Floor Statements

Mr. President, I pay tribute to an extraordinary American. I stand here today to pay my respects to a World War II veteran who dedicated his life to public service.

After serving his country in uniform in the Navy, this gentleman from Alabama served the American people as a civil servant. For more than four decades, he was a tenacious watchdog who chased down fraud, waste, and abuse at the Pentagon. A hero for taxpayers and a war hero against waste, Ernie Fitzgerald recently passed away at the age of 92. I, today, sing the unsung praises of this remarkable champion of whistleblowers.

He was a fiercely independent watchdog. He was one of the rarest of breeds. He brought an uncommon devotion to his work. He prevailed against the muzzles of many of his handlers whom he called ``over- dogs.'' They used to try and silence him. He prevailed over those muzzles--it didn't work--because when Ernie sniffed wrongdoing, he would sink his teeth in and never let go. He was a bulldog. His superiors squirreled him away in a farflung cubbyhole at the Pentagon. Basically, they exiled him to the Pentagon's attic. The big dogs at the Pentagon didn't want this watchdog's work seeing the light of day.

As Americans, we are blessed to have constitutional protections for freedom of speech and freedom of the press. These beacons of liberty worked to Ernie's advantage. Our system of checks and balances also helped to make sure wrongdoing was never swept under the rug.

Throughout my public service, I have paid close attention when I have gotten a whiff of wrongdoing. I have learned that a pervasive stench is often not far behind. As a lifelong Iowa farmer, I know what a load of manure really smells like. So when I ran into a bit of institutional gridlock in my efforts to freeze the defense budget back in the early eighties, I wanted to talk to a pair of analysts at the Pentagon. Their efforts exposed the Federal money hose that showered unbridled tax dollars over bloated defense contracts.

Ernie Fitzgerald and a fellow named Chuck Spinney aren't household names, of course, but their crusade to fix the fiscal mess at the Department of Defense has inspired this Senator to conduct robust oversight over the last four decades. Ernie's body of work has helped me to derail the Pentagon's gravy train.

Do you remember back three decades ago--and there are probably examples today--when there were $450 hammers, $640 toilet seats, and $7,600 coffee pots? Those were real items, and those were real figures. Those pricetags for spare parts gave taxpayers sticker shock and ought to have for good reason. Americans know the price of everyday household items. They sure know what a hammer or a toilet seat costs at their local hardware stores.

As Ernie Fitzgerald explained, Americans aren't expected to know what a B-1 bomber or an F-15 fighter should cost, but when you add all of that up, you get a boondoggle of ``overpriced spare parts flying in close formation.'' Those were Ernie's words. Ernie's fiscal forensics uncovered mountains of mismatched receipts and invoice gaps that left taxpayers footing the tab for rampant waste and unchecked spending sprees. Ernie Fitzgerald was a sleuth for truth. His quest gave Pentagon officials heartburn. His work gave me the leverage I needed in Congress to enact an across-the-board spending freeze, but I am getting a bit ahead of Ernie's story.

For the record, Arthur Ernest Fitzgerald was a patriot, a whistleblower, and a watchdog. He had a heart of gold, but it was as tough as nails. He outmaneuvered top military brass by getting down to brass tacks. He was a gentleman's gentleman who had a big southern drawl and a bone-deep genetic allegiance to the truth. In fact, his allegiance to the truth was a big bone of contention between him and those on the highest rungs of power of the U.S. Government--from the President of the United States to the most highly decorated brass in the U.S. military. Ernie had uncommon courage to stand up for the truth at great expense to his career. He put integrity and pride above saving his own hide. He spoke truth to the powers that be, and he lost his job for doing it.

As I mentioned, our acquaintance started during my first term in the Senate. I was awfully wet behind the ears. I was a dyed-in-the-wool fiscal conservative. At the same time, I was cutting my teeth as a congressional watchdog. Ernie Fitzgerald, at that time, was on a short leash at the Pentagon in his having been rehired--can you believe this?--under court order after having been fired for having blown the whistle on fiscal mismanagement at the Pentagon. That is how whistleblowers were treated then, and they are treated the same way today.

I remind my colleagues and the American people where Ernie's earnestness for truth landed him. The 37th President of the United States referred to Ernie Fitzgerald in those infamous Watergate tapes. You know who that was--Nixon. In Ernie Fitzgerald's quoting of Nixon, Nixon said: ``Get rid of that SOB.'' Those marching orders were delivered after Ernie spilled the beans at a Joint Economic Committee hearing on November 13, 1968. He testified before Senator Proxmire's panel that taxpayers were on the hook for a $2 billion cost overrun on the C-5 aircraft. For this transgression of truth-telling, he was fired by the Air Force.

Let me be clear. Ernie Fitzgerald lost his job for committing the truth, and that reveals the big-time risk whistleblowers face even today if they step forward to expose wrongdoing.

Thanks to Ernie's characteristic resilience, sheer determination, and our system of checks and balances, Ernie got his job back. He filed a lawsuit that made its way through the courts. It took a dozen years for him to get his job back. On June 15, 1982, Ernie returned to work at the Pentagon but in the attic of the Pentagon. That was 14 years after he testified about the C-5 and its $2 billion cost overrun. Although Ernie held a very senior position in the Air Force--with the job title of Management Systems Deputy--at the Pentagon, he was kept at arm's length. His job description was spelled out in a court order, but he was never allowed to do that job that the court said he ought to have had.

That is how whistleblowers are treated. You ignore them. You put them in the attic. They go nuts. He was treated as an outcast, as I am sure I am demonstrating to you. He was snubbed by his superiors and was left to his own devices to make a difference.

Once again, the genius of our system of checks and balances came into play. Ernie was not snubbed by this U.S. Senator. In fact, we discovered we shared a bone-deep genetic aversion to waste. Like many Midwesterners, I don't like to waste time or money. That is why, as a U.S. Senator, I try to keep a tight-fisted grip on the Federal purse strings. It is why, as a taxpayer watchdog, I take oversight work very seriously. Every Member of Congress has a constitutional duty to conduct oversight--every Member of Congress. We need the eyes and ears of whistleblowers to root out the truth. That is why I want to hear what whistleblowers have to say.

As a new Senator in a Republican administration, the Reagan administration, I previously mentioned my proposal to enact a yearly across-the-board budget freeze. An across-the-board spending freeze guarantees shared sacrifice. I wanted to make sure it could be done without harming national security, so I needed answers from people who could tell the truth. I called on the Secretary of Defense at that time, Weinberger, and asked if I

could talk to a Pentagon budget analyst named Chuck Spinney. I was told, yes, he could come to my office.

It turns out the Pentagon didn't want Chuck Spinney, a civil servant, briefing me. At that time, I had an orange Chevette, so I jumped in it and drove from the Capitol over to the Pentagon. Even then, Chuck Spinney was not allowed to see me. As I watched the Pentagon disappear in my rearview mirror, I thought the Pentagon was making a mistake, though I didn't realize the publicity blunder it would turn out to be. What I did know was that one way or another, this Senator was going to talk to that civil servant, Mr. Spinney, whom the Pentagon didn't want me to talk to.

Six weeks later, Chuck Spinney testified before a standing-room-only joint hearing of the Senate's Budget and Armed Services Committees. It was held in the ornate Russell caucus room. Chuck Spinney exposed the mismanaged fiscal mess at the Department of Defense. The Pentagon was front-loading the budget, effectively stuffing 10 pounds of manure into a 5-pound sack. The following Monday, Chuck Spinney's photo was on the cover of TIME magazine.

The next time I wanted more answers about ongoing fiscal mismanagement at the Defense Department, I took a second road trip, in my orange Chevette, to the Pentagon. This time, I wanted Mr. Ernie Fitzgerald to testify before my subcommittee. Needless to say, the Pentagon didn't roll out the red carpet for me, but there were about 50 members of the press crammed into Ernie's attic cubbyhole to witness this U.S. Senator handing Ernie Fitzgerald a subpoena.

Courageous truthtellers can make all the difference, and Ernie was such a courageous truthteller. Ernie's evidence showed that contracting waste was bloating defense budgets and not beefing up military readiness. Instead, they were padding contractor profits at taxpayers' expense.

Ernie Fitzgerald's pursuit for truth is one of the primary reasons I also worked to strengthen whistleblower protections. What I like to call committing the truth often comes with a steep price.

Whistleblowers, like Ernie Fitzgerald, put their jobs, their livelihoods, and their reputations on the line. The pressure in this bureaucracy and in this government to ``go along to get along'' is entrenched in a culture in both the public and private sectors, but, of course, it is a way of life in the Pentagon.

In the late 1990s, I borrowed Ernie for a couple of years to work in my Senate office. He was assigned as an Air Force representative and expert who worked side by side with my staff. Together, we investigated vendor payments and bookkeeping, particularly in the Defense Finance and Accounting Services. This was in their accounts payable operations. It was tedious and time-consuming work, but Ernie Fitzgerald's unwavering work ethic was up to that task to restore the public trust.

Ernie Fitzgerald never minced words. He attributed lax procurement rules and, of course, cronyism as the reasons the taxpayers were being fleeced, and he was bound and determined to stop these shenanigans. As Ernie once said, ``government officials, from the majestic office of the president to the lowest, sleaziest procurement office, lie routinely and with impunity in the defense of the system.''

In 1998, Ernie testified at a congressional hearing I conducted to examine two audits freshly prepared by what was then called the General Accounting Office. The hearing was called ``License to Steal: Administrative Oversight of Financial Controls at the Department of Defense.''

The audits revealed nonexistent internal financial controls. Basically, the Defense Department's bookkeeping system was on auto pilot. It allowed for a freewheeling spending spree. The absence of basic financial controls fostered fraud, outright theft, and mismanagement of tax dollars. It was a story of rinse and repeat. Costly accounting errors were masked by a fundamentally flawed payment system that can't be audited, even today.

Working from within this bureaucratic behemoth, Ernie Fitzgerald devoted his life to exposing the abuse of power within the military- industrial complex. Outsized, but not outmatched, Ernie Fitzgerald evokes the image of David versus Goliath. At the height of the Cold War, he helped to freeze a galactic defense buildup and shielded taxpayers from massive, unaccountable expenditures.

America owes a debt of gratitude to this now-deceased Ernie Fitzgerald and to the brave work of whistleblowers who will follow in Ernie Fitzgerald's legendary footsteps. These courageous truthtellers risk everything to shed light on wrongdoing.

Ever since I met Ernie Fitzgerald and came to know the bureaucratic stonewalling that he fought against, I have worked to empower and protect whistleblowers. Transparency brings accountability.

Since passage of the bipartisan Grassley-Berman updates to the False Claims Act way back in 1986, the Abraham Lincoln-era antifraud tool is credited with recovering nearly $60 billion back into the Federal Treasury, and they are still counting, at an average of about $3 to $4 billion a year. The Department of Justice has called it the government's single, most effective antifraud weapon that it has in its arsenal. I am told my amendments effectively deter hundreds of billions of dollars of fraudulent activity.

As long as I am in this Senate, I will continue to work to keep the False Claims Act razor sharp and to strengthen whistleblower protections. I will always remember the good work of Ernie Fitzgerald and lots of others like him who kept their nose to the grindstone to do simply what is right.

Ernie Fitzgerald's long march for the truth teaches us that it requires constant vigilance to weed out a deep-rooted culture of cronyism, from the military-industrial complex to Big Pharma and elsewhere.

As cofounder of the Senate Whistleblower Protection Caucus, I will work to see that the mission of truthtellers is protected for generations to come. I will continue to work to strengthen sunshine laws, whistleblower protections, and enforcement of the Inspectors General Act.

The inspector general of the Justice Department called whistleblowers the ``lifeblood'' of his organization's work. I completely agree.

I will long remember the genteel southern drawl and the charm of my friend Ernie Fitzgerald. I am glad I was able to visit him in person at the Sunrise Nursing Home in Falls Church, VA. He leaves behind a legacy of truth that ought to encourage every American to stand up for what is right and what is just.

Like many whistleblowers, Ernie Fitzgerald took the road less traveled. In the words of Robert Frost, ``that has made all the difference.''

In closing, Barbara and I extend our condolences to Ernie's peers, friends, and family members. I bid this faithful public servant a fond farewell with a Scripture message that he shared with me from time to time. He understood that when the going got tough, the tough got going. To my departed brother in Christ, may the words of John 8:32 carry him to life everlasting: ``You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.''

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, like several of my colleagues today, under the leadership of my colleague from Iowa, Senator Ernst, we come to the floor to discuss the benefits of the tax cut of 14 months ago. Congress then passed historic tax legislation that fundamentally reformed our Tax Code and provided tax relief to middle-income Americans and to job creators. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, as it is called, made good on our commitment to provide significant tax relief to middle-income taxpayers while making the Tax Code simpler, fairer, and, of course, pro-growth oriented.

Thanks to a near doubling of the standard deduction, millions of taxpayers are discovering right now, as they file their taxes, they can pay less without spending hours and hours sifting through receipts and extra forms, all because the standard deduction is doubled.

Middle-income taxpayers can also expect to see a significant reduction in their tax bill from last year. For example, an Iowa family of four, with a State's median income of around $73,000, stands to see their tax bill cut by more than half, or approximately $2,000. This is real relief that began appearing in many taxpayers' paychecks at the start of 2018.

Given this, the best way for taxpayers to see how tax reform affects their bottom line is to compare this year's tax return with last year's tax return, rather than on the size of their refund. At the end of the day, the vast majority of taxpayers will see that less of their hard- earned money is coming to Washington for 535 Members of Congress to decide how it will be spent. Of course, those of us making that decision, 535 of us, would have less economic impact than 150 million taxpayers with more money to decide how to spend or save--how to spend it or how to save it. That would enhance our income, creating jobs, much more than Washington disposing of that same amount of money.

It responds to the animal spirits of the free market system--willing buyer and willing seller. This tax release stems from many pro-family and pro-middle-income tax provisions in the law. The law also enacted much needed tax relief for important job creators. It provides a very significant deduction on business income for small businesses, effectively lowering their top tax rate to under 30 percent, in many cases.

This bill corrects an injustice that has existed for decades; that there has never been recognition of the small business person who files an individual tax form compared to a corporate tax form. Small businesses never had equity like they should.

Small businesses, down to the smallest family-owned corner store and family farmer, are benefiting from that provision. Additionally, the law lowered the statutory corporate rate down from the highest in the developed world to 21 percent. The previous corporate tax rate was putting American companies at a very competitive disadvantage globally and consequently costing American jobs.

Just as important, the law put in place immediate expensing for the depreciation of equipment that businesses of all sizes and shapes would invest in. As a result, job creators will have every incentive to invest back into their business and expand operations here at home.

Nearly as soon as the tax cut was signed into law, its positive effects began to be felt throughout the economy. Hundreds of companies began announcing bonuses, pay raises, higher retirement contributions, new hiring, and increased investment. This included numerous businesses in Iowa. Utility companies across the country also responded by passing along their tax savings to their customers in the form of lower electric gas and water bills. Higher take-home pay, bonuses for employers, and reduced utility bills were all important benefits of the tax cut.

While the tax cuts and reforms have only been in effect for a little over a year, the economic signs point toward it having its intended effects. In 2018, the economy grew at 3.1 percent--the highest growth rate since 2005. Wages have risen at the fastest pace in nearly a decade. Nearly 3 million jobs have been created since the passage of tax reform, including more than 15,000 new jobs in Iowa alone. Unemployment rates for Hispanic and African-American workers have hit alltime lows.

For the first time on record, the number of job openings has exceeded job seekers for 9 straight months. Small business optimism is at near- record highs, and growth in business investment has been more than twice the rate it was during the sluggish Obama economy.

All of this good economic news points toward continued economic growth moving forward. This is key to sustainable, long-term wage growth, which is the most powerful anti-poverty measure that exists. Thanks to the tax cuts and the reform, America is open for business, and the economy is booming--all to the benefit of individuals and families in Iowa and every State.

Of course, all of this good economic news is no reason for us to become complacent. Over the next 2 years, I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to build on the success of tax reform. I say that willingness to work with my colleagues both from the standpoint of being an individual Senator from the State of Iowa as well as being chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Committee on Finance has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 116th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent

that the accompanying rules for the Senate Committee on Finance be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this year marks the 100th anniversary of the establishment of the Legislative Drafting Service, which we now know as the Office of the Legislative Counsel. In recognition of the anniversary, I would like to make a few comments about the history of the office.

During the first 130 years of Congress, 1789-1918, legislation for Congress was drafted by Members of Congress, congressional staff, Executive agencies, and outside individuals and groups which sometimes led to legislation that was not always clear, consistent, organized, and well written.

In 1911, Columbia University established a Legislative Drafting Research Fund to conduct research and work toward the better drafting of statutes and sent Professor Middleton Beaman and Thomas Parkinson to Congress to demonstrate the feasibility and value of the use by Congress of a full-time staff of professional legislative drafters.

The positive experiences of committees, Members, and staff of Congress, including the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives, in working with professional legislative drafters led to the introduction and consideration of legislation to establish a Legislative Drafting Bureau, including S. 1240, 63rd Congress, which was reported to the Senate on June 17, 1913.

During the debate on the establishment of a Legislative Drafting Bureau, Senator Elihu Root of New York argued in favor of establishment citing the use of counsel by the British House of Commons and stating that ``[t]he fundamental idea . . . to give the benefit of a trained, experienced student in the preparation of bills. . . . We need trained and intelligent assistance in the drafting of laws.''

On February 24, 1919, Congress enacted section 1303 of the Revenue Act

of 1918, 2 U.S.C. 271 et seq., which established the Legislative Drafting Service.

The House of Representatives and the Senate were initially served by a single office with two branches that received a single appropriation that was equally divided and transferred employees between the branches to meet special needs.

The two individuals who carried out the demonstration by the Legislative Drafting Research Fund became the first Legislative Counsels of the Legislative Drafting Service with Middleton Beaman appointed in February 1919 as the first Legislative Counsel of the House of Representatives branch of the Service and Thomas Parkinson appointed in March 1919 as the first Legislative Counsel of the Senate branch of the Service.

In 1924, the name of the office was changed from the Legislative Drafting Service to the Office of the Legislative Counsel.

The House of Representatives and the Senate branches of the Office of the Legislative Counsel began to evolve separately during the 1930s when the Senate branch, while continuing to meet the drafting needs of Senate committees, began to devote a significant part of the resources of the Office to the drafting requests of individual Senators while the House branch continued to limit the services of the branch to committees of the House.

The House of Representatives and the Senate branches of the Office continued to separate in 1958 when, for the first time, the two branches received separate and not equal appropriations and were officially separated in 1970 when a separate charter was established for the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the House by title V of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, 2 U.S.C. 281 et seq.

The first attorneys joined the Office to work only for a session or on a particular project and then moved on to other positions, with Thomas Parkinson, the first Legislative Counsel of the Senate, and John E. Walker, the successor of Parkinson, each serving fewer than 2 years and Frederic P. Lee, the third Legislative Counsel of the Senate, being the first to serve a substantial term of about 8 years.

The career tradition of the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the Senate was established with successors to Frederic P. Lee who served the Senate in the Office for their careers or long periods of employment, including Charles Boots--1922-1961, 32 years; Henry Wood-- 1926-1943, 17 years; Stephen Rice--1933-1950, 17 years; John Simms-- 1936-1966, 30 years; Dwight Pinion--1942-1969, 27 years; John Herberg-- 1947-1971, 24 years; Harry Littell--1947-1980, 33 years; Douglas Hester--1952-1990, 38 years; Francis Burk--1970-1998, 28 years; James Fransen--1975-2014, 39 years; Gary Endicott--1981-2018, 38 years; and Bill Baird--2010-present, 33 years, who served as attorneys of the Office and Legislative Counsels of the Senate.

During the 100-year history of the Office, the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the Senate has served the Senate well by providing a steady, reliable source of nonpartisan and nonpolitical professionally drafted legislation for committees, Members, and staff.

The attorneys and staff members of the Office have established and maintained traditions of professionalism and dedication that have helped to provide to the Senate a sense of continuity and institutional memory.

There has been a dramatic growth in the use of the Office by the Senate where, during the 66th and 67th Congresses--1919-1923--704 requests were drafted by three attorneys for an average of 117 drafts per attorney for both Congresses, to the most recently ended 115th Congress--2017-2018--where 72,106 requests were drafted by 37 attorneys for an average of 1,948 drafts per attorney for that Congress.

To deal with its increasing workload, in 1990, the Office established teams with multiple attorneys per team that were responsible for drafting legislation under the jurisdiction of one or more Senate committees which has provided the Office with the flexibility and resources to respond to and meet the growing demands placed on the Office for ever-changing areas and complexity of active legislation.

Attorneys in the Office and the House Legislative Counsel's Office use a uniform drafting style to improve the quality and consistency of Federal legislation and Federal law, including whenever practicable plain English, brevity, consistent organization and terms, and captions and subdivisions to organize drafts and make the drafts more readable and improve the administration and interpretation of and compliance with laws enacted by Congress.

After the anthrax attacks on the Senate in October 2001, the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the Senate continued to draft legislation for the Senate by working in temporary facilities outside the Office while the Dirksen Senate Office Building was decontaminated for 1 month and has since developed an effective long-term capability to deal with emergencies, reflecting the can-do attitude of the Office.

The role of the Office in the legislative work of the Senate is not often acknowledged, but it is understood and appreciated by all Senators.

The 262 current and former employees of the Office have worked very hard over its first 100 years to provide consistently a high quantity of high-quality legislation for the committees, Members, and staff of the Senate.

As the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the Senate celebrates its 100th anniversary, the Office is well prepared to continue to provide the Senate and its committees and officers quality drafting service and sound legal advice with the spirit of quiet professionalism that has been the tradition of the Office throughout its history.

I know that all Senators join me in congratulating the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the Senate on the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Office.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a listing of the men and women of the current staff of the Office of the Legislative Counsel be printed in the Congressional Record.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to offer a few reflections in these opening days--now opening weeks--of the 116th Congress.

On January 3, I was honored to be sworn in as the 91st Senate President pro tempore. As many of you know, I love history. I studied to be a history teacher, and I have devoted six decades of my life to public service where, maybe, I helped make a little history along the way. I have represented the people of Iowa as a legislator since 1958.

At the age of 25, as the youngest legislator in the Iowa State House, I never dreamed that one day I would be named a constitutional officer in the Senate.

For the last 38 years, it has been my great privilege to serve and represent the people of Iowa as a Senator. It is with great pride on behalf of my home State that I step into this leadership role and follow in the footsteps of my predecessors as President pro tempore of the Senate. In fact, one of those predecessors is from my home State. It was 100 years ago exactly that Iowa Republican Senator Albert Baird Cummins became the 68th Senate President pro tempore. He served as President pro tempore from 1919 until 1925.

In my nearly four decades here in the Senate, I served alongside seven Presidents pro tempore: Senator Thurmond, of South Carolina; Senator Stennis, of Mississippi; Senator Byrd, of West Virginia; Senator Stevens, of Alaska; Senator Inouye, of Hawaii; Senator Leahy, of Vermont; and Senator Hatch, of Utah. Each served with honor and distinction, bringing their own style and substance to this office.

When Senator Byrd was elected to this office, he noted that ``the election of a Senator to the office of the President pro tempore has always been considered one of the highest honors offered to a Senator by the Senate body.''

I am proud to join the ranks of this impressive and respected group of public servants and legislators. Article I of the Constitution directs that a President pro tempore be chosen by the Senate. The President pro tempore serves as the President of the Senate when the Vice President is unavailable and serves a number of other ceremonial and ministerial functions.

I appreciate the support of my colleagues who elected me to this position. In Federalist No. 62, James Madison considered it a virtue that Senators have ``more advanced age and a longer period of citizenship.'' Traditionally, the President pro tempore has also served as a senior statesman for the Senate, standing up for the values that make the Senate the world's greatest deliberative body. Perhaps that is why it is customary for a Senator of the majority party with the longest record of continuous service to become President pro tempore.

When you have been here as long as I have, you learn some very valuable lessons. You learn that you have to work hard, put your constituents first, and stand up for your principles. That is also how you happen to get reelected by the people of your State. Because the Senate is not a majoritarian body, you also learn that in order to get anything important done, you have to seek consensus and develop relationships, and develop those relationships on both sides of the aisle. You have to learn the art of negotiation and bipartisan compromise, something that seems to be missing right now as the government is shut down. You also learn that it is not enough to pass laws. You also have to make sure that those laws are followed and that the taxpayer dollars are spent appropriately according to what Congress intends in the law.

The humorist Will Rogers once said that about all he could say about the Senate is that it opens with a prayer and it closes with an investigation. In my experience, that is not always a bad thing because it is by conducting oversight and investigations that we hold the executive branch responsible to the

taxpayers--no matter which party is in power. That is why I have always dedicated a significant amount of resources to oversight, even when I was a new Senator. That is why, when some have suggested that Agencies should only respond to the oversight requests of committee chairmen and ranking members, I have fought back--even when 2 years ago, the new administration under Trump tried to say that only chairmen and ranking members should get this information--because I believe that every Senator has a duty to the taxpayers who sent us here to take an active part in congressional oversight efforts.

The Supreme Court observed in Watkins v. United States that ``the power of Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process.'' Oversight helps us to write better bills and to be wiser with taxpayer dollars. It is also how we make the Agencies accountable to the American people.

Over time, as our government has grown in size, Congress has delegated more and more power to the executive branch--probably more power than we should have. Some of the delegation is necessary for the government to function efficiently, but there is an inherent danger whenever Congress delegates power to the executive branch, especially if we delegate legislative authority.

When they drafted the Constitution, the Founders of our Nation were rightfully concerned that those in power would be tempted to abuse power in favor of their own interests. As we all studied in high school government, to prevent this, the Founders divided power among three branches of government and set up a system of government in which, to paraphrase James Madison in Federalist No. 51: Ambition [is] made to counteract ambition. It is through this system of checks and balances between ambitious branches of government that our fundamental liberties are protected. The concentration of too much power in the executive branch upsets the careful balance of the separated powers that was envisioned by our Founders.

As legislators, it is our duty then, as the Founders rightfully intended, for us to protect and defend the interests of our branch of government. So, when we write laws, we must be careful not to cede too much authority to the executive branch, and we must make sure that if we have delegated authority, we conduct rigorous oversight to make sure it is being used appropriately. It is only through rigorous oversight that we make sure that the government of the people and by the people then works for the people.

As President pro tempore, I will assure my colleagues and my constituents that I will bring the same Iowa work ethic, decency, and integrity to this job that I have cultivated throughout my years of public service. Like my President pro tempore predecessors, I will work to uphold the dignity and decorum of this body and to defend the Senate's institutional interests. It is what our Founders expected and the American people deserve.

Each Member of the Senate is privileged to serve. I especially welcome nine of the newest Members to the Senate. There are seven Republicans and two Democrats who are new: Senator Blackburn of Tennessee, Senator Braun of Indiana, Senator Cramer of North Dakota, Senator Hawley of Missouri, Senator McSally of Arizona, Senator Romney of Utah, Senator Rosen of Nevada, Senator Sinema of Arizona, and Senator Scott of Florida.

To my newest colleagues whom I have just named and, of course, to all of my colleagues who have been around here for quite a while, I want you to know my door is open. As I tell a lot of new colleagues--and I can repeat it for older colleagues--if you want to know anything about what Chuck Grassley is thinking or doing, just ask me. I will bet, 99 percent of the time, I will be able to tell you exactly what it is. If I can't, I will be glad to tell you why I can't tell you. I look forward to working with each of you in the weeks, months, and years ahead.

With great honor and, of course, humility, I look forward to my service as President pro tempore. Like my good friend and our most recent President pro tempore, Orrin Hatch, I look forward to opening the people's business each day in the Senate. I will then work the rest of that day to deliver on my commitment to find solutions to our country's most pressing problems, to seek common ground with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and to exercise rigorous oversight over the other branches of government. Our Nation's most pressing problem today is that of getting the government opened up.

I thank my colleagues.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the time on the quorum call be equally divided between the two sides.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, tax filing season is just around the corner. This has never been anyone's favorite time of the year, paying taxes, but the uncertainty created by the current partial government shutdown has understandably created a bit more angst than in a usual tax filing season.

The Treasury Department and IRS have been proactive in taking steps to minimize the burden of the shutdown on taxpayers. They recently announced that tax season will start as planned, on January 28. The IRS has confirmed that taxpayers can expect refunds to be sent out as usual should this shutdown drag on. Of course, this is the right conclusion, legally, and the right call for the taxpayers, as I had an opportunity to tell IRS Commissioner Rettig when we spoke recently.

Congress has explicitly provided for a permanent appropriation for the IRS to pay tax refunds. This makes common sense. A tax refund represents the taxpayer's money--not Congress's, not the government's but the taxpayers'--despite what some people in Congress seem to think; that this money belongs to the government. It should be returned then in a timely fashion and, thank God for their decision, that is going to be the case.

With around 75 percent of individuals receiving a tax refund on an annual basis, many have come to look to their refund to make important purchases, whether that is to replace an old water heater, make a downpayment on a reliable vehicle to get them to work, or just to make ends meet generally. It would be wrong for the government to impose undue financial strains on families across the country because Congress and the President can't get their act together.

As we continue to work through our differences, the least we can do is return to taxpayers their own money.

This tax season, of course, is a little different, not only because of the shutdown but also because it is the first tax filing season under the tax reforms and tax cuts enacted in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. A lot of work has gone on to get us here. Treasury and the IRS have been working diligently and swiftly to ensure taxpayers have the information they need. In a little over a year, they have put out 16 proposed regulations, 2 final regulations, 45 notices, 21 revenue procedures, and updated countless forms, publications, and other guidance--all of this geared toward implementing the law and addressing taxpayer questions.

Right out of the gate, Treasury and IRS went to work updating the annual withholding tables so taxpayers could immediately begin seeing the benefits of lower taxes in their paychecks. Of course, whether a taxpayer had less or more withheld from their paycheck is not the final word on whether one received a tax cut.

Also, due to changes in withholding, a smaller or larger refund than usual may not tell the whole story. I encourage taxpayers to compare their 2019 tax return with that of the previous year to see the difference. At the end of the day, the vast majority of taxpayers will see that less of their hard-earned money is going to the government.

A chief priority for the new withholding tables was, of course, accuracy. Extensive analysis was done to help taxpayers get the right amount withheld from their paycheck--not too much, not too little. However, as we all know, no withholding table will ever be perfect. Every taxpayer may be affected a little differently under the new law based on their personal circumstances. The IRS continues to consider whether future improvements to the withholding structure may be necessary, which I support and will be monitoring as chairman of the Finance Committee.

The IRS has also embarked on an extensive campaign to alert taxpayers to check and update their withholding. This included establishing an online withholding calculator to help taxpayers determine what, if any, adjustments to their withholding may be necessary.

That said, there are still going to be some taxpayers who may discover that they were underwithheld due to changes in the law and owe taxes at the end of the year. A subset of these taxpayers could be subject to a penalty for underpayment.

The ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Wyden, raised this concern in a letter to Commissioner Rettig on January 3, requesting that penalty relief be granted. I generally agree with the ranking member and have encouraged the IRS to be lenient on penalties, especially with this first time through a filing season under the new tax law. If a taxpayer has underwithheld as a result of the changes in the law, and not through the fault of their own, the IRS should consider what actions the Agency can take to provide penalty relief, but the issue of underwithholding due to the passage of tax reform should not be exaggerated. Yes, as the ranking member claims in his letter to the Commissioner, it is estimated that as many as 30 million taxpayers may have had taxes underwithheld from their paychecks, but what hasn't been said is that 30 million is actually only about a 3- percentage point increase from how many taxpayers would be underwithheld under the old law.

Moreover, just because a taxpayer was underwithheld during the year does not automatically mean they will be subject to a penalty tax. Safe harbors have long been in place to protect taxpayers whose withholding is slightly off from being penalized.

It is quite possible that some issues will arise this filing season that we did not anticipate and will need to be fixed as we go forward. We already identified a number of those issues, which I am hoping my Democratic colleagues will allow us to fix to further help as many more constituents as possible.

That doesn't detract from the fact that we have delivered real tax relief to middle-income families, small business owners, and the family farmer, nor does it undermine the fact that we modernized our outdated international tax system and improved America's business competitiveness in the global economy. Of course, that is going to benefit the American worker.

These 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. Workers, employers, and small business owners are all more optimistic than ever.

Unfortunately, I hear increasing calls from the new House majority pledging to erase the progress made with the tax cuts and reforms that we enacted 13 months ago. At least one new Democratic Member has suggested bringing back top tax rates as high as 70 percent to pay for a wish list of far-left, Big Government programs. Such a confiscatory tax rate targeted at a relatively small number of wealthy taxpayers would barely make a dent in the cost of programs they wish to implement.

Policymakers across the globe abandoned such punitive tax rates over the past several decades for their negative effect on economic growth, investment, and incentives to work. While tax rates at 70 percent or higher may have been fairly common in the 1960s, today, not a single OECD country boasts such high rates. How soon people forget about the prolonged economic stagnation and high unemployment of the 1970s when we last had tax rates as high as 70 percent.

I am going to detract here to show a chart. How soon we forget that just raising tax rates doesn't automatically bring in more money. For the benefit of my colleagues and for the benefit of the public watching on C-SPAN, I should have had this blown up. I doubt it is going to do much good for me to just hold up a small sheet of paper.

This goes back to the year 1955, ending in 2017. The blue line shows the marginal tax rates over a period of about 60 years. You can see high tax rates in the 1960s, going down, up, generally down, generally down, staying pretty low in recent years. You can see that the red line is the amount of money that comes in from taxes, whether you have high tax rates or low tax rates, which kind of tells me that the taxpayers are a lot smarter than the Congress of the United States because when you talk about high marginal tax rates, they want you to believe more money is going to come in. They are probably going to take the position that if you lower tax rates, less money is going to come in. But you see, in the 1950s top rate was 90 percent. Can you imagine Americans being dumb enough to work hard to only keep 10 percent of their income? No. What you do is you change people's behavior. They decide, I am going to work only so much. Why should I work harder and give more money to the Federal Government? You see, higher tax rates don't do what a lot of people want you to believe they are going to do.

I would like to give a little history on this, because you kind of think that if we have lower marginal tax rates, and Republicans are the ones who want lower tax rates, that you would give Republicans a lot of credit for reducing these marginal tax rates. I can remember the work of Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey--probably at least a moderate Democrat. He was probably as responsible as anybody in the 1980s for reducing these marginal tax rates, because Republicans didn't have guts enough to do it, and we might not be where we are right now. So it is not just Republican thinking that got these marginal tax rates down. It is not just Republican thinking that has kept this red line where it has been for 60 years, at approximately 16 to 20 percent of gross national product--the amount of the economy that is coming into the Federal Government.

I hope the talk of such confiscatory taxation truly is a talk of a few rogue Members and not representative of things to come. I wish to think there will be opportunities for us to work together in a bipartisan way.

I am firmly in the camp that the tax reform and tax cuts enacted by the last Congress represent important revisions to our tax laws, but I also understand that no major piece of legislation is entirely perfect. To the extent there is legitimate interest in improving tax laws, as chairman of the Finance Committee, I am going to be all ears.

When it comes to making modifications to tax reform, our first order of business should be focused on examining how the law affects individuals, families, and the businesses in our States that provide the jobs and benefits they rely on. When necessary, we should work together to take action and ensure that the law is fulfilling its potential. A key part of this discussion should be enacting technical corrections to the tax law--revisions to ensure that the bill does what Members thought it did when they voted on it. Some of these are related to just poor drafting, honest mistakes that were made.

I also hope that 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.

However, I fear opportunities to work together could be put at risk should my colleagues become fixated on tearing apart tax reform, hiking taxes, and, of course, going after the President's tax returns.

I want to put my Democratic colleagues on notice that I have no intention of undoing structural changes implemented as part of the tax reform. This would include the lower tax rates and family benefits, such as the increased child tax credit and standard deductions.

I am also not interested in eliminating the cap on the deductibility of State and local taxes, backtracking on our move toward a more territorial tax system, or raising tax rates on passthrough business owners and farmers or corporations, all of which provide critical jobs and contribute to economic growth across the Nation.

For the first time in probably about 30 years, our businesses are competitive with the rest of the world. When we have a 35-percent tax rate--as we did for decades--on corporations, and the world average is about 23 percent, how can we expect American corporations to compete? We are now at 21 percent. It wasn't long after we went to 21 that we read about China maybe feeling they were uncompetitive and were going to have to lower their tax rates. Other countries are thinking about doing it as well. Just like with the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s, the United States is plowing ahead, setting a standard for the rest of the world.

Lower tax rates, with businesses and individuals making decisions on where they earn their money, how much they are going to spend, and how much they are going to save, is a heck of a lot better than 535 Members of Congress making that decision. When we make decisions about stuff like this, they are political decisions. When most of the individual taxpayers and the corporations of America make decisions, it is strictly economic and does much more economic good.

Another one that I don't want to mess with is efforts to weaponize the authority of tax-writing committees to access tax returns for political purposes. Such an action would be unprecedented.

I am optimistic that we can continue to make progress helping Americans improve their lives by keeping more of their hard-earned wages, taking the chance of starting a new business or continuing to expand an existing one--in short, building an opportunity economy. I invite my colleagues to join me.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading.

In order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I would object to further proceedings.

Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to Mike Davis for his incredibly hard work on my Senate Judiciary Committee staff as chief counsel for nominations. He is an Iowan, so his work ethic should be no surprise, but he went above and beyond to ensure that the Senate confirmed a historic number of Federal judges during the 115th Congress, including the very difficult confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. In December, Mike spoke about his work for me to the Iowa Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society. I ask unanimous consent that the text of Mike's speech be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor to pay my respects and to pay tribute to a fellow Iowan. This fellow Iowan served for 6 years right here in the U.S. Senate. In fact, the Iowan who brings me to the floor today is my predecessor, the Honorable John C. Culver.

I was sorry to learn that Senator Culver passed away the day after Christmas. I have no doubt that his spirit of public service and his commitment to civic engagement will carry on for generations to come. I will come back to this legacy in just a moment.

John and I had our differences, as he was a Democrat and I a Republican, but we shared a commitment to public service and to working to advance the interests of the people of the great State of Iowa. We both had the privilege of serving Iowans in both Houses of Congress. For a decade, John represented Iowa's Second District in the House of Representatives, from 1965 to 1975. I represented Iowa's Third District from 1975 to 1980. Then we both had the opportunity to represent the State of Iowa here in the U.S. Senate.

John made the decision to pursue a life of public service early in his life. After graduating from Franklin High School in Cedar Rapids, Senator Culver headed east to Boston, MA. He earned his undergraduate degree in American Government from Harvard University. He also played fullback for the Crimson football team. He was brawny and had a big build. In fact, he was even drafted to the NFL, but John punted a career on the gridiron and answered the call to a different vocation, and that was to public service.

First, he served for 3 years in the U.S. Marine Corps. Then, after earning his law degree from Harvard Law School, he returned home to Iowa and ran for public office.

When Senator Culver was serving in the U.S. House of Representatives, I was serving in the Iowa statehouse. Although we shared a passion for public service, we didn't share the same space on the political spectrum, but our constituents expected their elected officeholders to bring Iowa integrity to that job.

In politics, family is often a uniting factor. Senator Culver's son, Chet, served as the Governor of Iowa from 2007 to 2011. In fact, the last time I saw

John was at Governor Culver's inaugural ball. I had the chance to tell Senator Culver, ``I know how proud you are of your son.'' That is a feeling I know well, as my grandson is serving his seventh term in the Iowa House and serves as chairman of the Appropriations Committee--a committee I once chaired.

Senator Culver and I then knew the importance of family and were fortunate to have family who value public service.

When Senator Culver won election to the U.S. Senate in 1974, he won the seat left open with the retirement of another towering political figure in Iowa--the man from Ida Grove. That is also the title of a book about former Iowa Governor and U.S. Senator Harold Hughes.

Here in the Senate, he served with his longtime friend and liberal lion, Senator Ted Kennedy. Senator Culver served on the following committees: Armed Services, Judiciary, Environment and Public Works, and Small Business.

That brings me to another similarity Senator Culver and I share from our respective service in this institution--our assignments on the Senate Judiciary Committee and our interest in helping at-risk juveniles avoid a life of crime.

Senator Culver chaired the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency. He convened oversight hearings to examine the 1974 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, now widely known as the JJDPA.

At a hearing in 1977, Senator Culver pointed out that in our State of Iowa, 8,400 juveniles were processed through the courts in 1965. Then, by 1974, at the time of these hearings and the passage of this legislation, the number had increased to 20,200--highlighting the need for reforms like those in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act.

John's leadership on the subcommittee helped make sure that this sweeping, new law, passed just 3 years before, worked to help keep young people on the right track and away from a life of crime. His focus on helping youth lead productive lives became a mission that he pursued long after he left the U.S. Senate.

Four decades later, the JJDPA is as necessary as ever. Again, going back to statistics from Iowa, in 2015--50 years after the figure I gave you of about 8,000--Iowa had 14,837 violations of law by a minor that were adjudicated in our State.

That same year, I held a congressional hearing to raise awareness about the need to reform and renew that law so it works effectively to help at-risk youth in the 21st century. The JJDPA had not been updated or reauthorized since 2002. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I was pleased to champion a successful bipartisan, bicameral effort to update and reauthorize that act. The updates emphasize substance abuse and mental health services. These efforts helped at-risk young people obtain an education and, of course, accept more responsibility because it had stronger accountability measures to protect taxpayers and to better serve youth who come into contact with the juvenile justice system.

Another part of Senator Culver's work was his work on the Commission that bore his name, the Culver Commission. He deserves great recognition for this. I am told the audit was the first of its kind to review the Senate's legislative and administrative operations. Senator Culver said the Senate needed ``a careful and probing study of the whole central nervous system of the Senate and its institutional well- being.'' As the newly chosen Senate President pro tempore and as officer of the Congressional Accountability Act, I also want this institution to run as efficiently and effectively as possible for the American people.

In 1980, Senator Culver and I faced off in an election for the U.S. Senate. He was a very formidable opponent and ran a very solid campaign. Ultimately, I won that election. While I am sure that wasn't the outcome Senator Culver wanted, John was very gracious. I will never forget his grace and good wishes after that 1980 election.

After his departure from the Senate, Senator Culver continued an extraordinary career, practicing law until 2009. He was a gifted athlete and a gifted public speaker. He became an author, a guest lecturer, and a visiting professor, carving an extra-wide path with extra-broad shoulders to inspire generations of young Americans to engage in civic life, in service, and in politics. His list of achievements and awards reflect a tireless devotion to public service and to country.

Since 1975, he served on the Senior Advisory Committee of the Institute of Politics at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government.

In 2013, he became chair emeritus. In 2012, Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government created the John C. Culver Scholarship. In 2008, Senator Culver was presented with the Norman E. Borlaug Lifetime Achievement Award for Public Service. In 2010, he was presented with the Congressional Joint Leadership Foundation's Leadership Award for his work encouraging young Americans.

He received six honorary degrees. In 2010, Simpson College in Indianola, IA, partnered with Senator Culver to launch the John C. Culver Public Policy Center. The nonpartisan policy institute is designed to educate and to inspire participation in our democracy. It seeks to encourage young people to consider public service as their life's work.

John's life reminds all of us that a life spent in the service of others is a life well-lived. John's tireless efforts to serve his country and the people of Iowa will be long remembered and serve as an example to all who honor his memory.

Barbara and I extend our deepest condolences to the entire Culver family. May God bless them in their time of bereavement, and may God bless Senator Culver.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, yesterday one of my colleagues came to the floor to talk about my objection to the unanimous consent request relating to the nomination of William R. Evanina.

When I noticed my intention to place a hold on this nominee back in June of this year, I made it very clear to the public and to the administration my reasons for doing so, and I put my statement of those reasons in the Record. I have done that consistently, not only since the rules of the Senate require every Member to do that but even before that rule was ever put in place. When I put a hold on a bill or a hold on a nominee, I don't ever want anybody to, say, put the adjective ``secret'' before the word ``hold'' because there is nothing secret about what I do when I place a hold on something.

The Judiciary Committee has experienced difficulty in obtaining relevant documents and briefings from the Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

For example, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein personally assured me the Senate Judiciary Committee would receive equal access to information that had been provided to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence with regard to any concessions in its negotiations regarding pending subpoenas from that committee related to the 2016 election controversies. I have not received equal access, as promised, on that front.

On August 7 of this year, I wrote to the Justice Department and pointed out that the House Intelligence Committee had received documents related to Bruce Ohr that we had not received. The Department initially denied those records had been provided to the House Intelligence Committee. After my staff confronted the Department on that misinformation, we eventually received some Bruce Ohr documents.

In that 2018 letter I have referred to, I asked for documents based on my equal access agreement with Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, and as you might expect, I have not received a response to date.

This morning, I had Acting Attorney General Whitaker in my office for issues he wanted to bring up, but I also had an opportunity to present him with three pages--fairly finely printed--that had a multitude of requests for information that in my constitutional role of oversight of the Justice Department, they should be providing to me. Some of them have nothing to do with this hold, but the Department does have a pretty good record of not responding to this chairman of the Judiciary Committee on things I have a constitutional responsibility to do.

I also have a promise from these Department heads that they will supply information when Congress asks for it. Since that 2018 letter, I have learned the Justice Department has taken the position that Director Coats has prohibited them from sharing the requested records with the committee.

In addition to the records that were requested in May of this year, the Director of National Intelligence and the Justice Department provided a briefing in connection with a pending House Intel subpoena to which no Senate Judiciary Committee member was invited. Thus far, the committee's attempts to schedule any equivalent briefing have been ignored. The administration's lack of cooperation has forced my hand. So then, I continue to press for this hold on this nominee.

My objection, if there were ever a request for a unanimous consent to move ahead, is not intended to question the credentials of Mr. Evanina in any way whatsoever. However, the executive branch must recognize it has an ongoing obligation to respond to congressional inquiries in a timely and reasonable manner.

Mr. President, now I would like to speak to the issue and several issues that deal with international trade.

During the last 2 years, there has been more talk about international trade in this town than at just about any other point since this President has been President or, you might say, over a long period of time in Washington.

When I was elected to the Senate in 1980, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, known as GATT, was the main guiding document on international trade. GATT was signed by 23 nations in Geneva on October 30, 1947, a little more than 2 years after the destruction of World War II. It remained the institutional foundation for global trade until January 1, 1995. That day is when the World Trade Organization--we refer to it as WTO--was born with 81 charter members, including this great country of the United States. The WTO has been in place now for 24 years, serving as the clearinghouse for our rules-based international trading system.

Since the start of the WTO, international trade volumes have increased by 250 percent. Countries representing 98 percent of global merchandise trade are currently members of the WTO, with 22 more countries officially working toward joining. Over all, the WTO is moving global commerce forward just as planned. The rules-based trading system it promotes has been very successful, integrating people across the world into the global economy.

I also must acknowledge that international trade can, at times, be disruptive. There are regions of the country that have been disproportionately impacted by job losses, at least in part, to foreign competition over the last several decades. Those losses become especially problematic when they are the result of market forces being overwhelmed by foreign government intervention--any foreign government, as far as that is concerned. President Trump has rightly pointed that out and has delivered on his promise to make trade fairer for workers across our country, for agriculture and international trade is the bridge to the world's customers.

In Iowa, we export every third row of soybeans. Some people like to say that God made Iowa for the growing of corn and soybeans, and I agree. Iowa also has significant pork and beef exports as well. American farmers produce more than we can possibly consume here in

the United States, so we understand then why the ability to trade and the freer trade, as well, is very important to us. So we rely on global customers. Export markets are and will continue to be vitally important to Iowa's farmers. I will make it a priority, as I resume chairmanship of the Finance Committee. After about 12 years of not being the chairman, I am going to concentrate on gaining access to new markets.

The United States must continue leading the world on trade and economic issues. The U.S. market is one of the most open in the world. Unfortunately, other countries throw up numerous barriers to our exports.

President Trump and Ambassador Lighthizer are working to correct these injustices. I intend to assist them in this fight, with the understanding that creating market barriers of our own, like tariffs, is not a long-term solution.

One of the top issues Congress needs to address next year is implementation of the recently signed United States-Mexico-Canada agreement, which updates NAFTA for the modern economy.

The new trade deal with Mexico and Canada make significant updates to the original NAFTA, with new sections on digital trade, currency manipulation, and State-owned enterprises. It goes further than any other trade agreement in protecting intellectual property rights and makes important changes to market access for agricultural products.

While I commend the President for following through on his promise to renegotiate NAFTA, there are a few areas of concern. Those concerns go beyond just the Canada-Mexico agreement. As long as 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from Canada and Mexico remain, the U.S. farmers and others facing retaliation, along with the American businesses that rely on those imports, will be unable to realize the full potential benefits of the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement.

This is why I urge the administration to consult with Congress, as intended by the trade promotion authority, to ensure a clear path forward for the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement.

I intend to work with members of the Finance Committee and, of course, with the Senate leadership to move the United States-Mexico- Canada agreement quickly in the new Congress as soon as the President submits it. But I can't do it without a strong commitment from the administration that we will work together.

The Constitution tasks Congress with the authority to regulate trade with foreign countries. We collectively--meaning the President and Congress--have a responsibility to ensure that U.S. farmers, ranchers, and businesses face minimal uncertainty from the updating of the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement.

Building on the success of this new agreement, we must continue to play offense and pursue new market access opportunities. That is why I am happy the administration is pursuing new agreements with Japan, the European Union, and the United Kingdom. The economies of those countries account for 27 percent of global GDP. Having more access to those markets will help U.S. farmers, ranchers, and businesses for generations to come.

I expect the agreement with the European Union and with the UK, when ready, to address agriculture. There is some talk that the Europeans don't want to talk about making any agreements on agriculture. The notion that some people in the EU think there could be an agreement that doesn't address the many ways they block our good agricultural products from being sold in Europe is outright ridiculous.

While I agree with the President that we must have fair trade that benefits Americans, I want him to know, as well--and I have told him-- that I am not a fan of tariffs. Put simply, tariffs are taxes on U.S. consumers and businesses.

The Constitution grants Congress authority over tariffs and international trade, but Congress has delegated some of its authority to the President through legislation. To some extent, I think, particularly in the 1963 legislation, too much authority was delegated.

I am no novice when it comes to understanding the delicate balance between congressional and executive authority over international trade. In fact, I was the leader in renewing trade promotion authority as the ranking member of the Finance Committee in 2002. In addition to that, and more recently, I strongly supported its renewal under the leadership of Chairman Orrin Hatch in 2015.

What was important then and remains truer now is that Congress plays a central and pivotal role in crafting trade policy. Our Founding Fathers were very explicit in placing this responsibility with Congress in article I of the Constitution. We must remain vigilant to ensure that the aspects of trade authority that Congress has delegated are used appropriately and in the best interests of our country. I am certainly not opposed to being creative in negotiations with other countries, but I strongly disagree with the notion that imports of steel and aluminum, automobiles, and automobile parts somehow could pose a national security threat, as the President's actions have stated.

So I intend to review the President's use of power under section 232 of the Trade Act of 1962, which grants the President broad legal authority to impose tariffs in the name of national security. Senator Portman and my colleague, Senator Ernst, and others have already introduced legislation to narrow the scope of how an administration can use the power that Congress authorized in 1962 under the influence of the Cold War. Maybe, considering 1962 and the issue of the now- forgotten Cold War, there may have been reasons for Congress at that point to overdelegate power to the President, but I am not sure that those conditions exist today.

I believe these efforts to restrain delegation of the authority to the President serve as a prudent starting point for the discussions we need to have on section 232 authority in the next Congress. The tariffs against products from China that were imposed as a result of U.S. Trade Representatives' findings under section 301 investigations are not ideal, but I do agree with the reasons that have been applied.

The President is absolutely right to confront China regarding section 301 findings. I am glad that he had a successful meeting with President Xi at the G20 summits last month. My hope is that the ensuing negotiations will result in a change in China's discriminatory policies and practices and an easing of tariffs and tensions.

I recommend that everyone read the findings of the section 301 investigation that were published in March of this year. That report outlines in detail many of the ways that China abuses American businesses and workers and steals, or forces the transfer, of U.S. intellectual property. American businesses that are able to access the Chinese market are, as a result of these Chinese policies, often forced to participate in joint ventures with Chinese firms and turn over the details of their technologies. No one can call that a level playing field.

The Chinese claim is that this simply represents the cost of market access. My answer to that is hogwash. That is not how members of the WTO should act. It is an organization you join based upon respect for other people's rights, but the most important thing is to respect the rules of trade.

I voted in favor of China's accession into the WTO. In many ways, I regret that vote. China has not lived up to its obligations or honored its promises, yet it enjoys many of the benefits that come with membership in the WTO.

Part of the reason, in my view, that China gets away with so much is that the WTO systems we rely on have failed and are in great need of reform. The fact that China, the world's most populous country and the second largest economy on Earth, can self-certify as a developing economy--that is a term used in the WTO documents--is extremely frustrating to me. Can you imagine the world's most populous country and the second largest economy in the world is still somehow a developing country?

I know many of my colleagues here in the Congress share that frustration.

I have great interest in the WTO reform process that has begun. Reform and oversight are critical to the proper functioning of institutions. That is true whether we are talking about a Federal agency or the WTO. I will also continue conducting rigorous oversight as chairman of the Finance Committee.

The United States has free-trade agreements in place with 20 countries. One problem we have had with our agreements is that other countries don't always live up to the text and spirit of the agreement they signed. I will work with the administration to hold our partners accountable in order to improve outcomes for American businesses and consumers, but most important to American businesses and consumers is to get the proper respect for the rules of trade that come as a result of the WTO.

In short, the Finance Committee has its work cut out for it and for us on the committee next year. International trade is a force for good. Farmers and businesses in Iowa and across the country have benefited tremendously from international trade and are better off because they can sell their products around the world. I am committed to making sure they have access to open markets with the guarantees of fair treatment and enforceable protections.

Mr. President, I now would like to go to a final set of remarks--probably the final set of remarks for this Congress as we draw to a close--to summarize some of the work of the Judiciary Committee, as I have been chairman for the last 4 years.

I have served on the Judiciary Committee for each of my 38 years in the Senate. Four years ago, I became chairman. Senator Leahy, my colleague from Vermont, who served as chairman before I took the reins, marked the occasion by presenting me with a larger than life gavel. Of course, that was a lighthearted moment, and I appreciated his gesture of good will and collegiality. It is this spirit of camaraderie that sustains the Senate and has guided the bipartisan accomplishments of the Judiciary Committee.

The work we do on the Judiciary Committee shapes our way of life in America to a great extent. Its legislative jurisdiction includes constitutional amendments, bankruptcy laws, civil liberties, immigration, patents, copyrights and trademarks, antitrust laws, juvenile justice, criminal laws, and more. The committee conducts oversight of the Justice Department, including the FBI and sections of the Homeland Security Department. It also handles consideration of judicial nominees.

As chairman, I put forth a number of legislative priorities. I wanted to increase oversight efforts to hold government accountable and advance judicial confirmations. I wanted to strengthen whistleblower protections and increase competition in the pharmaceutical markets to lower the cost of prescription drugs. I wanted to enact juvenile justice reform and update our criminal justice system. I wanted to protect election integrity and bolster victims' rights. At the close of this Congress, I am happy to report that the committee has made progress in all of these areas.

This week, the Senate passed the FIRST STEP Act, a historic criminal justice reform bill that had overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress and the backing of the President.

Earlier this month, the Senate unanimously passed bipartisan juvenile justice legislation, which legislation hadn't been updated since 2002.

The Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act, the Missing Children's Reauthorization Act, and Kevin and Avonte's Law to help families locate people with dementia and others who wander and go missing all became law during the 115th Congress.

Overall, 61 bills were reported out of committee, all of them bipartisan. Of those bills, 45 were passed in the Senate, and 29 became law in the past two Congresses under Presidents Obama and Trump. And if the House passes our criminal justice reform bill today, that figure will be 30 bills that have gone through Congress. Again, I want to emphasize that all were bipartisan.

The committee also delivered on judicial nominees. This wasn't so bipartisan. The Senate confirmed a historic number of lifetime appointments to the Federal bench this Congress. That includes 53 district court judges, 30 circuit court judges, and 2 Supreme Court Justices--85 Federal judgeships in the last 2 years. This reflects an alltime record for the first 2 years of any Presidency. These lifetime appointments will uphold the rule of law and preserve freedom and liberty for generations to come.

These accomplishments weren't easy. There was contention, and there was rigorous debate and, as I said, plenty of disagreement.

The confirmation hearing for Justice Brett Kavanaugh was the height of discord on the committee. As chairman, I was determined to uphold order and the rule of law, protect due process, and maintain credibility in our constitutional responsibility of advice and consent. I took the allegations that were brought forth very seriously. The committee conducted the most thorough, comprehensive, and transparent confirmation process in history. And if that word ``history'' bothers you, it is numerically justifiable by saying that we had more documents on Kavanaugh than we had on the previous five Supreme Court Justices combined. So I hope, after half a million documents, it is shown that we left no stone unturned. In the end, another extremely well-qualified Justice was confirmed.

However, the divisions that defined the Kavanaugh hearings do not define the body of work produced by the committee this Congress. The Judiciary Committee passed seven bipartisan bills to help families, healthcare professionals, and law enforcement address the opioid crisis in their local communities. The President signed these measures into law with the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act. We also passed the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act in 2016 to rapidly respond to the opioid crisis and prevent others from falling into addiction.

With hearings and legislation, the Judiciary Committee also worked toward ending the pervasive problem of human trafficking. In all, the Senate adopted a series of five bills that were signed into law to enhance Federal efforts to protect victims and prevent and prosecute enslavement for forced labor and sex trafficking.

As a committee, we have made great progress on behalf of the American people. We tackled the priorities I outlined at the beginning of my chairmanship and achieved success on a bipartisan basis. That is what our constituents expect from those of us who are Senators. That is what I strive to deliver every day.

The 115th Congress is drawing to a close. Although I won't serve as chairman during the next Congress, I have every confidence that my friend Senator Graham of South Carolina will build upon the successes we have accomplished. I look forward to continuing my service on the Judiciary Committee in the next Congress, and I am thankful to all of my colleagues on the committee and even some off the committee for their hard work and cooperation on behalf of the American people.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, oversight is one of the most important responsibilities of this legislative branch. The Constitution requires it.

Without oversight, the Members of this body cannot legislate in the best interests of their constituents, nor can they ensure the government is accountable to the taxpayers.

In whatever capacity I have served my own fellow citizens of Iowa over the years, I have always strived to faithfully carry out my duty to conduct oversight.

The same is true of these last 4 years that I have been honored to serve as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

The agencies under the committee's jurisdiction are some of the most powerful and most consequential in the executive branch.

Our Nation's law enforcement agencies have the authority to seek to search and seize our property and review our communications.

When warranted, they may bring charges that can result in disgorgement of financial resources or loss of personal liberty.

That is because these agencies have the equally weighty responsibility to protect us from criminal and intelligence threats of all stripes.

These agencies help protect the taxpayer from fraud, hunt down violent offenders and fugitives, protect our senior leaders and judges, and dismantle illicit networks that traffic in illegal drugs, endangered wildlife, and worst of all, human beings.

They safeguard our borders, secure our transportation and cyber networks, and return kidnapped children to their families.

That is just a fraction of the many responsibilities of the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security.

I am grateful for the faithful public service of thousands of law enforcement agents, analysts, lawyers, engineers, scientists, officers, managers, and other employees who make up these agencies.

That includes especially those individuals who have not only done their jobs, but have truly gone above and beyond.

A lot of times, they don't like being called whistleblowers because they never meant to be whistleblowers.

But these employees, hundreds of them in the last 4 years, have courageously raised their hands and disclosed waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement, and all sorts of misconduct.

I could not have fulfilled my oversight responsibilities without them.

Because of whistleblowers, the committee: uncovered a pattern of wasteful spending at the U.S. Marshals Service.

Turns out, the Marshals Service spent $22,000 on a conference table for the Asset Forfeiture Division's headquarters in Arlington, VA, and $50,000 a month on a lavishly furnished training facility in Houston, TX, that was used for only a few weeks out of the year.

Thanks to the whistleblowers and the work done by this Committee, I am happy to report that the Marshals Service closed that facility earlier this year.

Whistleblowers have also highlighted examples of gross mismanagement within the agency.

For example, we know that, last year, roughly 2,000 deputy marshals were using expired or soon to be expired body armor. We also uncovered instances of unfair hiring practices and other serious ethical violations.

In total, over 100 whistleblowers from the U.S. Marshals Service courageously came forward. I thank them for their bravery and commitment to government transparency.

After supervisors ignored their warnings, whistleblowers at the Department of Homeland Security came forward to raise awareness on how smugglers prey on unaccompanied minors and migrants.

A courageous whistleblower told my office that Health and Human Services were not conducting thorough background checks on sponsors before they took custody of the children.

Now, all sponsors and those living with sponsors, are fingerprinted before they can bring a child home. This whistleblower also reported a dangerous tactic used by smugglers to pair kids with unrelated adults to create the appearance of family units.

Smugglers would use kids like pawns in an effort to help adults avoid detention when coming across our border. Now, U.S. Government officials are working with their counterparts in Mexico to investigate and crack down on the smuggling that occurs on the lengthy journey to the United States.

Whistleblowers also contacted my office during the Obama administration about criminals who should be ineligible for DACA, but due to an oversight by the Department, were still receiving benefits, like work authorization. Scrutiny of the program led to more thorough recurrent vetting by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Thanks to more than 10 whistleblowers at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms who courageously reported that their sexual harassment claims were being buried internally, then-Attorney General Lynch updated the sexual harassment policy and a problematic official in internal affairs was replaced.

The GAO is currently assessing how reports of abuse are reviewed and adjudicated at ATF.

I have also had the pleasure of working with a number of whistleblowers at the Department of Veterans Affairs who have had the courage to stand up and do what is right.

Most recently, my office worked with Brandon Coleman after he was put on administrative leave for more than a year and kept from running an addiction treatment program for veterans.

Brandon's only ``mistake'' was to point out poor treatment of suicidal veterans.

Eventually, after a concerted effort by my office, Senator Johnson, and the Office of Special Counsel, Brandon was provided a new position within the VA's Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection. That is how it should be done.

Although the False Claims Act isn't new, I want to point out that is still working hard for the taxpayers.

Because of the 1986 amendments to the act and all of our efforts to strengthen it, whistleblowers were empowered to help the government fight fraud.

In the last 4 years, thanks largely to whistleblowers, the government has recovered $17 billion under the False Claims Act.

That makes $56 billion since the 1986 amendments.

These are only a few examples of what has been achieved because of whistleblowers. They have saved our money, made us safer, and held our government accountable.

Our oversight efforts have also helped us write better laws.

Through my investigations, I learned about problems with how the Department of Veterans Affairs reports veterans to the national gun ban list, called the NICS list.

Once you are on the list, you can no longer own and possess a firearm.

And there is an unfair double standard at work here.

The VA never determines a veteran to be dangerous before taking away firearms, but to get their firearms back, the veteran is required to prove that they are not dangerous.

The Obama Social Security Administration created a rule that would allow it to report beneficiaries to the NICS list without ever finding the beneficiaries to be mentally ill or dangerous--just like what the VA does to veterans.

If the Federal Government is going to attempt to take away a citizen's fundamental constitutional right, it better have one heck of a compelling reason to do so.

If a person isn't mentally ill, dangerous, or subject to some other Federal restriction, then the government is on shaky ground.

This Obama Social Security regulation was a pure and simple unconstitutional gun-grab.

So I worked to pass legislation with bipartisan support to terminate the regulation, 57 to 43.

I have also worked to pass strong legislation to support the critical work done by inspectors general. In 2016, a broad bipartisan coalition of legislators passed the Inspector General Empowerment Act that reiterated Congress's intent that IGs be able to access ALL agency records.

It also gave IGs better tools that enable them to do their jobs more effectively, including the ability to conduct investigations without getting agency approval. It also strengthened public reporting requirements to ensure as much transparency as possible.

I have also introduced legislation to create an IG for the Federal judiciary to offer those employees the same rights offered to their coequal executive branch counterparts.

After holding a full committee hearing on problems with rampant sexual harassment in the judiciary and raising awareness on a lack of an effective reporting mechanism, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts took a step in the right direction by creating the Judicial Integrity Office.

I hope through the establishment of this office, the AO will recognize the importance of transparency and accountability.

Another example of where oversight led to a legislative solution is the Public Safety Officers Benefit Program.

Enacted in 1976, this program provides survivor benefits to the spouses and children of public safety officers who died in the line of duty.

Despite the Department's own 1-year deadline to resolve all claims, we found that over half of all death benefit claims were pending past the 1-year mark. As a result, I introduced and passed bipartisan legislation aimed at creating more transparency and accountability in the administration of this program.

Oversight of the Justice Department also uncovered gross mismanagement by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, or OJJDP for short.

That office provides millions of dollars in grants to States to assist them in addressing juvenile delinquency. Thanks to several whistleblowers, we discovered that OJJDP was issuing millions of dollars to noncompliant States.

I introduced bipartisan legislation which would require the Justice Department to hold States more accountable for fulfilling these grant requirements. A few days ago, this bill unanimously passed both Chambers of Congress.

Oversight is a critical tool Congress must use to help hold the Federal Government accountable to ``we the people''.

It is the job of Congress, which represents the people, to ensure the government is operating above board, transparently, and as a good steward of taxpayer resources.

Of course, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, over the last 4 years I have focused extensively on the Justice Department proper and

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

Mr. President, today is a good day for representative government, it is a good day for the taxpayers, and it is a good day for safe streets and strong families. It is also a good day to emphasize that many times Congress acts in a bipartisan way, and probably not enough so we get credit for it. But last night, one of these bipartisan pieces of legislation passed by a vote of 87 to 12. That happened when the Senate adopted the FIRST STEP Act.

Today, the House is expected to send it to the President, who is waiting with a pen in hand to enact once-in-a-generation criminal justice reform. I am confident that the President is ready to do that because I attended the news conference about 5 weeks ago when he endorsed this legislation.

The FIRST STEP Act will help keep our streets safe, and it offers a fresh start to those who put in the work when they were in prison to get right with the law while paying their debt to society. It also addresses unfairness in prison sentencing and revises policies that have led to overcrowded prisons and, of course, ballooning taxpayer expenses.

Several decades ago, Congress passed well-intentioned laws imposing harsh mandatory sentences to stop the flow of drugs into our communities, and it happened that I voted for those laws, but they have also had some unintended consequences. Our prison population has exploded, and the taxpayers' burden to house inmates has followed suit. Today, taxpayers pay more than $7 billion a year on our Federal prison population; however, despite that high cost, nearly half the inmates released today are rearrested.

As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee for the last 38 years, I consider myself--then and now--a law-and-order Republican. I am also a taxpayer watchdog, and I believe in the redemptive power of rehabilitation. So in 2015, I began to take a closer look at our prison and sentencing laws. We needed to make the system work better for the taxpayers, help law enforcement fight crime, and put a stopper in the revolving prison door. I was led to that effort by the efforts of Senator Lee and Senator Durbin, who had been working on similar legislation for probably 3 to 4 years before my entry into this debate.

Several States across the country have developed these education, treatment, and training programs. The result has been a significant decline in recidivism. This means fewer crimes, fewer victims, and fewer tax dollars spent housing inmates.

The FIRST STEP Act is carefully crafted to provide opportunities at redemption for low-risk inmates, while ensuring that dangerous and career criminals stay behind bars. It does this through a multilayer system that filters out dangerous criminals and those likely to commit new crimes.

The bill rewards those who take personal responsibility for their mistakes and want to put in the time and will put in the time and effort to turn their lives around.

It improves fairness in sentencing while preserving important law enforcement tools.

It reduces some mandatory minimum sentences, but it also expands their application to include violent felons.

It grants judges additional discretion to sentence low-level, nonviolent offenders to less lengthy sentences as long as they fully cooperate with law enforcement. Finally, it eliminates the disparity in sentences for crack and powder cocaine offenses, which disproportionately impacts communities of color.

Passing these reforms has been a team effort years in the making. It couldn't have been done without the stalwart commitment by a somewhat unlikely cadre of colleagues and advocates. We have had to compromise to make this possible, to seek to understand the other's points of view. In so doing, I think we made the bill better, and we accomplished something of historic significance that will reduce crime, make our system more just, and improve lives for generations to come.

Senators Durbin and Lee, as I previously stated, were instrumental in this effort. Their interest in criminal justice reform dates back beyond my getting involved in it in 2014. The exact date, I don't know, but probably after Senators Lee and Durbin joined hands, probably soon after Senator Lee came to the Senate. Their efforts inspired the Senate to take a fresh look at our sentencing and prison laws.

Senator Graham, the incoming chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Cornyn, and Senator Whitehouse have also been with us since the very beginning of this effort.

Senators Booker and Scott both share a passion for criminal justice reform and have been vocal advocates, shining a light on the shortcomings and societal impact of our current system.

Credit is also due to our House colleagues--Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Nadler, and Congressmen Collins and Jeffries, who introduced the FIRST STEP Act in the House. And thanks to Speaker Ryan for his support and pledge to bring this to the House floor so quickly.

At every step along the way, we have stuck together. We pitched this bill to our colleagues and made changes based on their suggestions. We also relied on input and expertise from a variety of groups from across the political spectrum. In the end, this campaign earned the support of several top law enforcement and tough-on-crime champions, such as President Trump.

I think it is important to acknowledge the President's leadership on this issue. When he got involved, he closed the deal, and we got this done. He was helped in that effort by Jared Kushner. Early in President Trump's administration, I happened to be in the Oval Office of the new President. Jared Kushner was there, and we discussed taking up criminal justice reform. I just asked him if he was interested in it. I wanted to give him a phone call, so we had that phone call. He took the issue and ran with it and helped find a way forward to accomplish something previous administrations had tried and failed to do. Brooke Rollins and Ja'Ron Smith at the White House were also instrumental in this effort, working with Jared Kushner.

I would also like to thank the majority leader for staying true to his word and bringing this bill to the floor when we demonstrated the support for our effort that he demanded. In the end, I appreciated his vote for this bill.

Thanks also is due to the Senate floor staff on both sides of the aisle

who helped us successfully navigate the bill to final passage.

I want to thank my Senate staff, who helped make this possible. Bipartisan compromise is not for the faint of heart, and they have stayed true to the commitment that Senator Durbin and I made to each other to move forward step-by-step in complete agreement about the path we should take and the path we had to take.

I would like to thank my Judiciary Committee staff director, Kolan Davis. Kolan's steady hand and sound judgment improves everything he is involved in. I value his counsel today, just as I have for the last 33 years.

By my side today is Aaron Cummings, my chief Constitution counsel and crime counsel. He led the effort to negotiate this bipartisan deal in my office and worked hard to see it through and to organize a vast coalition of support. Of course, he also worked closely with other committee staff members in that direction.

I would also like to thank Brian Simonsen for his diligent work on this important bill.

Our Department of Justice detailees to the Judiciary Committee, Tom Sullivan and Erin Creegan, provided very good technical advice.

My sincere thanks also goes to my talented communications team-- Taylor Foy, Judiciary Committee communications director, and George Hartmann, Judiciary Committee press secretary, as well as Michael Zona--for their dedication to this effort and their successful campaign to educate and persuade so many to support this bill.

I am also thankful for my personal office staff, led by my chief of staff, Jill Kozeny. Jill has been my trusted adviser for over 30 years. She is leaving my staff, and I will be sad to see her go. She has been an exceptional leader, solving problems that I didn't even know I had, and she has done it all with matchless grace and what I like to call Iowa nice.

I am also grateful to Jennifer Heins, who keeps me on track and provides sound strategic advice.

Their contributions and those of every staffer who was part of this effort have been invaluable.

I would like to thank Senator Durbin's staff, particularly his chief counsel, Joe Zogby, and his counsel, Rachel Rossi. Working with my staff, the White House, and others, they must have helped us close the deal more than a dozen times. That is an example--maybe it is 10 times; maybe it is 20 times. But closing deals many times is what it takes to get to the bipartisanship that it took to get 87 votes on this bill. Of course, in the end, their dedication--and that includes creativity and every effort they could put forth--got the job done.

I want to give particular thanks to the law enforcement groups whose support and input were key to the bill's success, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the National District Attorneys Association, the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, and Law Enforcement Leaders.

I am getting to the end. I would also like to thank the groups that made this effort possible. A diverse group and broad coalition of other groups, from the ACLU to the American Conservative Union, supported this bill. I can't list all the groups that offered their key support, but they include FreedomWorks, Justice Action Network, Americans for Tax Reform, Heritage Action, the Due Process Institute, Faith & Freedom Coalition, R Street, Right on Crime, Texas Public Policy Foundation, Prison Fellowship, and members of the Interfaith Criminal Justice Coalition.

To treat everybody fairly, I ask unanimous consent that a complete list of support be printed for the Record.

This was a combined effort, one on a scale not often seen in Washington these days. I am grateful for everyone's work to bring about these historic reforms. Together, we have taken steps to reduce crime and recidivism, to strengthen faith and fairness in the criminal justice system, and to signal to those willing to make amends that redemption is within their reach. Together, we have taken an important step to live up to the commitment we make every time we pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States: to provide liberty and justice for all.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank Senator Durbin for his kind remarks--more importantly, for 3 years of working together on this legislation, and it is great that it paid off.