Floor Statements

Madam President, I come here to raise an issue, not with the actual bill we will be voting on today but with language included in a committee report accompanying the bill.

The Environmental Protection Agency has reportedly given out unprecedented numbers of so-called small refinery hardship waivers to the renewable fuel standard. These are given, in some cases, to huge multibillion-dollar companies that probably would not be entitled to what is really a hardship.

The EPA has yet to disclose what waivers it has granted and the rationale, but based on what has been reported, its actions seem pretty darn fishy, from my point of view. Refiners speaking with the press have noted:

Anyone with a brain submitted an application. The EPA was

handing out those exemptions like trick or treat candy.

The EPA is hiding behind a very narrow court case for specific refineries, as well as report language accompanying last year's Energy and Water appropriations bill. Neither I nor any other Senator voted for this report language. Report language accompanying bills are not actually law so they are not legally binding.

Still, I wrote to the subcommittee that it should not include language purporting to tell the EPA to do anything other than follow the law. The law mandates blending 15 billion gallons of renewable fuels into our fuel supply. Estimates are that these retroactive waivers have reduced that by as much as 1.63 billion gallons. Every billion gallons lost equates to a loss of more than 2 million acres of harvested corn and an increase in emissions.

My constituents are outraged at this activity by the EPA. Agriculture Secretary Perdue has called these waivers, in his words, ``demand destruction'' for biofuels.

I wrote to the Energy and Water Subcommittee that it should urge the EPA to disclose the waivers it gives and the rationale for any of these grants and that any waivers should not result in a lowering of the 15 billion gallon renewable volume obligation in the law.

I am disappointed that the appropriators didn't include my commonsense language about transparency, but I am very upset that it renewed the previous language purporting to direct EPA how to consider small refinery waivers. The Appropriations Committee should drop the controversial report language and EPA should simply follow the law.

I yield the floor.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, 6 months ago, Congress passed historic tax legislation that fundamentally reformed our Tax Code and provided tax relief to middle-income Americans and also to small business job creators.

At the time, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle attempted to derail our efforts through a campaign of misinformation and demagoguery. They tried to argue that up was down and that tax cuts were tax increases. They even suggested the bill's passage was a sign of Armageddon.

Of course, such fearmongering was always nonsense. At the time, analysis from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation had made it clear that the vast majority of taxpayers across every income group would experience tax cuts. In fact, it made clear that middle-income groups would experience the largest percentage of tax cuts. In even looking at the liberal Tax Policy Center's analysis of the bill, the tax relief for the middle class is unmistakable. Its analysis found that more than 80 percent would experience tax cuts that would average more than $2,100.

In the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, we made good on our commitment to fix our broken Tax Code. It makes filing simpler, provides middle-income tax cuts, and reinvigorates our economy through pro-growth business tax reforms.

The positive effects of the tax cuts began almost immediately with companies announcing bonuses, pay raises, higher retirement contributions, new hiring, and increased investment as a result of the law. To date, the list of such companies has climbed to over 600, with there being more than 4 million employees who are benefiting.

This has included a number of businesses in my State of Iowa, which range from the small, like the Anfinson Farm Store, which has invested back into its employees in the form of $1,000 bonuses and a 5-percent increase in wages, to the very large, like Wells Fargo, which has raised its base wage from $13.50 to $15 per hour and benefited more than 1,300 employees.

Higher wages and bonuses are not the only ways that taxpayers are benefiting from the historic tax relief.

Taxpayers across the country are seeing the benefit in the form of lower electric, gas, and water bills. Nationally, utility customers have experienced more than $3 billion in savings thanks to lower utility rates as a result of tax cuts.

In my State of Iowa, Alliant Energy has estimated its customer savings to be between $18.6 million and $19.6 million for electric and from $500,000 to $3.7 million for gas. MidAmerican Energy has estimated between $90 million and $112 million in customer savings, and Iowa American Water Company has estimated customer savings to be between $1.5 million and $1.8 million.

The hundreds of businesses and utility company announcements were only the beginning of the positive news for American taxpayers. In February, taxpayers began seeing the effects of tax reform directly in their paychecks as less was taken out of their pay by the IRS. In all, about 90 percent of taxpayers are seeing less being withheld from their paychecks as a result of the law.

As it became evident that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was delivering meaningful benefits to working families, our Democratic colleagues were in search of new talking points on the law, considering the fact that their old talking points were not working. They could no longer, with a straight face, argue that tax cuts were really tax increases. Instead, they wanted hard-working Americans to believe that an extra $50 a week in their paychecks or a $1,000 bonus was ``crumbs.''

With all due respect to my colleagues who believe that this is true, they don't have a doggone clue what it is like in the real world where people have to work for a living. That $1,000 bonus means a lot for a father or a mother whose children need new school clothes or who has a car that could use some repairs or who, simply, wants to take the family on a vacation. For a family on a tight budget, every additional dollar in a paycheck really counts. It means an additional dollar that can be put away for unexpected emergencies or for a child's college savings or, maybe, even for one's own retirement.

As important as the immediate middle-income tax benefits are that have been afforded by the law, the benefits that will accrue for everybody in this country as a result of the long-term, pro-growth effects of the bill are as important, if maybe not more important. Thanks to this historic tax measure, as well as to regulatory relief, Congress and the administration have declared that America is open for business. When Congress delivers historic tax cuts and, particularly, regulatory rollbacks, the American people enjoy the sweet taste of prosperity. That is how the cookie crumbles.

Despite critics in this town calling the tax cuts crumbs, I would invite them to chew on a few facts: National unemployment has fallen to 3.8 percent--the lowest level since April 2000. Wages have risen at the fastest pace since the end of the recession. For the first time on record, the number of job openings has exceeded the number of job seekers. U.S. manufacturers report historically high investment and hiring numbers as 86 percent report they intend to increase investment, and 77 percent report they plan to increase hiring. Small business confidence has hit record highs. Consumer confidence has reached its highest level in 18 years. All of this good economic news points toward higher economic growth moving forward. This is key to sustainable long- term wage growth, which is the most powerful anti-poverty measure there is. This should be welcome news to all after the years of stagnant wage growth during the Obama years.

With all of this positive news, Democrats have been searching for a talking point that they hope will take hold. They are looking for a big distraction from the prosperity that results from this tax bill. Toward that end, they have lambasted corporate stock buybacks. Their hope is that the American public will disregard all the positive signs they have seen in their paychecks and in the economy generally and be outraged by the benefits accruing to stockholders--more class warfare on their part versus the compassion and social justice that this tax reform brings about. It is a play out of their old playbook, in other words. When all else fails, engage in the historic rhetoric of class warfare. But I have news for some of my Democratic colleagues: That dog no longer hunts either. Millions of middle-class Americans own stock-- if not directly, through their 401(k) or pension plan. According to the Tax Policy Center, 37 percent of stock is held in retirement accounts. Thus, the idea of stock buybacks being a boon only to corporate fat cats is hogwash. It is a boon to the millions of middle-class Americans who are longing for secure and comfortable retirements.

Moreover, the Democrats' concerns with stock buybacks demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. Stock buybacks are fully consistent with one of the main objectives of tax reform; that is, promoting economic growth through capital formation that makes workers more productive, which in turn leads to increased wages. When a company repurchases stock, that money is not stuffed into a mattress; it frees up dollars that can be reinvested in a growing economy or maybe a new startup small business. This in turn promotes the type of business expansion and capital investment necessary to grow our economy, boost productivity, and increase wages over the long term.

Although the economic landscape looks more promising than ever, there is more work to do. Those of us from Iowa are particularly focused on trade agreements and renewable energy policies that impact our home State.

So I hope overall that our colleagues across the aisle will finally put an end to their tired attacks on the tax bill and begin working with us to promote further economic growth that has already started at a high level as a result of this tax bill.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, a very disastrous thing happened 10 years ago in Iowa. The whims of Mother Nature tested the State of Iowa 10 summers ago when deadly tornadoes, storms, and floods caused more than $10 billion in damage to communities, homes, and businesses. It caused a lot of distress.

National disasters test the mettle of humanity by every measure. Iowans were tested in 2008. Unfortunately, parts of Iowa, like Mason City, are experiencing flooding once again, almost 10 years to the day.

Ten years ago, 88 of our 99 counties were declared a natural disaster. Epic floods and EF5 tornadoes ripped holes through the center of many neighborhoods. Thanks to civic leadership and thanks to bootstrap mentality, tireless volunteers and members of the National Guard answered the call to survive and thrive from the crisis. The rallying cry to rebuild and recover has driven a decades-long drive to restore and revitalize these Iowa communities hurt 10 years ago by these massive natural disasters.

It was a tough row to hoe. Orchestrating the massive cleanup is one thing; paying for it is another. Congress, as we often do for natural disasters, approved nearly $800 million in Federal block grants within the first year to help homeowners with restoration and buyout efforts. However, the wheels of the Federal bureaucracy too often are painstakingly restrictive to navigate. From Housing and Urban Development to FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers, local residents got a firsthand taste of the Federal alphabet soup.

When community leaders, businesses, and homeowners got mired in bureaucratic molasses, I worked with our entire congressional delegation to take care of these immediate needs and to help develop long-term planning for the flood plain, such as levee improvements and flood protection systems to avert future catastrophes.

In addition to directing Federal disaster assistance to recovery and rebuilding efforts, I wrote the Heartland

Disaster Tax Relief Act to give flood-ravaged homeowners and businesses a fresh start. Just as Congress acted to help victims from Hurricane Katrina in 2005, 3 years before the disaster in the Midwest, I made sure that midwesterners also received a much needed break similar to what we provided at Katrina time.

Moving forward after a natural disaster isn't easy. Volunteers affirmed Iowa's treasured heritage of neighbor helping neighbor, rescuing residents and pets from flood-ravaged neighborhoods.

Voters across the State voted on measures to help their communities rebuild, and the State legislature passed laws to help areas mitigate against future disasters. City planners developed a strategy to revitalize their cities and towns.

Recovery efforts stumbled along the way, to be sure. It takes time to see sunshine and rainbows after one of the State's worst disasters in history. Collaborating and finding consensus isn't easy. In fact, governing isn't easy.

Despite the incalculable loss of personal belongings, blended with the physical, emotional, and financial toll of starting over, the people of Iowa didn't quit, and we are more resilient and better prepared now than we were before these disasters. However, work remains to be done.

Working alongside civic and State leaders for the last decade, we have identified specific needs and places where redtape gets in the way to improve flood protection in local communities. That is why I have worked with my sleeves rolled up alongside former Senator Tom Harkin and now Senator Joni Ernst and the rest of the Iowa delegation to ensure local infrastructure needs get up to snuff, including flood risk projects on the Cedar River and elsewhere.

Recently, the Committee on the Environment and Public Works approved a bill that, once again, highlights the importance of the Cedar River flood protection project and includes a secondary budgetary process that could lead to construction funds for this project and other Iowa priorities in the future, cuts redtape, and also improves public input, transparency, and accountability.

The people of Iowa have earned a well-deserved salute to civic participation. It is a good day to share pride with your fellow citizens. Thanks to our people's resilience and hard work, even better days are yet to come.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we vote right now.

Mr. President, I intend to object to any unanimous consent request relating to the nomination of William R. Evanina, to be Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center,

Mr. President, as I often have to come to the floor to clear things up, I am back once again.

I have been seeing reports--reports that are wrong--that individuals within our Federal law enforcement agencies who want to talk to Congress about problems they have seen on the job have a fear that if they do that, they could be punished. The reports say these individuals then want to be subpoenaed by congressional committees rather than come forward voluntarily. There is a perception that without a subpoena, they have no legal protection against retaliation for their cooperating with Congress.

That is nonsense, and that is a misrepresentation that has been fomented by the FBI's and the Department of Justice's leadership for many years under both Republican and Democratic administrations. I have worked hard to strengthen legal protections, especially for FBI employees. FBI employees have a right to cooperate with congressional inquiries just as they have a right to cooperate with the inspector general. Anyone who tells these FBI agents anything else is lying. FBI agents and all Federal law enforcement are protected if they want to provide information to the Congress. That is true whether it is by subpoena or not.

If that is news to law enforcement people, including the FBI, I would encourage you to research the law individually. It is found at title 5, U.S. Code, section 2303.

As you will see in the law, nowhere in that language do its protections require a subpoena, nor do they require the approval of an agent's chain of command or congressional affairs staff approval.

Moreover, Federal appropriations law also forbids the use of taxpayers' dollars to pay the salary of any individual who interferes with or attempts to interfere with a Federal employee's right to communicate directly with Congress.

The Government Accountability Office recently found that an Obama Housing and Urban Development congressional affairs official did interfere that way in 2013, so paying that salary violated the restrictions Congress had placed on the money. Based on that ruling, Housing and Urban Development initiated collection efforts to recover a portion of the salary paid illegally, as a debt owed back to the United States from this executive branch staffer, as a result of interfering with somebody's right to talk to Congress.

Congress has the power of the purse, and bureaucrats need to understand that funding for their salaries comes with strings attached. Federal employees cannot be prevented from talking directly to Congress--pretty plain--period.

There can be no interference with any Federal employee talking directly to Congress. I should add that you shouldn't even try.

If unelected bureaucrats have so much contempt for an employee who voluntarily informs the people's elected representatives of facts necessary to do our constitutional responsibility of oversight, then we still have a lot of work to do. That kind of thinking is dangerous. It leads to irresponsible government, and is totally contrary to law. If that perception is persisting throughout law enforcement, including the FBI or, indeed, throughout government generally, then the leaders of those agencies are not doing their job. They are failing in their responsibility as leaders, they are failing the workforce, and they are failing the American taxpayer.

I don't want anyone out there to be confused. It is pretty simple. If you are a Federal employee and you want to disclose wrongdoing and waste to the Congress or you want to cooperate with a congressional inquiry, you are legally allowed to do so. You should not have to fear retaliation. No FBI agent or other government employee should be afraid to cooperate with Congress or with the inspector general.

Any FBI agent who has information to provide, or questions about their rights to provide it, should not hesitate to reach out and ask. Contact the committee. Contact the inspector general. There are people there who can tell you more about what protections may apply to your specific situation.

It seems to me that if you know something is wrong, you have a patriotic responsibility to expose it. Transparency brings accountability, and what we don't have enough of in the U.S. Government is accountability.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, the Senate will soon be taking up my resolution recognizing this month of May as National Foster Care Month.

For over 20 years, National Foster Care Month has been recognized as a time to raise awareness about the challenges that young people in foster care experience and to celebrate their resilience in the face of these obstacles.

There are over 438,000 children in foster care nationwide. In Iowa alone, over 4,000 kids entered foster care in 2016. Due to the opioid crisis, there are more children entering foster care than many child welfare agencies are equipped to handle. In 2016, over 92,000 kids entered foster care due to parental drug abuse.

I salute all of those who dedicate their time and their resources to helping these young people. This induces social workers, advocates, and alumni of the foster care system, who inform lawmakers and the public and, more importantly, who fight to secure better outcomes for these young people in care. Of course, this also includes foster parents, who open their homes and their hearts to children in need.

Without foster parents, children unable to remain with their biological parents would have nowhere to go. Unfortunately, this is becoming a reality for children across the country, as many States are experiencing a critical shortage of foster parents. In my home State of Iowa, many counties are facing a shortage of foster care homes, causing young people to be housed in shelters instead of with families.

The solution is not simply recruiting more people to serve as foster parents. Between 30 and 50 percent of licensed foster parents choose to stop being foster parents after only 1 year of doing that. That is why this year our resolution also designates the single day of May 31 as ``Foster Parent Appreciation Day.'' It is my hope that communities, child welfare agencies, and other organizations will use this day to recognize the sacrifices foster parents make. Those who do not choose to continue being foster parents often report that their reason is a lack of support and training. At a time when foster parents are needed more than ever, it is important for communities and child welfare agencies to support foster parents and ensure that they are trained to help the kids entrusted to them.

Through my work on the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth, I have had the opportunity to hear firsthand what children in foster care need. I would advise Senators to take advantage of listening to that group of people we call foster youth. They need love, they need permanency, and they need stability and support.

In short, all they need is a family. They often express to me: ``I would like to have a mom and a dad.'' That is why I am pleased that Congress recently passed the Family First Prevention Services Act. This legislation works to keep more families together by allowing Federal reimbursement for services to families before children are put in foster care, not afterward. These services include substance abuse treatment and in-home parenting skill programs. When it is truly in a child's best interest to be removed from their parents, this bill ensures that more kids will be placed with supportive families instead of in group homes.

Of course, there is still work to be done. Far too many children still experience the trauma of neglect and abuse, and far too many youth in foster care age out without meaningful connection to a caring adult.

Moving forward, Congress must continue to listen to the voices of foster youth, foster parents, and other advocates by working to find better solutions and secure better outcomes for youth in foster care.

Mr. President, I want to address an issue that was brought up by the minority leader on the floor this morning. I want to respond to the false statements made by the very misinformed minority leader this morning--and I mean really misinformed.

He criticized the Judiciary Committee's release this morning of about 2,500 pages of information about the infamous Trump Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer and Donald Trump, Jr.

First, he mischaracterized the release as solely a Republican move. That is false. In fact, that is absolutely false. This release was done with the support of the ranking minority member. On January 25 of this year, at the committee meeting where I announced my desire to release the transcripts, the ranking member publicly supported the decision. I have three quotes. She said, ``I am delighted.'' She said she had ``no disagreement.'' She said, ``I am very grateful for your decision to proceed.''

Second, he accused me of deciding not to interview two participants in the meeting. That is false. In fact, it is absolutely false. I would like to have interviewed both Mr. Manafort and Mr. Kushner. An interview of Mr. Manafort was scheduled a day before he was raided. We--meaning Senator Feinstein and this Senator--had subpoenaed Mr. Manafort for a committee hearing set for July 26, 2017. Mr. Manafort instead offered to appear voluntarily for a staff interview the day before the hearing, and the ranking member asked me to withdraw the subpoena. Then the FBI raided his home, and Mr. Manafort indicated he would invoke his Fifth Amendment rights and then consequently declined to answer the committee's questions. However, we did review the transcript of his earlier interview with the Intelligence Committee.

The ranking member refused to participate in a voluntary interview when we had the chance. She said Democrats on the committee objected that the scope would be focused on the Trump Tower meeting. For all I know, the minority leader's office objected as well, but political leadership should not be dictating bipartisan committee oversight.

As for Mr. Kushner, he refused to participate in a voluntary interview after the ranking member unilaterally and

prematurely released another witness transcript. There was no consultation with me at all by the minority on that point. That is the opposite of how this Senator handled this morning's transcript release.

Mr. Kushner's attorney demanded promises of confidentiality that we could not provide. Transparency is too important to keep all this information under wraps. We could keep it all secret for many more months while we fight over trying to force people to testify against their will. But we decided to put out the voluntary testimony now for the sake of transparency, and the ranking member, as I said two or three times, supported that decision.

Third, the minority leader claimed that the release of this information was motivated by the Republicans' desire to ``let the President and his lawyers interfere with the Mueller probe and get a peek at any potential evidence.'' That is false. In fact, it is absolutely false.

Again, the Democrats on the committee did not object to the release, and the ranking member affirmatively supported it. She and her staff were fully consulted and worked cooperatively with us in preparing the release. So the claim that there was some secret plan to help one side or the other in the Mueller probe is absurd. My only motivation was the same as that of the ranking member--transparency for the American people on this controversy. Let the people read it for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

Fourth, the minority leader claimed that ``Republicans are rushing to declare their investigation complete.'' That is false. In fact, it is absolutely false. The minority leader should not try to put words in my mouth. I didn't say that. Anyone who knows me knows that oversight is never done and should never be done. It is our core constitutional duty.

Now as to the Trump Tower meeting, Congress has learned as much as we are likely to learn, unless some new information comes to light. That might happen. We have to be ready for it if it does. Other committees, the press, and the special counsel are all over this as well. So there is no lack of scrutiny. But there is a lack of transparency, and these 2,500 pages or so do more to give the public a picture of what happened than anyone else has done.

I would just ask my friend the minority leader: What have you done to answer the questions our constituents may have had about the Trump Tower meeting? What good-faith efforts have you undertaken to give the American people transparency about the investigation relating not just to the Trump Presidency but Presidential contenders in 2016? Have you done anything to support or assist Republicans in getting to the bottom of questions that concern them and their constituents back home? The answer is, nothing. In fact, the answer is, absolutely nothing-- absolutely nothing but speculation and frenzy. It is nothing but pure political frustration for losing the Presidential election in 2016. It also fundamentally misunderstands the role of congressional oversight and congressional investigations. We don't prosecute crimes. We can't indict suspected criminals. Our job is to act as a check on the executive branch.

Do you know who has not come to sit for long, transcribed interviews before the Judiciary Committee staff? Well, the answer to that is current or former Department of Justice and FBI officials--not a single one. Our job is to oversee the Justice Department and to oversee the FBI, but Judiciary Committee Democrats have not been supportive or interested in questioning those officials.

The minority leader seems to believe that it is our job to waste taxpayers' dollars retreading the special counsel's investigation or duplicating the Intelligence Committee's work so he can bludgeon his political opponents. Well, that is not my job. I am going to focus on our constitutional duty to act as a check on the executive branch. I am going to keep digging and keep fighting for answers from the Justice Department and from the FBI.

We will be having a hearing on the controversies in 2016 that undermined Americans' faith in the objectivity of these vital institutions. I have great faith in the inspector general appointed by President Obama and the nonpartisan office he leads. As soon as the inspector general's report is out, we will learn a lot more about what happened before and during the election from an independent and objective source, and we will follow up.

The minority leader was right about one thing--when he said: ``There is much left to investigate. Many witnesses still to be heard.'' I agree. This is not over.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, there is no more noble sacrifice than laying down your life in the service of others. Every year, more than a million law enforcement officers work to keep our country safe and to serve the needs of our communities. Our law enforcement officers put their lives on the line as they fight crime, and each year, law enforcement officers die in the line of duty. Many of these deaths occur while these officers are investigating crimes and enforcing our laws. Some are even the result of targeted violence against police officers. Other deaths involve tragic accidents, such as Sheriff's Deputy Julie Bridges and Sergeant Joseph Ossman--two police officers who were killed in a traffic accident while working to help their communities weather the onslaught of Hurricane Irma.

On Friday, I spoke at the Iowa Peace Officer Memorial Ceremony in Des Moines, where we honored six law enforcement officers from Iowa who lost their lives in the line of duty. It was my honor to pay tribute to these brave Iowa heroes, along with their families.

Losing members of our law enforcement leaves a hole in families and communities that no one else can fill, but we can honor them and remember them and work to support the efforts of other law enforcement officers who carry on their mission, officers who, despite the risks and the rigors of their work, work tirelessly to protect and serve their communities.

Yesterday, in memory of those who have fallen in the line of duty over the past year, I was proud to submit a resolution designating this week ``National Police Week.'' This resolution is cosponsored by 76 of my Senate colleagues.

I am also working to clear the Project Safe Neighborhoods Grant Program Authorization Act through my Judiciary Committee so that the bill can be sent to the floor for consideration of the full Senate. This bill authorizes a nationwide partnership between Federal, State, and local law enforcement and prosecutors dedicated to the reduction of violent crime. This partnership will use evidence-based and data-driven approaches to policing. It emphasizes initiatives designed to build trust and collaboration with community leaders and organizations addressing violent crime. A companion bill is working its way through the House of Representatives, and I look forward to voting to support it.

In addition, I have been a longstanding supporter of the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program, which provides death and education benefits to survivors of fallen law enforcement officers, firefighters, and other first responders. It also includes disability benefits to officers catastrophically injured in the line of duty. I introduced a bill to strengthen the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program, and that bill was signed into law last year. We worked hard on oversight efforts of this program to make sure that beneficiaries' claims don't linger forever but are timely paid.

Today, as I stand here on the Senate floor, my thoughts turn to my own home State of Iowa, where on March 1, 2017, Sheriff's Deputy Mark Burbridge went to work for his employer, Pottawattamie County. He and fellow deputy Pat Morgan were assigned to transport a man to prison who had just been sentenced to 45 years for voluntary manslaughter. On the way from the court to the prison, the prisoner assaulted Deputy Burbridge with a homemade knife, grabbed one of the deputy's guns, and shot both deputies. Deputy Morgan was seriously wounded in the attack. Deputy Burbridge was critically injured and died an hour later. The prisoner fled the scene, making it as far as Nebraska. Other brave law enforcement officials tracked him down and brought him to justice.

Deputy Burbridge was a family man who loved to work on cars and motorcycles. He also loved to fish and tell jokes. He is survived by his wife Jessica, daughter Karley, son Kaleb, and stepdaughter Kelsey Brant. We mourn his loss and remember his legacy of sacrifice and service this week.

Our law enforcement officers in Iowa deal with many of the same problems facing law enforcement officers throughout the United States. They work every day to stop violent crime, and they are on the frontline of the fight against illegal drugs and the opioid addiction crisis that every State faces. To help law enforcement officers in Iowa and in the rest of the country, we need to optimize our justice system so it puts resources where they are needed most.

Law enforcement should target the worst offenders, like violent criminals, major drug traffickers, and criminal masterminds. We should do more to help those who have done their time reenter society in productive ways so they don't backslide back into a life of crime. A bill I introduced this Congress--the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act--does just that, and I appreciate Senator Durbin standing with me on its introduction. It is a vastly bipartisan bill that improves fairness in sentencing, while permitting law enforcement to devote resources to tackling their top priorities. It also increases incentives for criminals to cooperate with police and to put into place tougher criminal penalties for fentanyl distribution, for crimes of terrorism, and for crimes of domestic violence.

In addition, the Grassley-Durbin bill provides for recidivism- reduction programs to prepare inmates to leave prison and live a productive, law-abiding life. On that point, I give particular credit to Senator Cornyn and Senator Whitehouse for their work on that part of the bill. Similar sentencing and prison reform initiatives at the State level have closed prisons, reduced crime, and increased public safety.

On a final note, I would like to take a moment to thank the Capitol police who serve right here in the Halls of Congress. The President, the Vice President, Cabinet Secretaries, and thousands of visitors from around the country visit the Senate every year. We Senators come and go several times a day with our staff. It is easy to take our feelings of safety and security for granted in this Capitol Complex, but we are able to carry out our duties because of the continued hard work of these Capitol Hill police officers. So thank you to the Capitol police for your dedication and your service. Our law enforcement officers deserve our respect, surely our support, and our admiration for putting their lives on the line.

We honor all law enforcement officers this week--especially those who died in the line of duty in the past year. We thank their families for their sacrifice, and we will remember the values of public service, of diligence, and the bravery they stood for.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bob Minchin and Tim Rodriguez, two law clerks with my Judiciary Committee staff, be granted floor privileges for today's session, May 15, 2018.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.