to 
the underside of his cleats. Clear-eyed and laser-focused, it was 
obvious the steely, competitive spirit was inherited from Mom.
  The sense of family and friendship was manifested, more than ever, on 
that famous day we refer to as 9/11. Shortly after 11 a.m. that 
morning, Barbara and I, along with dozens of staff members from the 
office, took refuge in Jill's home near Capitol Hill. It is a day we 
will never forget for so many reasons, one of which is how Jill opened 
up her home because everybody needed a place to go because you couldn't 
go anyplace else.

  When terrorism struck the Nation's Capital, Jill Kozeny showed grace 
under fire. As usual, she set the tone: Keep calm and carry on.
  Earlier this year, Jill woke up very early to catch an international 
flight to China. She and another staffer were joining me on a 
congressional trade trip. As she prepared to leave for the airport, she 
smelled smoke. It turned out that the neighbor's house next door was on 
fire, but it affected her home as well. After putting out fires for 30 
years in the Grassley office, Jill, also known as, as we call her in 
our office, not CEO, but COE--chief of everything--she jumped into the 
crisis mode and got her family safely outside. But she also had that 
flight to catch, so she left the substantial mess--tremendous smoke 
damage and inconvenience--in the capable hands of her husband.
  I would like to express my gratitude to Jill's family because they 
also participate in this thing we call public service, which is a noble 
calling. It often requires unsung sacrifice from family members, as 
happened on that day last April.
  Although Jill wasn't on my staff when I was elected to the House of 
Representatives, she knows I admired my predecessor. He represented 
Iowa's Third District--Congressman H.R. Gross--for 26 years. His 
approach to constituent service was legendary. He once advised me in 
the first days of my membership in the House of Representatives that if 
a little old lady called and wanted her toenails trimmed, well, clip 
her toenails. Throughout my public service, I have used that as a 
benchmark.
  I have worked to uphold the highest standard of constituent service 
in representative government, and it takes a person's staff--people 
like Jill--to help get that job done. Throughout her service to me and 
to the people of Iowa, Jill Kozeny has fulfilled and exceeded this 
expectation that Congressman H.R. Gross set for me, including my 
priority to respond to every Iowan who writes or calls into my office. 
Some days, constituent correspondence may seem like the movie 
``Groundhog Day,'' but it is the way ``Grassley Works.'' And Jill has 
ingrained and managed this philosophy with my staff throughout her 
years of service.
  In closing, I have a message for my chief of staff. Honestly, I am 
sad to see her go. At the same time, I am happy for her. Considering 
all that she has done and sacrificed for the people of Iowa and, more 
importantly, for me, I wish her the very best.
  I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your loyalty and service. 
Barbara and I extend our warmest wishes to you and your family. It is 
hard to think about the passing of the baton. You have had a remarkable 
run in the Senate. May God bless you as you blaze a new trail. I have 
no doubt it will be extraordinary.
  Being extraordinary runs in Jill's veins.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  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

[[Page S7742]]

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

[[Page S7743]]

     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. BOOKER. Would the Senator yield?
  I wish to express my gratitude on the floor. I have been here in the 
Senate for almost exactly 5 years, and Senator Durbin and Senator 
Grassley have been nothing short of heroic, in my eyes, in consistently 
working the entire 5 years to get us to this point where we are, to use 
a football metaphor, on the 1-yard line in getting this over. 
Obviously, Senator Mike Lee and Senator Whitehouse have also been in 
that category.
  You did an incredibly good job of laying out that we have amendments 
that go counter to the victims groups and to their interests and to 
their well-being, their often emotional well-being, being 
retraumatized, forced to be back out there.
  But I want to ask you a question about that last amendment Cotton is 
making about that so-called exclusion list, people who won't be 
eligible for particular programs before they are released. In other 
words, there are programs they can enroll in while they are in prison 
that would ultimately shave a little bit of time off their sentences. 
These programs, though--I would like you to maybe go into them because 
they are evidence-based programs that actually lower recidivism rates, 
and they save taxpayer money. The idea behind this--maybe you could 
explain it--is to make sure that when people are released, they don't 
come back. In other words, if they don't get into these programs, it is 
more likely that those very people he has tried to exclude might come 
back. Can you explain why these programs are important and why they 
make sense?
  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

[[Page S7744]]

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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The Senator from Connecticut.


                             Bipartisanship

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, sometime in the next 2 weeks, we will 
leave this body and this session, and many of us will return in January 
for the next one. We will leave many challenges unmet and many problems 
unsolved, partly because of the partisanship that has paralyzed the 
Congress, our Federal Government, and many of our States.
  The model for what we should adopt as the spirit going forward as we 
begin that new session is articulated powerfully in a letter that was 
recently sent to us by 44 former colleagues--10 Republicans, 32 
Democrats--coming together to cite the challenges this Nation faces and 
the need for us to do so in a bipartisan way, coming together in the 
spirit of what makes this country the greatest in the history of the 
world.
  I hope my colleagues will pay attention to that letter. Yesterday, I 
entered it into the Congressional Record, and I am proud today to cite 
parts of it that I think are worthy of our attention. They say--and 
they are right--that ``we are at an inflection point [in our Nation's 
history] in which the foundational principles of our democracy and our 
national security interests are at stake, and the rule of law and the 
ability of our institutions to function freely and independently must 
be upheld.''
  That is a quote from a letter which puts us on notice that we have a 
historic obligation to work together, as they have come together in 
this letter, as they did so often to accomplish great things in this 
body.
  They say:

       We are on the eve of the conclusion of special counsel 
     Robert S. Mueller III's investigation and the House's 
     commencement of investigations of the president and his 
     administration. The likely convergence of these two events 
     will occur at a time when simmering regional conflicts and 
     global power confrontations continue to threaten our 
     security, economy and geopolitical stability.

  Above all the issues that occupy us in these closing days of the 
session and will confront us as we begin the next, the backdrop is a 
dangerous world and severe jeopardy to our democracy and rule of law.
  They say, and we should keep in mind, that during their service in 
the Senate, at times we were allies and at other times opponents, but 
never enemies.
  That is the spirit that must move us as we end this session, but, 
more importantly, as we begin the next session. That commitment to the 
rule of law that these 44 of our former colleagues have expressed must 
animate us as well.
  The three former colleagues who signed from Connecticut could not be 
more different. Senators Weicker, Dodd, and Lieberman are different as 
people, in character, and in background in almost every way, except in 
their commitment to this country and in their allegiance to that 
principle of coming together in a bipartisan way.
  I hope we will take this lesson. I am far from the most appropriate 
Member of this body to be lecturing anyone on the spirit of this great 
institution, but it has impressed me over a long time. My colleagues 
who were here today supporting criminal justice reform, on both sides 
of the aisle, embody that spirit as well.
  We have a real opportunity on criminal justice reform to do real 
tangible good. The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's 
population. Yet, at 2.1 million incarcerated people, we have nearly a 
quarter of the world's prisoners. Anybody who has been a prosecutor--
and we have many in this body--knows the complexities and the 
challenges of dealing with crime and ensuring fairness and justice in 
our criminal system.
  As a former U.S. attorney and attorney general of the State of 
Connecticut, I have been proud and privileged to work with the 
professionals of our law enforcement community. I have marveled at 
their dedication, professionalism, and skills. I have been impressed so 
deeply by our corrections officers and the men and women who every day 
go to work staffing and manning the prisons and other correctional 
facilities where the justice system extends its reach over people's 
lives. My experience has taught me that protecting public safety is not 
simply a matter of locking up people for the longest possible time.
  The Federal Government currently spends billions every year 
maintaining our prison population--the largest in the world. If we 
really want to keep people safe, there should be more dedication of 
resources to State and local enforcement, who patrol our streets, keep 
our communities safe, and provide role models for many of our young 
people.
  Much of the money that we spend now could be better devoted to more 
effective investigation, training, and equipping prosecutors with the 
tools they need, ensuring the most dangerous of the criminals are not 
only apprehended but kept behind bars and the least dangerous are given 
an opportunity and a second chance to make good out of their lives.
  Targeted innovative programs have been shown to deal with crime more 
effectively than broad, blunderbuss, lock-them-up kinds of programs. 
Spending billions of dollars on extended prison sentences for 
nonviolent criminals may seem tough on crime, but toughness in a war on 
crime has been shown to be insufficient. More than being tough, we need 
to be smart. The human and financial costs of mass incarceration simply 
are not worth the costs. This legislation sets a marker that it is time 
to make a change.
  Opponents of reform want to play on our fears. They want to see every 
convict as a threat, every ex-convict as a menace. They deny the 
fundamental premise of our human justice system and our criminal 
justice--that we must seek rehabilitation and recovery, not just 
punishment; that people can make good from second chances.
  As an example, let me cite Reginald Dwayne Betts, who is a 
Connecticut resident and a graduate of the Yale Law School. When Betts 
was 16, he made a serious mistake. He joined a few friends and others 
he hardly knew, getting into a car with them and joining in a robbery. 
The driver of the car, a man in his early twenties, was unknown to 
Betts. He appeared to be in charge. Betts asked him for his pistol. He 
was given the firearm and told to keep the safety on so there would be 
no accidental gunshot. They headed to a mall where Betts, holding the 
gun, signaled for a man to get out of his car. Betts and his friend 
stole the vehicle and drove away. They were arrested the next day.
  That was Betts' crime. He pleaded guilty to carjacking, attempted 
robbery, and a firearm charge. He faced a maximum sentence of life plus 
13 years

[[Page S7745]]

in prison. At his hearing, Betts apologized. He apologized, first and 
foremost, to his mother and his family and the man he had terrorized. 
He expressed genuine remorse for his actions. His apology was 
heartfelt. He knew he had broken the law. He knew he had to face the 
consequences, and he owned that responsibility.
  For the very real crimes he committed as a 16-year-old, he was 
sentenced to 9 years in an adult prison. That is hard time. Like so 
many children, he was tried as an adult and he was imprisoned with 
grown men.
  During that time in prison, Betts read every book he could, he 
completed a paralegal course, and he learned Spanish. He demonstrated 
an initiative and willingness to learn which was extraordinary. He 
embodied the principle of rehabilitation and redemption that our 
criminal justice system treasures as a vital principle, but the system 
never gave him an opportunity to reenter society as a productive 
citizen.
  His reading was not part of an education program that gave him 
college credits or degrees. The paralegal course he took did not 
produce any certification. The Spanish he learned was not formally 
recognized by anyone. None of the skills he taught himself would 
qualify him in the eyes of an employer when he was released from prison 
as a 24-year-old. Most employers wouldn't even look past the box that 
he was forced to check identifying himself as an ex-felon.
  Fortunately for Betts, and very unusually for him, the literary 
knowledge he acquired during his time in prison was enough to impress 
the owner of a bookstore who gave him a job. He enrolled in a community 
college and graduated with honors. He went to the University of 
Maryland on a scholarship. He earned a bachelor's degree and a master's 
in fine arts in poetry, and, eventually, he went to Harvard for a 
Radcliffe fellowship and published a book of poetry.
  Mr. Betts had a criminal record, and it was an ongoing punishment, as 
it is for every ex-felon and every former convict in America. It 
follows him everywhere, as it does everyone convicted of a felony, 
regardless of how much time he served or where he did it. Despite his 
stellar academic record, the fact that he was an active member of his 
community and a loving husband and father, he couldn't get a single 
interview for a job.
  Betts tried again. He applied to law school and was accepted at one 
of the finest institutions of the country. He chose to go to Yale Law 
School and become an attorney, which he is today.
  Betts will be the first to tell you that his extraordinary story is 
unusual among people who have been convicted of a felony. He has spoken 
with eloquence and passion about the struggles people like him face, 
both in prison and once they enter society again.
  Most of my life has been spent in law enforcement. Most of my career 
has been devoted to pursuing cases against people who break the law. I 
know that justice involves both punishment and redemption. It is 
supposed to be penance and rehabilitation. We do not discard the people 
who have committed crimes. We do not abandon them in our country. In 
principle--but in action, all too often--yes, they are discarded and 
abandoned, and so they become recidivists, a polite euphemism for 
people who commit crimes again and again because they are given no 
constructive alternative.
  Some are dangerous and need to be locked away for life or for long 
periods of time that are necessary to rehabilitate, but we also know 
that many nondangerous convicts could be released with rehabilitation, 
skilled training, and education--the kind of training that Mr. Betts 
had.
  We are debating a bill now, the FIRST STEP Act, which tries to bring 
balance back to our criminal justice system. The current system throws 
away and discards people like Dwayne Betts--a loss to us and to 
society. These draconian prison terms provide few incentives for 
prisoners to prepare for reentry, and that is the gap the FIRST STEP 
Act seeks to address. It is an injustice it seeks to correct. The bill 
will allow judges to sentence below the mandatory minimum sentences for 
low-level nonviolent drug offenders who cooperate with the government.
  That is a first step to a more humane and effective system. This bill 
would make the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive, making it possible for 
nearly 2,600 Federal prisoners sentenced on racially discriminatory 
drug laws to petition for a reduced sentence.
  That is also a first step toward a fairer, more humane system.
  The bill includes prison reform. Under this legislation, prisoners 
can earn 10 days off their time behind bars for every 30 days of 
recidivism reduction programming. That is the kind of program that 
would make reentry into society for people like Dwayne Betts just a 
little bit easier, and it gives prisoners incentives to earn skills in 
prison so that they can be productive members of society after they 
have paid their debt. That is another first step toward a more humane 
and just system.
  The bill includes commonsense reforms--measures like prohibiting the 
shackling of pregnant prisoners and providing feminine healthcare 
products to incarcerated women.
  It ends the horror of Federal juvenile solitary confinement. It helps 
tackle the drug epidemic that America faces by expanding opioid and 
heroine abuse treatment behind bars.
  There are other crucial, fiercely negotiated reforms in this bill, 
all of which seek to take that kind of first step toward a better 
criminal justice system, and one day, it will be cited as an exemplar 
of American ideals of liberty and justice.
  I urge my colleagues to support this measure. It is a good first 
step, and it is one we can be proud of supporting on a bipartisan basis 
in the best spirit of that letter from 44 of our former colleagues, 
urging us to come together and support common ground where we can 
improve the greatest Nation in the history of the world.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________