Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 730, H.R. 6615.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Alexander 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Reserving the right to object, I would like to explain my--make a point before I object. This amendment is inconsistent with current Federal law and would allow States the right to break existing law. If there is an attempt to legalize across the country, we should have that debate and let the Congress decide the issue instead of creating a back door to legalization. Furthermore, the amendment would allow financial institutions to bank marijuana distributors. This is inappropriate to consider in the context of a criminal justice reform bill. Criminal justice is not a vehicle through which we create reform for banks to create more business. The Senator from Colorado is very much an advocate for the people in his State. I understand that. I respect his position. He works hard on this, and he may be ahead of the time when there will be a real debate on this, and maybe there will be, at that point, an opportunity to consider his approach as something lesser than the legalization of marijuana generally. For those reasons, I will object to what the Senator from Colorado is trying to accomplish.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before we go to the amendments, I want to give a general overview of what it took to get to the point at which we are now. The first thing we had to do was show the leader we could produce 60 or more votes for this bill. This is a big bipartisan bill. Senators Durbin, Lee, Graham, Booker, and I--and I suppose I am leaving out some people--had spoken extensively with our colleagues to address their concerns and to gain their support. As we saw last night, more than 80 Senators showed that they were ready for the debate in the culmination of this bill on the Senate floor. The next step we had to take was to show the people we had broad bipartisan support. On November 15, the FIRST STEP Act was introduced in the Senate. At that point, we had 12 cosponsors. We now have 38 cosponsors. Of course, the question that always comes up is, Will the House of Representatives take any action if we are successful on the floor of the U.S. Senate? Every step of the way, the House was read in on the Senate bill. The leaders in the House of Representatives, who happen to be Representative Collins, Representative Jeffries, and, of course, Chairman Goodlatte of the Judiciary Committee, were all strong partners in this compromise. We have reached a point with the House of Representatives at which, when the Senate passes this bill--and hopefully we will--Speaker Ryan will be ready to act on this bill. We don't have problems with the House of Representatives as sometimes come up late in a session like we are in--hopefully, the last week of this Congress. We know what we are spending our time doing will be considered by the House of Representatives. About 3 or 4 weeks ago, we had a Republican caucus, and we listened to the concerns our colleagues had. We were asked to show more Republican support within the Congress. So, with several changes that were made in the bill in the last 3 or 4 weeks, we addressed our Republican colleagues' concerns--the same ones that were raised in our caucus. We did this, obviously, because we wanted to gain support for our bill. The concern among Republicans was that the caucus was divided to the point that more of a majority was against the bill than for the bill. I think, with the answers we had from colleagues, as we individually talked to them about their support for the bill, we gained that support. We also had to show support from outside the Congress of the United States. I have here, without reading any names, just broad bipartisan support from conservative organizations. At the same time, there are a lot of law enforcement organizations and liberal organizations, and I will just name four or five at this point: The Fraternal Order of Police, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Conservative Union, and the International Association of Chiefs of Police. We had to show the colleagues in the Congress that we had broad support from, you might say, the extreme right to the extreme left in support of this legislation. I don't know whether we have had legislation like this before the U.S. Senate, whereby we have put together such diverse groups of people and organizations that support the bill. Of course, once we had gone through this hard work of getting this bill where it is now on the Senate floor, it was very legitimate for our colleagues to ask: Is the President going to sign it? We worked very closely with the House of Representatives and had even made some changes at the House's suggestion. We also talked to individual Members of the Senate, and the House knew what some Senators had concerns about. We got admonition from the President and the White House to change some things to bring the President on board. We now have a person who has a reputation for being tough on crime but also a person who recognizes that within our criminal justice system and the prison system and the way judges have to make decisions under mandatory minimums, there is some unfairness. We have a President who may now be seen by a large part of this country as being somebody who not only wants to be tough on crime but be fair on crime. The President of the United States had a news conference when we put the original bill together, but it was before the fine-tuning, which I have already talked about, to get additional Members' support. At the end of the news conference, at which many Members of the House and Senate were present, the President said, I have my pen ready to sign this bill. If anybody has any doubt whatsoever about whether the President is for this bill, I am telling you what I heard from his own words--that he has a pen ready to sign this bill. So I hope nobody comes up here and wonders, what does the President of the United States think about this bill? I heard him say it. So I hope we have a Senate majority--particularly, the Senate majority. When you have an opportunity to have the President of the United States, who is tough on crime but understands there has to be some fairness to it, that the majority party in the U.S. Senate would support the President of the United States--I hope that is what they will think about as they cast these votes on these amendments that we are soon going to have. I think it is fair to say that as we proceeded over the last 4 years to get a piece of legislation like this, they would be skeptical about this President. But don't be skeptical anymore, because this President gives this bill his full backing. This is an opportunity for a Republican majority in the U.S. Senate to show that this Republican President can do something that even President Obama couldn't get done, because this was a big issue in the last Congress, but we couldn't get it here to the Senate. So the Congress can deliver a big bipartisan legislative accomplishment for President Trump with the passage of this bill. I have just described to my colleagues how the legislative process is supposed to work--one on one. How do you eat 10,000 marshmallows? One at a time. How do you get support for a bill? One person at a time, and that is pretty much what the Republican supporters of this bill have been trying to do. Why do it? To placate the honest interests of people in our caucus that raised those same concerns 3 weeks ago. So this is how the legislative process works. You work in a bipartisan way to build support for your policy and debate it on the floor of the Senate. Later on I will ask for support for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. GRASSLEY. The Senator from Louisiana is ready to object to what I am doing. I am going to ask unanimous consent, but before anybody objects, I would like to make, maybe, a 1-minute statement on the reason for my unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 4132 be made pending and agreed to. This is why I ask that. This amendment ensures that faith-based groups can operate in Federal prisons to help prisoners turn over a new leaf. It also excludes dangerous criminals from earning time credits. Finally, it extends the independent review committee from 2 years to 5 years, and it also requires an annual report. Now, I have had a little bit of conversation with Senator Cotton, the main opponent of our legislation, and Senator Kennedy as well. I think that everything that is in amendment No. 4132 is something that at least every Republican ought to support, and I think a large part of the Democrats support it. As far as I can tell, from reading the point of view of my friend from Arkansas on some of these amendments, this point about extending the independent review committee from 2 years to 5 years and requiring an annual report is about the only part of this amendment No. 4132 that Senator Cotton disagrees with. I don't know why he would disagree with an independent review that could be done over a period to go on from 2 to 5 years, because there is going to be periodic decisions made in the meantime, and there is an annual report. That is what this amendment does, and I hope we can get it adopted.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before I speak, I think we need to give the Senator from Arkansas another 2 minutes because he was speaking on the wrong amendment that is before the Senate.

Mr. GRASSLEY. It is the victims notification amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before I take my 2 minutes in opposition to this amendment, for the leader I ask unanimous consent that the votes following the first vote in this series be 10 minutes in length.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment is unnecessary. This amendment is duplicative of requirements already enacted into law under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. Current law requires notification to crime victims who choose to be notified. It allows others to opt out to avoid being retraumatized. This would change the law to require victim notification, which could retraumatize victims who choose not to be notified. This is not a victim-centered approach. It is a heavyhanded violation of a victim's choice. This amendment would require notification even if the victim doesn't want it, raising the specter of retraumatizing a victim who has tried to move on with their life. This is not a victim-centered approach. It is a heavyhanded government violation of a victim's choice. Victims' rights groups oppose this amendment for this reason. The public notice mandates create a series of new bureaucratic, big- government requirements and a new unfunded mandate for the Bureau of Prisons. So I will vote against this amendment. To support my reasons, I will quote a whole list of conservative groups: the American Conservative Union, FreedomWorks, Right on Crime, R Street Institute, Jessica Jackson's group, U.S. Justice Action Network, and a whole host of groups like that. Heritage Action scores it We have from the victims' rights groups, Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice, fairness, dignity, and respect for crime victims and survivors, and the National Coalition of Police and Prosecutors warns of hostile amendments. I am going to end by simply stating what you heard me say in my opening remarks before this--that we have a chance to send a bill to the President. In his news conference, he said that he is ready to sign it. We have a President who is tough on crime, but he wants to be fair on crime. The bill we put together with the White House does that. I ask you to vote no.

Mr. GRASSLEY. As we talked about the earlier amendment, we talked a great deal on the previous amendment about victim's notification. There is also a victim's notification in this amendment as well. So I don't want to go into--the arguments are the same. Remember, victim rights groups oppose this amendment because it is covered by current law. So I want to spend my time on talking in opposition to this amendment from the standpoint of granting wardens veto authority over what this law sets up as an objective, evidence-based system--or you could call it a risk assessment system--in the act to make sure that we have a good foundation for determining whether somebody is a risk to society if they take advantage of this program and to do it in a studied way. Once that is set up, then this amendment would allow a warden to veto it. If a low- or minimal-risk inmate works hard to make themselves ready to be productive citizens and community leaders or members, then they ought to reap the rewards of that work under the FIRST STEP Act and not have a person step in who could put bias into the system and human error into the system. We are trying to set up a system to get away from it, because this legislation is all about bringing fairness to the prison system and to the judicial system as well. How much time do I have left?

Mr. GRASSLEY. I am done. Did you say 2 seconds?

Mr. GRASSLEY. OK. Vote against the amendment.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, if I had 2 minutes the last time, I should have had more than 2 seconds left over.

Mr. GRASSLEY. No, I can't do that. Let's see if we can keep our bipartisan coalition together to pass a bill that the President said he is ready to sign. That is what he said at the end of his news conference. It is pretty important to understand, this is something the President is behind. So we are facing a very serious vote on this next one. Obviously, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment is very finely tailored to scare you that if you don't vote for this amendment, you are going to have somebody out on the street, contrary to the intent of this law, who is going to commit some awful act. Remember, this law is centered on those people who are the least violent people who are in prison already. Don't be scared by what you have heard about this amendment--it is unnecessary--because the system that is set up by the FIRST STEP Act itself renders dangerous and violent criminals ineligible for the benefits available to low-level offenders under this bill. We are only going to help low-level offenders. This tactic that is being used to scare you into voting for this amendment and then into destroying the bipartisan cooperation we have gotten in order to get this bill passed undermines the goal of incentivizing low-level offenders to prepare themselves to be productive on reentry. My 2 minutes are up already?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Will you vote against the amendment, please?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Will you vote against the amendment, please?

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have asked to be notified before any unanimous consent agreement to process this bill because I oppose S. 281, the Fairness in High-Skilled Immigrants Act. High-skilled immigrants are a benefit to the United States. We welcome those talented individuals from across the world who can supplement our own domestic labor workforce. In Iowa, we have seen the benefit of high- skilled immigrant doctors, healthcare professionals, and medical specialists who serve our rural communities. These immigrants provide quality healthcare and immerse themselves in our communities. In turn, Iowans welcome them with open arms. I look forward to improving the integrity of our H-1B program through regular order in a bipartisan manner. However, I have strong objections to S. 281 or the Fairness in High-Skilled Immigrants Act. This bill would eliminate the per country numerical limitation for employment-based immigrants and increase the per country numerical limitation for family-based immigrants from 7 percent to 15 percent of the total number of family-sponsored visas. It would also do nothing to improve serious problems in our H-1B visa program. In fact, it does not address any employer abuses, fraud, protections for American workers or protections for the H-1B workers themselves. Congress must deal with the visa backlog issue, but this bill is a bandaid over a bullet hole that I fear will lead to unintended consequences. First, eliminating the per country caps will not necessarily clear out the backlog. Inevitably, with tens of thousands of people waiting in line, a backlog will ensue from a processing standpoint regardless of whether or not there are per country caps. Second, this bill does not replace the per country caps with any sort of metric-based system or order. This is problematic at best. Of course, an immigrant's country of origin should not dictate their place in line for visas, but surely a clear corresponding domestic labor demand should. Members on both sides of the aisle have said they are committed to a merit-based immigration system. Certainly then, if we eliminate per country caps, we should have a merit-based system that prioritizes not based on country of origin, but on what jobs need to be filled and a showing that there are not enough Americans to fill that position. Some of my colleagues have proposed a points-based system. I believe this could be a good starting point. Ultimately, however, a replacement system for the per country limitations should be discussed and fully vetted through hearings and debate. I am willing to work with any Member, Democrat or Republican, including the proponents of this bill, to create a smarter and fairer system. President Trump and congressional Republicans promised the American people that we would address chain migration, but this bill does not do that. Instead, it more than doubles family-sponsored visas but does not limit this privilege to the nuclear family. Before we talk about expanding family-sponsored visas, we should right-size immigration in a manner that balances domestic economic demand with American values. Limiting family-sponsored visas to spouses, children, and elderly dependent parents seems both fair and prudent. Finally, this bill does not include overdue reforms to our H-1B visa program. This bill does not include any safeguards, such as requiring employers to recruit American workers prior to hiring an H-1B worker and increasing wages for H-1B workers. Too often we have seen employers undercut wages for U.S. workers by intentionally classifying H-1B workers at a lower wage level for the work they are performing. This bill also ignores harms that befall the H-1B workers, many of whom are underpaid, vulnerable to abuse, and frequently placed in poor working conditions. There is bipartisan agreement that we need to address the visa backlog and H-1B reform. I look forward to working with any of my colleagues on this effort in the next Congress.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before I start my remarks, in case they go beyond the time for a vote, I ask unanimous consent to finish my remarks.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. We are here today to begin debate on a piece of legislation called the FIRST STEP Act of 2018. This happens to be the most significant criminal justice reform bill in a generation. Our country is based upon the rule of law. If someone commits a crime, they should be punished, and that punishment should be severe enough to deter others from committing crimes. But for our criminal justice system to serve our society well, it has to do more than punish and deter. Recidivism rates are far too high and drive crime rates up. In the Federal system, 49 percent of prisoners are rearrested within 8 years, and 32 percent are convicted of new crimes. We must better prepare prisoners to leave behind their criminal past and to become productive citizens when they leave the prison system. We also need to make sure that criminal sentences are tough enough to punish and deter, but not be unjustly harsh. Sentences should not destroy the opportunity of redemption for inmates willing to get right with the law. The FIRST STEP Act is tough on crime, but it is also fair. To tackle the recidivism rates in our country, the bill establishes evidence- based programming that has reduced recidivism at the State level. We have evidence from the States of Texas, Georgia, Mississippi, and many others to justify that fact. The bill provides incentives for inmates willing to put in the work to complete these programs. Under this bill, a prisoner may earn 10 days of time credit for every 30 days of successful participation, which they can apply toward prerelease custody. However, access to these incentives is available only to those who pose little risk of committing new crimes. The FIRST STEP Act requires the Bureau of Prisons to implement a risk assessment system to determine an inmate's risk of returning to crime after prison. Access to the earned-time credits is limited to those who pose a minimum or low risk. The bill also makes clear that violent and high- risk criminals convicted of certain serious offenses are ineligible for the prerelease custody program. The list of disqualifying offenses includes crimes relating to terrorism, murder, sexual exploitation of children, and gun crimes, among others that are listed in the bill. All fentanyl traffickers are disqualified from earning time credits. The bill also makes sentencing fairer by returning some discretion to judges during sentencing. Some have called for eliminating mandatory minimums or cutting them back severely. I happen to be a supporter of mandatory minimum sentences because it helps law enforcement take down criminal enterprises, but at the same time, I recognize there is some unfairness in how these mandatory minimum sentences are sometimes applied. The FIRST STEP Act leaves in place these maximum sentences but also addresses overly harsh and expensive mandatory minimums for certain nonviolent offenders. Locking up low-level offenders for needlessly long prison sentences diverts resources that are needed elsewhere to fight crime. To address this, the FIRST STEP Act makes a number of changes to sentencing guidelines. First, the legislation clarifies that enhanced penalties for using a firearm during a crime of violence or drug crime should be reserved for repeat offenders of such crimes. That is what Congress had intended when it created the enhanced penalty in the first place. Second, the bill would reduce the three-strike penalty for life imprisonment to 25 years. The 20-year minimum is reduced to 15 years. The bill also broadens the mandatory penalties, applying them to more of the worst criminals. Third, the bill provides for more judicial discretion by expanding the existing Federal safety valve to include more low-level, nonviolent offenders. Consistent with the existing law, the judge cannot apply the safety valve unless the defendant has fully cooperated with law enforcement. Lastly, the bill also allows for the retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which reduced the 100-to-1 disparity in sentencing between crack and powder cocaine. I want to acknowledge President Trump's leadership on criminal justice reform. Without the President's engagement, we wouldn't be here today. The President deserves credit for brokering a deal that improves fairness and supports law enforcement. A tremendous amount of credit is also due to my colleagues in the Senate who helped to forge a bipartisan compromise on complex issues. I emphasize ``bipartisan compromise'' because the people in the grassroots of America, even in my State of Iowa, think there isn't much bipartisanship going on here. I would especially like to thank my colleague, Senator Durbin. He has been a partner through this entire process. A bipartisan cosponsor includes Senator Lee, who has done a tremendous amount of work on this. In fact, he started with Senator Durbin before I even got involved. We also have cosponsorships by Senators Booker, Graham, Whitehouse, Scott, Feinstein, Cornyn, and Leahy. They all deserve praise for reaching this deal. The product of years of negotiating and listening to each other is a bill that will reduce crime, strengthen faith in our judicial system, support law enforcement, and give thousands of people a better shot at living good lives. As we go to this very important first vote on this bill, which is to invoke cloture, I urge all of my colleagues to join with President Trump and our bipartisan coalition of supporters to support the FIRST STEP Act. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to an Iowan whose stewardship at a leading television news station in Des Moines, IA, has strengthened the principles of good government, transparency and the public's right to know. As a member of the broadcast press corps for four decades, Dave Busiek understands that freedom of the press is fundamental to liberty in this country. I often say that journalists serve an important role in our system of checks and balances, which preserves liberty. They are integral to keeping an engaged and infoimed citizenry. They report corruption, weed out wrongdoing, and hold government accountable to the American people. Throughout my public service and political life, I hold myself accountable to Iowans by making myself accessible to members of the media. I hold regular news conferences and answer their questions in the hallways of the U.S. Capitol and after my county meetings at home in Iowa. It is a commitment I have kept since my first campaign for the U.S. Senate back in 1980. And that happens to be the year my political path crossed with Dave Busiek. In fact, for as long as I have served Iowans in the U.S. Senate, Dave Busiek has served the people of Iowa in broadcast journalism: as a reporter, anchor, and news director at KCCI-TV in Des Moines, where he started in 1979 after working for 3 years at WHO Radio. Dave has led coverage of breaking news events, natural disasters, government and politics, and human interest stories that keep Iowans informed. When there has been a story to tell and information that matters to Iowans, Dave has led the coverage over the span of four decades. Twenty-nine years ago, he covered the United Flight 232 plane crash in Sioux City. He made sure Iowans knew what they needed to know during the historic floods of 1993 and during the tornadoes in Marshalltown, Pella, and surrounding communities this past summer. With fairness, accuracy and objectivity, Dave has led a team of journalists to report the news that affects the lives of Iowans, including decades of coverage of one my favorite places in Iowa: The Iowa State Fair. Of course, Iowa is considered ground zero for the presidential campaign trail and all things politics. Dave's political coverage extends to six Iowa Governors and dates back to George H.W. Bush beating Ronald Reagan in the 1980 caucuses. As I mentioned earlier, he covered my first Senate campaign in 1980 and 35 years later, partnered with CBS News and the Des Moines Register to cosponsor the Democratic Debate for President at Drake University. His 29-year tenure as news director at KCCI helped the station win countless awards for journalistic excellence. In 2002, he was elected chair of the Radio-Television News-Directors Association and was named News Director of the Year in 2014 by Broadcasting and Cable Magazine. He was inducted this summer into the Iowa Broadcasters Association Hall of Fame. He understands that good content is integral to survival from an economic standpoint and obviously, good content matters to good government and quality journalism. He pursued KCCI's expansion into social media where the news station provides weather and breaking news coverage across all digital platforms to its consumers. Whether on-air or online, Dave has worked to stay on top of the news, day after day, for four decades. Dave Busiek is not a native Iowan, but we sure are glad he has called Iowa home since graduating from the Missouri School of Journalism. Remarkably, he is only the third news director at KCCI since it first aired in 1955. From viewers to voters, I know that Iowans carry a high bar of expectations. Dave earned his rise through the ranks and certainly has raised the bar even higher for his peers in the profession. I would like to thank Dave Busiek for his service, professionalism and integrity in broadcast journalis also like to thank him for his testimony at a congressional hearing I led back in 2000. He testified in support of my bipartisan legislation to allow cameras in Federal courtrooms. The Supreme Court has affirmed that the public has a right to know what happens in our courts. Dave and I agree that the media can serve as an important surrogate to allow the court of public opinion to bear witness to the court of law through the unfiltered lens of a camera. Specifically, audio/visual streaming and broadcasting of the Federal courts would enhance better appreciation and understanding of the Federal judiciary, a coequal branch of the Federal Governnent. That was 18 years ago. And I am not giving up on getting this bill signed into law. They say slow and steady wins the race. The people of Iowa graciously put me on this fence post and I am committed to fighting the fight as long as I am serving in the U.S. Senate. I congratulate Dave Busiek on a remarkable career. His legacy will continue to shine long after he signs off as news director through the lens of countless journalists he has trained and mentored along the way.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate Col. Matthew J. Burger on his promotion to brigadier general. Matthew Burger graduated from the Air Force Academy in 1990 and served on Active Duty as an HH-1 instructor pilot and chief of safety with the 27th Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Squadron, and later as chief of group Standardization and Evaluation, 85th Operations Group, Keflavik Naval Air Station, Iceland. Following 10 years on Active Duty, he joined the Air Force Reserve, where he has served in numerous command positions during his career. He has over 4,500 flight hours and is a command pilot. While serving, he has earned the Legion of Merit, the Meritorious Unit Award, the Combat Readiness Medal with three silver oak leaf clusters, the National Defense Service Medal with bronze service star, and many other awards and decorations. Matthew is also the grandson of my late longtime staffer, Betty Burger, from Fairfield, IA. On December 12, 2018, he was unanimously confirmed by the Senate to the rank of brigadier general.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as the 115th Congress winds down, I would like to reflect on the enactment of the historic tax legislation, which passed last year, and what is ahead for us in the new year. In December of 2017, Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the most comprehensive reforms to the Nation's tax laws in more than three decades. For years, both sides of the aisle have talked about the need for tax reform that would provide tax simplification, tax fairness, and increase America's economic competitiveness. With the enactment of the law called the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, we finally made all three of those goals a reality. Significant simplification was achieved for individuals by nearly doubling the standard deduction. This means people will be able to pay less and avoid the tedious task of itemizing their taxes. Overall, roughly 90 percent of taxpayers will file their taxes by simply taking the standard deduction. Moreover, thanks to a significantly higher alternative minimum tax, which we refer to as the AMT exemption, millions of middle-class taxpayers will no longer be faced with figuring out their tax liability two times: one time to calculate their regular tax liability and the second time to calculate their tax liability under the alternative minimum tax. It also provided tax fairness by reducing taxes across every income group. In fact, middle-income families experienced the largest tax cut by percentage. Additionally, the reforms made the Tax Code more progressive, with taxpayers earning more than $1 million shouldering a larger share of the tax burden than they did under the previous law. In addition to nearly doubling the standard deduction, tax relief was targeted at middle-class families by doubling the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000 per child. It also reduced the previous 15 percent tax bracket to 12 percent and the 25 percent tax bracket to 22 percent. As a result, a typical family of four earning $59,000 a year will see a tax cut of more than $1,600 in the year 2018. A key motivation for tax reform was to boost economic growth and increase America's global competitiveness. America's Tax Code should favor American jobs, American workers, and American businesses. That means leveling the playing field so that we are not put at an economic disadvantage with other countries competing with us, so the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act brought the corporate and international tax systems into the 21st century. You can tell it is already working because other countries are looking at lowering their tax rates to compete with us. Of course, what we did included lowering the corporate tax rate from 35 down to 21 percent. In one fell swoop, we went from a tax rate that was the highest in the developed world to below the world's average of 23 percent. How can you be competitive if you are a country at 35 percent and the average is 23 percent? This means global corporations will be more inclined to create jobs here, rather than in other countries. We also modernized America's international tax system. We were one of the very last major countries to tax businesses on a worldwide basis. By moving toward a more territorial system, we freed up more than $2 trillion for investment here at home that American companies were holding offshore. These changes to the international tax rules don't just help U.S. companies that operate globally to compete in the worldwide marketplace, but they also help those companies grow their businesses here at home with more jobs, better wages, and increased investment. Just as important, we worked to ensure that small businesses and pass-through entities received more equitable treatment compared to what a corporation gets. We have a new 20-percent qualified business deduction benefiting pass-through businesses of all sizes, down to the smallest family farmer or corner bakery. Enhanced expensing rules were included to help all businesses, spurring investments in new equipment and machinery. Our efforts have contributed to a strong and growing economy. The unemployment rate is at a half-century low; wages are rising at the fastest rate in nearly a decade; and workers, employers, and small business owners are all very optimistic about the future--more optimistic than for a long, long time. America is working again. As we look forward to a new year in 2019, with a new Congress and a new majority in the House, it is my hope that we can work in a bipartisan way to build upon this economic success I just described. I will be doing my part as the incoming chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and I see plenty--plenty--of opportunity. Unfortunately, I hear increasing calls from the incoming House majority pledging to erase the progress made with the tax cuts and tax reforms I have just outlined. The proof of tax reform's success is in today's economy. It is obvious to most people that it is in the best shape it has been in for a long time. Why would we want to go backward--toward stagnation, pessimism, and, obviously, joblessness? Of course, no major piece of legislation is perfect. To the extent that there are legitimate efforts to perfect the law, then I want people to know that I am all ears. But to the extent that these efforts would undermine the strength of the American economy for the sake of ideology--and that ideology would be hiking taxes and undoing important reforms to modernize the tax system and increase America's global competitiveness--then they will be met with stiff opposition from this Senator. Instead of playing politics, we should be focused on examining how the law is affecting individuals, families, and businesses in our respective States and districts. Where necessary, we should work together to take action and ensure the law is fulfilling its full potential. We should also work toward providing tax certainty for individuals and small businesses. This would include making permanent marginal tax rate cuts for individuals and families, making permanent the doubling of the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000, also making permanent the innovative 20 percent deduction for small businesses to provide the certainty that is needed to make investment and to encourage that investment and also to encourage hiring decisions and, lastly, the ability of businesses to recover the cost of investment in property and equipment faster. I hope my colleagues in the House of Representatives join me in these efforts. I have yet to hear a good reason why we shouldn't make these and other tax relief measures permanent. It is the right thing to do for the economy, the right thing to do for job creation, and the right thing to do for wage growth. I also wish to see us continue working on other important issues we started in this Congress. This includes improving retirement savings, bringing the IRS into the 21st century, protecting taxpayer rights, enhancing the competitiveness of U.S. businesses, and encouraging research, development, and innovation. I also hope there will be plenty of opportunity to work on a bipartisan basis on tax issues involving everything from education to renewable and alternative energy, to consumer-directed healthcare options. I have heard a lot about the desire of the new House majority to engage in oversight of the current administration. I will put my record of oversight up against anyone's record. However, I want my colleagues to know I do not intend to engage in political fishing expeditions. I think a person like me who has had an equal opportunity approach to oversight--treating Republican administrations the same as Democratic administrations--speaks for itself. I will not go along with efforts to weaponize the authority of tax- writing committees to access tax returns for political purposes. Such an action would be unprecedented, but if Democrats are interested in doing nonpartisan, good government oversight, count me in. I hope they will join me in my efforts to hold the IRS accountable to the taxpayers; ensure the nonprofit sector is living up to the purposes of its tax-exempt status; that they will also help me stand up for tax whistleblowers who expose tax cheats; and track down, expose, and address tax shelters. My hope is, in the new Congress, we will be able to work to address important tax matters in a bipartisan fashion. I am proud of my strong record of bipartisanship on the Finance and Judiciary Committees. I intend to continue my good working relationships with my colleagues across the aisle and hope to forge a few new ones, not only in the Senate but also with the new majority in the House of Representatives. Senator Wyden, who will be the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee, and I have had a good working relationship on so many different issues over a long period of time, and I think we will be able to work together as well. We have already started communication along that line. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, when we set out to update and reform our criminal justice system, we sought the expertise from a broad range of stakeholders and advocates. Our focus has always been to reduce crime and recidivism and improve fairness in a way that promotes safety and respect for the law. We could not have done this without the essential input from a number of key law enforcement organizations that partnered with us in this endeavor. The Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives played a formative role in the updated text we released earlier today. Their continued leadership and good faith engagement have cut a path forward on a once-in-a-generation chance to improve American justice. I would also like to thank the National District Attorneys Association, the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, and Law Enforcement Leaders to Reduce Crime and Incarceration, who gave valuable input on this bill. Their engagement offered important law enforcement perspective in the initial stages of our work. While some groups have chosen to stay on the sidelines or even undermine our work, these organizations have provided us with critical feedback needed to refine and strengthen the First Step Act. They have helped to advance law enforcement priorities and the goals of reform. With President Trump's continued leadership, the wealth of input from voices across the political spectrum, and Senator McConnell's work in bringing this up for a vote, I look forward to getting this bill signed into law.