Civil Rights Cold Case Investigations Support Act of 2022

Madam President, before I rise to talk about Ukraine tonight, I want to join my colleagues in extending my prayers to all those who are currently in Florida, in the area, and those with loved ones and family there who are in Hurricane Ian's dangerous path this evening.

Ukraine

Madam President, I come to the floor tonight to talk about Ukraine. This is

the 24th week in a row I have come to bring to the attention of my colleagues what is happening in this part of the world where Russia has attacked a sovereign and democratic country with brutality.

I come to talk about the latest news of Russia's illegal and unprovoked war on Ukraine and to ensure that my colleagues know how important it is that we do follow up with our commitment to Ukraine and pass the legislation that is on the floor this week to provide supplemental funding to the Ukrainian Government, to their military, and also for the humanitarian effort.

I will also highlight tonight the continued Ukrainian counteroffensive up here in the northeast part of Ukraine, where there has been a good deal of success.

The light blue is parts of Ukraine that have been liberated just in the past few weeks. It is about 3,000 square miles. The red is parts that are still occupied by Russia.

I will talk about the sham ``referendum'' that President Putin announced just last Wednesday and then took place over the weekend, the reasons for and consequences of Russia's recent decision to draft an additional 300,000 troops, as well as Vladimir Putin once again threatening a nuclear attack.

I will also discuss the vote in this body--again, this week--because we, in the next couple of days, are going to decide whether to provide additional funding for Ukraine. It is so important we continue to provide that support at this crucial juncture, just as Ukraine is making progress and pushing back against Russia's war of aggression.

Last week, I touched on the extraordinary success of this counteroffensive. As you will recall, Ukraine launched a surprise lightning counteroffensive here in the northeastern part of the country, which caught Russian forces off guard. In a matter of days, Ukraine liberated over 3,000 square miles of territory and sent the invaders rushing back to Russia and back to eastern parts of Ukraine.

To the north, Russian forces have been pushed back to the international boundary here and over into Ukraine or some into Belarus.

Along this front line is a river. It is the Oskil River, which many thought would be a natural barrier to block Ukraine from making further gains. Yet, as we have seen in the last week, Ukrainian forces have actually managed to cross this river and establish major bridgeheads, including one here at Kupiansk right here and also one here east of Izyum. Izyum is the place where, unfortunately, there were all sorts of atrocities discovered when the liberation took place. There has been additional Ukrainian success here and progress crossing the river to the east of Izyum.

As you will see from the map, a key city called Lyman will soon be surrounded by three sides. When Lyman is surrounded by three sides, it will be very difficult for Russia to defend it. The sense is that the invaders there will be forced to either surrender or retreat.

Clearly, Ukraine continues to have the momentum here in the northeast; again, therefore, exactly the time for us to continue to support Ukraine.

U.S. funding has made a huge difference. The actions of this body and the House of Representatives and the administration in providing this help to Ukraine has allowed for successes that were unimaginable 7 months ago when Russia initiated this latest invasion. They have actually stopped and are now pushing back a Russian army that is much larger and with a lot more heavy equipment.

Our support, along with that of over 50 countries around the world-- and let me underline that. Fifty countries around the world or more have now provided military assistance to Ukraine. That has helped enable the survival of this country as a free and independent Ukraine.

Yesterday, I had the privilege to host Ukraine's Ambassador to the United States, Oksana Markarova, along with Ukraine's Parliament. We heard firsthand from them how the weapons we are providing are making a huge difference on the battlefield.

One of the parliamentarians had just returned from the region, the northeast region we talked about. She was just in the area of Kharkiv, and she said that the soldiers there told her: Please, go back to the United States and say thank you because these weapons you are giving us--particularly, they focused on the HIMARS--are making such a huge difference.

These HIMARS are long-range missile systems, and they have changed the tide of this war.

Along with more ammunition and equipment, of course, we have to continue to insist on total transparency to ensure that the end use is being monitored. ``End use monitoring'' is the term that the 101st Airborne used when I talked to them in Poland about the U.S. weapons that are going into the country.

This is an example. HIMARS is an example. We know now from public information there are 16 of these HIMARS from the United States. There are also some from the UK--not exactly the same weapon but a similar weapon--and also some from Germany. Those 16 remain undamaged, which is extraordinary, and they have been incredibly useful.

But we need to ensure that all this equipment goes to the right place to ensure there is no fraud, no diversion of weapons. In my visits to the region, including a month ago, I did speak to U.S. military officials both in Poland and in Ukraine, who provided details on how they are tracking U.S. and other weapons to ensure they are not diverted from the Ukrainians and from the frontlines.

This end-use monitoring, which as our military explains it is, according to them, being implemented in ways never done before; and they claim the Ukrainian Government and military are full partners in these accountability measures. That is what I heard as well. I heard that from the President of Ukraine, President Zelenskyy; and I heard it from all the Ukrainian officials, including the Parliamentarians with whom we met, that they want to have total transparency. They think it is in their interest as well.

Of course, Russian disinformation is trying to convince media otherwise. Let me give you an example of that. Over the weekend, a BBC investigation revealed allegations from Russia media sources that were picked up, frankly, by some U.S. and European media--which is a warning, I think, to our own media to be careful and check your sources--but the reports from the Russian media was that U.S.-supplied weapons were being sold on the black market in Ukraine. BBC determined that was entirely false.

Russians had posed as Ukrainians on the dark web pretending to sell these weapons in order to undermine American and European confidence in Ukraine's ability to control these weapons. It turns out it was a totally false narrative peddled by the Russian Government in order to sow division between Ukraine and its allies. The BBC report again affirms what I've heard in the region, that our military aid to Ukraine is getting into the right hands and is not being diverted for malign purposes.

A specific example of what we had provided that is making a difference are these HIMARS, as we talked about. By all accounts, Ukrainian forces have used these really creatively to be able to disrupt the logistics of the Russian Armed Forces. They have been striking behind enemy lines to destroy Russian ammunition depots, logistics hubs, command and control outposts. Prior to the HIMARS, only the Russians had long-range artillery, and they could fire on Ukrainian civilians and military with impunity. Finally, they have the ability to push back. These weapons have enabled this spectacular counteroffensive we saw in the northeast to be able to succeed. So when we give the Ukrainians weapons they have actually been asking for, they actually need, they use them effectively, and it is working.

In the clearest sign yet that Russia is feeling desperate, last week President Putin announced a new draft, a mobilization of at least 300,000 soldiers to support his troubled war on Ukraine. Remember, President Putin promoted his ``special operation'' in Ukraine as a special military operation that would not touch the lives of ordinary Russians. It would be quick; it would involve minimal casualties; it would bring great glory to Russia.

Now after 7 months, tens of thousands of casualties, a substantial part

of their military equipment being lost on the battlefield, and global outrage at what Russia is doing, President Putin is being forced to implement Russia's first mass mobilization since World War II to bolster his failing war effort. This is an act of desperation, and it is deeply unpopular among the people in Russia. According to reports, antimobilization protests in 38 Russian cities saw more than 1,300 people arrested just last week. Here are some of those demonstrations.

The punishment for many of those detained, by the way, if they are males between the ages of, say, 18 and 50, is to be forcibly conscripted. Meanwhile, several Russian enlistment offices have been burned down by citizens armed with Molotov cocktails who want nothing to do with Putin's war in Ukraine.

In fact, the announcement of the mobilization has caused many thousands of military-aged men to flee Russia to avoid being sent to war. It is reported that airline tickets out of Moscow have reached $5,000 or $10,000 or more, and flights are totally sold out. Car traffic at Russia's international borders have caused massive traffic jams, as those who can't fly out of Russia try to drive out to get away from the conscription. Here is an example with the border with Georgia. You can see these cars lined up for miles.

Russia is so desperate that they are recruiting just about any able- bodied man just to get bodies in to fill their ranks. These are not military-trained individuals. They are letting prisoners out of jail if they promise to fight. Despite the official policy that this mobilization will only draft men with prior military experience, they will take anyone. In the Irkutsk region of Russia, a young man shot and killed a military commissar who was attempting to conscript his friend who had no prior military experience. President Putin is breaking his promises to the Russian people, and they are responding.

Russia's desperation has shown itself in other ways too. After numerous postponements, Moscow-backed occupation officials in Luhansk, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, and Donetsk Oblast suddenly announced last Tuesday they would hold immediate referendum to join Russia, which they completed over the weekend. In typical Russian fashion, these so-called referenda are not free or fair. The results have been preordained in Moscow, and the actual conduct of the voting is just theater. There are a lot of videos circulating--and you have probably seen them--of online videos of armed Russian soldiers going door-to-door to conduct these illegal referendum. So you have an armed soldier with an automatic weapon next to an election official asking someone how they are going to vote. Here is an example of one of the photographs that somebody bravely took of a Russian soldier literally looking over the shoulder of a Ukrainian citizen. How can any Ukrainian vote against the referendum in the face of an automatic rifle? The European Union, the United Nations, the United States, and others, of course, have called these sham elections. It appears that Russia thinks by claiming these territories as theirs, it can justify now their use of chemical, biological, or even nuclear weapons in order to defend what Putin would call his own sovereign territory. Of course, no matter what Russia says, this--all of this--is Ukrainian territory. It is sovereign Ukrainian territory. And a sham referendum is only a Russian escalation of their illegal and unprovoked war on Ukraine.

So the results this week are predictable. You can look for them. It will be 95 percent. It will be 98 percent. The process won't be fair. It will be done with flagrant disregard for Ukrainian law and for international law. Russia's actions reveal their weak hand, and the world is not fooled. UK defense secretary Ben Wallace said that the partial mobilization and the annexation of parts of Ukraine are an admission, as he said, of Mr. Putin's invasion failing. Ambassador to Ukraine Bridget Brink called the announced measures ``signs of weakness.''

We must make it clear that the United States will never recognize Russia's claims to these annexed territories. President Putin's veiled threats last week and again this week, some say, to use nuclear weapons to defend illegally annexed territory have received a good deal of media attention. First, it should be noted, he has made similar threatening statements in the past. But he also knows that the use of nuclear weapons would be catastrophic for his own country. As the Washington Post said over the weekend:

There are no military gains to be had from a nuclear attack

that indiscriminately incinerates everything in its path and

leaves the land uninhabitable.

The nuclear fallout of attacking neighboring Ukraine, of course, will also affect Russia and its citizens. Meanwhile, if he were to act on such a threat, President Putin would immediately turn his country into even more of a pariah than it is now, and there would be a severe consequence, as the United States has warned.

Nuclear weapons have not been used since World War II, almost 80 years ago. Using them now would plunge us into a far more dangerous world, and the world would never forgive President Putin. The countries that have taken a neutral stance on this brutal conflict would quickly change their tune, and the resolve of the West and so many other countries to stand against Russian aggression would only increase. This conflict has shown that when push comes to shove, the alliance actually comes together to protect Ukraine; it binds together.

Nuclear blackmail cannot be allowed to work. Responding to Vladimir Putin's reckless threats by pulling back would only reward bad behavior and create a more dangerous and volatile world. Appeasement does not work. In response to these threats, it is crucial that we continue to support Ukraine while making clear to Russia that there will be enormous costs for use of a nuclear weapon. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said on Sunday morning that ``any use of nuclear weapons will be met with catastrophic consequences for Russia.''

This battle for freedom transcends this Congress; it transcends partisanship. We all know who the aggressor is in this fight. The people of Ukraine have never asked for anything other than peace and to be able to live with their neighbors, including Russia, in peace; the right to exist as a sovereign, independent nation. Russia's illegal and unprovoked war is an attack on their fundamental right to self- governance.

We have all seen the evidence of war crimes: the torture, the rape, the killings of innocent Ukrainian civilians and noncombatants, the videos of Ukrainian soldiers being tortured with box cutters, and the mass gravesites. NATO's response last week to the Russian atrocities in Izyum this past week was to reaffirm ``our unwavering support for Ukraine's independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity . . . and for Ukraine's inherent right to self-defence. NATO allies remain resolute in providing political and practical support to Ukraine as it continues to defend itself against Russia's aggression.''

Global support for Ukraine has increased in response to the increasing number of atrocities being committed by Russian soldiers. I was able to hear about this firsthand last week when I met with Ukrainian Prosecutor General Andriy Kostin about the ongoing global effort to hold Russia accountable for their war crimes, which are a clear violation of international law. We discussed ways the United States can aid Ukraine in its effort to investigate and prosecute cases of war crimes conducted by Russian soldiers in Ukraine. Last week, I talked about the mass graves of people tortured and executed in the city of Izyum. Who knows how many more are out there. The evidence of this genocide grows every day, and every day the anger against Russia grows alongside it. So far, we believe these war crimes have resulted in the deaths of at least 7,300 civilians, including 391 children.

The West and our allies must all recognize that these Russian atrocities will not stop until Russia believes the costs are too high, until there are more Ukrainian victories on the battlefield, and until the sanctions are more effective at cutting off funding to Russia's war machine. Russia needs to feel the squeeze. We talked about this in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing today. That is the only way this Russian brutality, this madness, ends. For the sake of global freedom, Ukraine must be allowed to end this war on its terms, not on Russia's

terms. To get to that point requires us to continue supporting Ukraine, to keep the momentum going. What would it say if we backed down now?

In an address before the United Nations last week, President Zelenskyy said:

Ukraine wants peace. Europe wants peace. The world wants

peace. And we have seen who is the only one who wants war.

Secretary of State Blinken summed it up:

If Russia stops fighting, the war ends. If Russia stops

fighting, the war ends. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine

ends.

I encourage the Senate to act with a united voice in support of the people of Ukraine. By providing additional funding, the battlefield gains can continue; the government in Kyiv can continue to operate; Ukrainian prosecutors can investigate more war crimes and bring the perpetrators to justice.

As Russia continues their ruthless attack on freedom and democracy, it is our duty to stand up for what we believe to be true: that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness will always win in the fight against tyranny. And it is working. Ukrainian liberators have taken back cities across Ukraine, as we have seen. It is working. And unlike Russia, the morale of the Ukrainian people and the troops is strong. Their determination is strong.

We must continue to let the world know we stand with Ukraine. And as I have heard from multiple meetings with Ukrainian officials, including some of the Parliamentarians we were with yesterday, they said: Freedom must be armed.

And the United States must be there to lead that effort to ensure that freedom's flame is not extinguished in Ukraine.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to tell a story of one family's tragedy but also of two wonderful people who turned that tragedy into helping others and finding solutions.

On May 15, 2014, a 19-year-old Wisconsinite named Archie Badura died of a fentanyl overdose.

Two years later, I met his mother Lauri Badura, who testified before a field hearing I held in Pewaukee, WI, together with an emergency room doctor named Dr. Tim Westlake, who testified about the growing problem that he was seeing in his emergency room with overdoses and, in particular, overdoses with, I think, a drug that we all heard was somewhat new, fentanyl, a schedule II drug; one used in medicine but one that had been altered, the molecule changed, and produced in China and shipped through our Postal Service and was killing people like Archie Badura.

It was probably the first time I heard of what was happening to fentanyl. And so Dr. Westlake, because he was seeing the tragedy firsthand, was developing a piece of legislation that he was proposing in Wisconsin as well as on a national level.

The piece of legislation I introduced in 2017 was called the SOFA Act. The reason I called it the SOFA Act--and that stands for Stopping Overdoses of Fentanyl Analogs--is because Lauri Badura, again, who lost her 19-year-old son, turned her tragedy into helping others.

She was the go-to person for other families who also lost a loved one through overdoses, and she started an organization called Saving Others for Archie. The acronym was SOFA. So I thought it only appropriate, when working with Dr. Tim Westlake on this piece of legislation that would recognize the growing problem of these analogs, of these fentanyl-related drugs that were killing and poisoning our citizens--I thought it only appropriate to come up with a piece of legislation named after that organization with that same acronym, SOFA.

So on July 13, 2017, I introduced SOFA for the first time here in the U.S. Senate.

On November 9, 2017, because of Tim Westlake and Lauri Badura's tireless effort, a State piece of legislation, the SOFA equivalent, was signed into law in Wisconsin. And basically what this law does--it is a pretty simple law--it just allows law enforcement, the DEA, to view these fentanyl-related substances as a class under schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.

Prior to this bill, prior to these regulations, law enforcement had to view each new molecule, each new analog as a separate drug, and they could not arrest, they couldn't prosecute, they couldn't put people in jail for selling these and poisoning our cities.

So Dr. Tim Westlake recognized that problem. I recognized that problem, and so we introduced the SOFA Act. And once DEA saw it, they thought this was a pretty good idea, and they utilized their regulatory authority and passed a regulation on February 6, 2018. They issued a temporary scheduling order that placed ``certain fentanyl-related substances in schedule 1 for 2 years.''

The text of that regulation was identical to the text of the SOFA law that I had introduced earlier in 2017.

Now, unfortunately, they could only issue that regulation having an effect of 2 years. So as it was about ready to run out, Congress extended that regulation in an act of Congress, and we have extended it six times. President Biden has signed that extension five times. But the problem is, the extension of that regulation runs out on December 31 of this year.

Now, the Biden administration--I think it is important to understand--in its 2021 budget proposal, called for classwide fentanyl scheduling. The DEA Administrator Anne Milgram said:

The permanent scheduling of all fentanyl-related substances

is critical--

Is critical--

to the safety and health of our communities.

She added:

Class-wide scheduling provides a vital tool--

A vital tool--

to combat overdose deaths in the United States.

Now, why have we extended this regulation six times? There is no need for it. We could pass the law, which we have tried to do a number of times.

But the reason we keep extending it is because it has worked. It has helped stop the flow of these precursor chemicals coming out of China. China has actually cracked down on these analogs within China. So the regulation worked. The SOFA Act is vital, according to Anne Milgram.

Something else I want to point out about the SOFA Act is, in an almost unprecedented--this is very rare--in 2018, all 50 States' attorneys general, plus the attorney general from the District of Columbia, including current HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, who was an attorney general for California at the time, signed a letter to congressional leadership urging the Congress to act expeditiously and pass the SOFA Act.

This is such a commonsense piece of legislation. It works. It reduces the number of types of fentanyl on the streets killing our citizens, killing our youth, killing people like Archie Badura.

Again, the DEA had a regulation for 2 years. Congress has extended that regulation six times. All I am asking is for the Senate to pass this commonsense, lifesaving piece of legislation by unanimous consent.

And so, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 1006 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

I ask this in the name of Archie Badura and on behalf of Dr. Tim Westlake and a wonderful woman, a wonderful Wisconsinite named Lauri Badura.

Would the Senator from Illinois yield?

So I want to just make the point that there is nothing in the SOFA Act that would prevent that research from continuing, and if a molecule was found that is helpful, it can be scheduled separately.

This is just targeting the deadly drugs that are not helpful. So there is nothing in this that would prevent that type of research, which is why, you know, we have--Congress has reauthorized this or extended this six times, and the Biden administration supports this. They say it is vital that we are able to class all these fentanyl- related molecules together so that we can enforce our laws and prevent death.

So, again, there is nothing in here that prevents the research, which I would completely support. Again, molecules are amazing things, and changing them can change the characteristics, but we have to recognize how deadly fentanyl is.

We have gone from, you know, slightly more than 50,000 overdose deaths in 2015, the year after Archie Badura died, to over 107,000 last year, and we are on a path to break that record too.

So, again, this has been supported on a bipartisan basis. We have extended this.

I just have to say that the research argument just doesn't hold water.

Would the Senator yield again?

Fentanyl is being used in medicine today, and it is on schedule II. So they can do the research off of that drug on schedule II. There is nothing preventing that--nothing whatsoever.

Mr. President, again, I find that unfortunate. I would hope that the Senator from Illinois would not at least object to Senator Grassley coming on the floor looking for another extension of this.

Again, the DEA Administrator says this is vital. So I hope that, at a minimum, we can extend this for a seventh time, and then maybe we can come back when some of these issues are resolved and maybe finally pass SOFA possibly in the next Congress.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I took chemistry in high school. I wasn't very good at it, but I think I got a B, and I was glad to get rid of it because I didn't understand a lot of it, and that was not where I was headed in life.

The question which the Senator from Wisconsin puts before us today is a complicated question. It seems he is--do we have a drug crisis in America? Yes. Is fentanyl dangerous? Yes. Is fentanyl deadly? Yes. Is fentanyl on schedule I, the highest possible narcotic rating under our Criminal Code? Yes.

So what is this discussion about fentanyl? Why are we at this again?

I don't know the Senator from Wisconsin's background in chemistry and the like, but here is how I understand it and why it is not as simple as paying tribute to this young man who lost his life to fentanyl. And I can come up with examples that I have run into as well. It is heartbreaking what is going on.

There are certain elements that contain fentanyl that have other chemical structures, not simple fentanyl, which is already a prohibited narcotic under American law. And these so-called analogs of fentanyl have many chemical variations. It turns out that some of them are deadly dangerous, but some of them are not. It turns out that some are deadly dangerous, and others may have a promise to be the next Narcan for the researchers.

So we have been struggling, literally, for years with a research community that says: When it comes to fentanyl analogs, don't sweep them all into category I. Some of them may be lifesaving, as odd as that sounds. It could happen. And I have been saying it is a reasonable argument, but how long is this investigation going to go on? How long will this research continue?

We are told that it is sincere and real--it has happened under previous administrations and this administration--and that to sweep all these chemical analogs of fentanyl into this category would be, frankly, counterproductive. We may be walking away from something that is a lifesaver rather than a life-taker.

And it is because of that that we have been temporarily extending the decision to put fentanyl and its analogs on category I so that this research can establish whether, in fact, there is a lifesaver, that there is something positive in a fentanyl analog.

I have just given you the sum total of my understanding of this issue. As I said, I didn't major in chemistry and barely got through it in high school, but I think that is where we are.

I don't think there is any disagreement between us that fentanyl is deadly and dangerous and belongs on that category I.

When it comes to the analogs, they said to me: Durbin, you are a liberal arts lawyer. Don't act like you are a chemist. Give us the time to do this right.

Sure. Yes.

There is an element that the Senator from Wisconsin may not be aware of. When a drug is on schedule I, it is prohibited to do research on it. That is the reason why we

are running into problems with cannabis, now legal in my State and maybe in your State as well.

And I raised the basic question: Are the health claims about cannabis true or false?

And they said: We cannot research it because it is on the list of prohibited drugs in the United States.

The problem is, if we put all of these analogs on the list, it is going to stop the research that we need to finish. It is a catch-22.

What we have tried to do is a temporary extension saying: Give us the final word. We have got to make a decision.

I do not quarrel with you in any way about the danger of fentanyl, but the people who do this for a living--and I can't keep up with their conversations, by and large--have explained to me: We are trying to find a good use of a fentanyl analog. Don't close the door, slam the door, by putting it on schedule I because research stops.

Yes, of course.

I would just say that my information is a little different. I respect the Senator from Wisconsin and his tribute to this poor young man who lost his life, but we are trying to do the sensible thing. Fentanyl itself is going to continue to be branded a dangerous drug, titled in category 1. But Federal analogs and a variation on that theme is what we are discussing, and for reasons--I am trying to bow to the experts in science and research--on a temporary basis. Believe me, if they have got something, we want to see it. If not, we are going to categorize them as schedule I. So for the reasons I have mentioned, I am going to object.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Iowa is sincere and accurate as he describes the fentanyl challenge we face in the United States. He tells the story of losing an Iowan. Sadly, I can tell a similar story in my home State of Illinois.

We currently have a temporary answer to this situation that extends until December 31 of this year, and admittedly, it is coming on us, but it isn't tomorrow. It will be in just a few months.

One of my colleagues on the committee, Senator Cory Booker, has a particular expertise and interest in this issue, but, unfortunately, he could not be here at this moment when the Senator from Iowa made his motion. On his behalf, so he has an opportunity to discuss this with the Senator from Iowa and perhaps find a path through our differences, I object.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, home should be the safest place in the world for a child. It used to be that parents could breathe a little easier once they locked the front door, knowing that their child was safe on the inside.

For some reason or other, not anymore is that the case. Drug dealers have found ways into our homes through social media. Now, more and more children are dying alone at night in what should be the safest place for them, in their own bedrooms.

That is where Deric and Kathy Kidd found their son Sebastian, unresponsive, on the morning of July 30, 2021. He was slumped on his bed, still in his street clothes.

Sebastian was a high school senior in Des Moines, IA. He took half of what he thought was a pain pill. It was actually fentanyl. Sebastian's parents should have had the rest of their lives with him. Instead, they buried their 17-year-old son.

Congress has responded in the worst possible way to parents like the Kidd family. We have responded with inaction. I am disappointed that my Democrat colleagues have tried to block fentanyl analog scheduling. Under this Democrat-led Congress, the reauthorization periods of fentanyl analog scheduling keeps getting shorter and shorter, and bipartisan talks about permanent scheduling have all dropped. And if you don't have bipartisan talks, nothing happens in the U.S. Senate. That is what it takes to get things done in a body that takes a supermajority of 60 to stop debate to get to finality.

It doesn't matter if you are a rank-and-file Democrat or Republican, fentanyl is a problem for all of us. It is time that we start treating it like the problem it is. We can't keep ignoring law enforcement's requests for fentanyl analog scheduling. Police are the folks responding to fentanyl poisoning. Police are the ones putting their lives on the line facing off with cartels, and police are asking us to extend classification of fentanyl analog as schedule I substances.

Who are we to deny the police when they say what they need? We all agreed that fentanyl analog scheduling was necessary in 2020 when we unanimously extended it by 15 months. Even career officials in the Biden administration agreed that fentanyl analog scheduling was necessary when they asked Congress. The Biden administration asked Congress to permanently schedule it.

But here we are on the brink of fentanyl analog scheduling--the expiration of it. Families and law enforcement alike are panicked that we let this authority disappear. Temporary fentanyl analog scheduling cannot lapse while we hash out more permanent solutions.

We have all voted this provision into law before. We have been warned that more parents will have to bury their children if we do not pass it.

So, I have this motion.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 45, S. 1216; further, that the Grassley amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action.

Mr. President, I appreciate the chairman's right to do that. I appreciate his position on this whole problem that we are trying to deal with. I am just sorry that Senator Booker had to have people object for him.

It is not right. How many people have to die before we do something about it? Last year, there were over 107,000 overdose deaths, with 70,000 due to fentanyl-related substances--200 opioid overdoses in the State of Iowa.

Somebody has got to wake up around here and realize that we can do something about it. The Biden administration wants us to do something about it, and one person--not Chairman Durbin, but other people--stands in the way. It is just not right.

I yield the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in 2019, President Trump signed the Civil Rights Cold Case Investigations Support Act into law after it passed with broad bipartisan support in Congress.

The act directed the National Archives and Records Administration to make a collection of previously sealed civil rights cold case records available for public scrutiny. It also required the National Archives to establish a process for Federal agencies to transmit cold case records--older records from about 1940 to 1979--to the National Archives.

To do this, an independent agency review board was established to review the National Archives' civil rights cold case records and evaluate which public record disclosures should be postponed.

The review board is also charged with investigating cold case records and requesting relevant documents held by government agencies and the courts be transferred to the National Archives. However, this board was not fully formed until this year, leaving the review board with less time than Congress intended before it terminates at the end of 2024.

The bill before us today, the Civil Rights Cold Case Investigations Support Act, will extend the review board's term until 2027. This extension will allow the board to increase the volume of cold case documents made available to the public. This will enable journalists, students, and others to lend their expertise to help investigate and resolve unsolved civil rights cold cases.

According to the Department of Justice, about 115 civil rights cases remain unsolved, and the older the cases become, the less likely they will ever be solved.

The 2019 law was necessary to establish a specific process for addressing cold case records instead of having citizens rely on the Freedom of Information Act to directly request individual

records from law enforcement agencies. The Freedom of Information Act is a valuable Federal records transparency tool, but it is not designed for enabling efficient access to open criminal cases.

Every cold case that is solved as a result of this legislation will provide long-awaited answers to the surviving family members of the victims and bring about resolution to the local communities where these crimes occurred.

S. 3655 will ensure that the review board has the necessary time to complete its critical work.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Senators Ted Cruz and Jon Ossoff for moving this bipartisan legislation through the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I also thank the House Committee on Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney and Ranking Member James Comer for their support.

Mr. Speaker, I urge that my colleagues support this important bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan bill continues to make information regarding cold cases available to the public. The American people deserve transparency from their Federal Government. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.