[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 199 (Tuesday, December 18, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7745-S7752]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2018

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 730, H.R. 6615.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 6615) to reauthorize the Traumatic Brain 
     Injury program.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to proceeding?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Alexander amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the 
bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that 
the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 4155) was agreed to, as follows:

                (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Traumatic Brain Injury 
     Program Reauthorization Act of 2018''.

     SEC. 2. PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF INJURIES.

       Part J of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 280b et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 393C (42 U.S.C. 280b-1d) by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(c) National Concussion Data Collection and Analysis.--
     The Secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention, may implement concussion data 
     collection and analysis to determine the prevalence and 
     incidence of concussion.'';
       (2) in section 394A(b)(42 U.S.C. 280b-3(b)), by striking 
     ``$6,564,000 for each of fiscal years 2015 through 2019'' and 
     inserting ``$11,750,000 for each of fiscal years 2020 through 
     2024''; and
       (3) by striking section 393C-1 (42 U.S.C. 280b-1e).

     SEC. 3. STATE GRANTS FOR PROJECTS REGARDING TRAUMATIC BRAIN 
                   INJURY.

       Section 1252 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300d-52) is amended--

[[Page S7746]]

       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, acting through the 
     Administrator for the Administration for Community Living,'' 
     after ``The Secretary'';
       (2) by striking subsection (e);
       (3) by redesignating subsections (f) through (j) as 
     subsections (e) through (i), respectively; and
       (4) in subsection (i), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``$5,500,000 for each of the fiscal years 2015 through 2019'' 
     and inserting ``$7,321,000 for each of fiscal years 2020 
     through 2024''.

     SEC. 4. STATE GRANTS FOR PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES.

       Section 1253 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300d-53) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, acting through the 
     Administrator for the Administration for Community Living,'' 
     after ``The Secretary''; and
       (2) in subsection (l), by striking ``$3,100,000 for each of 
     the fiscal years 2015 through 2019'' and inserting 
     ``$4,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2020 through 2024''.

  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The bill (H.R. 6615), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             FIRST STEP Act

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the Senate has before it a bill called the 
FIRST STEP Act. The name is significant because it shows that this is 
not a comprehensive fix for the problems of our criminal justice system 
but, rather, a first, critical step in the right direction.
  A study by the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that nearly half of 
the people released from Federal prison in 2005 were arrested again in 
the next 8 years--half of the people released from Federal prison since 
2005 were rearrested within 8 years.
  Considering that 95 percent of State and Federal prisoners at some 
point will be released, those odds are pretty bleak, but here is the 
reality: Almost everybody in prison will serve their time and get out 
of prison. The question for us is, Will they be better prepared to live 
life on the outside in a productive way or will they simply reengage in 
a turnstile--or as one gentleman referred to himself in Houston, TX, a 
few years ago when we were talking about this issue--he called himself 
a frequent flyer in the criminal justice system.
  Unfortunately, we see that in the Federal system, according to the 
U.S. Sentencing Commission, half of the people repeat their mistakes 
within 8 years. This is bleak but not hopeless because we know there 
are reforms that will work that help improve the chances that more 
people will be able to live a lawful life productively outside a prison 
system and will not reoffend.
  We have seen these changes implemented across the country at the 
State level, including my home State of Texas, which has yielded 
incredible results. This might cause some people a little bit of a 
shock because Texas, of course, has a reputation for being tough on 
crime. People don't run for public office saying: I am going to be soft 
on crime in Texas and get elected. But what we have seen is that people 
have said: I think we can be smarter about crime and produce better 
results at a lower cost. That message and those things that have 
followed have been enormously successful. So let me talk about that a 
little bit.
  In Texas, the initial interest in criminal justice reform was first 
cost-driven. In other words, people were wondering: How are we going to 
continue to pay for 17,000 more prison beds that we think we are going 
to need because of our growing population? The growing prison 
population was simply outpacing the corrections budget, so State 
legislators were faced with a very difficult financial choice. But as 
it turned out, the reforms that we adopted did a lot more than 
alleviate the budget strain on the criminal justice system.
  Using recidivism reduction programs, including job training and 
vocational education, we reduced our incarceration rate and our crime 
rate by double digits at the same time.
  So using the sorts of recidivism reduction programs that are included 
in the FIRST STEP Act at the State level, we were able to reduce our 
incarceration rate and our crime rate by double digits at the same 
time.
  I remember a few years ago, when former Attorney General Michael 
Mukasey testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he said 
that the single most important measurement of whether the sentencing 
practices are working is the crime rate--the crime rate. This was at a 
time when people were talking about ``Well, we put too many people in 
prison, so we have to let some out,'' but they weren't paying attention 
to how that impacted the crime rate.
  That stuck with me over these many years because I think he is 
exactly right. If these programs do not protect the public safety, then 
we shouldn't be doing them. If they don't lower the crime rate, they 
are not worth the effort. But our experience in Texas, Georgia, North 
Carolina, Rhode Island--in places that have implemented these programs, 
they have seen their incarceration rate and their crime rate drop at 
the same time. So we are trying to replicate those successes at the 
Federal level through the FIRST STEP Act.
  In so doing, we hope to allow people to transform their lives as we 
allow low-risk offenders to lead productive lives in their communities 
once they leave prison, assuming they comply with all of the rules and 
regulations. I believe this legislation will lead the way for 
additional steps that we will take afterward, but this is an important 
first step.
  This bill will provide funding for the Federal Bureau of Prisons to 
develop risk assessment tools to pair individuals with programs proven 
to reduce the risk of recidivism.
  This isn't just social engineering or some hope that we have. This is 
based on proven examples of programs that will help people, for 
example, deal with their drug or their alcohol addiction.
  Senator Cassidy from Louisiana has put in this bill some very 
important provisions relating to the diagnosis and treatment of people 
with dyslexia.
  I am convinced that there are people in prison who were told as they 
were growing up that they were too stupid to go to school because they 
couldn't read, and they simply dropped out, and their dyslexia, which 
was holding them back, was not diagnosed and properly treated. So I am 
grateful to Senator Cassidy for some of the provisions in the bill 
relating to the identification of people with dyslexia and providing 
them access to programs that will help them learn and succeed and 
improve their lives and, at the same time, reduce the likelihood that 
they will end up back in prison after having been arrested again.
  By spending time in prison, completing evidence-based programming, as 
I have mentioned--education, job training, drug treatment, life skills, 
faith-based programs--we can give people an opportunity to prepare 
themselves for their transition to life after prison.
  This is because the incentives in this program are really important. 
I think we, as human beings, all operate based on incentives, and the 
incentive for prisoners is to go through the program, gain the earned 
credit so that they can be released--not to shorten their sentence but 
in less confining conditions, for example, a halfway house.
  I want to remind our colleagues that not all offenders, of course, 
are eligible for these credits. The bill specifically lists 48 offenses 
that disqualify offenders from earning time credits, including crimes 
like murder, assault, carjacking that results in injury and death, and 
the unlawful possession or use of a firearm by violent criminals and 
drug traffickers.
  In other words, by focusing our efforts on low-risk offenders and by 
giving them the opportunity to access these programs--these education 
programs, these addiction treatment programs--we can focus our 
attention and our money on the truly violent and high-risk offenders, 
which I think is also an important feature of this legislation.

[[Page S7747]]

  But it is important to remember that just because a specific crime is 
not included in the exclusion list of 48 offenses, it doesn't mean that 
the offender is automatically entitled to the earned-time credit.
  The person must first be determined to be low risk; in other words, 
that is the failsafe. But notwithstanding whether the offense is 
listed, if you are not a low-risk offender, as determined by the 
testing that is done by the Bureau of Prisons, you will not be eligible 
for these less confining conditions.
  This is not a determination made by Washington bureaucrats or even 
politicians. It is left to experienced law enforcement officers and 
wardens who work with these individuals on a daily basis.
  We want to give the opportunity to those who would take advantage of 
it to turn their own lives around, but we will not do so at the cost of 
public safety. That is exactly what these risk assessment tools are 
designed to do, to tell us who is at highest risk of reoffending.
  I believe this legislation is an investment with the potential for 
astronomical returns. We are not just talking about money, we are 
talking about human potential. We are investing in the men and women 
who want to turn their lives around once they are released from 
prisons, and we are investing in so doing for stronger and more viable 
communities. We are investing tax dollars in a system that helps 
produce stronger citizens.
  When it comes to positive results, don't take my word for it. There 
is plenty of research that shows how valuable these programs can be. 
For example, in 2013, a study by RAND Corporation found that prisoners 
who participated in education programs were 43 percent less likely to 
return to prison than those who did not. Employment after release was 
13 percent higher among prisoners who participated in these programs, 
and those who participated in vocational training were 28 percent more 
likely to be employed after they were released.
  Our prisons should be more than just a warehouse for human beings. 
They should also serve as places where rehabilitation takes place, and 
hopefully people can take advantage of the opportunity once they have 
made a mistake and served their time to transform their own lives into 
productive citizens. That is what this legislation tries to do, and 
that is why it has gained such broad support on both sides of the 
aisle.
  By investing in these education and training programs and these 
recidivism reduction programs, we can ensure that of the people who get 
out of prison, more will actually stay out of prison.
  This bill is our opportunity to make meaningful changes in our 
criminal justice system, our opportunity to begin fixing a problem that 
plagues our country, and an opportunity to take a model that has been 
working in the States for more than a decade and use it to benefit all 
Americans. The odds of these individuals leaving prison and becoming 
more productive members of society should be higher than the odds of a 
coin flip.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation, and I look forward 
to voting yes when it comes up for a vote later today or tomorrow.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor to urge my 
colleagues to join us in supporting the FIRST STEP Act, a bipartisan 
legislation that will make needed changes to Federal sentencing rules 
and prison reforms. A number of us have been working on this issue for 
years, but I do want to thank Chairman Grassley, who is here with us 
today, and Senator Feinstein for their leadership in getting it through 
the Judiciary Committee as well as Senator Durbin, who has been a 
longtime leader on this issue, and Senator Booker, who has worked so 
hard on this, as well as Senator Whitehouse and Senator Cornyn, who is 
here with us today, and many others. Senator Lee took on this cause at 
a time when it wasn't as easy as it is right now at the end of the 
year. I also want to thank the administration for working with us on 
this bill as well.
  As a former chief prosecutor in Minnesota's largest county, I 
understand the need to use our resources to target the most serious 
offenders to maintain public safety. You have to make decisions in 
those kinds of jobs every day: decisions about your priorities, where 
you are going to put your criminal justice money, what is the safest 
thing to do for the community, knowing that a number of our offenders 
do reenter into society, what is the best way to make sure that if they 
do come back into society, they are going to be functioning members of 
society; that they are not going to go back to drugs or they are not 
going to commit additional crimes.
  It is fine to pretend that it is not happening and people are going 
away forever, and some people rightfully do. Violent criminals and 
murderers don't come out again, but a number of offenders do come out 
again. So the question is, What do we do to make it the most safe for 
our community but also to allow them to become functioning members of 
our society? That is what this bill is about at its core.
  We need a justice system that both protects the victims of crime and 
punishes those who break the law. Someone once said that prosecutors--
my old job--were ministers of justice. That is what we are doing with 
this bill. We are acknowledging that there are issues with our criminal 
justice system that we have to deal with. We are not just closing our 
eyes and pretending it is fine to pretend everyone goes away forever 
when we know they don't. Some people are coming out, and they should 
come back out again, and the FIRST STEP Act gets at those hard issues.
  Our criminal justice system must administer justice fairly. The 
sentencing laws on low-level drug offenders were implemented decades 
ago, and in a number of cases they have diverted limited law 
enforcement resources away from important public safety initiatives 
that would allow us to actually go after violent criminals. This has 
resulted in prison sentences that actually don't fit the crime. Today 
our country has over 20 percent of the world's incarcerated people, 
even though we have less than 5 percent of the world's population. We 
need a criminal justice system that works for our communities. That is 
why I fought for bipartisan criminal justice reform for years.
  As a former prosecutor, I have long supported important policies, 
including more law enforcement resources. I lead that bill with Senator 
Murkowski and the COPS Program to get more law enforcement resources to 
our police. I think that is very important. I worked hand in hand with 
our police in Minnesota for 8 years. They have very hard jobs.
  As a former prosecutor, I also supported important policies that make 
it better for the community and the police to work together. That 
includes better training for our law enforcement, that includes 
videotaped interrogations, that includes reforms with the eyewitness 
process. We were one of the first States to make changes there, 
including body cameras, diversity in hiring, and meaningful work 
between law enforcement and our citizens--fair jury selection 
processes. There are a number of things we have done but must continue 
to do to increase that trust between the community and our law 
enforcement.
  As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I supported the 
bipartisan Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act for years. My 
colleagues and I worked across party lines to pass that bill out of 
committee earlier in February and last Congress as well. Although the 
bill was never brought to the floor of the Senate until this week, 
today we finally have an opportunity to make meaningful progress.
  The FIRST STEP Act represents a concerted bipartisan effort to strike 
an effective balance to improve the fair administration of justice 
while keeping our communities safe. Even though this bill is not 
perfect, it is the result of a compromise between two sides and people 
with a lot of different views and many groups that are here to advocate 
for citizens. It is a compromise that

[[Page S7748]]

has the endorsement of a range of groups that you don't usually 
see, such as from the Fraternal Order of Police to the ACLU. This bill 
represents a critical opportunity that shouldn't be lost.

  One of the most important reforms in this bill are the changes to 
mandatory minimums. We all know people who have been caught up in a 
criminal justice system that can be unfair. I believe strongly in 
enforcing our laws on the books and putting criminal offenders behind 
bars to protect public safety, but for nonviolent, low-level drug 
offenders, there are more creative and evidence-based ways to deal with 
them than longer prison sentences.
  The FIRST STEP Act allows judges to sentence below the mandatory 
minimum for low-level, nonviolent drug offenders who work with the 
government.
  It also reduces some of the longest sentences now on the books, 
including decreasing the second-strike mandatory minimum of 20 years to 
15 years and reduces the third-strike mandatory minimum of life in 
prison to 25 years.
  This bill includes a crucial provision to allow people who were 
sentenced under discriminatory drug laws, which required a longer 
mandatory minimum sentence for the possession of crack than for the 
possession of the same amount of cocaine, to petition to be resentenced 
under the reform guidelines we passed in 2010.
  Significantly, this bill will not automatically reduce any one 
person's prison sentence. Instead, the bill simply allows people to 
petition courts and prosecutors for an individualized review based on 
the particular facts of their case.
  That is what justice is supposed to be about. It is not always a one-
size-fits-all. It is giving the people who work in the justice system 
knowing you have mandatory minimums still in place, knowing you want 
fairness across the system, but it allows judges and prosecutors to 
look at an individualized case and decide what is best for public 
safety and what is best for the community. By giving prosecutors and 
judges this discretion, we will give them the tools to better see that 
justice is done.
  The FIRST STEP Act also incorporates much needed reforms to our 
Federal prisons to treat people more humanely and to encourage 
participation in programs intended to help people from committing 
another crime after they are released.
  In my old job as Hennepin County attorney, I always said we would try 
as much as possible to run our operation as a business. We would be 
efficient, we would keep track of what we were doing and be accountable 
to the public and show them what the results were with regard to our 
prosecutions and the numbers and what the sentences would be. We did 
all that, but one of the things I also knew is, while you want to run 
government as much as possible as efficiently as a business, there was 
one way we were not like a business in the criminal justice system: We 
did not want to see repeat customers at our doors. That is not what you 
want when you are running the prosecutor's office. We wanted to make 
sure people could get their lives back and their acts together so they 
didn't keep cycling through the criminal justice system.
  This bill, the FIRST STEP Act, includes a provision to require that 
Federal prisoners be placed in a facility as close to their primary 
residence as possible. That makes sure families aren't separated, and 
they can continue to have visitors. One of the things we know is, it is 
very important for them to make that transition when they get back in 
the community. This straightforward change is an important step toward 
reducing recidivism because research suggests that people who maintain 
contact with their families while they serve time are less likely to 
commit crimes after they are released. Other key provisions in this 
legislation expand access to treatment and education.
  I look at this two ways. One, when I first became a lawyer at a 
private law firm in the Twin Cities, I actually got involved in a 
program called Amicus, where we went to visit people in prisons. I 
visited a woman for a number of years until I became chief CA--that 
became a little awkward--but she went on to serve her sentence and got 
back out into the community. That program was really the community 
saying: We want to keep the thought out there that there is hope, that 
these people are going to get out at some point, and they need role 
models and people who are willing to work with them. I saw that work 
with my own eyes.
  The other reason I care so much about this bill is that I am a child 
of an alcoholic--someone who went through treatment and who, after a 
number of DWIs, was finally pushed into treatment and was, in his own 
words, ``pursued by grace.'' I think other people, whether they are in 
the prison system or not, should be able to have that same opportunity 
for themselves and for their kids.
  I was able to see my dad literally climb the highest mountain as an 
adventurer, a mountain climber, and a columnist but sink to the lowest 
valley because of the disease of alcoholism.
  You see that all the time in our prison system. Whether it is drugs 
or whether it is alcohol, that is one of the reasons people get 
involved in crime, to feed their addiction or because they are not 
functioning normally and making decisions they would make if they 
weren't addicted.
  This bill encourages the use of evidence-based treatment for opioid 
and heroin abuse and will help to address the addiction that is the 
root cause of so many crimes.
  I come from a State that believes in treatment. We are known as the 
``Land of 10,000 Lakes,'' and every so often people jokingly call it 
the ``Land of 10,000 Treatment Centers.'' That includes, of course, 
Hazelden Betty Ford. We are very proud of their work, but there are 
also multiple other treatment centers in our State. It is a major part 
of our criminal justice system and our drug courts. We had one of the 
first major drug courts in the country, and I continue to carry on that 
work as a Senator.
  Taken together, the prison reforms in this bill and the recidivism 
reforms and reentry reforms are an important step that will help us to 
make progress toward reducing the number of repeat offenders.
  As a prosecutor, I have always believed that our job was to serve the 
cause of justice, and that was to convict the guilty but protect the 
innocent. Sometimes the innocent are, of course, victims of crime. That 
is the first thing that comes to mind. But the innocent are also people 
who are unfairly accused of crimes. That is why it is so important to 
have all of these measures in place, whether it is videotaped 
interrogations or jury selection that is fair--to make sure our process 
is fair.
  At some point, when someone has served a sentence and turned their 
life around, they go from guilty, which they once were, to having a 
chance to go out there as an innocent person who is just trying to lead 
a life. That is what our job is as Senators--to do justice, to make 
sure we have rules in place that make sure the guilty go behind bars if 
they have committed a serious crime but also to protect the innocent. 
That includes the families of victims and the families of offenders.
  There is still much work for us to do to improve our criminal justice 
system, and I am committed with my colleagues, many of whom I mentioned 
earlier, who have been leaders on this bill--I see Senator Leahy here 
from the State of Vermont, former chair of the Judiciary Committee, who 
worked so hard on this as well. So many people have contributed to the 
effort from the left and from the right, from the Democratic Party and 
from the Republican Party.
  This is a victory for justice today as we consider this bill. I urge 
my colleagues to support it.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                           Tribute to Jon Kyl

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, before I begin, I would note my long 
friendship with the Presiding Officer. I was delighted to see him come 
back to the Senate. I wish him well now as he leaves the Senate. He is 
always welcome, by both Democrats and Republicans, when he comes back.
  I realize the Presiding Officer is constrained and cannot respond to 
whatever I say about him, but I assure him that I will stay within the 
Senate rules and say only nice things because that is all I know about 
him.

[[Page S7749]]

  



                             FIRST STEP Act

  Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Minnesota who has 
just spoken. She, like me, is a former prosecutor. I have often said 
that is the best job I ever had. My wife, Marcelle, reminded me of some 
of those times at 3 a.m., when I was going to murder scenes, and that 
maybe it is easier to be in the Senate where you can sleep all night.
  A lot of us who have been prosecutors, both Republicans and 
Democrats, or those who have been defense attorneys, Republicans and 
Democrats, have come together. Because of that, the Senate is 
considering passing probably the most significant bill to reform our 
criminal justice system in nearly a decade.
  The First Step Act takes modest but important steps to remedy some of 
the most troubling injustices within our sentencing laws and our prison 
system. It is my hope that this bill represents not just a single piece 
of legislation, but a turning point in how Congress views its role in 
advancing criminal justice because there will be a lot of advances we 
must look at.
  I have been working to bring fairness to our criminal justice system 
for decades, both before I was in the Senate and since I have been in 
the Senate. For far too long, the legislative response to any and all 
public safety concerns was as simple as it was flawed: No matter the 
perceived ill, we turned to arbitrary and inflexible mandatory minimums 
to cure it. That knee-jerk response, I believe, is changing. I truly 
believe the error of mandatory minimum sentencing is coming to an end.
  Today is a glowing recognition that one-size-fits-all sentencing is 
neither just nor effective. It routinely results in low-level offenders 
spending far longer in prison than either public safety or common sense 
requires. It comes at a steep human cost, especially in communities of 
color. It also comes at a steep fiscal cost that leaves us less safe. 
The United States houses more prisoners and has higher incarceration 
rates than any other country in the world. This is not something for 
Americans to point to with pride. The cost of housing Federal offenders 
consumes nearly one-third of the Justice Department's budget. Because 
public safety dollars are finite, this strips critical resources away 
from law enforcement strategies that have been proven to make our 
communities safer.
  By taking steps to responsibly reduce our prison population, we can 
save both money and reduce crime. That is a lesson states across the 
country have already learned. Prison rates and crime rates can fall 
together. It is past time for the Federal criminal justice system to 
catch up with the States.
  Five years ago, as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee--and drawing 
on my own experiences as a prosecutor--I convened hearings and advanced 
the core pieces of legislation that now form the basis of the FIRST 
STEP Act. Despite strong bipartisan votes in Committee at the time, 
some doubted we had the support needed to ensure passage on the Senate 
floor. Each year since then, an expanding group of dedicated Senators 
and advocates have methodically built support for these reforms. Today, 
that support is outstanding. It's not just bipartisan; it is nearly 
nonpartisan. And with the efforts of Senator Durbin, who has been 
championing these efforts as long as anyone, along with Senators 
Grassley, Whitehouse, Lee, Booker, and others, we now stand poised to 
pass meaningful criminal justice reform for the first time in a decade.
  It is true, this legislation doesn't go as far as I would like. Far 
from it. I support ending mandatory minimum sentences. I would prefer 
we do more to fix racially disparate treatment. I would like to see the 
full elimination of the existing crack-powder cocaine disparity--a 
glaring injustice we must eventually address. You can have a well-
respected person on Wall Street or in a law firm or anywhere else spend 
a certain amount of money for powder cocaine. You can have somebody in 
the inner city spend exactly the same amount for crack cocaine. We have 
told the person who has the good social standing: What a terrible thing 
you have done. You may have to spend a few weekends volunteering at 
soup kitchens, and we hope you don't do it again. The person from the 
inner city, spending the exact same amount on crack cocaine, is going 
to have a mandatory sentence in prison.
  I would like to see a broader judicial safety valve and additional 
retroactive activity. Any laws that we consider unjust today were just 
as unjust yesterday or a year ago or even a decade ago.
  But this is the nature of compromise. You don't get everything you 
want. And when I look at the scope of reforms before us today--
including a modest expansion of the safety valve, retroactive 
application of the Fair Sentencing Act, a reduction to some of the most 
indefensible mandatory minimums on the books, as well as reforms to add 
evidence-based practices to our prison system and reentry efforts--I 
believe this is a historic achievement.
  The FIRST STEP Act also includes my Second Chance Reauthorization 
Act, which I introduced with Senator Portman. Our bill both extends and 
improves Federal grant programs providing reentry service to ex-
offenders. That includes employment assistance, housing, substance 
abuse treatment, victim support, and more. Almost every single offender 
in our justice system, someday, is going to be released. We owe it to 
both them and to the communities where they will live in to ensure they 
can lead productive lives.
  In many ways, the FIRST STEP Act represents the best of the Senate. 
It represents what this institution is capable of when Senators listen 
to each other, and when they come together to solve complex and 
contentious issues, instead of exploiting them for momentary political 
gain. When Senators are willing to be patient, to compromise, and to 
persist through inevitable setbacks, real progress is possible.
  Senators, no matter what their political party, understand that each 
one of us is here to be part of the conscience of the Nation, and we 
should work together. For the remaining Members of the Senate who are 
not yet ready to support this legislation, I hope you will reconsider. 
I hope you will review the breadth of bipartisan support, both here in 
the Congress, in the White House and in the broader stakeholder 
community. I hope you will consider why even important law enforcement 
voices like the Fraternal Order of Police and the National District 
Attorneys Association support this bill.
  For the Members who do support the FIRST STEP Act, I hope you will 
continue to work to reform our criminal justice system in the years 
ahead. Many of our lives are based on decades-old, misguided 
assumptions, and they don't reflect evidence-based practices. There is 
still so much work to be done, and injustices and racial disparities to 
address.
  This week, we are showing what is possible. By working together, we 
can continue to enact meaningful legislation in the years to come that 
will keep us safe, save money, and prove America is a nation of 
fairness and second chances. This is a carefully negotiated compromise.
  I hope all Members will vote no on amendments to this carefully 
negotiated compromise and vote yes on final passage. This former 
prosecutor would be very happy if we do.
  There is a Senator seeking recognition.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). The Senator from Oklahoma.


                       National Defense Strategy

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we have talked about this recently more 
than we have in quite some time: Defending America needs to be our No. 
1 commitment. To many of us, it has always been. That is why we have 
been coming to the floor, talking about the national defense strategy, 
the Armed Services Committee, and we have had the honor and privilege 
of hearing from some really well-informed people--Members and people 
from the outside--and they look and see the threats that we are 
facing. Now, they don't always agree with each other, but I really 
believe we are in the most threatened position we have been in as a 
country in the years I have been here. That will come as a little 
surprise because people know we have had threats, that we have been at 
war for two decades, and that we still have the threat of terrorism. It 
is out there. They have seen dangerous behavior in rogue states.

  I like the idea the administration came up with as we were looking at 
our peer competitors, which are China and Russia. These are countries 
that actually have passed us up in many areas. I

[[Page S7750]]

talk to the American people when I go back to my State of Oklahoma, and 
they find out we have countries that actually have things that are 
better than what we have. There are quotes we have heard from our 
various top people on the types of artillery our competition has. Not 
only do we have peer competition from China and Russia, but we also 
have the rogue countries that are out there--North Korea, Iran, and all 
of them. So the threat is there. It is a very real thing.
  We need to have answers, so the Department of Defense has created a 
new defense strategy. This new defense strategy is one that, I think, 
has been done very well. It takes into consideration the problems of 
countries that are peer competition along with the rogue nations. I 
think it has really done a good job.
  We had a hearing about 2 weeks ago on the National Defense Strategy 
Commission that was put together. I have been here for quite some time 
and have seen a lot of Commissions and a lot of reports come up. I have 
never seen one that--I wouldn't even call it bipartisan--was just 
nonpartisan. One of the individuals, Gary Roughead, who is an admiral 
and was a cochairman of the National Defense Strategy Commission, said 
he didn't have any idea who on that Commission was appointed by 
Democrats and who by Republicans. There were an equal number of 
Democrats and Republicans from the House and an equal number of 
Democrats and Republicans from the Senate. It did come out just with 
the very difficult truth that we had to deal with. I think one of the 
cochairmen was Ambassador Edelman, and he said it was so bipartisan 
that there was no way of telling who had appointed whom.
  Anyway, this is something that has been put together, and the 
Commission report has a bunch of stuff that tells the whole ugly truth. 
It is an ugly truth to realize, particularly when you talk to people 
out there in the real world throughout America. They assume we have the 
best of everything. So to find out we have a real threat kind of makes 
you go back and remember the good old days of the Cold War, when we had 
two superpowers, because we knew what they had, and they knew what we 
had. Mutual assured destruction meant something. It doesn't mean 
anything anymore.
  One of the significant individuals on this report was Senator Kyl 
from Arizona. The reason I say that is, Senator Kyl, in my opinion and 
in the opinions of many people, has been historically in the U.S. 
Senate and has been, perhaps, one of the most--if not the most--
knowledgeable of individuals on the threats we face and on our 
capabilities we have in this country. It is unique that Senator Kyl is 
on this Commission because, when he got on the Commission, he was not a 
member of the U.S. Senate. He came back after the death of Senator John 
McCain and is serving for what appears to be just a short period of 
time. So he is in the unique position of serving on the Commission and 
of having been, for many years, in a position to help us meet something 
we have not met before that is a real challenge.
  Senator Kyl, why don't you kind of talk about, maybe, the Senate and 
its bipartisan nature and how this thing came together, which would be 
very similar as to how it was expressed when we had our meeting, I 
think, 2 or 3 weeks ago for this Commission. It has been very 
successful, and I applaud the Senator for his work on it.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee for engaging in this brief colloquy and for 
specifically calling for a hearing a couple of weeks ago at which the 
two cochairmen of the National Defense Strategy Commission presented 
the findings of the Commission's report. I agree that the hearing, 
which was attended by, I believe, every member of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, was a remarkable hearing because the members of the 
Commission, represented by the two cochairs, made it clear that their 
report--our report--was, indeed, a bipartisan document and nonpartisan, 
as cochairman Admiral Roughead said.
  Perhaps it would be good to just dwell for a moment on how this 
Commission was created, and then we can talk a little bit more about 
the report itself because I think one of the biggest factors about the 
report is the credibility of the people who helped to design it.
  A couple of years ago, the two Armed Services Committees in the House 
and Senate put a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act to 
create a commission that would be comprised of 12 members--6 of whom to 
be appointed by the Senate and 6 of whom to be appointed by the House. 
Three each would be appointed by the chairmen and the ranking members 
of the two Armed Services Committees so there would be a balance of six 
Democrats and six Republicans--I think. I say that because, like 
Admiral Roughead, I am not sure of the politics of everybody who served 
on the Commission. They all knew my politics, as I was a retired 
Republican Senator at the time, and I knew a couple of the other 
members of the Commission. Yet, frankly, the politics were left at the 
door. We went in and debated about the status of our national security 
and, in particular, about the Secretary of Defense's national strategy.
  We concluded, first of all, that the Secretary was correct in that we 
had to reorient the priorities of our national defense to reflect the 
fact that China and Russia now both presented a challenge to the United 
States that had not existed in the prior several years but that the 
challenge was increasingly difficult to confront and important to 
confront because of the attitudes of those two countries and that the 
other threats from Iran, from North Korea, and from terrorists, while 
still very significant, would be relegated, in effect, to a secondary 
position. We thought, in that regard, the Secretary's strategy was 
correct, and we commended him for that.
  We also found the basic strategy he laid out for confronting the 
challenges was satisfactory but with a big caveat, and that was that 
unless the Defense Department was adequately reauthorized to confront 
these challenges, the strategy could not succeed. So much of what the 
Commission dwelt on was what we would need to do in the near and medium 
future in order to rebuild our military to successfully defend the 
United States against these emerging threats.
  Mr. INHOFE. That is one of the things I was really impressed with on 
this report. You guys didn't hold any punches. You said exactly what it 
was. In fact, I have a list of the quotes that were in there that I 
actually used on the floor yesterday. I guess they were from the 
different members--the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the 
Secretary of Defense, and the rest of them--that showed very clearly it 
was not adequately reauthorized and that we were going to have to do 
something about it.
  I do want to ask what the Senator's recommendation was on the 
Commission to do it.
  Where is that chart? That is not the one I want.
  This is kind of a shocker for a lot of people. People don't realize 
this is just one element of it that shows that China is actually 
passing us up. By 2030, it is going to have a larger navy than we have. 
You and I have been on both the House Armed Services Committee and on 
the Senate Armed Services Committee and have watched. It is kind of 
hard to concede that the time we always feared was going to be there is 
there now, that we are now faced with that problem.
  What kind of recommendation did the Commission come up with to get us 
out of this hole?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee 
is exactly correct. You could illustrate the same things with charts 
relating to our Air Force, to our Army, to our Marine Corps--all 
elements of our services. It is not just in the number of ships but in 
the quality of the ships. Both the Russians and the Chinese, I would 
note, have made some significant advances in submarine technology, for 
example, that would pose a real threat to the U.S. Navy.
  What the Commission concluded was, three major changes were necessary 
to the way we fund our military.
  The first is, the top line, the total amount Congress appropriates 
each year, needs to be increased. We didn't specify a particular 
amount, but we noted that just to satisfy the 20-year budget 
projections of President Obama's Secretary of Defense, this would 
require a minimum of 3- to 5-percent increases annually above the rate

[[Page S7751]]

of inflation; in other words, real growth in the topline spending.
  Secondly--and these are two faults of the U.S. Congress--the 
Commission pointed to the Congress and said: You have been funding 
government for far too long with continuing resolutions rather than 
your getting on with the job of passing appropriations bills that 
actually note each year's requirements and appropriate an amount of 
money to reflect those requirements. The continuing resolutions, or 
CRs, make it almost impossible for the planners at the Defense 
Department to plan more than just a couple of months in advance, and 
when we are talking about enormously long-term acquisitions that cost 
billions of dollars, this makes it a very inefficient way and 
ineffective way to fund defense.
  Finally, we recommended that the Budget Control Act, which currently 
controls the way the Congress spends money, needs to have a change in 
it. The sequestration trigger in that bill has harmed defense spending 
more than anything else. It has resulted in about one-half trillion 
dollars, over 10 years, in lost appropriations for the Department of 
Defense. That law is still in effect, and it will govern the 
appropriations of the last 2 years of the decade of its being in effect 
unless Congress repeals it or modifies it. So the third recommendation 
is, the sequestration trigger in the Budget Control Act needs to be 
eliminated.
  Mr. INHOFE. I think that has been something we have talked about for 
a long period of time.
  I think we have to recognize the problem we had been in during the 
Obama years, during the last 5 years, which is a shocker. It kind of 
gives people an idea of how we got into this mess to start with. If you 
take and use the years 2010 to 2015--that would have been the last 5 
years of the Obama administration--and use constant 2018 dollars, in 
2010, the budget would have been $794 billion. In 2015, it would have 
been $586 billion dollars. That is a reduction of $210 billion over a 
5-year period. Nowhere else in government did we have any kind of a 
reduction in any program, but that is where it really got into trouble. 
I believe we will have to face this and recognize what the problem 
really is and tell everyone what the problem is.
  Now, I say to my friend from Arizona that he has been active in 
nuclear deterrence, and we have not been so much. I can remember--and 
he can remember--back in the sixties when this was recognized as a 
problem. I think the last time we actually did any nuclear 
modernization was in the eighties. We had the triad system for a long 
period of time when China didn't have it and when Russia didn't have 
it, but they have it today, and they have actually done more.
  We have a chart for this that shows what we have not done and what 
they have been doing.
  So, in the area of a nuclear deterrent or of nuclear modernization, 
it might be a good idea to see what the folks on this Commission were 
looking at it in terms of that threat we are facing.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I certainly appreciate this comment by the 
chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee because the Secretaries 
of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have all said our 
strategic deterrent has to be our No. 1 priority. Why is that? It is 
because this is the one area in which the entire U.S. security is at 
risk. This is the existential threat--the threat that could destroy the 
entire United States. Obviously, a nuclear war between either the 
United States and China or Russia would be devastating to the entire 
world, but because it is a direct threat to the homeland, it has to be 
the No. 1 priority.
  Yet, as the chairman notes, through our negligence, the 
administration's and Congress's past, we have allowed three things to 
deteriorate all at the same time, and the bill is now coming due on all 
three. Therefore, it is going to be a difficult proposition to get 
funded.
  The first are the laboratories in which our nuclear weapons were 
designed. There was testing and, to some extent, they have been 
modified or refurbished and have had their life extended through a 
program operated at our National Labs.
  The National Labs are in incredible need of modernization. We have a 
1946-built facility in which our uranium is being produced, and the 
roof is literally falling in--I have been there--in Oak Ridge, TN. In 
Los Alamos, there is a great need to make changes, and we have to 
create a new facility for the production of plutonium pits. This is all 
highly technical, but the bottom line is, our laboratories are in dire 
need of refurbishment.
  Secondly, the nuclear weapons themselves, designed in the 1950s and 
1960s and some as late as the 1970s but built in the 1970s and 1980s, 
are in extreme need to be checked for their safety and their security 
and to have their life extended by the replacement of certain 
components, making certain everything else is in operating order. I was 
given as a souvenir a vacuum tube which was taken out of one of our 
nuclear weapons, having been replaced with a more modern circuit board. 
These are the kinds of things we are doing to extend the life of the 
nuclear weapons, and it is not inexpensive.
  Third, our triad, our delivery systems--the bomber force, the 
intercontinental ballistic missiles, and our nuclear-powered submarines 
that carry the missiles that currently represent part of our triad and 
our strategic deterrent--have all been allowed to deteriorate and need 
replacement at the same time. Instead of doing this seriatim, we are 
faced with a bill that is going to come due for all three.
  The good news is, through the good efforts of the chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee and others, provision has been made in the 
past NDAA bills to begin this modernization. It has begun, but barely 
begun, and it is going to have to continue for a period of 13 to 15 
years, something like that.
  The other piece of good news is, while all three components of our 
nuclear deterrent are needed and are going to have to be paid for at 
roughly the same time, at no time in the budget does the combination of 
all three of these things represent more than 6.4 percent of the 
defense budget. In fact, in most years, it is 3 to 4 percent.
  So for the most strategically important element or component of our 
national security, we are really spending a very small amount in 
proportion to what we have to spend on everything else. That is one of 
the reasons I think the committee has found it so important to ensure 
that all three of these things move forward, on time, and in the right 
way, so our strategic deterrent will, in fact, deter any potential 
adversary from miscalculating and thinking that the cost of aggression 
against the United States is worth whatever they might seek to achieve.
  Mr. INHOFE. We have done a lot in recognition of what is coming up. I 
can't tell you how important it was to have this document. It is the 
first time I have seen everything written down so we understand it and 
the unvarnished truth about the threats out there.
  Right now we have this as the blueprint we are using. We are also 
doing what we did this last year on the NDAA. The National Defense 
Authorization Act is one which has to be done and done in a timely 
manner. We were able to do it last year. We are going to do the same 
thing this year, but when we talk about rebuilding the readiness, the 
brigade combat teams, up until about 2 years ago, we were only at 35 
percent of what could actually be used. Of course, the Marines and the 
Navy use the F-18s, and only 31 percent of those were actually flyable 
at the time. We have a lot of that type of thing that is going to be 
necessary.
  You mentioned the triad. A lot of people don't know what that is, but 
now that both China and Russia know what it is, it is important we do 
the job we are supposed to do.
  Acquisition reform. I can remember when the Senator from Arizona and 
I were both on the House Armed Services Committee. At that time, 30 
years ago, we were talking about acquisition reform. We haven't been 
doing it. We have some really dedicated people who have background in 
that, and we are going to try to get something done, but I think the 
main thing right now is going to have to be funding.
  The Senator mentioned the 3- to 5-percent increase in funding over 
and above the amount of inflation. When you stop and think about it, 
when we started out 2 years ago, in fiscal year 2018, we raised it to 
$700 billion; in fiscal year 2019, we raised the budget for the 
military up to $716 billion; then the first budget that came out from 
this President for fiscal year 2020 is $733 billion. If you do the 
math, between fiscal

[[Page S7752]]

year 2016 and fiscal year 2033, it is only increasing it by 2.1 
percent, which isn't even inflation.
  At that level, we are not carrying out the recommendation that came 
from the Commission and all those individuals who agree with it--the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and 
everyone else knowledgeable in the field. So we have our work cut out 
for us.
  Mr. KYL. I couldn't agree with the chairman more. I applaud the 
chairman and the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee for 
going to the President, along with Secretary of Defense Mattis, and 
talking about the need to continue with his defense modernization, 
noting the fact that the improvements the Senator has made in the last 
2 years have not rebuilt the military or even begun to close the gap. 
It has staunched the flow of blood. It has been like a tourniquet on 
the arm to prevent any more loss of blood for the military.
  The Senator is absolutely right. What the President then said after 
his meeting with the Senator, that he thought a number somewhere around 
$750 billion was a more accurate number, is exactly correct. In fact, I 
think it would be a little more than $750 billion to represent the 5 
percent or 3 percent above the rate of inflation. I will have to do the 
math when I sit down here.
  The point is, some people think the last 2 years, because you all 
were very effective--this is before I came back to the Senate--in 
staunching that flow of blood, that, therefore, the fight is over. 
Nothing could be further from the truth. Really, a 13- to 15-year 
program to rebuild our military has just begun.
  Mr. INHOFE. I have to say, the figure we are talking about right now 
came right out of this book. You guys did a great job. My hope is, you 
will continue to serve in some capacity because we desperately need 
you. It has been great to have you back, for however brief the time. We 
accomplished a lot during that brief time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             FIRST STEP Act

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise in support of the FIRST STEP Act. 
This legislation, as the title says, is an important first step toward 
desperately needed criminal justice reform.
  I thank Senators Durbin, Grassley, and Lee, as well as my good friend 
and colleague, Senator Cory Booker, for advancing this bipartisan 
compromise. I want to particularly recognize the junior Senator from 
New Jersey, who has been relentless in his efforts to bring moral 
urgency to this issue, and I think we can thank Senator Booker for his 
passion and his devotion to justice.
  The need for criminal justice reform was an issue constituents 
consistently and frequently raised with me as I crisscrossed New Jersey 
over the past year. From Woodbury to Paterson, to Newark, and 
everywhere in between, I heard from faith leaders calling for solutions 
to a mass incarceration crisis that has disproportionately torn apart 
communities of color. Indeed, the NAACP found that, nationally, African 
Americans and Hispanics make up approximately 32 percent of the U.S. 
population, but they represented 56 percent of all incarcerated people 
in 2015.
  I also heard from young people pushing for drug policy reform so 
fewer students charged with marijuana offenses lose access to Federal 
financial aid.
  I met with leaders like former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey, 
whose work with New Jersey Reentry Corporation helps formerly 
incarcerated individuals--especially those struggling with addiction--
find jobs and avoid ending up back in prison.
  I met with African-American law enforcement organizations, like the 
Bronze Shields, about their efforts to build positive relationships in 
their communities and address challenges like racial profiling and 
uneven enforcement.
  The FIRST STEP Act will not solve all of these problems--far from it. 
I certainly would have liked to see more concrete reforms to Federal 
minimum mandatory sentences. However, I am pleased to support a bill 
that reverses some of the most detrimental effects of Federal mandatory 
minimum sentences.
  As a longtime proponent of the Second Chance Act, I am also glad to 
see provisions reauthorized under this bill that will give nonviolent, 
low-risk offenders and their families greater hope for a brighter 
future. Under the FIRST STEP Act, more Americans in the Federal prison 
system will finally get their second chance.
  While most offenders are incarcerated at the State level, we know 
Federal mandatory minimums for drug offenses are among the harshest in 
the Nation. According to The Sentencing Project, half of the U.S. 
Federal prison population is serving time for a drug offense, the vast 
majority of them nonviolent.
  Under this legislation, low-risk offenders will be able to earn 
credit by completing anti-recidivism programs that help better prepare 
them for life after prison. Inmates can then apply these credits for 
early placement in a halfway house, home confinement, or other types of 
early release. We know that when prisoners are equipped with the right 
tools and resources, they are better able to reintegrate into society 
and avoid old behaviors that could result in them winding up back 
behind bars. That is not only good for them, it is good for their 
families and good for their communities.
  These provisions are important back-end reforms, but I will not stop 
calling for greater reforms on the front end--the enforcement side of 
the equation. This is a serious problem in New Jersey. In July 2017, 
The Sentencing Project reported that racial disparities in New Jersey's 
marijuana arrests were at an alltime high. In 2013, African Americans 
were arrested for marijuana possession three times as often as their 
White counterparts, despite marijuana use being similar among racial 
groups.
  The disparities extend far beyond arrest rates. Recently, a 6-month 
investigation by NJ Advance Media found ``hard evidence of racial 
disparities in police use of force across New Jersey.'' The data 
revealed African Americans are three times likelier to face some type 
of police force compared to Whites. Even more troubling, African-
American children faced a disproportionate amount of force. From 2012 
through 2016, of the more than 4,600 uses of force against people under 
the age of 18, slightly more than half were African American. Yet 
African-American children account for only 14.5 percent of New Jersey's 
child population.
  I don't highlight these statistics to denigrate our police force 
because the men and women who serve in law enforcement put their lives 
on the line every day to protect our communities, and their bravery 
will always have my respect, support, and admiration. I do highlight 
these statistics because they reveal a larger need for greater front-
end criminal justice, sentencing, and police reforms that ultimately 
share our goal of building safe and thriving communities.
  Passing the FIRST STEP Act is just that--a first step. It cannot be 
the only step. We have so much more work to do to fix a broken criminal 
justice system that leaves too many Americans behind.
  The FIRST STEP Act does not address structural racism and racial 
disparities in our criminal justice system, nor does it completely 
alleviate some of the draconian sentences still in place for drug 
offenses.
  What this legislation will do is to make a positive difference in the 
lives of thousands of Federal inmates working to turn their lives 
around and earn a second chance. I urge my colleagues to support this 
bill. I have always believed that the Federal policies we set can have 
a ripple effect across the Nation. May the passage of the FIRST STEP 
Act by Congress spur States across America to take additional steps 
forward--steps that, together, may advance our Nation's long march for 
equality and justice under the law.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________