[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 195 (Tuesday, December 11, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7412-S7424]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5, 
  UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE 
 TREASURY RELATING TO ``RETURNS BY EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS AND RETURNS BY 
          CERTAIN NONEXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS''--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 630, 
S.J. Res. 64.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
proceed.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the joint resolution.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 64) providing for 
     congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 
     States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of the 
     Treasury relating to ``Returns by Exempt Organizations and 
     Returns by Certain NonExempt Organizations.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the provisions of 5 USC 802, there are 
10 hours of debate equally divided.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I just want to make a very short statement 
and then flesh it out a little further tomorrow.
  The resolution we are about to take up will help to protect our 
democracy, and it will hold special interests accountable. I do not 
believe we can continue to allow special interests to hide under the 
cover of darkness, as they have such great influence on our elections. 
The American people have spoken. I think they have made it clear that 
they are very tired of the dark money in our elections and that the 
decision by the administration to allow megadonors and special 
interests to further hide is not acceptable.
  The vote is simple. The vote is for more transparency by these 
special interests. Quite frankly, it has major impacts on our 
elections. I just went through one, and I will talk a little more about 
it tomorrow.
  The bottom line is that this resolution is one that, I believe, will 
add more transparency, will help our democracy, will help both 
Democrats and Republicans know who is trying to influence the 
elections, and will also allow us to determine whether foreign 
entities--which is, by the way, illegal--are trying to influence our 
elections.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.


                          2008 Housing Crisis

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, this is a special time of the year--
Christmas. All of us are in a hurry to get home. Our children are 
waiting for us to get home. Our families can't wait to share the joy of 
the day. We want fun around the fire and the household. I would hate to 
be the grinch who stole Christmas in the Senate. I don't want to think 
that 10 years from now, if only I hadn't said this, this wouldn't have 
happened or, maybe, if I had seen it coming, I would have done 
something.
  In 2008 and 2009, the Senator from Montana, Senator Hoeven, and I, 
among others, went through the 2008-2009 housing crisis that ended up 
in mortgage-backed securities failures, in all of the trouble that 
happened on Wall Street--Dodd-Frank--and in the collapse of our 
economy. It was the worst collapse of our economy ever since 1927. We 
all remember what happened. We ended up getting the TARP. We ended up 
having crisis after crisis. Slowly but surely, we guaranteed enough 
stuff to get the market strong enough to begin to build back. Just now, 
it is back where it ought to be from the standpoint of values, which is 
a decade later.
  Quite frankly, the housing market is not as strong. Its only strength 
is that there are not that many houses for sale. That is because people 
aren't putting them on the market. Builders can't build specs, and 
there is not near the credit that there should be. People who have 
resales are putting them off and fixing the houses up because they are 
staying longer. So they are selling them for more money.
  On the Multiple Listing Service, in Atlanta, GA, when I left my 
company in 1998, there were 140,000 houses on the market in Atlanta in 
June of 1998. Now there are about 60,000. That is not because the 
market has failed. It is just that there is not that big a housing 
stock out there, and it is for all of the reasons I said. In terms of 
financing being readily available, it is readily available, and that is 
what I want to talk about.
  I was thinking the other day. I heard an ad on the radio about no-doc 
loans, and I heard an ad about the VA's 100-percent loan--that we will 
approve what the banks will not--and stuff that I knew was patently 
wrong. So I turned to the business section, which I used to look at as 
a businessman every day but don't anymore because I don't have the 
decisions to make. I am glad that I did because it taught me a lesson, 
and I want to read you this from last Sunday's paper: How about a loan 
with no down payment, zero-down mortgages, and jumbo loans? We will 
approve what the banks won't.
  That is exactly the thing that took us down the wrong path in 2008 
and 2009. Greed took over common sense. Then, common sense failed, and 
we did some bad things. All of the things in the mortgage-backed 
securities market took place all at once. What happened was, because 
money was chasing rates and rates were starting to rise--and now they 
are starting to rise; that is happening in our economy--the instruments 
that yielded higher rates than the going rate for regular credit 
started being created to be sold and packaged on Wall Street. You would 
make money on the sale of the security, but you would also fund the 
mortgage at a higher yield to you, the investor, which is just fine and 
dandy until the person at the lower end of the spectrum, who gets 
approved with a no-document, no-down payment loan, ends up qualifying 
for it, gets it, does not make a payment, and gets foreclosed on. All 
of a sudden, the credit is lost. The house is lost. The same thing that 
happened in 2008-2009 starts happening all over again.
  I am not saying that we are on the verge of a collapse. What I am 
saying is that it is a carbon copy--I mean a carbon copy--of exactly 
what was happening in 2008 and 2009 when the markets collapsed. We 
can't afford another one. Banking is stronger today for a lot of 
reasons. It is mainly because there aren't nearly as many of them. 
There aren't nearly as many of them because a lot of them failed. In 
the South--in Atlanta, GA, my State--we lost more than almost anybody 
in the country, simply because the capacity was not there.
  As I said about the housing market, the number of houses available in 
the marketplace is much lower than it was back in the 1990s and back in 
2005, 2006, and 2007. It is down because there is not as much to put on 
the market. There is not enough credit to finance it and put it on the 
market and have spec loans. People are very tight with their money 
because a lot of them got burned in 2008 and 2009. They see their 
parents who lost their houses and their savings. They see values 
collapse. They couldn't get through their college by borrowing against 
their homes because their home equity loans died.
  There are lots of folks out there who are trying to put together 
instruments and package them in an attractive way to sell them on the 
New York markets and through mortgage-backed securities and to attract 
low-credit borrowers or young borrowers who aren't totally prepared to 
borrow the way they should be. It is of higher risk for us. It is a 
high risk for our economy. The middlemen make a lot of money early, but 
on a 30-year mortgage, you don't want to just make your money early. 
You want to have somebody with skin in the game for all 30 years.
  So I just want to say to all of my colleagues--and I am talking to 
myself as

[[Page S7413]]

much as I am talking to you; I am not talking at myself; I am talking 
with myself--that we have to be careful if we see things happening that 
happened in our recent past that we didn't learn from. If we let them 
happen again, they will be worse. Then you will just say: Well, I wish 
I had seen it coming.
  It is coming. Read the paper with me. I am going to come to the floor 
a lot in the next few months just to kind of monitor it myself. I see 
the creep of easy credit, the creep of no documentation, the creep of 
no underwriting for the quality of the borrower, and the creep of greed 
coming into the marketplace. The greater it gets, the worse the economy 
is and the faster it goes bad, and we all go bad with it.
  So I just came out to wish everybody a Merry Christmas. I don't want 
to be the grinch who stole Christmas, but it is happening, and it is 
being advertised in our newspapers. It is happening in our cities, and 
it is happening in our backyard. We need to make sure that we don't let 
it get away from us because, if we do, we will have only ourselves to 
blame.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the 
conclusion of my remarks, the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, be 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Defense Budget

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I don't know how, but a lot of people back 
home have gotten in their heads that defending America is a complicated 
issue and that it is the kind of issue they think is going to have to 
be decided in Washington by a lot of smart people and all that, but 
nothing could be further from the truth.
  The reality is, defending America is just common sense. It is called 
priority--something we didn't have in the last administration. We all--
every American citizen--need to be responsible for our own national 
security. I am going to be coming here each week to outline the common 
sense for our common defense--what we are working on here in 
Washington--for families back home.
  Today I will talk about how we face the urgency in funding our 
national defense. It is very simple. Again, it is common sense. Without 
action to exempt the military from sequestration or to reach a budget 
agreement, once again, we will have to face the devastating cuts of the 
Budget Control Act in our military. We could handle it in other areas, 
and I am very supportive of it but not in the military at this 
particular time.
  I will tell you why. We know what the result will be. We saw it 
during the Obama administration. Without sufficient, sustained, and 
predictable funding, we will squander the progress the military has 
made over the past 2 years, which is to improve readiness, increase 
procurement for critical capabilities, and investment in future 
technologies. This is just in the past 2 years. We need to continue to 
make progress.
  We also need to implement the national defense strategy. The Trump 
administration's national defense strategy correctly prioritized 
strategic competition--and that is with China and Russia--but the 
effective strategies are going to have to be matched with resources.
  This chart is from the National Defense Strategy Commission. That is 
this document right here. This is put together by a number of very top 
people chosen by Democrats and Republicans. In fact, Senator Jon Kyl 
was a member of this Commission before he got to the Senate. He and I 
will be talking about this and complementing each on this tomorrow. 
This chart we are looking at right now gives you an idea of what is 
happening with some of the other countries. We have China, which is 
actually increasing--they are passing us in terms of their number of 
ships. This is true with everything else. It looks like they will pass 
us in about 2023.
  In this country, we are kind of used to having the very best of 
everything. Ever since World War II, we thought that was our mission.
  There is a quote out of this document we have right here that has 
been so brilliantly described by so many people. It says: ``Put 
bluntly, the U.S. military could lose the next state-versus-state war 
it fights.'' These are the top military and nonmilitary people in our 
society who conducted this study. It has been heralded as the most 
accurate study by all parties having to do with our Nation's defense.
  At a minimum, next year's defense budget should at least be $733 
billion. That is a floor, not a ceiling. I have to say, that represents 
a no-growth budget because, in fiscal year 2018, we went from $700 
billion. Then, in fiscal year 2019, we went to $716 billion, and then 
this will actually be going up to $733 billion. If that happens--do the 
math--that is an increase of 2.1 percent, which is not even a growth. 
It is a no-growth budget.
  I have to say, General Dunford, Secretary Mattis, and the rest of 
them have called for fully implementing the national defense strategy, 
which would require between 3 to 5 percent of real growth.
  On both sides of the aisle, we have had some individuals who are 
advocating for cutting defense spending because of the increased 
deficit. I am concerned about the increased deficit, but we also have 
to have this priority. We have to have America catch up. We are not 
used to having to catch up defensewise, but we are now.
  Defense spending is not the primary reason for our increased debt. We 
could eliminate the entire Pentagon budget, and the deficit would 
actually grow. Here is why.
  Over the past 10 years, our national debt has grown 86 percent. 
During the same time, mandatory spending has grown 41 percent. All that 
time, defense spending has been cut by 3 percent. It has been cut by 3 
percent. Meanwhile, constant dollar defense spending dropped $200 
billion between the years 2010 and 2015. In 2010, the total budget was 
$794 billion. In 2015, 5 years later, it dropped to $586 billion. That 
is a drop of $200 billion. In percentage terms, it is a 24-percent 
drop. This hasn't happened since the end of the Korean war.
  We have to do something about the growing debt. The only way we can 
actually curtail it is to address the growth in mandatory spending. 
There are a lot of programs in mandatory spending that could be cut. 
Again, if you cut out the entire defense budget, it would not reduce or 
eliminate the debt.
  As mandatory programs drive spending growth to new highs, debt held 
by the American people has correspondingly increased. If we don't do 
something about this, interest on the debt will surpass defense 
spending by fiscal year 2023.
  As we see from this gray line here, this is the net increase in 
spending compared to the total spending of nondefense. It passes 
nondefense in 2023.
  The Obama administration viewed the world as they wanted to see it, 
not as it was. The assumption that Russia was a strategic partner was 
and is fundamentally flawed and profoundly misguided. It has cost us 
dearly.
  Today we are faced with the reality that those decisions not only 
weakened our national security by sacrificing our military advantages 
over Russia, but it will be costly to recoup the capabilities that 
President Obama had chosen to cut with his lack of priorities for the 
military. That is the reality.
  I think this President has done a good job in outlining who our pure 
competitors are. We are talking about countries that have things better 
than we have. We are going to be talking about that in some detail 
tomorrow.
  When the military is forced to reduce spending, it is going to have 
to take tradeoffs between lowering readiness, reducing force structure, 
and just not modernizing. In this case, we suffered through all three 
of those in the last administration.
  In the meantime, our adversaries--Russia and China--have increased 
their own military spending and focused on force structure and 
modernization. The size of the Chinese Navy will soon pass the size of 
the U.S. Navy. There it is right here. It shows we are almost ready for 
those lines to cross in 2018. They will cross in 2022.
  Over the 2000 and 2030 timeframe, the U.S. Navy is growing at an 
average rate of about one ship every 2 years, while the Chinese Navy is 
growing more than 20 times faster, at an average rate of about 10 ships 
annually. The quality and capability of those ships is increasing as 
well.

[[Page S7414]]

  As chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I see no bigger 
imperative than this: to fully fund our defense and to fully implement 
the national defense strategy.
  When I talk to people out in the real world--I am talking about going 
out to Oklahoma and talking to groups of people--and they find out it 
was true that ever since World War II, we have had the occasion of 
being No. 1 in all areas of our equipment, such as artillery and other 
things, they are shocked to find out that the Chinese and the Russians 
actually have equipment that is better than ours. We will be 
specifically talking about this tomorrow.
  With that, I thank my friend from Iowa. By unanimous consent, I think 
he is the next speaker after my remarks.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma.


                                 H.R. 2

  Mr. President, I want to thank Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman 
Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow for their hard work in putting 
together the 2018 farm bill. It was a long and difficult process, and 
they negotiated in good faith.
  I also want to thank my friend and colleague from Iowa, Senator Joni 
Ernst, for her dedication to reforming the Conservation Reform Program. 
In the Midwest, we refer to that as the CRP. The program's intent is to 
reduce land erosion, improve water quality, and help wildlife 
populations. Over the years, it has strayed from its intended focus.
  Some landowners have been receiving more than $300 per acre to enroll 
their entire farms in the CRP. That puts young and beginning farmers at 
a competitive disadvantage. In fact, even well-established farmers have 
had rented land taken away from them because it was enrolled in the CRP 
at lucrative rates paid by the government that the individual farmer 
could not compete with.
  Farmers can't and shouldn't have to compete with the government, 
especially with the current debt our country has. Senator Ernst has 
been an advocate for these reforms, and these reforms have been 
accomplished as a result of her efforts.
  Unfortunately, the 2018 farm bill did not include another critical 
reform that would help young and beginning farmers, that is my payment 
limitations amendment. This is a process I have been trying to get 
accomplished and have been unsuccessful through at least this farm bill 
and two previous farm bills.
  Each time I have been successful in getting these reforms throughout 
the U.S. Senate--in the 2014 farm bill, I was able to get them through 
both the House and Senate in the same form--but do you know what? In 
the dark rooms of conference committee meetings and phone calls, people 
who don't like to save the taxpayers money and who don't want to help 
young and beginning farmers and medium-sized and smaller farmers and 
who worry more about the wealthy farmers have been able to undercut the 
effort, even when a majority of both bodies has supported it.
  I didn't give up as a result of the 2014 bill and the disappointment 
there. I got through the U.S. Senate those hard caps on what any one 
farmer can get and to make sure the people who benefited from it were, 
in fact, farmers, not nonfarmers who maybe had a distant relationship 
from some farming operation, maybe even being on Wall Street.
  Once again, I was undercut in this effort to save the taxpayers money 
and to concentrate our farm bill on medium- and small-sized farmers who 
need the help, when things have happened naturally or politically or 
internationally that are beyond their control that drive down prices or 
acts of God such as a drought. It is the small- or medium-sized farmers 
who need the help from the government, not these big farmers and 
corporate farmers whom we are going to end up helping, the way this 
bill is written.
  To say the least, I am disappointed that the bill makes more 
subsidies available to the wealthiest farmers and many nonfarmers. I 
would say that is a severe understatement. I am more than just a little 
disappointed, especially when the impact of large farmers being allowed 
to manipulate the system is that young and beginning farmers face even 
larger hurdles.
  So far, the bill has not won much praise outside of the Washington 
lobby groups whose members will receive more taxpayer subsidies from a 
few select changes.
  At its core, farm policy should be a limited safety net to help 
farmers weather the storm of natural disasters, unpredictable commodity 
markets, and other unforeseen challenges. This bill goes well beyond 
that limited safety net.
  Today we have a farm bill that is intentionally written--I want to 
emphasize ``intentionally written''--to help the largest farmers 
receive unlimited subsidies from the Federal Government. There is no 
other way to characterize what the conference committee has done in 
this area.
  In the last farm bill, both bodies of Congress approved a commonsense 
amendment I offered that would have limited the abuses related to title 
I subsidies. This time the House would not even have that debate--no 
debate on my reforms. The Senate did, however, include it in their 
bill.
  However, the 2014 conference committee put in a loophole that 
exempted family farms, which account for approximately 95 percent of 
farms, from the new rules. This bill makes their original loophole even 
larger. So as bad as the 2014 farm bill was, this new 5-year farm bill 
widens that loophole almost beyond explaining.
  The new farm bill will allow nieces and nephews to qualify as part of 
a family farm without any new requirements that they actually have to 
work. Despite what some of my colleagues may say, this is not about 
helping nieces and nephews get into farming. Why? Because every person 
who really farms already qualifies for title I payments by themselves 
without this new gimmick. So this new gimmick is just to award this big 
taxpayer money to people who aren't actually working the farm.
  Allowing nieces and nephews to qualify as part of a large farm entity 
merely allows larger farmers to get more subsidies. They just need to 
hire the right lawyer to structure the farming operation in a certain 
way, and they can then receive unlimited taxpayer subsidies.
  For years I have been using this figure about the top 10 percent of 
the farmers receiving more than 70 percent of the subsidies from the 
government. That is only one of the many reasons it is so hard for 
young and beginning farmers to get started.
  I know it is hard to believe, but I have never heard a single young 
or beginning farmer tell me that the way to help the young and 
beginning farmer is to give more money out of the U.S. Treasury to the 
largest farmers.
  Many farmers are hurting from the downturn in commodity prices. That 
has been a downturn over the last three or four years. Corn and 
soybeans have had significant price declines in those years. If only 
all crops were as lucky as cotton, with its high prices ensured by the 
Federal Government over the last year, then all people would be, what 
we say, ``living in the clover.''
  However, market corrections do not justify Congress expanding subsidy 
loopholes that only benefit the wealthy--especially at a time when our 
long-term fiscal situation is as bad as it has ever been.
  The last time we passed a farm bill, our national debt was $17 
trillion. Today it stands at $21.8 trillion, and we all know that it is 
growing. So whether it is talking about saving the taxpayers' money or 
whether it is talking about targeting the farm program to small and 
medium-sized farmers as opposed to the wealthy, or whether it is 
talking about getting young people into farming, Congress needs to get 
serious about spending.
  This bill represents an open-ended spigot of taxpayer subsidies in 
the title I programs of the bill. Because of this, when we cast our 
vote about 1 hour ago, I voted against this farm bill, which, 
otherwise, is a pretty basic program. We could have done a lot more to 
save the taxpayers money, and we didn't.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about some very good

[[Page S7415]]

news. After months of bipartisan negotiations, the Senate has finally 
passed the new farm bill. This bill will probably not get as much 
attention as some other news going on right now in politics. That is 
too bad, because the farm bill is a significant piece of legislation 
that touches the lives of every person every day in Minnesota and 
throughout the country. This bill is crucial to our Nation's farmers, 
and our farmers are producing the food and the fuel that feed our 
Nation and the world.
  It is also good news because Congress has come together to get this 
done. At a time when so many Americans are frustrated with divisive 
politics, it is worth pausing over the way Members of both parties have 
come together to produce such an important bill through hard work and 
compromise.
  In the Senate, we came together with a wide range of priorities from 
every region of the country. Senators representing crops like cotton 
and peanuts worked together with Senators from States like mine, with 
soybeans and corn, to reach this final compromise. We were able to find 
agreement because of the leadership that was provided by Chairman 
Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow on the Senate committee and 
Chairman Conaway and Ranking Member Collin Peterson, from Minnesota, on 
the House committee.
  When I became a Senator just under 1 year ago, I fought for a seat on 
the Agriculture Committee, and I immediately formed a farm bill working 
group in Minnesota so that I could hear from farmers and ranchers, 
foresters and researchers, rural community leaders and Tribes, as well 
as experts in nutrition, energy, and conservation, to make sure that 
Minnesota's priorities were included in this farm bill. From corn 
growers in Goodhue County in the southeastern part of Minnesota to 
sugar beet farmers in the northeastern part of the State, I heard the 
same message: We must pass a farm bill this year
  The farm bill is so vitally important to Minnesotans because 
agriculture is the foundation of Minnesota's economy. In Minnesota, 
agriculture generates $121 billion in economic activity and supports 
400,000 jobs. Minnesota is No. 1 in sugar beets, No. 2 in corn 
processing, and No. 3 in soybeans. We raise the second most hogs, and 
we raise the most turkeys.
  So working on the farm bill, one of my first stops was with Collin 
Peterson in Ada, MN, where we met with farmers and rural development 
leaders, and everyone in that community told me how the farm bill 
directly affects them. So I directed my staff to continue these 
listening sessions, and I am proud to say that we had almost 50 of them 
around the State. Meeting with the working group and touring farms and 
rural development projects around Minnesota have made the issues facing 
rural America and our farmers one of my top priorities here in the 
Senate. Minnesotans have given me some great ideas about what to fight 
for here in Washington, DC.
  I heard from young farmers in Minnesota--like organic farmer Matthew 
Fitzgerald of Hutchinson, and Eric Sannerud, a hops farmer in Foley--
about the difficulty beginning farmers face in accessing USDA programs. 
So I pushed for the farm bill to include provisions to support our next 
generation of farmers with my friend and colleague Senator Heidi 
Heitkamp of North Dakota and Senator Angus King of Maine.
  After visiting the Good Acre in Falcon Heights and learning about 
local food systems, I joined a bipartisan effort to better connect 
farmers with their communities. So I am grateful for the leadership of 
Senator Sherrod Brown from Ohio and Senator Susan Collins from Maine on 
this important issue.
  In March, I visited the Haubenschild Dairy Farm in Princeton, MN. 
Three generations of the Haubenschild family run this dairy farm. As we 
toured their impressive operation, this family talked to me about how 
dairy farmers have been hit hard by low commodity prices. This was a 
message that was echoed by dairy farmers across the State, who have 
been a really important part of my farm bill working group.
  So when I got back to Washington, I was determined to help fight for 
strong safety net programs that support dairy farmers, along with many 
of my Senate colleagues. A bipartisan coalition of Senators from dairy 
States worked to make sure that this farm bill builds on the 
improvements made to the dairy safety net in the March omnibus bill.
  The final version of this bill does just that. This farm bill expands 
gains made in the dairy safety net, especially for small and medium-
sized farms. There are still a lot of challenges ahead for dairy 
farmers, but hopefully these provisions will help Minnesota's farmers 
who are facing falling milk prices.
  Many farmers told me they were worried about skyrocketing healthcare 
costs. So during a visit to Fergus Falls, MN, healthcare leaders from 
Douglas County Hospital and Lake Region Healthcare spoke to us about 
the unique health challenges facing rural communities. In Minnesota we 
are focused on finding innovative solutions to address rural health 
challenges. It is clear that Federal agencies need to do more to 
examine the barriers people face who are accessing care in rural 
communities.
  That is why I helped to shepherd the bipartisan Rural Health Liaison 
Act through the Agriculture Committee, and I helped to introduce this 
bill with Senator Doug Jones of Alabama and Senator Mike Rounds of 
South Dakota. The Rural Health Liaison Act will create a new position 
in the Department of Agriculture to ensure that the USDA is working 
with other agencies and departments, like Health and Human Services, to 
coordinate efforts. This is an important step toward improving rural 
health across America.
  When I talked to Minnesotans from the Red River Valley, I heard about 
how important the sugar program is to maintain their competitiveness. I 
fought during the floor debates to sustain this program on behalf of 
sugar beet farmers in my State and across the upper Midwest.
  I advocated to make sure that the farm bill funds a preparedness and 
response program to national animal disease outbreaks and a vaccine 
bank to prevent the spread of foot and mouth disease. This was a 
bipartisan effort, again, with my fellow Minnesota Senator, Amy 
Klobuchar, and Senator John Cornyn of Texas.
  At the poultry testing lab in Willmar, MN, I heard about the need for 
vaccine banks and animal disease readiness. When Minnesota was hit hard 
by the avian flu outbreak that resulted in the death of nearly 9 
million turkeys and chickens, we knew that this program was necessary.
  Other Minnesota priorities came from conversations with folks across 
the State. This bill advances conservation programs so farmers have the 
opportunity to start conservation strategies and to keep them going 
long into the future to protect the environment and increase 
productivity. Minnesotans use these programs almost more than any other 
State.
  Minnesotans know that the transition to clean energy presents a great 
economic opportunity for rural and farming communities. As the top 
Democrat on the Rural Development and Energy Subcommittee, I introduced 
legislation outlining a road map for a strong energy title in this farm 
bill, and a bipartisan coalition of Senators urged the committee to 
fund and strengthen these many successful energy programs at the USDA.
  One example is the Rural Energy for America Program, which helps 
agriculture producers, local businesses, and rural communities to 
develop energy efficiency and renewable energy projects that create 
jobs, cut energy bills, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Rural 
communities will benefit greatly from the mandatory funding given to 
this program.
  Another issue emphasized by rural development leaders across 
Minnesota is the need that people have for access to reliable and 
affordable internet service. Broadband access is critical to farmers 
using modern equipment and for rural families trying to access 
healthcare, education, and jobs.
  This bill incorporates my Community Connect Grant Program Act to 
increase funding for this important effort to create better broadband 
access to unserved remote rural and Tribal communities. This provision 
is a step forward and one of the many things we need to do to connect 
Minnesota and people across the Nation with affordable, reliable 
internet service.

[[Page S7416]]

  This farm bill also expands access to jobs and agriculture for 
returning servicemembers by encouraging the USDA to assist veterans in 
joining the agriculture workforce. I pushed for this provision, which 
will help veterans have the resources they need to take advantage of 
these opportunities.
  Today, as our farmers face deep uncertainty regarding tariffs and the 
impacts they have, this bill includes bipartisan provisions to increase 
funding for USDA trade promotion activities, because we all know that 
international markets are essential to many farmers.
  All farmers deserve these opportunities, and now there will be 
greater inclusion of Tribal products in Federal trade promotion efforts 
and activities to make sure that Native farmers aren't missing out on 
new international markets. I want to thank my colleagues, Senator John 
Hoeven of North Dakota and Senator Steve Daines of Montana, for working 
with me on this issue.
  It is great that this farm bill includes these provisions, and I hope 
farmers will begin to feel some relief, but the core trade problem 
remains.
  Don't get me wrong--I am committed to standing up to our trade 
partners and holding them accountable when they engage in unfair trade 
practices. But the chaotic approach we have seen to implementing these 
tariffs lacks a coherent message and a coherent strategy, and we need 
to solve this problem for the health of Minnesota and American farm 
country.
  Farmers are on the frontlines of this trade war, and the cycle of 
retaliation has no end in sight. In this farm bill, we begin to 
increase access to international markets, but we still need a long-term 
plan to reopen and preserve the markets farmers rely on.
  As I have already mentioned, the farm bill touches the lives of every 
American. The farm bill provides important stability and predictability 
to Minnesota farmers, ranchers, rural communities, and Indian Country, 
while also sustaining hundreds of thousands of Minnesota jobs.
  It is important to remember that the farm bill reaches beyond rural 
development, commodity programs, and trade. The nutrition programs 
reauthorized by this farm bill are of vital importance, and the data 
backs this up. According to the Agriculture Department, in 2017, 15 
million households with over 40 million people--including millions of 
children across the country--live in households that are food insecure, 
which is a fancy way of saying that many people have no clear idea of 
where all of their meals are going to come from in a certain week. We 
need to do better than this in America. That is why farmers and 
ranchers in my State tell me how important they think it is to support 
nutrition programs, and I am glad this is reflected in the final farm 
bill.
  We have passed this bill in the Senate, and I hope the House will 
pass it in the next few days. Then the President needs to sign it into 
law to give farmers and ranchers the certainty they deserve.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas


                             First Step Act

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this morning the majority leader announced 
that the Senate will soon take up a revised version of the FIRST STEP 
Act, which will provide a number of long-needed reforms to our criminal 
justice system.
  I have long been a supporter of these reforms after I saw the 
positive impact in my home State of Texas back in 2007. Then, in 
response to a steadily growing prison population, Texas began enacting 
reforms to reduce recidivism through programs like job training and 
vocational education. This, of course, allows prisoners to spend their 
time in prison preparing themselves for life outside of prison. The 
results were pretty significant. We saw a reduction in both 
incarceration and crime rates by double digits at the same time. Let me 
say that again. We saw a reduction in both incarceration and crime 
rates by double digits at the same time. Not only does this lead to 
massive savings of taxpayer dollars, it is an investment in the men and 
women who are committed to turning their lives around.
  What we like to say is that Texas has long been known for being tough 
on crime. But in 2007, we finally decided to be smart on crime, too, 
recognizing that people who went to prison almost entirely got out of 
prison at some point. The question is, How prepared were those who were 
willing to work to turn their lives around for life on the outside?
  For years, I tried to bring this successful Texas model to 
Washington, DC, and now we have a piece of this legislation before us 
that will take these reforms nationwide. More than 75 percent of the 
bill we will be voting on is my prison reform legislation that I 
originally introduced with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.
  The great thing about the laboratories of democracy known as the 
States is that we can actually test some of our theories at the State 
level to see whether they work. In the case of prison reform, when they 
do work, we can then scale it up so it applies to the entire Nation.
  Today, there are more than 180,000 inmates in the Federal criminal 
justice system. The Federal Bureau of Prison's budget has doubled to 
approximately $7 billion over the last decade. We have an opportunity 
to save lives by reducing the crime rate for each of those prisoners 
who does not recidivate when they get out of prison and conserve tax 
dollars, as well as to create a criminal justice system that works for, 
not against, the American people.
  Let me be clear. This is not about letting people out of prison who 
shouldn't be let out of prison; this is about people who have served 
their time and are going to be leaving prison and making sure that they 
at least have available to them some of the tools they need in order to 
transform their own lives. I am not so naive as to think that every 
person will take advantage of that opportunity, but we know from 
experience at the State level that there is a significant percentage of 
offenders who will take advantage of the opportunity to turn their 
lives around. That is why I was proud to work with the White House and 
my colleagues here in Congress--especially, as I mentioned, Senator 
Whitehouse and Congressman Doug Collins in the House of 
Representatives--to advance these reforms.
  Earlier this year, we passed the bill out of the House with strong 
bipartisan support, and I have worked with my colleagues here in the 
Senate as the bill has changed and developed--and, I believe, for the 
better. Unfortunately, some members of the law enforcement community 
have raised concerns about the bill. Out of my respect for our law 
enforcement organizations, I spoke with many of my Republican 
colleagues about the bill. Originally, they said they were unable to 
support it or were undecided because they wanted to make sure we were 
doing everything we could to address the concerns raised by law 
enforcement organizations. So we went to work trying to make 
improvements in the bill, which I believe we succeeded in doing.
  I want to express my gratitude to Senator Durbin, who is the 
principal Democratic sponsor, Senator Lee, Senator Grassley, and others 
who worked on this and say how much I appreciate their willingness to 
try to get to yes and come up with something we can pass with strong 
bipartisan support.
  I also wanted to make sure we talked to the stakeholders--the police 
officers who patrol the streets, the sheriffs who work in each of our 
States and counties--about their concerns. I believe we have worked 
hard and successfully to address many of them. I don't necessarily 
believe all of them will agree with every single piece in this bill, 
but I think, on the whole, it does balance the interests of our law 
enforcement personnel with the needs of our society to better prepare 
people so that when they come out of prison, they will not likely 
repeat their mistakes, in every case that is possible.
  As I say, I think we made some big improvements. The revised 
legislation will keep dangerous and violent criminals who use guns to 
commit crimes from being released from prison early. They will not be 
eligible for any sort of earned time release. It will also limit the 
amount of time that offenders can spend on supervised release and 
ensure that the Bureau of Prisons will revoke prerelease custody for 
offenders who violate the terms of their supervision.
  I appreciate all of the work of our colleagues in the Senate who 
chose to

[[Page S7417]]

roll up their sleeves and get to work rather than just complain about 
what was or was not in the bill. I am proud to announce that I will 
cosponsor this new and improved version of the bill, and I encourage 
all of my colleagues to review it and hopefully join me in supporting 
this legislation. I look forward to working with everybody in this 
body, as well as our colleagues in the House, to get this bill over the 
finish line.
  I know, when we produce the bill in the House and the Senate, 
President Trump will sign it. He has encouraged the majority leader, 
Senator McConnell, to put this bill on the floor even in this short 
window of time we have during the lameduck session, and the majority 
leader has accommodated the President's request by saying that we will 
address this before we go home for Christmas


                         Funding the Government

  Mr. President, on another matter, the clock is ticking, of course, 
and we are quickly approaching the deadline to fund the Federal 
Government. My Republican colleagues and I stand ready to advance our 
remaining appropriations bills, but it really depends on what our 
Democratic colleagues decide to do.
  Seventy-five percent of the government is already funded through 
bipartisan cooperation on the passage of appropriations bills, and that 
is something we haven't done for a long time. But there is still 
critical funding--particularly for the Department of Homeland Security, 
for the FBI, and for the Department of Justice--that needs to be taken 
care of before we break for the holidays.
  Earlier today, we know that Democratic Leader Senator Schumer and 
Minority Leader Pelosi met with President Trump to figure out whether 
there is any room for agreement to resolve the dispute between them. 
The question is, really, What is the appropriate amount of money in 
this bill to fund border security? The President said he wants $5 
billion. Senator Schumer has said $1.6 billion ought to be enough. 
Obviously, there is a gap between them.
  Some people have said: Well, we ought to just shut down the 
government over this dispute. I don't see the wisdom in that because 
when you shut down the government because you are unable to resolve a 
dispute, when you reopen the government, usually what happens is that 
same problem is staring you in the face. What we need to do is to work 
together with the administration to come up with a solution rather than 
resort to tactics like a government shutdown with all the complications 
that involves. I don't think shutdowns play well for either Republicans 
or Democrats, for the White House or the Congress.
  The problem, it seems to me, is that our Democratic friends are 
listening to some of the fringes of their own political party who are 
now telling them: Don't do anything that President Trump wants. 
Anything President Trump wants, the answer is no.
  Well, that is more about politics than it is about doing our job as 
legislators trying to solve problems.
  It also appears that they seem to think that the continued status quo 
along our border is good enough, and they are more than willing to 
gamble with a partial government shutdown than work with the President 
to ensure that our border is secure.
  Somewhere along the way, our friends across the aisle have forgotten 
that border security should be about protecting the American people 
from the drugs that come across the border--90-plus percent of the 
heroin consumed in the United States comes from Mexico--or the children 
and women who are trafficked for sex or the migrants who come from 
Central America, up through Mexico, and into the United States, and the 
cartels charging roughly $8,000 a person. It is a huge moneymaking 
business, but the people who are getting rich are the transnational 
criminal organizations and drug cartels.
  We have seen before what happens when the government shuts down. It 
affects millions of people across the country and often yields no 
different result. We have seen what happens when we fail to secure the 
border. That is why we need to finish our work funding the government 
and, by doing that, also recognize the importance of a secure border. 
This should not be about partisan politics or listening to your 
political base; this ought to be about doing our job. We had the 
midterm elections; now is the time to govern.
  Just a few weeks ago, our friends across the aisle wanted to magnify 
the migrant crisis by focusing narrowly on the news coming out of 
Tijuana, Mexico, across the border from San Diego. Some talked about 
the crisis as if it were a one-off event, an isolated event.
  They wanted us to look at this like we were looking through a soda 
straw and ignore all of the context and the consequences of failing to 
secure our border. They wanted to ignore how we find ourselves with 
this humanitarian crisis in the first place.
  The caravans of men, women, and children who left their homes in 
Central America and made the long, dangerous journey to the United 
States are sadly symptoms of a far greater problem. Our border has been 
exploited for years, contributing to this crisis. That is why ensuring 
additional resources for border security is an essential piece of the 
puzzle.
  My home State of Texas is on the frontline--1,200 miles of common 
border with Mexico. Texas is home to many vibrant border communities 
that greatly benefit from having some of the busiest land ports in the 
country, across which legitimate trade and commerce travels. As I said, 
we are also on the front row of the many challenges that come along 
with an unsecured border when it comes to public safety.
  Yesterday I talked about some of those challenges: striking a balance 
between a secure border and a completely closed border. A secure border 
maintains the flow of legitimate goods and services while deterring 
cartels from shuttling illegal contraband across our borders. A closed 
border would cut off trade and commerce that is the lifeblood of our 
economy, which brings me to another challenge--something that I think 
in Washington there is simply not enough awareness of; that is, the 
cartels, gangs, and the transnational criminal organizations that get 
rich exploiting our porous borders.
  Some like to think of these organizations as a ``them, not us'' 
problem because they have taken control over large parts of Central 
America and even Mexico, but the business of these groups does not stay 
there. What happens in Central America, what happens in Mexico does not 
stay in Central America and Mexico. It comes flooding across our 
borders.
  These gangs and cartels are very shrewd and adapt to changing 
circumstances. They found, the more our borders and ports of entry are 
clogged with migrants and migrant families, the easier it is to traffic 
people, drugs, and contraband into the United States. That has a 
reciprocal effect, too, causing legitimate trade, travel, and commerce 
to slow significantly at our ports of entry.
  It is not only exploitation of our border that poses a threat, it is 
the violence and the instability caused by the cartels and gangs. That 
makes it not just a border security issue but a national security issue 
as well.
  My friend and fellow Texan, Representative Henry Cuellar--a true blue 
dog Democrat, as he says--has a great saying for how we should think 
about this. He likes to say that border security starts in Central 
America and ends at our border. I think that is exactly right. In other 
words, you don't mount a goal line defense at a football game. You 
actually start contesting the game farther down the field. In this 
case, the game needs to be contested in the places where these migrants 
and the drugs emanate, from where they start.
  We are going to have to work more closely in partnership with Mexico 
and other Central American governments to address the violence these 
groups spread by restoring public trust in law enforcement and 
stabilizing the economy and these countries.
  I spoke with my friend, the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein. 
She represents a border State. She and I have partnered on a number of 
national security law enforcement matters. She said she was interested 
in working together in a bipartisan way to address the challenges 
presented by Central America and Mexico. I said: Absolutely. Sign me 
up.
  Representing a border State, as you might suspect, I make it a point 
to talk to those who live and work in our

[[Page S7418]]

border communities. It is a unique part of the United States. I like to 
say, the concept that people in Washington, DC, have about the borders 
has been learned from movies and novels; it is not from talking to 
people or visiting with the communities along the border. That is not a 
criticism. That is just a fact of life.
  When I hear from people like Manny Padilla, who is the Border 
Patrol's sector chief for the Rio Grande Valley, I can better 
understand how much is required to maintain situational awareness and 
operational control of the border, not to mention personal safety of 
the Border Patrol, who more and more are frequently assaulted with 
rocks and other makeshift weapons that endanger their safety and their 
lives.
  For those who may not be at the border every day, it is hard to grasp 
the range of topography across the 1,200-mile border that Texas shares 
with Mexico. It can be hard to imagine how many resources are actually 
needed. In some places, there are high mountains and cliffs and others, 
there is thick brush. In the urban areas that surround our ports of 
entry, there is plenty of opportunity to race across the border and 
blend in, never to be heard from again.
  There will be places where physical infrastructure will make the most 
sense. In some places, technology or personnel is more effective than a 
fence. The point is, the border security is complex. Better enforcement 
of our border will require a combination of infrastructure, technology, 
and personnel. That begins with ensuring we have the resources we need 
to implement a border enforcement strategy. That is what this issue is 
all about--the discussion Ms. Pelosi, Senator Schumer, and President 
Trump had today.
  My question for our Democratic colleagues is, Why will you not help 
us secure the border? Are you satisfied with the status quo of drugs 
coming across the border through these transnational criminal 
organizations? Are you satisfied with the status quo of these 
caravans--thousands of migrants from Central America trying to storm 
our ports of entry and literally closing them down so legitimate trade 
and commerce cannot occur?
  Securing our border and protecting our country should not be a 
partisan issue; it is something we ought to be able to work out and 
agree on. We know the challenges our friend Senator Schumer has--the 
Democratic leader on the other side. He has a cadre of people 
auditioning for the Presidential nomination in 2020, and they are 
trying to outdo each other in their impending runs for President. I 
think, in many ways, his hands are tied. Like every leader, he has to 
decide when to say yes and when to say no to the people in your 
conference.
  Minority Leader Pelosi has a delicate task of trying to cajole her 
new and emboldened Members of the far-left wing of her caucus. They are 
both trying to fend off outside groups that think that even talking to 
President Trump on this issue may mean it will be subject for the next 
attack or perhaps a primary campaign. I don't envy the spot they are 
in, but it is a game of political chicken, and they are playing it 
among themselves.
  The reality is, President Trump is in the White House, and our 
Democratic colleagues need to work with him and us to try to move the 
country forward, to try solve these problems, as hard as they may be. 
The American people are the losers when their elected officials decide 
their political image and their political aspirations matter more than 
the people they represent in their respective States.
  As I said, so far, the Congress has worked together in a bipartisan 
manner to pass roughly 75 percent of the government funding. We 
shouldn't let that bipartisan spirit fail us now. Finishing our work 
and securing our border shouldn't be an occasion to turn the end of the 
year into a political sideshow. I think the American people do not need 
any more sideshows and circuses in Washington, DC. They want results, 
and they want us to own up to our responsibility and do our duty.
  Border security is an issue where we should be able to find common 
ground, and funding the government is, of course, one of our most basic 
responsibilities. The point should be made that we have already found 
common ground on many of these issues before. Several of our colleagues 
on the other side who are still serving in this Chamber, including 
Senator Schumer, supported passage of the Secure Fence Act in 2006. How 
that is different from what President Trump is requesting now is lost 
on me, when they agreed that 700 miles of border should be secured by a 
fence.
  I should also note that the Secure Fence Act was also supported by 
then-Senators Obama, Biden, and Clinton. This should not be a partisan 
issue. I hope all of our colleagues will choose to get to work, roll up 
our sleeves, and do our duty. Not only do we have the chance to fund 
the government and keep the lights on but we also have a chance to put 
ourselves that much closer to a secure border and helping end the 
migrant crisis.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, while the distinguished senior Senator 
from Texas, deputy leader, is still on the floor, let me thank him for 
his kind remarks and express a word of appreciation for his patience 
through the long process of getting to a conclusion that we appear now 
to have finally reached on bringing criminal sentencing reform to a 
vote on the Senate floor.
  This is at least the third Congress in which the Cornyn-Whitehouse 
bill to improve the preparation of Federal prisoners for release, when 
they are going to be released, has been with us, and it has been a long 
process. I think the bill we are going to go to is, in majority, our 
original bill. For a long time, it has been the engine that I think all 
sides have seen as the means to solve the sentencing piece, which was 
much more difficult.
  Over and over again, our efforts to move our bill have been held up 
in order to try to make a package, which is a pretty strong sign that 
our bill is a pretty good thing to get on board with. I want to thank 
Senator Cornyn for his patience through all of this.
  Then I want to say a quick appreciation to Representative Collins and 
Representative Jeffries, whose bill on the House side was basically 
started like ours, and then they were able to negotiate what Senator 
Cornyn and I both agree were improvements--so that we adopted our bill 
to incorporate the improvements from the House side.
  Other than that, we are about where we began with the sentencing 
improvements that have been added, and it has been a long trip, but I 
am indebted and appreciative of my colleague in all of this, Senator 
Cornyn, for having kept the faith through these many years and many 
Congresses in getting to this point.
  Thank you, sir.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the senior Senator from 
New Jersey, Mr. Menendez, be recognized at the conclusion of my 
remarks, if he is on the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, this week, Nations of the world are 
gathering in Katowice, Poland, to review--and we hope amplify--their 
commitments to reduce carbon emissions under the 2015 Paris Agreement 
and to discuss how they will report and verify reductions in carbon 
pollution.
  The United States of America is technically present in Poland in the 
form of a small delegation, but American leadership in Poland is 
decidedly absent. Why? It is pretty simple. The Government of the 
United States of America has fallen under the political control of the 
industry most responsible for this mess.
  American leadership was essential to forging the global consensus on 
carbon emissions in the original Paris Agreement. I know because I was 
there in Paris in 2015 as Secretary Kerry and the U.S. negotiating team 
worked to seal the landmark pact.
  What a pathetic difference a few years make. In 2017, President Trump 
announced that the United States would become the only country in the 
world to turn its back on this global agreement. The United States 
abdicates its leadership, just as the scientific warnings of the 
dangers of climate change grow clearer and

[[Page S7419]]

grimmer. In October, came a new report from the world's scientists 
working through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Just 
last month, our own Federal Government released its own sobering news 
about the worsening risks climate change poses to our Nation and our 
economy.
  Our National Climate Assessment warned of hundreds of billions of 
dollars in losses we can anticipate due to climate change if we don't 
act to curtail carbon emissions. Trump responded first by describing 
his own--and I will quote him on this--``very high levels of 
intelligence.'' Then he went on to simply deny all the science. He 
said: I don't see it.
  Well, guess what. Pope Paul V didn't see it when Galileo demonstrated 
the Earth revolved around the Sun, but that didn't change the 
astrophysics.
  The climate science--laid out in black and white by Trump's own 
government agencies--is that our planet is heating up due to our use of 
fossil fuels.
  The science is even more incontrovertible than when Donald Trump said 
that climate science was incontrovertible back in 2009. Saying that he 
now doesn't see it is the very definition of climate denial.
  So many people who are engaged in climate denial actually know better 
but, for a variety of motives, will not act, will not admit it. As to 
the President's not seeing it, ``willful blindness'' would be another 
term.
  This takeover of our government by fossil fuel forces is having very 
real consequences in U.S. emissions numbers. After years of decline, 
U.S. carbon emissions rose in 2018, increasing by 2.5 percent.
  This, of course, coincides with the Trump administration's efforts on 
behalf of its industry benefactors to delay, repeal, and weaken rules 
limiting carbon emissions from powerplants, from oil and gas wells, 
from industrial facilities, even from vehicles.
  Of course all of these industries share a measure of the blame for 
not cleaning up their own mess on their own, and you can add to that 
their culpability for pushing the Trump administration to weaken the 
safety regulations that, in some cases, the industry had actually 
agreed to. The auto industry had actually agreed to the CAFE standards 
and then fought to undo them through its trade group so that they could 
keep their own hands clean.
  Chinese carbon emissions increased in 2018, as did Indian emissions. 
Among major economies, only the European Union saw its emissions 
decline in 2018.
  This is why international summits like Poland are so important. The 
world urgently needs to correct course, and we can best do so if 
countries together do their part to reduce emissions.
  According to the IPCC, to avoid the most catastrophic effects of 
climate change, we need to cut carbon emissions to 50 percent below 
2010 levels by 2030, which is just 11 years from now. We have to be 50 
percent below our emissions in 2010, 11 years from now, in 2030, and we 
have to hit net zero emissions--carbon removed for all carbon added--by 
2050. That is not that far away.
  The IPCC report calls pricing carbon the central policy that will 
allow us to hold the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius 
or less. This is not some fantasy of the environmental community. Some 
of the world's biggest investors--$32 trillion worth of investment 
represented by these groups--stood up in Poland to say: We need to fix 
this problem or there will be economic catastrophe ahead. They also 
said that a price on carbon and an end to the subsidy that the fossil 
fuel industry enjoys and is at the heart of its political intervention, 
which has prevented us from taking on climate change, needs to go.
  You have to add a price on carbon, and you have to get rid of the 
fossil fuel subsidies. That is their prescription for avoiding economic 
catastrophe.
  Well, maybe they don't know what they are talking about, but $32 
trillion worth of money thinks that they know what they are talking 
about because they put their money in the hands of these people to make 
wise investments for the future. A lot of people have bet their savings 
and resources behind these groups that are now saying: No price on 
carbon, no end of the fossil fuel subsidies, watch out--watch out for 
catastrophe.
  On an ideological level, if you are sincere about market capitalism, 
where the costs of a product need to be in the price of the product for 
the market to work, this is pretty obvious stuff. The only reason this 
gets difficult is if you are a fake free marketeer who is really 
fronting for the fossil fuel industry.
  But if you are not a fake on market economics when it is the industry 
that funds your party involved, it is pretty straightforward stuff. It 
is basic economic market principles.
  You put the public harm externalities of a product--those costs--into 
the price of the product for the market to work--econ 101.
  It shows the priorities around here when market capitalism and the 
principles of free market economics are so readily thrown under the bus 
by our friends once they cross the interests of big, big donor 
industries.
  The good news is that many governments--from cities, States, and 
provinces to countries and regions--are already pricing carbon. This 
chart shows all of the various governments that have set a price on 
carbon, either through emissions trading--those are the green ones--or 
through a carbon price, a carbon fee--the various purple ones--and some 
do both, which is where they are mixed.
  The carbon fee involved will vary. Sweden, for example, charges 
almost $140 per ton of carbon emitted, covering nearly 50 percent of 
the Nation's emissions.
  The Canadian Province of British Columbia enacted a carbon fee in 
2008, which has risen over time to its current price of $35 per ton. In 
the 4 years following the British Columbia carbon fee, fossil fuel use 
decreased by 17 percent in the Province, compared to increasing by 1 
percent in the rest of Canada. So it works at decreasing emissions, and 
British Columbia's economy grew faster than that of any other Canadian 
province.
  Why would it not? One hundred percent of the revenues raised from 
British Columbia's carbon fee are returned to taxpayers in the form of 
other tax cuts. And it is popular; 70 percent of British Colombians 
support the policy.

  So what about the United States? Well, California has put a price on 
carbon via an emissions trading system, as have the nine Northeastern 
States, including Rhode Island, that are members of the Regional 
Greenhouse Gas Initiative. For the moment, the prices in California and 
the RGGI are still relatively low--around 5 bucks for us in Rhode 
Island for RGGI.
  Senator Schatz and I have introduced our American Opportunity Carbon 
Fee Act again to assess a carbon fee starting at 50 bucks per metric 
ton of emissions in 2019. It is the midrange of the Office of 
Management and Budget's 2016 estimates of what they call the social 
cost of carbon. The social cost of carbon is the name for the long-term 
damage that is done by carbon pollution, which the fossil fuel industry 
is fighting so hard to be a public subsidy rather than to be put into 
the price of their product.
  Our market-based proposal is an appeal to true conservative 
Republican colleagues. As one Republican former legislator said: It is 
not just an olive branch; it is an olive limb that we have offered. But 
the fossil fuel industry keeps a stranglehold on the Republican Party, 
preventing climate action--even climate action using market principles.
  Axios just did this chart. I saw it today and had it reproduced for 
the floor. This is the number of times climate change was mentioned in 
Congress in press releases, floor statements, and online by Members of 
Congress. This is how often the Democrats have mentioned it from 2013 
to 2018. I am afraid I am probably a measurable piece of those blue 
columns.
  But if you look over here, this is how often Republicans have 
mentioned climate change. Their best year was 678 mentions. For all 
Republicans in Congress, in all of their press releases, floor 
statements, and online communications, the grand total is 678 
mentions--I mean, seriously--and it has gone down as it has gotten 
worse because I think it is difficult to talk about if you are a 
Republican.
  Everybody is looking around at the wildfires; everybody is looking 
around

[[Page S7420]]

at the sea level rise coming up; everybody is looking at the storms; 
everybody is looking around at the science now, not only warning of 
climate change but being able to connect specific weather events to 
climate change, most recently, the massive heat wave that wiped out so 
much of the Great Barrier Reef.
  So here is how often Republicans talk about it, and here is how often 
Democrats do. We should probably do better. But, anyway, that is where 
we are.
  If that doesn't show the effect of the industry squelching debate and 
driving Republicans into alignment with their industry welfare, then I 
don't know what could express that much more clearly.
  So I wanted to show that, and this is unlikely to change as long as 
millions of fossil fuel industry dollars slosh around Washington, 
protecting this corrupting industry from having to account, as 
economics would suggest, for the actual economic cost of its pollution.
  America is called the indispensable Nation, and American leadership 
is indispensable if we are to achieve a global response to this global 
challenge. But American leadership is sorely lacking because the dark 
money and sleazy operatives of the fossil fuel industry today control 
the Trump administration and swaths of the Republican Party.
  There used to be a guy in this body who said ``Country First.'' We 
could use a little of that now in this tragic, climate-denying Trump 
sleaze-fest.
  I yield the floor, and per the previous order I think Senator 
Menendez is here, to be recognized momentarily. I saw him come to the 
floor a moment ago.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss--and I 
appreciate the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island and the work he 
has done on this critical question of climate change. I am pleased to 
join him today on the floor in pursuit of what he has been doing.
  I rise today to discuss the negotiations taking place in Katowice, 
Poland, to finalize the rule book on implementing the Paris climate 
change agreement. There is an immediate urgency for global action to 
reduce greenhouse gas pollution as emissions continue to increase. The 
longer it takes for us to fully accept and acknowledge the problem, the 
more aggressive the world will have to be to avoid the worst effects of 
climate change from becoming a reality.

  For decades, the science has yielded increasing causes for concern. 
Today, the connection between manmade greenhouse gas emissions--
primarily fossil fuel combustion--and climate change is undeniable. 
Three major reports on the growing climate crisis have been published 
in the last 30 days alone. That includes reports from the world's top 
climate scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and 
the U.N. Environment Programme. That includes the National Climate 
Assessment, which was assembled by 13 Federal agencies and 300 
government experts--our Federal agencies and our government experts.
  What the scientists are telling us is that robust and immediate 
action is necessary to prevent catastrophic changes in the Earth's 
climate--changes that have already begun to affect every single 
American.
  There is a tendency to dismiss scientific reports as abstract, as 
hard to understand. The President seems to simply not believe them. So 
let me speak plainly: The consequences of climate change are anything 
but abstract--regional food and water shortages, inundation of island 
nations and coastal communities that are home to billions of people 
around the world, mass migration, and refugee crises.
  Our own National Climate Assessment makes clear that the United 
States--with all our wealth and good fortune--is far from immune from 
the effects of climate change. If we fail to confront this challenge, 
the United States will experience effects that will cost American lives 
and billions in losses to our national economy.
  While we shouldn't point to any single event as evidence, the changes 
in trends depicting climate change's harsh reality are undeniable. It 
is a fact that the average global temperature on Earth has increased by 
about 0.8 degrees Celsius--1.4 degrees Fahrenheit--since 1880, and two-
thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975. It is a fact that the 
frequency and intensity of extreme weather events in many regions of 
the United States are increasing, including conditions that heighten 
wildfire risks. It is a fact that sea level has been rising over the 
past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades. In 2017, 
global mean sea level was 3 inches above the 1993 average--the highest 
annual average in the satellite record. None of these facts are new. 
None of these fact are deniable. The science predicted these climate 
change effects 20, even 30 years ago.
  To echo a common sentiment among climate change leaders on the 
urgency of the situation, ``We are the first generations to experience 
the effects of climate change and the last that can act to prevent the 
worst.''
  This urgency is fueling the negotiations in Poland this week. 
Deliberations on the various elements of these rules began shortly 
after the Paris Agreement's entry into force in November 2016, and the 
agreement requires that the rules be completed this year, making the 
COP in Katowice the most consequential conference of parties since 
COP21 in Paris.
  The Paris Agreement establishes firm, albeit nonbinding, global 
emissions reduction goals--reductions sufficient to prevent a 2 degrees 
Celsius increase in global average temperatures. The Paris Agreement 
also clearly outlined robust and transparent reporting so that parties 
can hold each other accountable via diplomatic engagement as opposed to 
binding legal punishment.
  Of course, success comes down to execution. That is what makes the 
development of the implementation rule book so consequential and 
President Trump's decision to abandon the Paris Agreement so 
antithetical to our own interests.
  The current administration's wholesale rejection of meaningful 
engagement with the global community is disturbingly naive and is bound 
to result in repeating past mistakes with detrimental outcomes.
  China is emboldened by President Trump's plan to abandon the Paris 
Agreement. China effectively slowed progress at COP23 and will continue 
its efforts. In the leadership vacuum that President Trump has created, 
China is stepping in to write the rules.
  It is completely absurd to assume that the United States, by 
withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, is somehow immune to the global 
economic implications of climate change.
  The President couched his decision to abdicate American leadership 
regarding the Paris Agreement as putting ``America first'' in a June 
2017 announcement riddled with inaccurate characterizations of the 
Paris Agreement and alternative facts on climate change.
  There is no truthful, factual, or reality-based argument to justify 
how allowing every country in the world except the United States to 
build the clean energy economy of the future and confront our most 
pressing global challenge puts America first.
  Continued U.S. leadership and climate diplomacy can only yield 
economic benefits for U.S. workers. More than 900 U.S. businesses 
support keeping the United States in the Paris Agreement, including 
more than 20 Fortune 500 companies.
  Acting to prevent the worst effects of climate change holds 
tremendous economic and job-growth opportunities for New Jersey and our 
Nation. I am proud to say that New Jersey is a national leader in 
deploying clean energy technologies, creating clean energy jobs, and 
planning and investing in climate change resilience.
  New Jersey is home to 417 solar energy manufacturing and installation 
companies employing more than 7,000 workers.
  New Jersey is also competing hard to become the first Mid-Atlantic 
State to produce offshore wind energy, supported by the recent 
enactment of legislation establishing a 3,500-megawatt production goal 
for offshore wind energy.
  New Jersey has also recently increased its renewable energy standards 
to 50 percent by 2030 and set a new State carbon emissions reduction 
goal of 80 percent by 2050.

[[Page S7421]]

  New Jersey's leadership among the States working to combat climate 
change is rooted in our vulnerability to the effects of climate change. 
The fact is, if we continue on our current emissions trajectory, the 
world could see global average temperature increase by 3 degrees 
Celsius. This would devastate New Jersey, risking $800 billion in 
coastal property value, along with the health, security, and livelihood 
of millions of residents. The potential losses from sea level rise and 
increased intensity and frequency of extreme weather associated with 
climate change would cost my State's economy billions in economic 
losses.
  Just yesterday, the Star-Ledger--a statewide paper--published a 
column by Robert Kopp, the director of the Rutgers Institute of Earth, 
Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences, highlighting many of these 
consequences, as outlined by the recent National Climate Assessment.
  Our winters have been warming faster than our summers. Pests like 
pine beetle and ash borer are no longer kept in check by winter 
freezes. Perhaps even more alarming, we have seen our crops begin to 
bud earlier and earlier, only to see them decimated by cold snaps later 
in the season. In the Garden State--famous for our tomatoes, cranberry 
bogs, blueberries, and other specialty crops--that is a big deal.
  As temperatures rise, we also expect to see a surge in heat-related 
deaths and illnesses due to allergies and asthma, while disease-
carrying bugs like mosquitos and ticks thrive in increased seasonal 
moisture.
  Our fisheries--the life blood of so many of our coastal communities--
have already begun to see how changing water temperatures are changing 
migrations, making it harder for us to manage historic fisheries and 
harder for our fishermen to earn a living.
  Of course, perhaps the clearest threat to New Jersey from climate 
change comes in the form of coastal flooding from sea level rise and 
extreme weather events. We saw it with Superstorm Sandy, and we 
understand the devastating consequences it can have for our families, 
our communities, and our infrastructure.
  There is no convincing me that ignoring climate change and walking 
away from the world's only mechanism for holding countries like India, 
China, and Russia accountable for their emissions puts New Jersey 
first.
  The Trump administration's failure to recognize this potential and 
its refusal to recognize the growing market demand for clean energy is 
a stunning example of the transactional relationship this President has 
with the fossil fuel industry. He is putting wealthy, politically 
connected corporations ahead of the best interests of the American 
people. Proof of the administration's political favoritism for fossil 
fuels is exemplified by the only U.S. Government-sponsored event at 
COP24 in Poland, titled ``The Future of Coal.''
  Never mind how insulting and tone-deaf it is to sponsor an event to 
promote dirty, coal-powered energy at a climate change conference while 
countries like the Marshall Islands, the Maldives, Mongolia, and 
Mozambique, which face existential crises from climate change, look 
on--even more than that, this public forum flaunts the administration's 
wholesale sellout to the industries the government is tasked with 
regulating. It also shows us this administration's contempt for the 
booming renewable energy sector in the United States, which, according 
to Trump's own Department of Energy, employs more Americans than the 
U.S. fossil fuel industries by a 5-to-1 reality. All told, nearly 1 
million Americans work in the energy efficiency, solar, wind, and 
alternative vehicles sectors. That equals nearly five times the number 
of workers employed in the fossil fuel electric industry, which 
includes coal, gas, and oil workers.
  As the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I 
believe that climate diplomacy must be a priority for U.S. foreign 
policy. Climate change poses an imminent and long-term threat not just 
to U.S. national security but also to the long-term prosperity of this 
country and of our world. Addressing the crisis requires collective 
action and cooperation by local and national representatives, small and 
large businesses, and every one of us.
  If the United States is to maintain our status as the world's 
superpower, it is in our best interest to lead the global cooperative 
effort to address the serious challenges posed by climate change and to 
promote stability and resilience by helping developing countries reduce 
their vulnerability to the effects of climate change. If we stand alone 
on the sidelines as these changes and international economics take 
shape, we will ultimately be the loser.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in calling on the administration to 
advance continuing U.S. climate diplomacy and reconsider the decision 
to withdraw. It is essential to U.S. national security interests, as 
defined by our own Department of Defense, and growing U.S. economic 
opportunity.


                        Congressional Review Act

  Mr. President, I want to take one moment to speak to a different 
topic, which is to support the Tester-Wyden Congressional Review Act.
  This is an administration cloaked in secrecy and deception. It is an 
administration that doesn't want the American people to know what it is 
doing. So it is no surprise that in July, the Treasury Department 
issued their dark money rule. They don't want the American people to 
know that behind every bill, amendment, and Executive order is a big-
money special interest. They want to make it easier for big 
corporations, billionaires, and even illegal foreign money to influence 
our elections. These special interests know that so long as the money 
keeps flowing, there will be someone in Congress to do their bidding.
  At a time when Americans want transparency from their government, 
this rule would allow special interests to hide their donors from the 
IRS.
  It has been 8 years since the Supreme Court's Citizens United 
decision--a decision that gave corporations the right to spend 
unlimited, unchecked, and, more often than not, undisclosed money on 
our elections. For 8 long years, more and more money has flowed from 
corporate coffers into campaign ads and political expenditures, and 
Republicans have defended the dark money poisoning our politics every 
step of the way.
  Let me demonstrate the sheer magnitude of the dark money that has 
been pumped into our recent elections. In 2016, outside groups spent 
more than $1.4 billion, much of it funneled through trade associations 
and nonprofits. In 2018, outside groups spent more than $1.3 billion.
  These funds were not spent by the candidates' campaign committees but 
by groups that did not have to reveal their donors and disclose them to 
the public.
  Spending by independent, outside groups reached an alltime high of 
$49 million in this year's congressional elections in my home State of 
New Jersey. State and county parties spent about $8.1 million. In other 
words, outside groups this year outspent formal parties by over 600 
percent.
  All of this secret cash and dark money undermines the ability of the 
American people to hold their government accountable. Yet, for the 
President and some of my Republican colleagues, that is not enough.
  Ask yourself: Under these rules, what is to prevent anonymous foreign 
corporate donors that have unlimited amounts of cash to influence the 
American political system and help elect candidates who benefit them 
and then exert influence over those candidates once elected?
  It is no wonder this administration would want to make it harder for 
the American people to know who is behind donations to tax-exempt 
organizations. It is the wrong direction and is a dangerous one.
  As we now know, the President benefited from this dark money, 
particularly money that came from the NRA. What is baffling, however, 
is that the administration would make it easier for hidden money to 
flow through these organizations when we know that the Russian 
Government and its agents have used them as a conduit to try to 
influence our political system.
  The recent indictment and guilty plea of Maria Butina shows this is 
not fantasy but reality. The Butina case came about because she was 
discovered to be an unregistered foreign agent. Yet she may just be the 
tip of the iceberg when it comes to Russians who are trying to pass 
money into our electoral system.

[[Page S7422]]

  Under this administration's rule, uncovering those efforts will be 
made harder, not easier. That is why, tomorrow, I will be urging the 
FBI and the FEC to investigate whether other covert Russian sources may 
be behind political contributions the NRA made during the 2018 
electoral cycle to any House or Senate candidate. We need to know who 
is contributing millions of dollars to influence the political system 
right now.
  In our democracy, the size of your wallet should not determine the 
power of your voice. I urge my colleagues to listen to the American 
people, who have been loud and clear that they want disclosure, that 
they want to reduce special interest influence in our politics, and 
that they want this government to work for them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  (The remarks of Ms. Murkowski pertaining to the introduction of S. 
3739 and S. 3740 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on 
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Criminal Justice Reform

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have the honor of representing 
Louisiana in the U.S. Senate, and it gives me no pleasure to say that 
in Louisiana we have a crime problem.
  In Louisiana and, frankly, in other parts of America, I regret to 
say, criminals are turning neighborhoods into war zones and small towns 
into drug dens and, in the process, families are being destroyed.
  Now, some people make a youthful mistake, and they could benefit from 
a second chance. I think most Americans agree with that, but other 
people never change. I don't know why it is. If I make it to Heaven, I 
am going to ask, but there are some people out there, they are not 
mixed up, they are not confused, they are not sick, it is not a 
question of whether their mama or daddy loved them enough--they are 
just bad. Unfortunately, they are just bad.
  For that reason, I think we all recognize that prisons are a 
necessary fixture that make our communities safer.
  As we prepare to hear a bill or bills on changes to sentences for 
Federal prisoners, I wanted to share with the Senate a cautionary tale 
from my home State of Louisiana.
  People in my State are being killed, and people in my State are being 
hurt because of these so-called ``criminal justice reforms''--I put 
that expression in quotation--that were put in place by my Governor.
  Louisiana, about 14 months ago, started letting prisoners out of our 
prisons. The overall goal of the Governor was to save money. So far, I 
think he has let out about 2,000 prisoners. Now, the inmates he let out 
were not vetted. They weren't vetted by the probation boards, they 
weren't vetted by the parole boards to see if they were a threat to 
public safety. These prisoners he let go weren't paired with programs 
to reduce recidivism. He just let them go. He did it under a statute he 
named and called the Justice Reinvestment Act. It certainly wasn't any 
reinvestment in justice for the victims.
  His law is failing the law-abiding public in my State. So far, 22 
percent of inmates have been rearrested. Now, that is over 14 months--a 
very short period of time. The Governor and his Department of 
Corrections said: Well, we are only going to release nonviolent 
criminals. Well, somebody forgot to tell the criminals they were 
nonviolent.
  In the 23rd Judicial District Court in Louisiana, which encompasses 
small towns and three parishes, one in three inmates that the Louisiana 
State government let go has been rearrested. That is higher than the 22 
percent I just quoted. That is a recidivism rate of 33 percent in a 
little over a year.
  I have talked to Louisiana's law enforcement officers and 
prosecutors. They don't support what the Edwards administration has 
done. Now, they are scared to say anything because the Governor 
controls a lot of their budgets and their money, but if you ask 9 out 
of 10 law enforcement officials in my State privately if they support 
it, they will tell you no, and the 10th is probably lying.
  The head of the District Attorneys Association, in fact, has publicly 
said that Louisiana's streets are not safer because of this so-called 
criminal justice reform. He also noted that simply reducing prison 
population is not a measure of success. He is a wise man.
  Louisiana State government now seems to care more about criminals 
than it cares about those criminals' victims. In fact, I have never 
heard my Governor talk about victims at all. It is always criminals.
  I recently received a letter. We all get letters from constituents, 
but this one really--this one really shook me up. I received a letter 
from a constituent in South Louisiana about what this failed experiment 
of criminal release in Louisiana has cost his family. His words--this 
gentleman's words--have been weighing on my heart and on my mind since 
I read them, and I would like to read a bit from that letter now.
  I am quoting: My name is Gary Prince, and my youngest son Jordan was 
killed by a drunk driver in May of 2015. He was only 18 years old, and 
he had just graduated high school 12 days before this accident. The man 
that killed him was driving the wrong way on Highway 90 near New Iberia 
and crashed into my son head-on. His blood alcohol level was .16, which 
is twice the State's legal limit.
  He was sent to jail with a sentence of 15 years, but this person that 
killed my son served only 18 months in jail.
  Mr. Prince, the father, goes on: There is a State law which States 
that anyone convicted of a DUI with vehicular homicide, with a blood 
alcohol level of .15 or greater, has to serve a minimum of 5 years 
without the benefit of early release. This was not taken into account 
for this criminal. My son was a good kid. He had a bright future. He 
wanted to follow in my footsteps and become a machinist. I feel that my 
family deserves better than this. I want you to know that when I say my 
prayers at night, I pray for a better Louisiana.

  Mr. Prince, I want you to know how sorry I am for you and your 
family's loss. While the State of Louisiana might consider this a 
nonviolent crime, your family paid a horrific price for this man's 
behavior. I can't imagine anything worse than a man or a woman having 
to bury his or her son, especially a teenager. For your son's killer to 
be out on the streets after 18 months is more than just salt in the 
wound. It is a miscarriage of justice, and it is precisely what happens 
when policies like criminal release programs are pursued without 
considering the victims or their families. It is not justice.
  I believe in justice. I think most Americans do. What is justice? We 
talk about it a lot. I agree with what C.S. Lewis said: Justice is when 
someone gets what they deserve.
  I am not saying that deterrence and rehabilitation are not important 
in a prison system. They are. They have nothing to do with justice. 
They have to do with the effectiveness of your prison system.
  C.S. Lewis said: Justice is when people get what they deserve.
  Justice is when the people of Tibet, for example, get to worship the 
Dalai Lama because they deserve religious freedom.
  Justice is when a rapist is sent to prison and stays there for a time 
commensurate with his crime. That is justice. He is getting what he 
deserves.
  C.S. Lewis didn't just say that. Immanuel Kant said that. He said our 
penal laws are a moral imperative. He didn't say rehabilitation is 
unimportant. He didn't say deterrence is unimportant, because they are 
both important. They just have nothing to do with justice. Hegel said 
the same thing, and St. Augustine said the same thing--all of the great 
thinkers in history--that justice is when you get what you deserve.
  It doesn't have anything to do with the cost of government. It 
doesn't have anything to do with deterrence. It

[[Page S7423]]

doesn't have anything to do with rehabilitation. Those are all 
important factors, but this has nothing to do with justice.
  A criminal release program gone wrong has had other effects in 
Louisiana, too. It frees people like Tyrone ``Smokey'' White. Let me 
tell you about Mr. White. Our Governor let him go. He is a career 
criminal. He repaid the State promptly by robbing two roofers at 
gunpoint. Somebody forgot to tell Smokey that he was supposed to be 
nonviolent, too. Less than a week later, Mr. White was released under 
Louisiana's criminal release program, despite having more than 60 
arrests on his record.
  A criminal release program gone wrong looks like a convicted felon 
named Richard McLendon who, upon being granted early release, illegally 
gets himself a gun and uses it to fatally shoot another man in Bossier 
Parish. He then leaves his victim to die like roadkill on the side of 
the road with multiple gunshot wounds.
  A criminal release program gone wrong in Louisiana, anyway, looks 
like a Dwayne Watkins. He is a pedophile. He had more than 21 arrests 
for child abuse and other assorted crimes on his record. He got to walk 
out of jail early--not just once but two times. Watkins earned 10 years 
for illegally possessing a gun as a felon, and he got out early, and he 
promptly sexually abused two young girls. He earned 3 more years in 
jail, and then, thanks to Louisiana State government and the Edwards 
administration, he got out early again. Give me a break.
  In October, less than 2 months after his early release, he approached 
Kelly and Heather Jose at a shopping mall in Caddo Parish. When he 
asked to borrow their phone to call a cab, the couple offered him a 
ride. In Louisiana, we help each other. Well, Mr. Dwayne Watkins 
decided to repay their generosity by kidnapping them, shooting them, 
and burning them to death in their own car so badly that their bodies 
couldn't even be recognized. He is now awaiting trial for murder.
  Kelly Jose, one of the victims, was an Air Force Reservist--God rest 
his soul--in Barksdale Air Force Base. He enlisted in the Air Force in 
1998. Heather Jose, the other victim, was a small business owner. She 
loved working in the ministry of a church. They were good people. They 
were just trying to do a good deed. This was a senseless tragedy, and 
it did not have to happen.
  Just this weekend, our sheriff from Caddo Parish rightly asked a 
question. He said: Why is Dwayne Watkins out of prison after violating 
his parole and sexually abusing two young girls? And many of us are 
asking that same question in Louisiana right now. But the answer is 
very simple--the Edwards administration's failed criminal release 
program.
  I want to take a moment and consider what price we might be asking 
the families back home to pay for these criminal release programs. In 
my State, innocent people are scared, and rightfully so, that they 
might become victims of violent crime. We are reneging on the justice 
we promised the victims like Mr. Prince, who lost a child. Do you want 
to put a price tag on justice? Have at it. I don't.
  In Louisiana, we also failed the Joses' three children. They don't 
have parents anymore. Mr. Dwayne Watkins took care of that. He should 
have been in jail serving his time. That is justice.
  Louisiana's failed experience has cost law-abiding folks dearly in 
every corner of my State.
  I just want to implore my colleagues in the Senate to please think 
about more than just the criminals. Think about more than just the 
money. Think about the lives of the victims and their families, as 
well, because they are supposed to count too.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                                 H.R. 2

  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, a few months ago, I had a chance to go up 
to the Colorado-Wyoming border to spend a night at the Ladder Ranch. It 
is a beautiful property--that is an understatement--situated in the 
Little Snake River Valley. If you were designing a postcard for the 
American West, you would struggle to do better than this place.
  The ranch is owned by Pat and Sharon O'Toole. It has been in the 
family for six generations, dating all the way back to 1881. To give 
you some sense of how long that is, at the time, the State of Colorado 
was just 5 years old, and the Ottoman Empire was still around. Our 
world has been transformed since then, but the Ladder Ranch has endured 
through the Depression, the Dust Bowl, the two World Wars, and the 
transformation of our economy.
  Of course, none of that happened just by chance. It happened because 
the family looked ahead and made hard choices to deliver that ranch 
from generation to generation. Pat and Sharon are continuing that 
legacy today, and they are joined on the ranch by their daughters, and 
their son, and a whole bunch of grandkids.
  I am sharing the story of the Ladder Ranch because in many ways, it 
is the story of farmers and ranchers across my State and across the 
country--of people applying their ingenuity and common sense to hand 
more opportunity to the next generation.
  One of the privileges of representing a State like Colorado is that I 
have had the opportunity to learn about places like the Ladder Ranch 
and the legacy of every one of our farms and ranches represent.
  When I joined the Senate Ag Committee, the truth is that I had no 
idea how hard it can be for our farmers and ranchers. Like many people, 
I had very little appreciation of where our food comes from. If you are 
in agriculture, you can do everything right and still fall behind 
because of forces beyond your control.
  Today, farmers and ranchers in this country are facing tremendous 
uncertainty. They have persistent drought, which is growing worse due 
to climate change and threats of wildfire. They have low commodity 
prices and challenges with finding people who can work, because of our 
immigration debate here in Washington, and to find the seasonal labor 
they need. Dairies are struggling to hire the workers they need.
  Now, on top of all of that, they have the confusion of the existing 
trade policies of the United States. Two weeks ago, the USDA announced 
that farm incomes are projected to drop 12 percent this year. When you 
add it all up--the uncertainty, the policy, the politics--farm income 
is going to be down 12 percent this year. All of this acts like a 
weight on our farmers and ranchers, making it even harder for them to 
pass on the legacy of their work to the next generation.
  Earlier this year, our Agriculture Commissioner in Colorado, Don 
Brown, who is himself one of the most successful farmers in our State, 
said: ``You're only 22 once.'' By that he meant that there is an entire 
generation out there deciding whether or not to pursue a career on the 
family farm or ranch, and they are looking at all of this uncertainty, 
and a lot of them are deciding that it is not worth it. That is why the 
average age of farmers is what it is in the United States.
  We owe it to our farmers and ranchers to provide consistency where we 
can and to help to preserve the legacy of American agriculture for 
years to come.
  By passing the 2018 farm bill, that is exactly what we have done. 
This bill means more certainty for America's producers in this volatile 
environment. This bill maintains crop insurance, and it makes risk 
management tools more effective. Most important to Colorado, this bill 
helps our farmers and ranchers to diversify their operations for the 
first time in 50 years.
  This bill fully legalizes hemp. The majority leader was out here 
earlier. I want to congratulate him on his work to do that. In 
Colorado, our hemp growers have operated under a cloud of uncertainty 
for years. Our farmers worry about maintaining access to their water. 
They couldn't buy crop insurance or transport seeds. Some ran into 
redtape opening a bank account or even applying for Federal grants.
  Despite these challenges, hemp cultivation in my State grew sixfold 
over the last 4 years. Again, it is interesting that the majority 
leader has wanted this, as well, because the climate in Kentucky and 
the climate in Colorado have almost nothing in common. But hemp grows 
in Kentucky, and it grows in Colorado.
  We see hemp as an opportunity to diversify our farmers who 
manufacture high-margin products for the American

[[Page S7424]]

people. Now, Coloradans will be able to grow and manufacture hemp 
without a cloud of uncertainty hanging over them.
  This bill also helps farmers and ranchers hand more opportunities to 
the next generation. It increases funding for conservation easements 
and makes it easier for people to secure them.
  It invests in America's farm economy to drive innovation in 
agriculture and to keep up our competitiveness in the 21st century. It 
doubles funding to help communities in places like my State to deal 
with forest health, and it protects our watersheds better.
  Working with the Presiding Officer, we increased funding for wildlife 
habitat and provided more opportunities for hunting and fishing on 
private lands.
  We worked with Senator Boozman of Arkansas to give rural communities 
new ways to improve housing and infrastructure.
  The bill also provides new resources to help farmers and ranchers 
adapt to major challenges like climate change. For example, it creates 
tools for farmers and ranchers to sequester carbon, improve soil 
health, and become more resilient to drought.
  We increased resources in this bill for renewable energy and energy 
efficiency for rural businesses.
  All in all, this 2018 farm bill is an excellent piece of legislation, 
and a lot of credit lies in the approach we took on the Agriculture 
Committee. It should be like this for all of our committees. It is a 
committee on which we don't have partisan differences. If we have 
differences, we have regional differences, and we work them out. That 
is why that committee, which I am proud to serve on, is one of the only 
functioning committees in the Senate. We passed a 5-year farm bill the 
last time there was a farm bill, not a 6-month one, not a 6-day one, 
but a 5-year farm bill. This is another one because Republicans and 
Democrats both know we have to support our farmers and ranchers, not 
create even more uncertainty for them.
  The other privilege of being on that committee is that I spend a lot 
of time in my State in counties where it is unlikely that I am ever 
going to win 10 or 20 percent of the vote, but I keep going back and 
back, not because I think I will win but because I think, as a country, 
we have to find a way to bring ourselves together and solve problems.
  Our farmers and ranchers are a model for that. They are applying 
their ingenuity to things like climate and drought every single day. 
They don't have the luxury--and I would say we don't have the luxury--
of pretending that politics is the only thing that matters. They are 
focused on delivering their farms or ranches to the next generations 
and handing more opportunity, not less, to them. That is all that 
matters, and that is the ethic we should be applying to our national 
politics.


                  Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act

  Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to call on the Senate to 
pass the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act.
  The bill extends critical VA benefits to veterans who were exposed to 
toxic chemicals while they served in the waters off Vietnam.
  There is no reason the Senate shouldn't pass this. Our country 
already provides these benefits to veterans who served on land, and it 
is well past time we extended care to those who served at sea.
  This bill is the result of a lot of good bipartisan work in the 
Senate, and the House has already passed it. To get this across the 
finish line, we should look to the example our veterans set for how to 
come together and fight until the job is done.
  In Colorado, the United Veterans Committee has advocated strongly for 
this bill, and veterans from across our State have spoken out on behalf 
of their colleague veterans who deserve justice with the passage of 
this bill. Their example reminds us that there is no obstacle we cannot 
overcome to provide every veteran who has served in the United States 
of America with the greatest healthcare in the world as a reflection of 
their service. In this moment, we should rededicate ourselves to that 
goal by passing this significant bill.
  Let me end by thanking Senator Gillibrand and the Presiding Officer 
for their leadership, along with Chairman Isakson and Ranking Member 
Tester for getting it to this point.
  We need to pass this bill in the Senate before we go home. It is the 
right thing to do.
  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.
  Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________