Floor Statements

Madam President, it is probably no surprise for my colleagues to know that I don't like much the idea of a farewell speech. I haven't spent a great deal of time contemplating it over the years I have been here. I am not a big fan of the concept. But I want to respect the tradition, especially since I have witnessed so many Senate traditions crumble over the last 12 years. So I will do my best to get through this without breaking up.

A traditional farewell speech in the U.S. Senate is full of accomplishments and thanks. I am going to skip half of that. I am extremely proud of my body of work over 34 years of public service, but it is for others to judge, and I won't dwell on it today, other than to say it is a long list and a tangible demonstration of the value of hard work.

The wonderful Barbara Bush said: ``Never lose sight of the fact that the most important yardstick of your success will be how you treat other people--your family, friends, and coworkers, and even strangers you meet along the way.''

So rather than talk about what I have done, I want to speak a few moments about my family, and I have three different families I want to talk about today: my actual family, my family I like to call Missouri, or ``Missouri''--we argue about it a lot--and my family here in the Senate.

First, my actual family--because they are the most important. In the words of author Andre Maurois, ``without a family, man, alone in the world, trembles with the cold.'' I have been very warm my whole life. I have not ``trembled'' in the cold because I have always had my family.

My parents taught me that caring about the community around us was noble and good and that holding public office was an honorable endeavor, even though my parents were largely spectators and supporters and not candidates or officeholders. They just cared, and they wanted me to care too.

At the risk of going down the road of too many family stories, it may explain a lot that my dad fell in love with my mom when he saw her smoking a cigar and belting out, ``Won't you come home, Bill Bailey,'' at a party; that my mother said I must say ``trick or treat'' and vote for JFK when I was 7; and that my father insisted that I not only learn the rules of football but that I also learn to tell a good joke and learn to laugh at myself.

My siblings. My two sisters and my brother have simply been the port in every storm.

My children. We have a large, blended family of many children and grandchildren that is close and loving. I adore them all, but I need to specifically mention my three children--Austin, Maddie, and Lily-- because they were there from the beginning--infants in car seats going to political events, toddlers sitting sometimes not so quietly as I gave a speech, and, then, amazing troopers in the almost decade of my career when I was a single working mom, hauling them all over the State on campaigns. They now have forgiven me for the missed recitals and the missed field trips and the fact that I couldn't be the homeroom mom. Today, they have grown into amazing, strong adults who make me very proud.

And yee howdy, those grandchildren--I have 11, going on 12. I can't wait until they are all old enough to yell at them what my mom used to say to us when we were dawdling and too slow in getting to the car: ``Last one in is a Republican.''

My husband, Joseph--how lucky I am to have him as my best friend. We were married 16 years ago, after I was well into my political career and after he had achieved great success in business. He is proud and supportive of me always, but he certainly didn't bargain for the incredibly unfair treatment we got at his expense because of his business success. Let the record of the Senate now say what my Republican colleagues did not during my campaigns: Thank you, Joseph, for your integrity, your honesty, your generosity, and your heart, which has always directed you to do good, as you do well.

Then there is my Missouri family. I love my State--all of it, every corner

of it, even the parts that aren't very crazy about me. My honor to work for Missourians has been immense. I am incredibly grateful to them for the opportunity I have had to get up every day and work my heart out in an interesting, challenging career of public service, and so lucky to have made many, many good friends along the way. I am excited that I will now have more time for them.

David Stier said: ``Family means no one gets left behind or forgotten,'' and that is how I feel about Missouri. That is why my office has tried very hard to help every individual who has come to us for help, every veteran who has needed assistance, every senior caught in Social Security redtape--no matter who they were or where they lived or what their politics were.

Then there is my staff family--my staff, here and in Missouri, in this job, in my previous jobs, and in many, many campaigns

Richard Bach said it best: ``The bond that links your true family is not one of blood, but of respect and joy in each other's life.'' They have been my rock, my compass, my inspiration, and my coach--the best and the brightest, looking not for money or fame but just to make a difference.

To my Senate staff here today and watching and to all the staff in my offices of the prosecutor's office, the auditor's office, the county legislature, and the State legislature, I respect each of you immensely. As you go forth in the world, remember the McCaskill office motto--they could cite it for you right now if I asked them: If you work hard, you can do well. But if you are having fun, you will do great.

We were happy, and it made a difference. George Bernard Shaw said: ``A happy family is but an earlier heaven.'' Working with my staff was heaven.

Finally, to all my fellow Senators and all of the many people who work here in the Senate, I would be lying if I didn't say I was worried about this place. It just doesn't work as well as it used to. The Senate has been so enjoyable for me, but I must admit that it puts the ``fun'' in dysfunction.

Peter Morgan, an author, said: ``No family is complete without an embarrassing uncle.'' We have too many embarrassing uncles in the U.S. Senate and lots of embarrassing stuff. The U.S. Senate is no longer the world's greatest deliberative body, and everybody needs to quit saying it until we recover from this period of polarization and the fear of the political consequences of tough votes. Writing legislation behind closed doors, giant omnibus bills that most don't know what is in them, K Street lobbyists knowing about the tax bill managers' package before even Senators--that is today's Senate--and no amendments.

Solving the toughest problems will not happen without tough votes. We can talk about the toughest problems, we can visit about them, we can argue about them, we can campaign on them, but we are not going to solve them without tough votes. It will not happen. My first year in the Senate was 2007. We voted on 306 amendments in 2007. This year, as of yesterday, we have voted on 36. That is a remarkable difference. Something is broken, and if we don't have the strength to look in the mirror and fix it, the American people are going to grow more and more cynical, and they might do something crazy like elect a reality TV-star President. I am not kidding. That is one of the reasons this has happened.

Power has been dangerously centralized in the Senate. We like to say: Oh, we can't change the rules or we would be just like the House. We kind of are like the House, guys. We kind of are. A few people are writing legislation and a few people are making the decisions. We have to throw off the shackles of careful, open the doors of debate, reclaim the power of Members and committees, and, most of all, realize that looking the other way and hoping that everything will work out later is a foolish idea. For gosh sakes, debate and vote on amendments.

But with all the problems I have outlined, know that I love this place and you--almost all of you. You have filled my life with interesting work and unforgettable memories. We have argued, we have sung, we have fought, we have cried, and we have laughed together--just like family. You are family, and I will miss you terribly.

Desmond Tutu, a very wise man, said: ``God's dream is that you and I and all of us will realize that we are family, that we are made for togetherness, for goodness, and for compassion.''

Thank you very much.

I yield the floor.

(Applause, Senators rising.)

Thank you, Madam President.

I thank my friend and colleague, the Senator from Maine. It is always such a pleasure to work with her on legislation because she is a Senator who does her homework. Don't ever try to get one by Susan Collins. She knows what she is talking about, and if she is not sure of it, she takes the time she needs to try to find the right way forward.

What we are trying to do is, is to reassure the American people that we are on their side. The frustration out there is so high right now with what is going on with the cost of prescription drugs.

When people find out there is actually a pharmacist who is legally prohibited from telling them that you can pay 8 bucks if you just want to pay for it, but you will pay 20 bucks if you use your insurance plan--that is real money. That matters to Missourians.

We know the data shows that in 2013 alone, Americans paid about $135 million more than they should have. Why? Where is that money going? Who is making that money and why? We need to get a better deal for people.

We have so many problems with prescription drugs. This is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the work this body needs to do to bring down prescription drug prices. This is low-hanging fruit. The notion that we can just simply say: Pharmacists, you have the right to tell your customers they can get it cheaper, that is all we are doing. We are saying: Pharmacists, you have the right to tell your customers they can get it more cheaply. That is why the Lee amendment is so perplexing to me. Why would you want to leave 85 million people behind?

I get the ideology about regulation, but sometimes common sense needs to scoot all the ideology out of this place, and we need to just look at the barebones issue of how we save people money on prescription drugs. That is what this bill will accomplish.

Today was a big day for me. A bill that I am the Democratic cosponsor of, the President of the United States tweeted he supported it. Yowza. That is a big deal for me. I am thrilled the President of the United States tweeted this afternoon that he supports this legislation. It shows you not all is lost in this town. Every once in a while, we can get together.

I see my friend Senator Barrasso over there. He is a cosponsor on this bill with Senator Kennedy. It is really exciting to me when we have one of these moments where the administration agrees, Secretary Azar agrees, Republicans agree, and Democrats agree. If we can do this more often, maybe the people in this country will renew their faith in us as a body.

I am thrilled we are going to have a chance to get this done. I hope the body listens to the arguments my colleague made about the Lee amendment and how misguided it is in leaving so many Americans behind in terms of these cost savings.

While I am on the floor, I would also like to just briefly mention another vote that I think is important. I am very glad we are expanding grants for first responder training, opioid prevention, and all the other important things we are doing in this bill, but I am truly disappointed that it doesn't include a commonsense proposal that I worked with Senator Cassidy on that would provide more transparency on those who are lobbying on opioid-related issues.

My office did an investigation through the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, where we discovered there are all these advocacy organizations out there, such as the American Academy of Pain Management and others, that are deriving a lot of their budget from the opioid manufacturers. The opioid manufacturers are giving money to organizations, and, in many instances, they are just fronts for lobbying on behalf of opioids.

For example, we know that over $9 million was given to these organizations, with half of that coming from Purdue, the biggest manufacturer of OxyContin. I am not saying we should prohibit them from doing that, but people ought to know it. We ought to make it transparent. That is all the bill does. It just makes payments by opioid manufacturers to organizations that are 501(c)(3)s or 501(c)(4)s and requires them to just say the opioid manufacturers are behind their budget.

One of these groups actually lobbied CDC about not lowering the recommended dosage of opioids. Another one entered a brief in a case arguing that a doctor shouldn't be convicted, when he was prescribing thousands of pills a day, for moving controlled substances.

Transparency is always a good thing. I am disappointed and frankly confused as to why some of the Members on the other side didn't want to include this proposal in this package.

I certainly want to thank Senator Cassidy for his help. We tried very hard to get it in the bill. I hope it is not because Big Pharma has a vice grip on this place. I have seen it before, and it worries me that this might be the case.

There is irony in this. Not only is that provision not included but guess what is included. There is a provision in the bill that authorizes Federal money to one of these advocacy groups. Guess what. It is an advocacy group funded by pharma.

I think it is ironic that we are more comfortable giving Federal money to one of these groups that can serve as a front organization for the opioid manufacturers that helped create this crisis than we are in requiring disclosure of the private funding for these groups. I am hopeful we can either get the bill in conference or, more importantly, get that other provision out.

By the way, if we are going to allow Federal grant funding to these organizations, it should be all of them on a competitive basis, on merit, not name one that gets the money. There is something up there. There is something up there when you just name one that gets the money. I have learned that around this place.

I hope the bill passes today.

I am honored to work with Senator Collins on this important prohibition on the gag rule. It will save Missourians money. It matters.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the extraordinary life of my friend, colleague, and role model, Senator John McCain.

Senator McCain lived a life of superlatives. He was a war hero whose conduct in the face of unimaginable adversity spoke to the very essence of who he was as a man. He was a consummate statesman, who spent a career in public service working to foster consensus on the most intractable and important problems facing our Nation. He was a gentleman of the highest caliber, who understood that, although we may discuss, argue, and disagree, our common bond as Americans is stronger than the passing tempest of political debate.

The measure of a man like Senator McCain can be seen in the outpouring of sympathy from friends and colleagues across the political spectrum. He spoke his mind, and more importantly, he spoke his conscience. He was never afraid to tell those in power they were wrong and those suffering injustice that the United States of America would not abandon them. His commitment to doing what was right transcended political ideology, and I am confident that future generations will study his legacy as we have studied the great leaders of the past.

It is not difficult to find examples of Senator McCain's integrity in a career marked by such moments. I know that I particularly admired his steadfast courage in opposing and working to eliminate torture by the United States of America. He, more so than most, knew what that legacy would mean to our country. He knew that, if we were torturing, our servicemen and women would be tortured. He was willing to stand up for what was right and ensured that we would live up to our promise as a nation. His unwavering voice on the issue served, as it has so many times, as our national conscience, and we are all better for it.

We had our brawls every once in a while, but it usually ended with a joke and a laugh and a commitment to work together on the next problem that our country faced. I will cherish the memories I have of working with Senator McCain on issues related to eliminating earmarks, protecting children from human-trafficking, and providing the necessary resources to the men and women of the Armed Forces whom he loved and respected dearly.

His wit, intellect, and humor were the hallmark of a man who cannot be replaced; however, it is my hope that we might use this sad occasion to unite together around the principles that he stood for. I join my voice to the thousands that have spoken to his character as a colleague and as a friend and extend my most heartfelt sympathies to his family. I will miss him terribly, the Senate will miss him terribly, and our country will miss him terribly.

Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleague. He and I were both in Branson last Friday. We didn't have a chance to see each other, but we were both there for the same reason; that is, an unspeakable tragedy in our State that has Federal involvement because the investigations will occur jointly with the Coast Guard and the

Mr. President, I rise today in remembrance of one of St. Louis's, the State of Missouri's, and baseball's great treasures, Hall of Fame Cardinal Red Schoendienst. Red played 15 seasons with the St. Louis Cardinals, made 10 All-Star teams, and was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1989. Red passed last week at his home in Town and Country, MO, just outside of St. Louis, at the age of 95. He had been the oldest living member of the Hall of Fame.

Born Albert Fred Schoendienst 40 miles east of St. Louis in Germantown, IL, Red would make a big impact on the city and the sport of baseball. Red's father, a coal miner who played sandlot ball, got him hooked on the game.

After leaving school, Red joined the Civilian Conservation Corps, where he nearly lost his eye in an accident. He also faced chronic shoulder pain, but stuck with the game. In 1942, he hitchhiked to St. Louis for Cardinals tryouts and made the team. After a standout minor league career and a period of Army service, Red played his first Big League game in 1945.

Red played second base for nearly his entire career, leading the National League in fielding percentage seven times. He was such a talented fielder that his teammate and longtime friend, Cardinal legend Stan Musial, once said, ``He had the greatest pair of hands I've ever seen.''

Red wasn't too shabby at the plate either. He batted over .300 in five seasons as a switch-hitter. Unfortunately, Red's only World Series victory came in 1957 with Hank Aaron and the Milwaukee Braves, not the Cardinals, but we will not hold that against him.

While playing for Milwaukee, Red faced another health challenge. He was diagnosed with tuberculosis and had to have part of a lung removed. Still, Red was a fighter, and just as he overcame his eye and shoulder injuries, he came back to play with the Braves before finishing his career as a Cardinal in 1963.

After Red's retirement from playing, he wasn't done being a Cardinal. Red became the Cardinals' manager in 1965 and skippered the team until 1976. Under his leadership, the Cardinals won two pennants and beat the Boston Red Sox in the 1967 World Series. Red remained a part of the organization until his passing.

All counted, Red spent 70 years as a part of Major League Baseball, and left his mark on the game. Not only was Red a Hall of Fame player and manager, he was a fan favorite and a revered teammate. His teammates always spoke of how he loved the game, and how they loved playing with him.

I wish to offer my condolences to Red's family, including his brother, four children, eight grandchildren, and seven great- grandchildren. I know that they will remember Red fondly, as will Cardinals fans and baseball fans everywhere.

Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Klobuchar for her work on this. I think the Senate has done good work today.

Mr. President, I rise just for a few minutes to do what we don't do often enough around here, and that is to recognize the extraordinary work of the people who actually labor in the trenches of the Senate.

Back in September of 2008, a young man came to work in my office as an intern. Now, almost 10 years later, he is an essential part of my life.

I am not sure that people understand what the beating heart of a Senate office is, but everything revolves around the schedule. This young man, Lorenzo d'Aubert, who came to work for me in 2008, worked his way up from intern to staff assistant, which means you answer the phones when everybody is upset. Then he became a legislative correspondent, and then he worked as a systems analyst and on all of the computer stuff in my office. Eventually, his talent was so obvious, that I said: Please come sit outside my office and make everything work right, and that is what he has done.

It is a really hard job because when you are the executive assistant and the scheduler, you have to say no to a lot of people, and you have to say it nicely. You have to make everyone happy, even when you are telling them that the schedule will not allow that to happen. You have to manage phone calls from all seven of my children and my husband, who is upset, and manage the birth of grandchildren, the birthdays, the schedule of when I can get there and when I can't. Is the plane delayed, or is it not? Can you get on Southwest? No, maybe you can make the American flight. On top of it all, he gets me to a million meetings and a million places all at the same time, with a smile on his face, with kindness in his heart, with a whip-sharp intellect, and with a work ethic that is astounding.

I am really upset because he has the nerve to leave and go to law school. I am proud of him for his determination to seek a degree in law. I know he will be an amazing lawyer because he has that touch, where even when he is giving you bad news, you know that he is delivering it with kindness. We need much more of that in the legal profession.

Lorenzo is really important to me, and I will miss him terribly. I think it is important that all of us around here--who crave the lime light, who want all the attention, and who want everybody to think that we are moving mountains--know that it is the people around us who are moving the mountains. We are just lucky to be on the ride.

We will all miss you, Lorenzo. Congratulations to you and to your parents, Linda and Sergio. I know they are here today. I know how proud they are of you. We will miss you terribly, and we will be really mad at you if you don't stay in touch.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come today to join my colleague from Oklahoma to ask unanimous consent that we take up and pass S. 317, the Taxpayers Right-to-Know Act.

I want to thank Senator Lankford for his continued hard work on this bill. Senator Lankford has been working on this bill since his days in the House, and I worked hard to move this bill with his predecessor, Senator Tom Coburn, to try to get this through the Senate before he left the Senate. Hopefully, we can get it across the finish line, if not today, in the near future.

American taxpayers deserve a government that can tell them how their money is being spent. This is all this bill is trying to do. It is not complicated. It is trying to get important information to the people who are paying the bills. Don't they have a right to know where all the money is going?

It improves a publicly accessible online database with information about Federal programs, including the funding information for the program and the activities it comprises; the authorizing statutes and relevant rules and regs; the individuals a program serves; the employees who work to administer it; and copies of recent evaluations or assessments provided by the agency, inspectors general, or the Government Accountability Office.

The truth is, much of this information, including the program inventory itself, is already required by the Government Performance and Results Act, or GPRA. It passed this body by unanimous consent in 2010. But the current program inventory under GPRA is a mess. It is virtually useless to help lawmakers understand whether these programs are actually working as intended or whether they are a payroll without a purpose.

This bill adds a few additional information requirements to the program inventory and makes it much easier to compare apples to apples, which is what we need to do when we are making funding decisions.

Senator Lankford and I have agreed to a number of changes to this bill, raised not only by President Obama's administration but also President Trump's administration and by leaders in this body. There were some concerns expressed to us that OMB could use the information to punish agencies by holding up rules and holding up budget requests. I have news for everybody.

They can already do that; they have the ability. But just because they can do it now, we have agreed to include a clause which says that nothing in this bill gives OMB any additional authority whatsoever, other than what is needed to comply with the requirements of this bill. I can't imagine anything clearer than that.

We have added caveats to make it easier for programs and agencies to comply with the requirements of this bill.

I have to tell you, this is what drives the American people crazy. Different from private business, somebody around here could have a good idea and we can legislate a new program, but going back and determining whether that program is actually delivering on the goals that were stated and believed in at the time the legislation was passed--we are really not very good at that. That is what this bill is about.

It will give us the tools to require that these programs and agencies at least have information as to whether they are working--how much money they are spending, what they are trying to do. Why are we hiding behind a maddening bureaucracy when we can simplify things with the technology that is available today? Frankly, if we can't defend these programs and justify how we are spending taxpayer money, we should be shutting them down.

I urge my colleagues to commit to and support this good government transparency bill. I am worried that there is an objection. I am disappointed there will be an objection from the leader of my own party. That is disappointing to me, but it doesn't change my commitment that this is the right thing to do.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 43, S. 317; that the committee- reported amendment be withdrawn; that the Lankford substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, Senator Schumer is just flat wrong. He is just wrong about this bill. There is nothing in this bill that gives the OMB Director any additional power. There is nothing in this bill that gives him any additional tools to delay or cut programs. In fact, we specifically put that language in at the request of the minority floor leader, that this would give the OMB Director no additional tools.

Frankly, I remember when we were having the discussions under the Obama administration. Many of my Republican colleagues were worried that this would be a way for the Obama administration to somehow have more power than we want them to have.

The bottom line is, we have the power in the legislative body to decide which programs get funded. We are the people who appropriate government funds. Shouldn't the taxpayers and Members of Congress have an easily accessible way to get good information about a program?

By the way, no one is saying that anybody has to draw certain conclusions from the facts that would be on this website. We are only asking that the facts be put on the website. It is not nefarious. There is no plot here. I don't want to hurt CDBG, and neither do all of the House Members who voted for this. Not one Democratic House Member objected to this bill.

So I have to respectfully say that Senator Schumer is wrong about this legislation. He is wrong about what it would do. It is the right thing for good government. It is the right thing for transparency. I am going to keep working at it until hopefully we can either convince every Member to let this go by unanimous consent or until we get an opportunity to get a vote on it on the floor, where I am confident it would win by an overwhelming number.

Madam President, I thank my colleagues. I think we have spent a lot of time on the floor thanking each other, which is a good thing. Unfortunately, too often, we go back to tribal warfare after we thank each other, but this is an example of when we have worked together in a bipartisan way. So I think those ``thanks'' are justified, particularly in this case when there has been an honest and true bipartisan effort to get at a very serious problem in this country. It was a pleasure to work with my colleague Senator Portman as we did this investigation.

So how do I come to this place? I come to this place as somebody who had spent a significant part of her career in the courtroom prosecuting sex crimes. I think I can say with confidence that I prosecuted more sex crimes than any other Member of the U.S. Senate. I can't speak for the House because I am not familiar with the backgrounds of all of the House Members.

I spent years as an assistant prosecutor. For part of that time, I was the only woman in the office, and for some reason, they thought that was a good reason to have me gain expertise in the area of sex crimes. I was happy to take on the responsibility of handling a lot of those cases as a young assistant prosecutor, going into the courtroom and arguing cases to juries, holding the hands of victims, crying with their families, trying to find that special spot that is called justice in a system that is sometimes stacked against the victims of these kinds of crimes. I went on to be the elected prosecutor in Kansas City and tried to continue our strong stand against all forms of sex crimes, including against the people who were profiting off of selling sex.

It is important to remember that when we began this investigation in the Senate, we were dealing with someone who didn't want to cooperate. What we learned through the investigation was that this law, as it exists now,

was their protector. They were being protected for their bad acts by an outdated law that had been twisted and distorted to allow them to make billions of dollars of profit and, frankly, millions, upon millions, upon millions of dollars of profit off of trafficking young women for sex. The prosecution of cases is not driven by headlines. It is not driven by press conferences. It is not driven by photo ops. The prosecution of cases is driven by evidence. You only get evidence after having a thorough and complete investigation, and it has to be in- depth.

I know that Senator Portman will relate to this. Can you imagine, when backpage said, ``We don't want to talk to you,'' if we had said, ``OK. That is fine''? Can you imagine, when backpage said, ``We refuse to be interviewed,'' if we had just said, ``OK. No problem. We don't have any evidence of wrongdoing. Let's just go on our way''?

Instead, when we were confronted with their stubborn unwillingness to participate in a U.S. Senate investigation, we did what was necessary to hold them accountable, and it involved the cooperation of the entire Senate. Once they rebuffed our subpoenas and refused to show up, and once they said, ``No, we don't have to give you anything because of the current law as it relates to section 230'' and we said, ``No, that is not true,'' we got the entire U.S. Senate to back us up--every single Member.

I don't know how unusual it is in this day and age to have zero on one side of the ledger in the U.S. Senate. I don't know about Senator Portman, but I have seen it very few times. Now, there is usually one or two who hang out there for some reason or another, no matter how uncontroversial a piece of legislation is. Yet, in this instance, we got everybody. Everybody who voted said: Yes, let's take backpage to court and assert our ability under the Constitution and the law to investigate. We took them all the way to the Supreme Court, and we won that case.

What happened after that is really important for people to understand because there were lots of folks around the country who were trying to get at backpage's conduct, but it was able to use this law to protect itself. There were two things we did that were very important for prosecutors after our investigation.

The first thing we did was to send the whole file over to the Department of Justice for referral. It sits there now--all of the information we have about backpage--at the Department of Justice, and I am hopeful that it is using that information and all of the documentation we were able to obtain to pursue bad acts and criminal violations by backpage.

The other thing we did with the vote of the Senate and the cooperation of the Senate is to open up our files to any prosecutor or attorney general in the country. I would certainly call on the attorneys general of this country and call on the local prosecutors in this country to access these documents that are available to them now and to use them in the investigations they have of people who might have actually used backpage to traffic young women and sometimes children.

Why is this law so important? If I am looking at this through a prosecutor's lens, now all of the prosecutors in the country can go after anyone who knowingly facilitates sex trafficking online. I am not saying when it is by accident, and I am not saying when it has slipped through and they don't know it; I am talking about to knowingly facilitate, which is what backpage was doing. Once we got all of its documents, we learned it was knowingly facilitating sex trafficking on its web page.

Not only can individuals walk in the courthouse and get a moment of justice through civil action, but now attorneys general can take civil action, even in Federal court, against these websites. Most importantly, where most crime is prosecuted in this country, they can go after these folks.

I don't think most Americans realize--I know a lot of Missourians don't realize--that upwards of 90 percent of the crime that is prosecuted in this country is done by local prosecutors. FBI agents don't answer 9-1-1 calls. FBI agents get to pick where they investigate. U.S. attorneys get to choose which cases they take. Local prosecutors do not. They take everything. They have to go after every crime that is committed in their jurisdictions. There may be concurrent Federal jurisdiction, and they may work with the Federal Government on a bank robbery or maybe on a murder when the body is moved across a State line. Yet I don't think most Americans realize that for most crimes in this country, the Federal Government doesn't even have jurisdiction. The Federal Government cannot prosecute a rape case anywhere except in the District of Columbia or a territory. That is all done by State and local prosecutors.

The most important part of this bill to someone who is deeply steeped in local prosecutions is the tool it gives our frontline of law enforcement in this country--the people who answer the 9-1-1 calls, the people who respond to the emergency room when a young, 15-year-old girl wanders in, like she did in St. Louis, saying she had been trafficked up and down the interstate and was coming to the emergency room for help. It was not the FBI that responded. It would have been the local police who had responded to that emergency room to find out what the facts had been and who had determined how to go forward. This is a new tool in the toolbox of the frontline of criminal prosecutions in this country, and I am so proud to have been a part of it.

I know there are going to be some amendments offered. I am confident they will be voted down. By the way, everyone wants to support more resources for this. So in an effort to try to amend the bill so that it has to go back to the House, the notion that one of the amendments is of needing more resources is one of those jujitsu moves that we do around here, frankly, that is not always productive.

Of course, we all support more resources for sex trafficking prosecutions and investigations, but we don't want to amend this bill right now because it has to get to the President's desk so that we can get busy and get after this crime and do what we need to do in this country in order to hold the people accountable who are profiting off the backs of people who sell children for sex.

I thank the Presiding Officer, and I thank my colleague Senator Portman for all of his work and cooperation on this issue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Portman, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Whitehouse, and my other colleagues for allowing me to jump in here for a couple of minutes.

This body--this entire body--is really responsible for where we are right now because it was during the investigation package that we realized that section 230 was being used as a shield for the bad guys. All of the attorneys general around the country and various law enforcement agencies and individuals who were trying to sue backpage were met every time with a 230 defense. They were not even able to penetrate to get the documents from backpage in order to learn about what backpage was really up to. It was an investigation by which backpage thought it would be able to win again in court and deny us our opportunity to look at the documents and to look at the underlying evidence that one should always look at in an investigation.

Frankly, our getting the contempt-of-the-Senate resolution through this body almost unanimously--I think it was unanimously, wasn't it, I ask Senator Portman?

And then our going all the way to the Supreme Court and winning was finally the first time backpage had to turn over the dirty evidence of its knowingly facilitating sex trafficking on its page. That is why this language is ``knowingly facilitate''--just to make sure that in going forward, no bad guys can hide behind section 230.

The other part of this bill that, I think, is very important and that, I think, a lot of people forget--and with all due respect to my friends who are in this Chamber who were U.S. attorneys--is that over 90 percent of the crime that is prosecuted in this country is prosecuted by local prosecutors, State prosecutors, who are called prosecutors or district attorneys, depending on the State's term that is used. They have been handcuffed in terms of being able to bring these kinds of cases. This legislation not only opens up the courthouse doors to victims who have been victimized by this but also so that the full force of American law enforcement can be brought to bear on this problem, not just the limited jurisdiction that was available around the problem of sex trafficking.

This is so important to getting to the bottom of it because many U.S. attorneys don't have the time, and, frankly, many attorneys general don't have the time or the jurisdiction to get after crime, but the local prosecutors don't get to decide which cases to go after. If there is a 9-1-1 call, they have it. The Feds can come in later and say: We have it, and we are going to take it. But they are the ones who day after day are in the trenches of sex crimes, and they are the ones who now have the ability to go after these cases in a way that will be very meaningful.

I am proud of the bipartisan nature of this. I am proud of the partnership we have, Senator Portman, on the Subcommittee on Investigations. I know we will get a big vote on this. I think people see through these amendments as ways to slow this bill down or possibly kill it, and I hope we will all can join together and take this to the finish line tomorrow.

I thank my colleagues for giving me a few minutes.

Mr. President, I wish to ask the Senate to join me today in recognizing, celebrating, and highlighting the upcoming presentation of the 2018 White House Historical Association Ornament that honors Missouri native and 33rd U.S. President, Harry S. Truman.

The 2018 White House Historical Association Christmas Ornament will be presented this President's Day in President Truman's hometown, Independence, MO, at the Harry S. Truman Presidential Library and Museum. The ornament is designed to highlight the positive changes President Truman made to the White House while in office.

The front side of the ornament features the Truman balcony added in 1947-48 to the south portico that allowed his family outdoor access from their upstairs living area and is still a popular location for First Families and their guests. The back side features the renovated Blue Room, home to the official White House Christmas Tree. President Truman's White House alterations and restorations were the most work done since President George Washington built the Executive mansion and Presidents James Madison and James Monroe restored it after it was damaged by fire in the War of 1812.

The Presidential Seal, located at the top of the ornament, was implemented by President Truman in 1945. Originally, the American eagle looked left towards its talons that held a cluster of spears, representing weapons of war. President Truman redesigned the seal so the American eagle faced towards its right talons, which hold the olive branches of peace.

I am so proud to hold the seat that Senator Truman held for 10 years.

President Truman lived in Missouri his entire life, with exception to his years in government service. His strong work ethic and taste for politics developed early, working as a clerk for his father who was an election judge and participating in farming, bank clerking, and timekeeping. His strong sense of patriotism led him to join the Missouri Army National Guard in 1905 and later return to Active Duty when World War I began in 1917, where he served as a first lieutenant in the U.S. Army field artillery. After the war, he married Bess and was elected county judge of the eastern district of Jackson County. In 1934, he was elected to the U.S. Senate and reelected by large margins in 1940.

In 1944, then-Senator Truman was chosen to be the Vice Presidential candidate to President Franklin Roosevelt after a successful career in Congress revealing fraud in government wartime spending. Few Presidents after President Truman have faced the hardships he had awaiting him following the death of President Roosevelt and his succession to the Presidency in the spring of 1945.

President Truman ended the largest and most devastating war in world history and began to rebuild the defeated Axis Powers shortly after. Rebuilding war-torn countries of former enemies had never been completed; however, President Truman did so successfully through the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan. He was a strong negotiator in international affairs and oversaw the founding of the United Nations.

President Truman left behind a highly respected legacy, and because of leaders like him, who fought hard and made difficult decisions, our country and world is a better place.

I ask that the Senate join me in celebrating the 2018 White House Historical Association Christmas Ornament honoring President Harry S. Truman.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for vote No. 24 on January 25, 2018, on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 552, R.D. James to be an Assistant Secretary of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

Mr. President, I would like to once again state for the record of this august body that the very first effort that was made after the vote was declared to not pass the CR was my standing at this podium and asking unanimous consent for us to pass my amendment that would pay the military and the death benefits. That was objected to by the majority leader. I am hopeful that this will get worked out quickly. The last time we had this kind of dysfunction in the government, we did this by unanimous consent very quickly, so there wasn't even a hint that anybody in this body was not 100 percent behind making sure our military got the pay they deserve. I am hopeful that this will be done yet today. I think it would be good if we could do it today, but certainly no later than tomorrow we need to take care of that because I am guessing every single Senator will support it without anyone objecting.

Remembering Frankie Muse Freeman

Mr. President, the reason I rise today is because I had to miss a very, very important event in St. Louis this morning. There was a going home celebration for a warrior in St. Louis this morning.

I have been blessed to have the opportunity to meet so many amazing people in my journey serving the public. I don't think anybody I have met could in many ways stand up to Frankie Freeman. Frankie Freeman was a woman who had a very simple goal in life. Her goal was to do everything she could to eliminate discrimination.

Frankie was born in November of 1916. She was one of eight children. She was raised in a segregated neighborhood in Virginia, and she said that from the time she was a very young girl, she wanted to change the world.

She met her husband of over 50 years in New York, where he was attending graduate school. Why was he in New York attending graduate school when he was from Missouri? He was in New York attending graduate school because after graduating from Lincoln, a historically Black college in Missouri, the University of Missouri refused to admit him and said: Rather than allow you on our campus, we will pay to send you to New York for graduate school.

Frankie was in New York, and her husband was in New York. They met, they fell in love, and they got married. Then they moved to the Washington, DC, area, and Frankie then decided she was going to law school. She went to Howard Law School. She was 9 months pregnant when it was time to sign up for her third year of law school.

She went to the dean of the Howard Law School and said: Could you allow me to join a few weeks late in the term?

He took one look at her, 9 months pregnant, and said: You are going to have to sit out a year.

She said: I don't want to sit out a year. I have to get this done. I have work to do. I have justice to seek. I will not sit it out.

So she went out and stood in line to sign up for her third-year classes literally within days of giving birth. Four

days later, after she finished registering for her third year of law school, she gave birth. Did that slow her down? No. She went on to graduate from Howard Law School that year and was No. 2 in her class.

Keep in mind, she graduated from law school. An African-American woman in America graduated from law school in 1944. That is almost 10 years before I was born. Imagine what life was like for a young Black woman lawyer in America in 1944.

She had two children--her daughter Shelby and her son, who was also named Shelby but called Butch. She moved to St. Louis with her husband and two children.

Butch, by the way, died when he was 11. Shelby remained at her mother's side and helped her remain active until the last days of her life.

She moved to St. Louis as a young African-American woman lawyer, and you can imagine there were no law firms that wanted to hire Frankie, so Frankie opened her own law office. Her mission was to go after the institution of discrimination through the courts, and she was fearless, strong, kind, and polite.

One of the most famous cases Frankie had occurred in 1952--Davis v. the St. Louis Housing Authority. Keep in mind that in 1952, there was written policy of the St. Louis Public Housing Authority that said that the races should not mix; it was unnatural for the races to mix. Frankie decided she would take that on. She won that case in 1952, and she went on. It was appealed, appealed, and she went on and won the appeal in front of the Supreme Court in 1954. I was 1 the year she won that appeal.

One of the stories about Frankie's life that I think is important to put in context happened in 1961. You see, she was a Delta. In fact, she went on to be the president of the Deltas in 1967--a very important sorority for many accomplished African-American women in this country. In 1961, the Delta chapter down in Hayti in the Bootheel--right on the heel--asked her to come down and give a speech. She was famous for having won this case, and she was honored to be asked to give the speech.

She didn't have anyone to drive with her, and she was worried about driving by herself into the Bootheel in 1961. This was a year after President Kennedy was elected President.

She got on a Greyhound bus. The Greyhound bus stopped at a restaurant along the way so that people on the bus could use the restroom and get a bite to eat. Frankie walked into that restaurant in a small town between St. Louis and the Bootheel, and she was told by the waitress that she couldn't come in the front door. Keep in mind, she had been all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing ugly discrimination in public housing, and this waitress in this restaurant in this small town told her she could not come in the front door.

Even worse, when Frankie ignored her and walked toward the restroom, a customer got up and blocked the door so she could not use the restroom. Frankie wrote about this in her book ``A Song of Faith and Hope.''

I think about the strength that this woman had by herself in that situation, and I am filled with awe and admiration. In 1964, Frankie was the first woman on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and she did so much more than all of the famous cases and trials.

In the midst of her landmark trials and court cases, she became the president of the Deltas. She later went on to travel and visit many African nations, serving as a U.S. representative of the United Nations Conference on Housing.

In 1978, President Carter appointed her inspector general of the Community Services Administration. She continued to show her commitment to service as an active member on several boards, including the Howard University Board of Trustees, the Urban League of Metropolitan St. Louis as the board chair, and also as the board chair of the National Council on Aging.

In 2007, Freeman was inducted into the International Civil Rights Walk of Fame at the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic Park in Atlanta, GA, for her leadership in the civil rights movement. Frankie had a nickname among people who were touched by her passion and commitment to that elusive quality known as justice. She was known as ``Frankie Freedom.''

I had an opportunity to get to know Frankie in the last decade of her life. I treasured the time I had with her, the encouragement she gave me, the stories she told me, and the legend that she was. She would always say to me when I would express frustration--and Frankie said this throughout her life; she would quote Luke 9:62: ``No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.''

Frankie would always say: Keep your hand on the plow. Keep your hand on the plow. Keep your hand on the plow.

Frankie lived 101 glorious years. She had personal tragedy and countless setbacks, but she never lost her attitude of love and commitment to justice. I was so sad to miss her coming home celebration this morning. She has gone home. There is no question she is reviewing legal briefs for the Good Lord Himself in Heaven above.

Thank you, Frankie Freedom, for a life well lived.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this shouldn't take very long.

I was most disappointed tonight when the President of the United States put out a statement that tried to divide us based on party when it came to support of our military. There is no such division. Everyone in this Chamber knows it. So, as we have in other instances where we have had a shutdown--I remember, in 2013, we did this right off the bat. I want to make sure that tonight we send a very clear signal that we don't want one moment to pass with there being any uncertainty that any soldier anywhere in the world will be paid for the valiant work they do on behalf of our national security.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 36, H.R. 1301; that the amendment at the desk, providing for continuing appropriations for pay and death benefits for members of the Armed Services, be considered and agreed to, 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 or debate.

The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:

Mr. President, would the Senator answer a question about this provision?

Do you know who the biggest donor was to the Hillsdale College endowment?

Would that be the DeVos family, by any chance?

Do you know who added this provision in here?

What does it have to do with taking title IV money as to whether or not your endowment will be taxed? How is that apples and apples? It sounds like apples and oranges. What in the world do those two have in relation to each other?

Yes.

So the rationale is, if you choose not to take Federal money, then your endowment is no longer subject to any tax even though the endowment money comes from people who get a deduction for the money they give, correct? The endowment comes from donors. I thought the reason we were taxing the endowments is because the people who were giving the money were getting a tax deduction when they put it there.

Are the people who are giving to the endowment still allowed to take a tax deduction?

So it doesn't matter, in terms of the people giving to the endowments, whether they get a tax deduction, just whether the school takes money from the Federal government?

My point, Senator, is that the people who are giving to the endowment get the exact same tax benefit as people who give to any endowment in the country.

It doesn't feel that way to us. It feels as if this is a very limited provision written for a very special person.