opioid use disorders. there is lots of evidence to show that. >> host: marilyn, adrian, connects, good morning. adrian, are you with us? go going to anna out in california effected by the opioid crisis. anna, go ahead. >> caller: yes, hello, good morning. my son was one of these -- hit by a car and bicycle and became addicted to opioid bills and as they became expensive and less available switch to heroin and had a three-year time to get off of heroin using -- what we found and wanted to share and ask questions about was that marijuana treatment for getting off of opiates. we saw a specialist in april called -- >> we break away from this recorded program and take you live to the floor of the u.s.

senate. they're back with a number of items on their agenda this month including if you spending bills for the government. in a moment they vote on a judicial nominee for the eighth circuit court of appeals. five senate coverage here on c-span2. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that at 3:45 p.m. today the senate vote on adoption of the conference report to accompany h.r. 2. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: the judiciary, jonathan a. kobes of south dakota to be united states circuit judge for the eighth

circuit. the presiding officer: is there objection to the nomination? is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vice president: on this vote the yeas are 50, the nays are oo 50, -- 50, the vice president votes in the affirmative and the nomination is confirmed. the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action.

the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, the 115th congress is drawing to a close, and it's been a good two years. our goal two years ago was simple, make life better for american families, and that's

exactly what we've done. knew a huge part of making lives better for american families was expanding opportunity and putting more money in their pockets. and so we passed an historic reform of our outdated tax code that slashed tax rates for families and removed barriers to economic growth, and it's already producing results. since we passed tax reform a year ago, we have seen unemployment drop to its lowest rate in almost 50 years many we saw job openings reach a record high. for the past seven months there have been more job openings than there are americans looking for work. we've seen company after company that spends raises or bonuses or boosts benefits to their employees. we've seen the best wage growth since the great recession. and more. most importantly the economic benefits of tax reform are reaching the people who need them the most. during the obama administration

what economic prosperity there was tended to be concentrated in large metropolitan areas. but in a republican government, growth and prosperity are reaching small cities and rural families and communities. tax to tax reform a lot of families are finding it easier to pay their bills and put a little bit away for the future. but, of course, tax reform is far from the only thing that we did in this congress to improve the lives of the american people. along with the white house, we lifted burdensome regulations. we enacted legislation to improve career and technical education programs. we passed legislation to make it easier for main street banks and credit unions to lend money to small businesses and farmers and ranchers. we passed the largest pay increase in nearly a decade for our men and women in uniform. and we delivered real reforms for our veterans through the v.a. missions act. this legislation streamlined the

v.a.'s community care programs to assure that veterans receive quality and efficient care. once fully implemented, it will expand caregiver assistance to pre-9/11 veterans. we also modernized the veterans benefits administration appeals system to develop a quicker, more responsive system for veterans. on the national security front, we reinvested in our nation's military to ensure that that our troops are equipped not only for today's missionings, but to meet the threats of the future. a recent report from the bipartisan national defense strategy commission outlined how dangerously our military superiority has eroded to the point it would be difficult for us to win a war against two major powers. this alarming reduction in our military's readiness is why republicans have made rebuilding our military such a priority in

this congress. there is no better way to ensure peace for our country than to make sure that the united states military is the strongest, best-equipped fighting force in all the world. on the health care front, this congress we passed the support for patients and communities act to address the nationwide opioid epidemic. this bipartisan legislation reflected ideas and input from no fewer of 72 members in the senate to support prevention, treatment, and recovery efforts. we also repealed obamacare's mandatory health care act. and we ee limited obamacare's advisory board which would have empowered a board of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to make substantial changes to medicare. we also passed legislation to give terminally ill patients access to experimental care. and in february, we passed the

longest extension of the state children's health insurance program and in the -- program in the program's history. there's the many excellent judges we confirmed to the federal bench, judges who can be relied upon to uphold the law and the constitution and give anyone who comes before their bench a fair shake. mr. president, as usual, more than one of our accomplishments this congress would not have been possible without the leadership of senator hatch. he spearheaded the historic tax reform bill that is putting more money in the pockets of the american people and responsible for the longest extension of the state children's health insurance program in the program's history. in the 40-plus years of his service he been a powerful voice for the people of utah and all americans. he fought for trade policies that benefit american companies and american workers, for judges who will uphold the constitution p and the rule of law, for fiscal responsibility and

intellectual property rights. he has lon been a leader on -- long been a leader on the issue of religious liberty. together, with the late senator ted kennedy, he authored first -- the first amendment right for people to live within their religious beliefs. he has known how to reach across the aisle to get things done for the american people. no legitimator alive today has had as many pieces of legislation that he or she has seen sponsored and signed into law by the president. mr. president, it's difficult to imagine the senate without orrin hatch. i've been privileged to serve with senator hatch throughout my time in the senate, including the senate finance committee, which he chairs. it's hard to imagine him not being there, but the impact he's had on the senate will not soon be forgotten. he leaves a record of legislative achievement and an example of character and leadership, of fierce conviction compared with a gentlemenliness.

there are few people to whom the term statesman could be applied more fittingly. i wish him the very best in his well-deserved retirement. i know he will have more time to spend with his wife elaine and his children and grandchildren and great grandchildren as well as to follow the utah jazz. plb, before -- mr. president, before i yield the floor, i ask unanimous consent that the senate resume legislative session, that the chair lay before the senate the conference report to accompany h.r. 2 and the final ten minutes before each vote be divided between the managers. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the chair leaves before the senate the conference report to accompany h.r. 2. the clerk: the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes on the two houses on the amendment of the senate to the

bill h.r. 2 to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the department of agriculture through fiscal year 2023, and for other purposes, having met have agreed that the house received from its disagreement to the amendment of the senate and agreed to the same with an amendment and the senate agree to the same, signed by a majority of the conferees on part of both houses. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. donnelly: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for as much time as i may consume. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. donnelly: you this. i rise today for the final -- thank you. i rise today for the final time representing the people in indiana. my six years representing the hoosiers and six i spent as congressman for the second district of indiana before this have been among the great honors of my life.

i am the grandson of immigrants, immigrants who came here with nothing. except the dream of america. that any opportunity can come true, that if you work hard you can accomplish anything. my dad was in the c.c.c.'s. for all of our young pages here who have no idea what the c.c.c.'s are, it was the civilian conservation corps. for teenagers your age back in the depression who were asked to go and try and help raise money for their family so the other family members could eat. my dad was shipped to idaho to build bridges. today we call that infrastructure. back then we said it was building grijs. he built bridges all throughout the -- bridges. he built bridges all throughout the pacific northwest. having grown up on the lower east side of new york city and never been west of the hudson

river in his life until that point. but it was america that gave him that chance. my children or my brothers and sisters, we were the first generation to ever go to college. but that's how america works. is that you work hard and each generation builds on the next. we're so lucky to live in this country that is so blessed and gives us this opportunity. but we have a responsibility herhere to meet the things that have been given to us. and i want to take this opportunity to discuss some of the things i've learned in my time in congress and a few thoughts on how the work that happens here and how it will happen in coming years is going to be absolutely central to how our nation moves forward and succeeds. in my 12 years here in the capitol, i've prided myself on

the relationships i've built, on the bipartisan nature of them, on working together. i've been found to be one of the most bipartisan members. my friend heidi who's down the aisle here who gave a wonderful speech this morning was my partner on so much of this. and we would never have been able to achieve for hoosiers so much of this without bipartisan working together. my friend todd young is across the way, the other senator from indiana. and our focus has been how do we make life better, whether it meant assisting constituents, resolving an issue with a federal agency. in one case a pizza parlor owner came up to me. he was 90 years old. now he's 93. and he said my street light is out. you're my senator. it needs to be fixed before the big game this weekend. i called the mayor. it was fixed.

and he was asked that weekend and he said of course i got it fixed. i called my senator is what i did. so we're multitasking in this job. but it's to make lives better. i was blessed to work with my friend ron johnson, the senator from wisconsin. we worked on legislation called right to try. what it means is giving people who are very sick the chance to get medication they needed. we were told there's no shot, this can't get done. we had zero votes at the time. when it was done, we had a hundred, a hundred. so a young man from my state jordan mcclinn has the chance to get the medication he needs now. people all over the nation do so other kids with duchenne's muscular dystrophy can also get help. other people with a.l.s. can

also get help. that's the purpose of this job is we work for them. i was able to get more than 50 provisions signed into law over the past six years. it was only possible because i worked together every day with every senator, friends like susan collins and lisa murkowski who when the government would shut down, we worked to end it. we became like a regular group that we had. every time it shut down, we'd work to open it back up again. and you learn from other members like roger wicker who i worked together with to end military suicide. we've not been able to end it yet but we sure work on it every day. and learning from other members and hearing about the difficulties people in their states are facing and working together to address common challenges, you can be from

idaho, you can be from north dakota, you can be from new hampshire, indiana, but we all have the same challenges. and all of us worked hard to get here and our jobs should be not worrying about politics but worrying about making lives better. partisanship gets us nothing. division gets us nothing. you know, i was thinking the best way to explain this. and it's this. when a fire department goes to a house, they don't ask if the person living there is democrat or republican. they're just there to help their neighbor. no soldier has ever asked when they're in a fox hole fighting their way out where do you come from, what party are you, what's your religion, what's your ethnic background. you're americans. you're in this together. you have each other's back.

and as an institution, the senate must be a place that we can be all proud of, that promotes that, that sets the example. we want our children and grandchildren to follow. it means getting to know one another. it means listening to other perspectives, to other experiences. one of the things that amazes me the most and when i was out campaigning and going to town halls, i would never fail to be astounded by folks who came up and said, you didn't do this one thing i wanted. so i'm really mad at you and i'll never support you again. i said, but we did 19 other things. but i didn't get that one. i said apparently you're not from a family of five children like i am. five children and two dogs. so when there were seven pork

chops, i was the last to wind up with one. and so if you're someone who needs a hundred percent of what you want every time, this is not the place. this is a place where we can get 70% to build america to make it a better place. the rhetoric, the divisive rhetoric, the political campaigns increasingly funded by tens of millions of dollars, unanimous -- anonymous, dark interest money is really doing damage to this country. you know, i've always been for campaign finance reform. the reason why wasn't -- i wasn't very good at raising money, which i wasn't very good at, but it was because people ought to have a right to know who's talking to them.

who's standing up for what they have to say? i have always believed if you have something to say, you should be willing to put your name on it. i'm concerned about our inability here to tackle serious, long-term issues. my friend heidi touched on t. our obligation as public servants is to leave a country for our children and grandchildren that's in better shape than we got it. it's the most basic promise that we make. my wife jill's dad was a marine. and he was wounded in the south pacific. and i told him, you're our hero. i said no, i was born at the wrong time. but you're still our hero. and he said look, i did my job which is to leave for the next generation a better country than was given to me. and so that's what we're supposed to do.

and my friend michael bennet has talked about this a lot, but we have a deficit right now, $21.8 trillion. i had to look because it was i think $21.7 trillion yesterday. this deficit is going to destroy everything we're trying to do in this country. and we have done next to nothing to address it. i looked and my friend chuck schumer can probably relate to this the best. but there's an old cartoon. it was popeye. and popeye had a friend named wimpy. and wimpy loved hamburgers. but wimpy never had any money. so wimpy's famous saying was, i'll gladly pay you tuesday for a hamburger today. that is the american government today.

that we do things. we don't pay for any of them but some day we will. but that some day is this. my friends, jordan and peter hanscom just had a baby boy about five months ago. you know what he was born into? $67,000 in debt. and it is because we didn't have the responsibility to pay for our bills. at the end of next year, 2019, the deficit is going to $23 trillion. it is on an unstoppable course unless we do something here to be at $30 trillion. would did we do here? we passed a pass cut because what's another $1.5 trillion? a tax cut at a time when we have a full employment economy, a strong economy, we pass a tax

cut and we're now running in a great economy over a frill dollar deficit -- trillion dollar deficit every year. in we can't balance our books now, when are we ever, ever going to do this? and right now we're on a course that within ten years, the interest payment will be almost a frill dollars a -- a trillion dollars a year in interest which is unsustainable. admiral mike mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs, in 2010 when the deficit was $14 trillion was asked what's the most dangerous thing to our national security? china, russia? he said the debt because we can't pay for anything, and if we can't pay for anything, how am i going to protect the men and women who serve this nation?

so we have serious, serious work to do. a way to do it? my church back home, st. anthony's church in south bend, indiana. i know, an irish kid going to st. anthony's. you have to question it sometimes. but at st. anthony's church we were running up a debt. and we were solving it by adding more debt to fix the debt we had. and a new pastor came in. and he came into the pulpit one sunday and he said, here's the deal. we're not spending anything we don't have anymore. we need to have the revenue to match what we want to do. and the things we want to do and can't pay for, well, we'll continue to want to do them but we won't do them. and magic occurred. we balanced our books.

the parish went on. it got stronger. and all of a sudden we were in the black. we as a body here do not have the right to tell c.j., take little boy, children being born today, we don't have the right to financially cripple the country they will be inheriting. we had ancestors who fought for this nation. i think of my uncle tom who fought with patten in north africa, who gave everything they had. his purple heart is in my office, has been there every day while i've been here. that they sacrificed everything. the least we can do is pay our bills, to not give out crazy tax cuts that we can't pay for, is to make sure that we balance our budgets.

we're better than this. and we just have to have the ability sometimes to say no. to say no to things that you know commonsense wise you would never do with your own checkbo checkbook. or if you did, the end would not be very, very pleasant on that kind of thing. if we continue doing these things, this amazing and wonderful place i've been part of with the most amazing colleagues, that's the part that's been so great is every colleague, one's better than the next. but this is a long-term threat to this democracy and to our country's success. we can do better and every one of you can lead on this. to often what we watch in our politics doesn't reflect the spirit or the values or the diverse coalitions of americans that has made this country so

successful. it's not the type of example we want to be leaving for our kids. i will tell you what is the kind of example we want to leave. it's when we do great, great things, when we looked up and we saw our country in trouble. i had the privilege to represent kokomo, indiana back in 2008-2009 when the economy collapsed. and we had a transmission plant. we build all the transmissions for all the jeeps in the country there. that's why i drive a jeep. but those wonderful people. we went from over 5,000 to less than 100 and they counted on us, and we came together and we said we can do big things. we can get this done. and president obama, i told him,

chrysler is going to make it. he said, how do you know? i said, i lit a candle at mass. does that work? and he laughed. he said, well, maybe not. but i will give it a shot. you have to have faith in the people of this country, that if you give them a fair shot, they can get it done. and as an institution, we came together, democrats, republicans. my friend, fred upton from michigan, who is right across the line, together we got it done. that plant that had over 5,000 people working there and then less than 100 when we crashed has over 9,000 there today. because we looked at each other and said, its not about democrat or republican. it's about making sure that mortgages can be paid, that these people won't lose their houses, that we can continue to make great products here in this

country. i think of health care and i often think, maybe this is why i wound up here. a friend of mine, al gutierrez, who is a c.e.o. of st. joe medical center in mishawaka, called me up after we had so many problems getting it started. but he called up a couple months later, and he said, i just want to fill new on something that happened. we had a big meeting of all the brain trusts. it's because we have the had so many terrible heart cases come in, so many people who were sick that have come in and we're trying to figure out what has gone wrong that so many people have had bad heart cases recently? so he had the c.b.o., the surgeons, the this, the that. one person at the table raised their hand five minutes in and said, this is the first time

they've ever had insurance. they could never afford it before. these are our working families, where moms and dads who would be really sick had this amount of money, and it either went for the tuition for their daughter at ball state or to get well. and parents always take care of their kids first. and they looked at each other and said, well, that's the end of the meeting, because they could get health care for the first time. every town hall i've gone to -- and it's not unique to me; it's to everybody, it's to o. all our members, republican and democrat -- i have people come up and say, the health care bill saved my life. i wouldn't be here otherwise. i have one family triplet girls. they were born at six months, came out of the hospital at the tenth month. their hospital bill when they came out was $5 million.

the mom and dad said, we would have lost everything. we don't know if our kids could have made it. but the health care bill saved us. the health care we had saved us. that's big stuff that we do right. and it's not perfect. and that's where we have to come together, not to attack things but to fix things, to make things better. most everything in this world never started out perfect. you had aide fix it a little bit here, you fix it a little bit there and you can get there. and so when i saw those families, i thought of all of you, because you gave them their health care. you gave them the chance. i think think of my friend john mccain who is not with us anymore who stood up and said, i'm not going to worry about party. it's country first. and when he did, he made sure that those people could still get health care. it's every senator's job to work

toward those goals until it's a reality. and i know it sounds naive, constantly working together -- but we can and we must, and we know from recent experience there's a lot of things we can work together on, to be more functional, to be more productive. and one of them is the chance i've had to work with our men and women in uniform. as a member of the senate armed services committee -- chairman levin, chairman mccain, a wonderful ranking member, jack reed, who is with us here today, chairman inhofe -- being able to advocate for those service members is one of the most amazing responsibilities we could have. that they have everything they need. they're mostly in their 20's. they're defending freedom in every corner of the globe. they give us the ability to be safe, to live in our houses.

i remember going to coast province in afghanistan right by the pakistan border. and the indiana national guard was there. and i said, what message do you want me to take home to your families? and they said, tell them we got this. we know how to do this. and tell them we're going to make sure that they're safe. that's what these men and women were about. i had the privilege of going to iraq with kiersten. same message from amazing people who gave everything they have -- everything. and i think of the first eight months i had in congress. it was in 2007 and things were in flames. and our district in indiana, as many of our other states are, we have a lot of people who serve. per capita, we're about first in national guard people.

and in eight months i lost eight young men. it was losing one every month. and last year was ten years later, and if you want to know the awesome responsibility we have, all of these young men we lost, those children that were two and three and four and five, they were 13 and 14 and 15. and i saw their folks. i saw their mom. and they'd say -- the moms would, they want to know what their dad was like because he's not here anymore. i'd tell them what a hero their dad is, what an amazing person he is. and so we've tried to work not only to keep them safe but to stop military suicides. i worked with the dad and mom of a young man, jake sexton, who

took his life on his second tour when he came home for r & r. his home is near muncie, indiana. he just couldn't go back and took his life. his dad called me and said, can we do something? i want jake's death to mean something. and so all of you helped me and we all worked together and we made it show every service member -- and we made it so every service member could get an annual mental health assessment and they wouldn't be punished for doing it. what i moon by that is they -- what i mean by that is they wouldn't worry they won't get the next promotion, they won't get the next step up. i remember four-star general joe votel who came before our committee and said, i want everyone to know that i've sought mental health. i am a four-star general, and we're in this together. and so every branch of every service, every member can now get an annual mental health

assessment. you help me give them the chance to do this. and we have to also make sure that as we do this, we help them transition back to civilian life. what are the other things the indiana national guard told me in afghanistan as i was leaving? i said, what do you need? tax reduction? vests? better m.r.e.'s? they said, no, we just need a job when we go home. so we need to make sure they have that chance. that we stand up for our veterans. we've been able to get a new veterans center in a number of places around our state because we promised them we'd be there for them. and we have an obligation to keep our without objection, so ordered. and i know that -- and we have an obligation to keep our word. and i know that johnny isakson works every day to get it done. the work that's been done by

these people takes your breath away. they don't get paid much. they are in the most difficult places in the world, and when they come home, all they ask for is a decent job, decent health care, and a chance to see their family survive and do well. as i said, i think of those young men and women every day, and when you want to know what progress you've helped us make, when kiersten and i first came in together into the house, we were losing almost one every month. now it's not perfect. the world isn't perfect. but most of our young men and women are home. we do the best we can to keep those countries safe, to keep our country safe, and together we can continue to improve on it. one other thing i want to mention is -- and heidi talked about it today -- this past year

we've lost 70,000 young people to drug addiction. 70,000. it's become more than car crashes, it's become more than anything else you can think of. 70,000 people. opioids, meth, fentanyl -- it's the whole batch. and we can try nonstop to help, to provide hope and purpose and dignity where they may not be feeling it. one kind word, one bit of assistance, one bit of encouragement. i went to an event in indianapolis, and it was an event for families who had lost someone and families who have someone in rehab. and a young man came up to me from one of the wealthiest

families you could think of, doing really well the whole family. i saw them there. they said, mike, mo are -- they said, mike, who are you here for? they said, me. me e he'd gotten hurt. took an -- received an opioid in treatment. it was in the spiral that was nonstop. and his mom was there with him. and she said, i don't think i've slept a night since. and so we can do this together. one of the things you just did, we just passed a law allowing f.d.a. to give early approval to nonaddictive painkillers. so that when somebody is hurt, they don't wind up getting hooked or getting addicted. but i am telling you, this is a five-alarm fire in my state well over 1,000 died last year from this. all parts of the state. all towns. all areas.

rich, poor, doesn't matter your religion, race, anything. this is the great danger that parents need to be worried about and that we can stop and that we can provide hope and purpose and dignity. that's what we have to do because these are moms and dads and brothers and sisters and sons and daughters. and when you lose one, your family is never, ever the same again. i've seen the faces. i've met the families. i've spent time with them. and the senate can be a place that when we work together as a team -- pat has seen it in kansas, johnny has seen it in georgia -- that when we work together as a team, that we leave name-calling out, that there's no division, that

there's no agendas other than making it so that every kid can come home safe every night. before i finish, i also would like to thank so many wonderful people. i met so many friends, so many opportunities, traveled to places i could never imagine. you know, we used to have a saying in indiana, the only places you could go to on a codel are places you could get killed. i was able to go to afghanistan, to iraq, to south korea. i say the first part as a joke. the second part is, it was because our young men and women were there. and they were there keeping us safe. and all they ever wanted was a chance to represent this nation, that they love so much. those wonderful people. i want to thank the folks who work here in the senate, who

have done so much for all of us, who, you know, when you talk too loud, will lean over and tell you, the whole country is hearing what you're saying right now. you then quickly move away to the back. for their hard work, for their dedication. to the committee staffers who have helped shape policy and to ensure we can have robust debate and oversight on the big issues of our time. to the capitol police, our friends, who have been so amazing to all of us, who protect us and keep us safe. for the cooks and the cleaning teams and the building maintenance folks. i think my office was painted every month for the last six years. the whole gang, you make this place work. you make this nation work. i want to also thank my staff who are here on the floor with me.

no, heidi, you were wrong. this is the best staff in the senate who have done amazing work, who every day made me look better and smarter than i am. i'm incredibly grateful to them. they've resolved thousands of cases. in 2016 we received about 350 ,000 faxes, e-mails, letters, combinations. we had an election. in 2017 we received 1.5 million, five times more with the same amount of people, who sent every letter out on time, who followed up on every call, who repeatedly were there for the people of our state so that they knew their government cared about them and loved them and wanted their lives to be better. i couldn't do this job without

them. and i also want to thank my family who is in the gallery. my children, molly, her husband mike. my son joe, my wife jill, who has been through all of this. i remember we had a family dinner, one of those summits that you have around the table. this was back in when i decided to run for congress. i told my family, i said what do you think? i've been asked to run for congress. my son said that's the worst idea i've ever heard. he was close. but they have been on this journey with me for 12 years, and it's been an amazing, it's been an amazing journey. i want to thank french my state -- from my state. what an amazing privilege to represent them. and i remain optimistic about the future of our country, but we have to take these issues seriously. our country is filled with hardworking, decent people who just want us to do commonsense

things. i've been privileged to travel all 92 counties, all over my state, all corners of the state, and i think indiana's best days are ahead and our country's best days are ahead. may god bless all of my colleagues here in the senate with the wisdom and courage you'll need, because we don't just lead the nation. we lead the world. may god bless and protect this institution, indiana, our country that we all cherish and love so much. this has been the privilege of a lifetime. for a person whose family came off the boat at ellis island, my grandmother's passage document said she had $10, and her occupation was maid. but she believed in america. she believed in this amazing country. and we've been privileged to

help lead it, and it's been one of the greatest privileges of my lifetime. i yield back. thank you.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: mr. president, i just want to address the senate for one second. i've had the privilege with serving with both the speakers i heard today, heidi heitkamp from north dakota and senator donnelly from indiana. i want to say they represent the best of the senate. all of us are proud to be here. all of us are proud for the opportunity we have. but they are two special people, they are special because they have a smile on their face. they're special because they're very smart. they're special because they know how to play the game in a bipartisan way but not block things but help them pass. i've enjoyed getting to know joe and heidi. i'm going to miss them a lot. america is proud to have a great son like joe, a great daughter like heidi. i'm h glad to have them cross my

way so i could become a friend of theirs. god bless you for your service. thank you very much. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from inn. mr. young: i rise to recognize my distinguished colleague joe donnelly for his years of distinguished service to the state of indiana. i also want to commend his family for their dedication. i know this is a team effort in public life to work on behalf of our country and our states and our constituents. and they have been all in for the people of indiana. i just want to rise them up during this important time as they turn to a new chapter in their lives. joe donnelly has a heart for service clearly, from his service on the school board to serving as a member of congress when our terms overlapped, to the last six years he spent in the united states senate. and i have to say it's been a real privilege to have joe as my partner in the united states senate over the last couple of years. back home he describes himself

as the hired help. joe has never forgotten throughout his time in public life who he works for. it's because he genuinely likes people. not in the abstract. he likes individual hoosiers and individual americans and service members and veterans and our seniors and young children. that's why he has such a magnetic personality. that's why he is beloved by colleagues on the right and the left who represent red states or blue states. that's why i've enjoyed working with joe as well. hired help. joe touched on the casework, the challenges he's been able to resolve on behalf of the people of indiana. individual problems people have had with this vast government maze that sometimes we have to navigate.

he does have a reputation for having done very well on that front, and i think that's a reputation he is rightly proud of. he's also been able to get some important legislative initiatives done on behalf of the people of indiana. i'd like to emphasize a couple that we had an opportunity to work together on, again, consistent with his bipartisan nature. joe and i worked together to ensure that our brave law enforcement officers have greater access to mental health services and actually truth be told, joe was really the champion of this effort. that's certainly one of his legacies during his time in the united states senate. i can think of no more important legacy as i look at his record of achievement. we've worked to make sure that we properly commemorated the landmark for peace memorial in indianapolis, where robert f.

kennedy delivered some stirring words the evening of martin luther king's assassination. it's really -- it was a moving moment for all present, black and white and people of modest means and wealthier means, they all came together that evening because of that stirring speech. and joe and i worked together to make sure that that memorial park is tastefully recognized from here into the future. a nice piece of legacy. we wouldn't have it but for the efforts of joe donnelly. joe and i worked on a resolution to designate a day in august, august 3, 2018, as national ernie pyle day. we're proud of that in indiana. ernie pyle is a celebrated war correspondent and hoosier journalist that deserves memory in the consciousness and imagination of future

generations of adjournment. there -- generations of journalists. joe and i have worked together on perhaps the most consequential issue of our time, fighting this scourge of opioid abuse. we worked on multiple bills on that front. one of the more fun areas that we worked together was actually one of the first things that joe and i did after i was sworn into the senate, we struck from all government publications the word indianan. we don't use this back home but the word indianan because of joe donnelly and our work together will never again appear in government publications. instead it will forever and hereinafter be hoosier. the word hoosier will now be used, the proper word to describe someone from the state of indiana. joe i think would characterize himself as a regular guy. i actually think he's an extraordinary guy there so many

ways. he's uncommonly approachable for a united states senator. it's really important in this democratic republic in which we live, we want to make sure that the people that we hire to help us, want to make sure our elected representatives are people we can talk to, people who will listen. and he has developed a reputation, i think he should be very proud of as being regarded as someone who is really approachable. joe is refreshingly plainspoken. there's not a whole lot of flowery language that he brings to bear. he is who he is. he's very comfortable with that. and he speaks in such a way that it's really accessible to all hoosiers, all americans. that's really important too. and i think that that's something that, you know, others will seek to model moving forward. he's been an example on that front.

perhaps most importantly to me, he's a really good guy. he's authentic. we don't want our public servants to be phony baloney, plastic figures. and joe's not. joe will tell you what's on his mind and how he's feeling. he's just a, he's a really good guy. he's somebody you might want as your neighbor. so i just, i know joe's got an incredible future. i know he's going to stay engaged making sure that his community is taken care of. i know he'll continue to care about indiana and america and things going on around the world. perhaps we'll have an opportunity, my friend, to partner together moving forward and do some good together. and as i think you put it plainly but very directly, to leave this world a little better than you found it. so thank you for your service, joe. thank you to your family. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.

ms. stabenow: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: mr. president, i want to lend my voice in talking for a moment about a very special friend, senator joe donnelly. one of the things that we know about the midwest and the great lakes is that we do care about our neighbors. someone with a really good snow blower might clean off his neighbor's driveway too since he was out there anyway. that reminds me of joe donnelly. we know that joe is the senior senator from indiana. he's a wonderful neighboring state. we may compete now and again, but i have been so grateful to be senator donnelly's neighbor and his friend. over the past six years i've had the good fortune to partner with senator donnelly on many issues that affect our states and the country. we're both passionate about

fighting for workers and exporting and stopping the exporting of american jobs. we want to export our products, not our jobs, and joe's been at the front of the line fighting for american workers. making things and growing things, that's what michigan does. that's what indiana does. that's what we're all about. and joe's been at the front of the line to make sure that jobs are there, making things and growing things. we've had the opportunity to work together on the senate agriculture committee, and we are in just a moment going to be hopefully passing a five-year farm bill, and joe has been an important voice in that. it's something that we relish because as a committee we work together on a bipartisan basis and get things done. and senator donnelly has been a very important part of that, including getting important wins for indiana. it includes his legislation that targets the opioid of crisis by

expanding usda rural development investments and community treatment facilities and telemedicine. no small thing. that will save lives. it provides peace of mind for farmers to use cover crops and participating in crop insurance, and it creates broadband grant program that will connect underserved communities. and as senators from the great lakes states, we have fought together to protect our water. our most precious resource. i'll never forget the celebration when we announced nearly $14 million until public and private investment improving water quality and in the fish habitat in the watershed that we share and we held it at pier 23 up the road from southbend. if you've ever been to pier 23,

you have probably seen the showroom and the collection of beautiful boats. i'm not sure boats are the word for these amazing, amazing boats. i know that senator donnelly was impressed, as was i. i asked him after the press conference how it went, and he said it was good but he was disappointed he couldn't take home one of the boats. i felt the same way. if you ask anyone in the senate, senator joe donnelly, joe, is one of the nicest guys you will ever meet. he is also very funny. both of those qualities have made him a real joy to work with and i know i speak for everyone on both sides of the aisle that he will be missed. senator donnelly, joe, thank you for your hard work, your leadership. thank you for being a wonderful and great neighbor.

let me know the next time you're up north, we'll grab lunch and check out some of those boats. god bless you. mr. roberts: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: very quickly, i wanted to add to the remarks pf my distinguished -- remarks to my distinguished ranking member on the senate aging senate the . in a moment we will go to the agriculture improvement act of 2018 in which she had positive contributions. we wouldn't have been able to pass a bill without bipartisan

support, which he stressed in his last message to the senate. joe, thank you. thank you for being a friend, a great colleague, and a great member of the farmers, ranchers, and growers in indiana. you did a great job and we will certainly miss you. mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas has the floor. mr. roberts: i think we have to ask unanimous consent to give an additional ten minutes to the distinguished ranking member, myself, before to -- to make remarks on the farm bill. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. roberts: senator stabenow. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, first i would ask unanimous consent that rhea

mehta, and lindsey white, a detailee be granted floor privileges for the duration of the congress. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: i want to first thank our majority leader and democratic leader for their support to bring this bill to the senate floor for consideration. thanks to all of our agriculture committee members, including the distinguished presiding officer and conferees on both sides of the aisle for working to put this bipartisan farm bill together. and most importantly, i want to thank our distinguished chairman of the committee, my partner, my friend for working so hard. we worked together from the very beginning. weep promised each -- we promised each other we would deliver a strong, bipartisan farm bill.

despite many obstacles along the way, we kept that promise. the farm bill is a hard-fought agreement to strengthen the diversity of agriculture and the 16 million jobs that it supports. we know something about that in michigan where agriculture and the food industry supports one out of four jobs. that's a lot of jobs, mr. president. we also grow a wider variety of crops than any other state but one, a small little state called california. now more than ever we need to broaden the diversity of agriculture, and that's exactly what the farm bill does. our farm bill continues to support the wide variety of farms all across america, big farms, small farms, ranchers, urban, rural. and we provide new permanent support to keep this progress going, which i think is really, really important. we invest in the bright future

of agriculture by helping new and beginning farmers, including young people and our returning veterans who are playing a greater and greater role in agriculture, i know in michigan as well as across the country. new investments in international trade promotion, which will help farmers sell their products abroad. this couldn't come at a more important time. and streamline permanent support for farmers markets and food hubs and local food processing that will help farmers sell their products to their neighbors. we need to sell around the world and we need to be able to sell in our own communities. by protecting and expanding crop insurance and improving support for our dairy farmers, and, in fact, strengthening the support of our dairy farmers who were hit so hard with price drops and others issues. we maintain a strong safety net for farmers. and, importantly, we maintain a

strong safety net for our families. we said no to harmful changes that would take away food from families, and instead increased program integrity and job training to be able to make sure things are working as they should shouldn't every -- and that every dollar is used as it should be. we connect participants with healthy food through strong investments and farmer markets. and this bill continues the legacy as one of the largest investments in our land and our water. it's so important to michigan. by focusing on successful conservation partnership, we will actually grow funding by leveraging $3 billion in new private investment over the next decade. this bill also supports our small towns and rural

communities where like -- like where i grew up in claire. there are new opioid treatment resources to help those struggling with addiction. the bill also helps ensure that small town water systems are providing clean and reliable tap water. all of these things create opportunities for young people to stay in their homes, in their hometowns, and raise their families, which is what we want. and that's what this bill is all about, growing opportunity. i urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill and i want to thank all of my incredibly talented staff for their hard work as well as the chairman's staff as well. i know we'll have another opportunity to speak more at length about the provisions of the 12 titles of the farm bill and be able to speak more about the hard work of our staff, but today we're ready for a vote and

to be able to get this done so we can send it to the house for their support as well, and then on to the president. thank you, mr. president. mr. roberts: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: i thank my colleague for her remarks and associate myself with those remarks. i rise today as the senate considers the conference report on an issue that is critically important to our nation, the agriculture improvement act of 2018, the farm bill. the goal, the responsibility, the absolute requirement is to provide farmers, ranchers, growers, and everyone within america's agriculture and food value chain certainty and predictability during these very, very difficult times. this conference agreement includes policy improvements from both the house-passed bill and the senate bill which passed this body with a strong bipartisan vote of 86-11.

we have worked to maintain as many priorities for as many members as possible. this farm bill meets the needs of producers across all regions and all crops and it ensures that our voluntary conservation programs are keeping farmland in operation while protecting our agriculture lands, our forests, and other natural resources. the bill focuses on program integrity and commonsense investments to strengthen our nutrition programs to ensure the long-term success of those in need of assistance. and with trade and market uncertainty, it provides certainty for our trade promotion or research programs. feeding and increasing global population is not simply an agriculture challenge, it is a national security challenge. this means we need to grow more, raise more with fewer resources that will take investments in research, new technology, lines

of credit, proper risk management. it takes the government providing tools and then getting out of the producer's way. organizations -- organizations representing thousands of agriculture, food, nutrition, hunger, forestry, conservation, rural, business, faith-based research and academic interests have issued statements supporting this conference report. this is what happens when the congress works in a bipartisan, bicameral fashion. this is a good bill. this is a good bill that accomplisheses what we set out to do, again, provide certainty and predictability for farmers and families in rural communities. we have made tough choices being judicious with the resources we have on behalf of the taxpayers. this may not be the best possible bill, we know that. but it is the best bill possible under these circumstances. and importantly it provides our

farmers, ranchers, and other stakeholders much-needed certainty and predictability. i encourage my colleagues to support this conference report. every farmer, every rancher, every grower, everyone within our nation's food supply is watching to see if we cannot meet our obligations and pass this bill. so let us do that. let us tell those farmers and ranchers and growers who are going through tough times that they are going to be good for the next five years. their lender -- their lender is paying attention to this bill. let us support this bill. i yield back, mr. president. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the conference report to accompany h.r. 2. mr. roberts: i'd like to ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be.

the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators that wish to vote or change his or her vote? if not, the vote on the conference committee report is 87 yea, 13 nay. conference report is agreed to.

the senator from montana. a senator: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i move to proceed to calendar number 630, s. j. res. 64. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. all in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed say no. ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 630, s. j. res. 64, joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, united states code, of the rules 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 5u.s.c. 802, there are ten hours of debate equally divided. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana.

mr. tester: mr. president, i want to make a short statement tonight and we'll flush out a little further tomorrow. this resolution that we're about to take up will help protect our democracy, and it will hold special interests accountable. i do not believe that we can continue to allow special interests to be able to hide under the cover of darkness as they have such great influence on our election. the american people have spoken. i think they've made it clear they are tired, very tired of the dark money in our elections. and the decision by the administration to allow mega donors and special interests to further hide is not acceptable. so the vote is simple. the vote is for more transparency by these special interests. and quite frankly, it has major impacts on our election. i just came through one and i'll talk about it a little more tomorrow. but the bottom line is that this

resolution is a resolution that i believe adds more transparency, will help our democracy, help both democrats and republicans know who's trying to influence the elections. and also allows us to determine whether foreign entities, which is, by the way, illegal, whether foreign entities are trying to influence our elections, and that is illegal. so with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. mr. isakson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: mr. president, this is a special time of year, christmas. all of us are in a her are you to get -- 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 grirchl who stole -- grinch who stole christmas in the senate. i don't want to think ten years from now if only i hadn't said this, this wouldn't have happened or maybe i had seen it

coming, i would have done something. 2008, 2009, the senator from montana, senator hoeven and others, we went through the 2008-2009 housing crisis that ended up in mortgage-backed security failures. all that happened on wall street, dodd frank, everything -- dwod-frank -- dodd-frank, everything, the collapse of our economy, the worst since 1927. and we all remember what happened. we ended up getting the tarp, having crisis after crisis. we slowly for surely guaranteed enough stuff to get the markets strong enough to build back. it's just now back to where it ought to be from a standpoint of values which is a decade later. but quite frankly, the housing market is not as strong. it's only -- its only strength is that there aren't many houses for sale because people aren't putting them on the market. builders can't build specks, not nearly the credit there should be, people are fixing up,

staying longer so they can sell for more money. in the multiple listing service in atlanta, georgia, when i left my company in 1998, there were 140,000 houses on the market in atlanta, georgia, in june of 1998. now there are about 60,000. that's not because the market has failed. it's not just that big a housing stock out there for all the reasons i said. in terms of financing being readily available, it's readily available and that's what i want to talk about. i was thinking the other day, i heard an ad on the radio about no dark loans and v.a. 100% loans, we'll approve what the banks know and stuff i knew was just wrong. so i turned to the business section which i used to always look at as a businessman every day but don't anymore because i don't have the decisions to make. but i'm glad i did because it taught me a lesson. i want to read this from last sunday's paper. how about a loan with no

downpayment, zero down mortgages, and jumbo loans? we'll approve what the banks won't. that's exactly the thing that took us down the wrong path in 19 -- in 2008-2009. greed took over common sense. common sense failed and we did some bad things. all the things in the mortgage-backed security market took place all at once. what happened was, because money was chasing rate and rates were starting to rise and now they're starting rise. that's happening in our economy. the instruments that yielded higher rates than the going rate for rater credit started being created to be sold and packaged on wall street. you would make money on the sale of the security but also would fund a mortgage at a higher yield to yield the investor which was fine until the person at the lower end of the spectrum gets approved with a no downpayment loan, ends up getting qualified, doesn't make a payment, they get foreclosed, the house is lost and things

that happened in 2008, 2009 start happening all over again. i'm not saying we're on the verge of a collapse but i'm saying it is a carbon copy, i mean a carbon copy, exactly what was happening in 2008 and 2009 when the markets collapsed. and we can't afford another one. banking is stronger today for a lot of reens -- reasons mainly because there aren't a lot of them because they failed. in the south, in atlanta, georgia, we lost more than anybody in the country because the capacity wasn't there. as i said about the housing market, the number of houses available in the marketplace are much lower than they were back in the 1990's or 2005, 2006, 2007 and it's down because there's not as much to put on the market, not enough credit to finance it to put on the market and have speck loans. people are tight with their money because a lot got burned in 2008, 2009. they see parents who lost their houses, savings they lost, values collapsed, couldn't get

through their college, home equity loans died. there are lots of folks out there trying to put together instruments to package them in an attractive way to sell them on the new york markets and through mortgage-backed securities and attract in low-credit borrowers or young borrowers who aren't totally prepared to borrow the way they should be. it's higher risk for us, high risk for our economy. the middlemen make a lot of money early but on a 30-year mortgage, you don't want to make your money early. you want somebody with skin in the game for all for years. i -- 30 years. i want to say to all of my colleagues and talking to myself as much as with you, i'm not talking at myself but with myself. we have to be careful if we see things happened that happened in our recent past, that we didn't learn from them. i didn't see it coming? it's happening. you read the paper with me and i'll come to the floor a lot of times to mantra myself. i see the creep of easy credit. the creep of no documentation.

the creep of no underwriting for quality of borrower. the creep of greed coming into the marketplace. and the greater it gets, the worst the economy is, then the faster it goes bad and we all go bad with t. i come up to wish everybody a merry christmas. i don't want to be the grinch that stole christmas but it's being advertised in our newspapers, happening in our cities, happening in our backyard, and we need to make sure we don't let it get awie from us. because -- away from us because if we do, we'll have only ourselves to blame and i yield back. mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent at the conclusion of my

remarks, that my friend from iowa, senator grassley be recognized. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i don't know how but a lot of the people back home have got in their heads that defending america is a complicated issue. and, you know, it's the kind of issue that's going 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 that defending america is just common sense. it's called priority, something we didn't have in the last administration, and we all -- every american citizen needs to be responsible for our own national security, so i'm going to be coming here each week to outline the common sense for our common defense. and we are working here in washington for families back home. now, today i'll talk about how we face the -- an urgency in

funding our national defense. it's very simple and, again, it's common sense. without action to exempt the military from sequestration or preach a budget agreement, we'll have to once again face the devastateing cuts of the budget control act in our military. we could handle it in other areas, and i'm very supportive of it, but not in the military at this particular time. i'll tell you what. we know what the result would be. we saw it in the obama administration. without sustainable, predictable fund, we'll squander the progress that the military has made, which has improved readiness and investment in future technologies. this is just in the past two years. we need to continue to make progress. we also need to implement the national defense strategy. the trump administration's strategy correctly prioritized

strategic competition and that's with china and russia. but to be effective, strategies are going to have to match with resources. put this chart up -- not that one, the next one, the national defense strategy commission. now, by the way, that's this document right here, the national defense strategy commission. this is put together by a number of the very top people chosen by democrats and republicans. in fact, senator jon kyl was a member of this when he was not in the senate, and he and i will be debating this -- will be talking about this and complimenting each other on this. this will be tomorrow. but this right here, this chart we're looking at right now, just to give you an idea of what is happening with some of the other countries, we have china, and they're actually increasing -- they're passing us up in terms of our number of ships. and this is true with everything else. they passed us up in 2003.

we're kind of used in this country to be -- having the very best of everything, ever since world war ii, we thought that was our mission. now, put up the other one. yeah, this is a quote out of this document that we have right here that has been so brilliantly described by so many people. it says that, putting it bluntly, the u.s. military could lose the next state-versus-state war if it fights. now, these are the top military people and nonmilitary people in our society that conducted the study that has been heralded as the most accurate study by all parties having to do with our nation's defense. now, at a minimum, next year's defense budget should at least be $733 billion. that's a floor, not a ceiling. that represents, i have to say, a no-growth budget because we went from fiscal year -- three

years ago, 2018 to $700 billion and then in fiscal year 2019 went to $7,016 and then this would actually be going to up 73. do the math. that's an increase of 2.1%, which is not -- it is not even growth. it is a no-growth b and i have to say that -- it is a no-growth budget. and i have to say that secretary mattis and the rest of them have called for fully implementing the national defense strategy, which would require between 3% and 5% of real growth. on both sides of the aisle, we have some individuals that are advocating for cutting in defense spending. i am concerned about the increased deficit but we also have to have this priority. we have to have america catch up.

we're not used to having to catch up defense-wise, but we are now. defense spending is not a primary reason for our increased debt. we could eliminate the entire pentagon budget and the deficit would actually grow. and here's why. over the past ten years our national debt has grown 86%. during the same time, defense spending has been cut by 3% p meanwhile, constant dollar defense spending dropped some $200 billion between the years of 2010 and 2015. that's an amount of dropping in 2010, the total budget was $794 billion. in 20159 -- five years later -- in 2015 -- five years later, it dropped to $586 billion. that's a drop of $200 billion. in percentage of terms, that is -- it's a 24-hour drop. this hasn't happened since the

end of the korean war. we've got 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 and we have to do t because, again, if you cut the entire defense budget out it would not reduce or eliminate the debt. so the mandatory programs with growth of highs. the debt is 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 the year -- fiscal year 2023. you see right here, this is -- the gray line here. this is how the increase -- the net increase in spending compared to the total spending of nondefense. it passes nondefense in 2023. so, anyway, the obama administration viewed the world as they wanted to see it, not as

it was. the assumption that russia is a strategic partner was and is fundamentally flawed and profoundly misguided. it has cost us dearly. so today we're 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 has chosen to cut with his lack of priorities for the military. so that's a reality. that's -- but i think this president has done a good job in outlining who our peer competitors are because we are talking about countries that have things that are better than we have. tomorrow we're going to be talking in some detail about that. when the military is forced to reduce spending, it is going to have to take trade-offs between -- trade-offs between reducing force structure and just not modernizing. 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, focused on force structure and modernization. the size of the chinese navy -- that's the one that we held up erroneously, i want to remind you. the size of the chinese navy will soon surpass the size of the united states navy. we're almost ready for those lines to cross in 2022. over the 2000-2030 time frame, the u.s. navy would grow unship every two years. meanwhile, the chinese navy is growing at a rate of 10 ships annually. so as chairman of the senate armed services committee, is see no bigger impair of it than this to fully fund our defense and fully implement the national defense strategy. you know, when i talk to people

out in the real world -- and i am talking about going out to oklahoma, talking to groups of people. when they find out that it was true ever since world war ii that we have had the occasion of increasing -- of being number one in all areas of our equipment, such as artillery and other things, they're shocked to find out that the chinese and the russians actually have equipment that's betterren us. -- that's better than us. with that, i thank my friend from iowa and will yield the floor. did you want to -- mr. president, by unanimous consent, i think he is the next speaker after my remarks. [no audio]

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: is the senator yielding the floor? the presiding officer: he is. mr. grassley: i thank my colleague from oklahoma. 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 eye watt, senator -- from iowa, senator joan knee ernst, for her dedication to reforming the conservation reserve program. we refer to that in the midwest as the c.r.p. the program's intent is to

reduce land erosion, improve water quality and help wildlife populations. over the years, it has strayed from its unintended focus. -- it's intended focus. some landowners have been receiving more than $300 per acre to enroll their entire farms in the c.r.p. 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 c.r.p. program at lucrative rates paid by the government that the individual farmer could not compete against. farmers can't and shouldn't have to compete with the government, especially with the current debt

our country has. so 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, and that is my payment limitation amendment. this is a process that i've been trying to get accomplished and have been unsuccessful through at least this farm bill and two previous farm bills. each time i've been successful in getting these reforms through the united states senate and in the 2014 farm bill i was able to get them through both the house and senate in the same form. but, you know what? in the dark rooms of conference

committee meetings and phone calls, people that don't like to save the taxpayers money and don't want to help young and beginning farmers and medium-sized and smaller farmers and worry more about the wealthy farmers have been able to undercut the effort, even when a majority of both bodies has supported it. so i didn't give up as a result of the 2014 bill and the disappointment there. i got through the united states senate those hard caps on what any one farmer can get and to make sure that the people that benefited from it were in fact farmers. and not nonfarmers that maybe had a distant relationship from some farming operation, maybe

even being on wall street. so once again i got undercut in this effort to save the taxpayers money and to concentrate our farm bill on medium- and small-sized farmers that need the help when things have happened nationally, internationally or politically that are beyond their control, that drive down prices, or acts of god like a drought. it's the small- and medium-sized farmers that needs the help from the government, not these big, big farmers and corporate farmers that we're going to end up helping the way this bill is written. so, to say the least, i'm disappointed the bill makes more subsidies available to the wealthiest farmers and many nonfarmers.

and to say anything else or to say that is a severe understatement. i'm more than just a little disappointed. especially when the impact of large farmers being allowed to manipulate the system is -- 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. and this bill goes well beyond that limited safety net.

today we have a farm bill that is intentionally written -- and i want to emphasize intentionally written -- to help the largest farmers receive unlimited subsidies from the federal government. there's 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 one subsidies. this time the house would not even have that debate. no debate on my reforms. the senate did, however, and the senate did include it in their bill. however, the 2014 conference committee put in a loophole that

exempted family farms which account for approximately 95% of farms from the new rules. the bill makes their original loophole even larger. so as bad as the 2014 farm bill was, this new five-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 one payments by themselves

without this new gimmick. so this new gimmick is just to award this big taxpayer money to people that 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 until limited taxpayer subsidies. for years i've been using this figure about the top 10% of the farmers receiving more than 70% of the subsidies from the government. that's only one of the many reasons it's so hard for young and beginning farmers to get started. i know it's hard to believe, but i've 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 the commodity prices. and that's 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 insured 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 large large-m fiscal situation is as bad as it's 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's growing. so whether it's talking about saving the taxpayers money or whether it's talking about -- targeting the farm program to small and medium-size farmers as opposed to the wealthy or whether it's about talking about getting young people into farming, congress needs to get serious about spending. this bill represents an open ended spicket of taxpayer subsidies in the title one programs of the bill. because of this, when we cast

our vote about one hour ago, i voted against this farm bill that otherwise is pretty basic -- is a pretty basic program, but 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. a senator: i rise today to talk interest very good news. after months of bipartisan negotiations, the senate has finally passed the new farm bill. this bill will probably not get as much attention and some other news going on right now in politics and that's too bad because the farm bill is a significant piece of legislation that touches the lives of every person every day. ms. smith: 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's also good news because congress has come together to get this done. at a time when so many americans are frustrated with divisive politic, it's 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. and 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 conway and minnesota's ranking member colin peterson on the house committee. when i became a senator just under one 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, world 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 grower growers in the southeastern part of minnesota to sugar beat farmers in -- 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 number one in sugar beets, number two in corn processing, number three 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 is with colin petersopeterson where we met wih

farmers and rural development leaders and everyone in that room told me how the farm bill directly facilities -- affects them. so i directed my staff to continue these listening sessions, and i'm proud to say we had almost 50 of them around the state. meeting with the working group and touring farms and rural development projects around minnesota has made the issues facing rural america, our farmers one of our top priorities here in the senate. minnesotans had given me some great ideas of what to fight for here in. i heard from young farmers in minnesota, like organic farmer matthew fitzgerald of hutchinson and eric sanderroot, a farmer, how difficulty it is accessing f.d.a. programs. so i pushed 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 from maine. after visiting the good acre in fell conheights and -- falcon

heights and learning about local food systems, i joined the bipartisan effort to better connect farmers with their communities. so i'm grateful for the leadership of senator sherrod brown of ohio and senator susan collins from maine on this important issue. in march i visited the cuban shy dairy in princeton, minnesota. three generations of the 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 is 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 here. 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-size farms. there is still a lot of challenges ahead for dairy farmers, but hopefully these provisions will help minnesota's farmers who fairing falling milk prices -- facing falling milk prices. many farmers told me they were worried about skyrocketing health care costs. health care leaders from douglas county hospital and lake region health care spoke to us about the unique health challenges facing rural communities. in minnesota we're focused on finding innovative solutions to address rural health challenges and it's clear that federal agencies need to do more to examine the barriers to the people faced to accessing care in rural communities. that's why i helped shepherd the bipartisan liaison act through the agriculture committee and i helped 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 in departments like the hill -- like health and human services to coordinate efforts. this is an important step towards 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 debate to sustain this program on behalf of sugar beet farmers in my state and across the upper midwest. and 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 will her, minnesota, 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 deaths of nearly nine million turkeys and chickens, we knew that this program was necessary. other than 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 more than almost any other state. and 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 ag producers, local businesses, and rural communities 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 the people have for access to reliable and affordable internet service. broadband access is critical for farmers using modern equipment and for rural families trying to access health care, 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.

this farm bill also expands access to jobs and agriculture for returning service members by encouraging the usda to assist veterans in joining the agriculture workforce. i pushed for this provision that will help veterans have the resources they need to take advantage of these opportunities. today, as our farmers face steep uncertainty regarding tariffs and the impact 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 colleague, mr. president, 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 system relief. but the core trade problem remains. don't get my 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 that 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 farm country and american farm country. farmers are on the front lines 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 that farmers rely on. as i've 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 this country, live in households that have food in-- that are food insecure, which is a fancy way of saying that 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. this is why farmers and ranchers in my state tell me how important they think it is to support nutrition programs. and i'm glad that this is reflected in the final farm bill. we have passed this bill in the senate, mr. president, and i hope the house will pass it in the next few days, and then the president needs to sign it into law to give farmers and ranchers the certainty that they deserve. thank you very much, mr. president.

i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. 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've long ban supporter of these re-- i've long been a supporter of these reforms after what i saw the positive impact was 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 doubling digits at the same time. not only does this lead to massive savings of taxpayer dollars, it's an investment in the men and women who are committed to turning their lives

around. what we like to say is 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, and the question is, how prepared were they for those who were willing to work to turn their lives around? how well prepared were there for life on the outside? for years i've tried to bring this successful texas model to washington, d.c., and now we have a piece of this legislation before us that will take these reforms nationwide. more than 75% of the bill that 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, and 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. 180,000 people. the federal bureau of prisons' 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 recidivist 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. so 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 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 life. i am a -- i am not so naive to think that every person will take advantage, but we know that there are a significant number of these offenders that will take advantage of the opportunity to turn their life around. that's 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 in year, we passed a bill out of the house with strong bipartisan support, and i've 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, and so out of my respect for our law enforcement organizations, i spoke with many

of my republican colleagues about the bill and originally they said they were unable to support it or undecided because they wanted to make sure that 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 have 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 have worked on this and say how much i appreciate their willingness to try to get to yes and come up with something that we can pass with strong, bipartisan support. but i've also wanted to make sure that we're -- that we talk to the stakeholders, the people who -- the police officers who patrol the streets, the sheriffs who work in each of our states, in our counties about their concerns, and i believe we have worked hard and successfully to address many of them.

i don't believe that necessarily 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 prepare people better so that when they come out of prison, they will not likely repeat their mistakes. in every case it's possible. as i say, i think we've made some big improvements. the revised legislation will keep violent and dangerous catch and release 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 to ensure that the bureau of prisons will invoke -- for offenders who violate the terms of their supervision. i appreciate all the work of colleagues to chose to roll up

their sleeves and get to work rather than just complain about what was or was not in the bill. so now i am proud to announce that i will cosponsor this bill, this new and improved version of the bill, and i would 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 president trump, when we produce a bill in the house and senate, he will sign it. he has encouraged the majority leader, senator mcconnell, to put this bill on the floor even during this short period of time we have in the lame-duck session. and the majority leader has accommodated the president's request by saying that we will address this before we go home for christmas. mr. president, on another matter, the clock is ticking of course, and we're welcomely approaching the -- and we're

quickly approaching the deadline to fund the federal government. my republican colleagues and i stand ready to advance our remaining appropriations bills. but really it depends 0en what our democratic colleagues decide to do. 75% of the government is already funded through bipartisan cooperation on the passage of appropriations bills, and that's something we haven't done for a long time. but there's still some critical funding, particularly for the department of homeland security, for the f.b.i., 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 the figure out whether there's any room for agreement to resolve the dispute between them. the question is really what is the appropriate amount of money to fund in this bill for border security? the president said he wants $5 billion. senator schumer has said, $1.6

billion ought to be you have in. so obviously there is a grandparent between them. -- there is a gap between them. some people 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're unable to resolve a dispute, when you reopen the government, usually what happens is that same problem is staring you in the face. so 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 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 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's more about politics than it is doing our job as legislators trying to solve problems. and it also appears that they seem to think that the continued status quo along our border is good enough, and they're 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 of the heroin that comes across the border is from mexico, or the children and women that are trafficked for sex, or the migrants who come up from central america into the united states charging -- the cartels charge roughly $8,000 a

person. it is a huge, money-making business. but the people who are getting rich are the transnational criminal organizations and drug cartels. as i say, we've seen what happens before when the government shuts down. it affects millions of people across the country and often yields no different result. and we've seen what happens when we fail to secure the border. that's why we need to finish our work funding the government and doing -- 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've had the elections. 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, who got across the border in san diego from mexico. some talked about the crisis as

if it was 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 want 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's why ensuring additional resources for border security is an essential piece of the puzzle. my home state of texas, of course, is on the front line, 1,200 miles of common border with mexico. texas is home to many vibrant border communities who greatly benefit from having some of the busiest land ports in the country, across which legitimate

trade and commerce travels. but as i said, we're 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 shoveling 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 here in washington there's simply just not enough awareness of, and that is the cartels and the 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 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 measurings -- in mexico does not stay in central america and mexico. it comes flooding across our borders. and these gangs and casualties are very shrewd and adapt to changing circumstances. they found that more of our borders and ports of entry clogged with migrants and migrant families make it easier to track in people, drugs and contraband into the united states. that has a reciprocal effect causing legitimate trade and travel and commerce to slow significantly at our ports of entry. but it's not only exploitation of our border that poses the threat. it's the violence and the instability caused by the the cartels and gangs. that makes it not just a border

security issue but a national security issue as well. my 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. and i think that's exactly right. in other words, you don't mount a goal line defense at a football game. you actually start testing the game farther down the field. and in this case the game needs to be contested in the places where these migrants and the drugs emanate, where they start from. we're 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 in these countries. i spoke with my friend, the senator from california, senator

feinstein. of course she represents a border state. she and i have partnered on a number of national security and law enforcement matters, and she said she was interested in working together in a bipartisan way to address the challenges presented by central america and mexico. and i said absolutely, sign me up. representing a border state, as you might suspect, i make it a point to take to those who live and work in our border communities. it is a unique part of the united states. i like to say that most of the concept people in washington, d.c. have about the borders they've learned from movies and novels. it's not from talking to the people or visiting with the communities along the border. that's not a criticism. that's just a fact of life. but when i hear from people like manny padilla, who is the border patrol 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. but for those who may not be at the border every day, it's hard to grasp the range of topography across the 1,200 mile border texas shares with mexico. it can be hard to imagine how many resources are needed. in some places there are high mountains and cliffs. in others there is thick brush. in the urban areas that surround our ports of entry, there's 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. but in some places technology or personnel is more effective than a fence. the point is that border security is complex and better enforcement of our border will require a combination of

infrastructure, technology, and personnel. but that begins with ensuring that we have the resources we need to implement a border enforcement strategy, and that's what this issue is all about, the discussion that ms. pelosi, senator schumer and president trump had today. my question for our democratic colleagues is why won't you 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 chers cannot occur -- trade and commerce cannot occur. securing our border and protecting our country should not be a partisan issue. it's something we ought to be able to work out and agree on. but we know the challenges that our friend, senator schumer has, the democratic leader on the

other side. he's got a cadre of people auditioning for the presidential nomination in 2020, and they're trying to outdo each other in their impending runs for president. and i think in many ways his hands are tied. but 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 course of trying to cajole her new and emboldened members of the far-left wing of her caucus. they're both trying to fend off outside groups that think that even talking to president trump on this issue may mean you will be subject for the next attack or perhaps a primary campaign. i don't envy the spot they're in, but it's a game of political chicken and they're playing it among themselves. but 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 to solve these problems as

hard as they may be. the american people are the loser when their elected officials decide that 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 5% of the government l funding -- roughly 75% 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. the american people, i think, do not need any more sideshows and circuses here in washington, d.c. 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 are still -- who are still serving in this chamber, including senator schumer, supported passage of the secure fence act back in 2006. how that's 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. so this should not be a partisan issue. i would hope that all of our colleagues would 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. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: while the distinguished senior senator from texas, the deputy leader is still on the floor, let me thank him for his kind remarks and just say a word of appreciation for his patience through the long process of getting to a conclusion. 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, long, long, long process. the bill that we are going to go to i think is in majority our original bill. and for a long time has been the engine that i think all sides have seen as the means to solve the sentencing piece which was much more difficult. but 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. so i just want to thank senator cornyn for his patience through all of this. i also just want to say a quick appreciation to representative collins and representative jeffries whose bill over on the house side was basically started like ours, and then they were able to negotiate. i think senator cornyn and i both agree were improvements, so we adopted our bill to

incorporate the improvements from the house side. but 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 this, senator cornyn, for having kept the faith through these many years and many congresses of getting to this point. so thank you, sir. mr. president, i would like to ask unanimous consent that the senior senator from new jersey, senator menendez, be recognized at the conclusion of my remarks, if he is here on the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you. mr. president, this week the nations of the world are gathering in 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's 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 u.s. 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 grimmer. in october came a new report from the world's scientists working through the intergovernmental panel on climate change, and 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 could anticipate due to climate change if we don't act to curtail carbon emissions. trump responded first by describing his own, and i'll quote him on this, very high levels of intelligence, end quote. and then he went on to simply deny all the science because 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 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 won't act, won't admit it as to the president not -- admit it. as to the president not seeing it, willful blindness would be another term. this takeover of our government by fossil fuel forces is having very real consequences in the

united states emissions numbers. after years of decline, u.s. carbon emissions rose in 2018, increasing by 2.5%. 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 power plants, 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 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% below 2010 levels by 2030, which is just 11 years from now. we've got to be 50% below our emissions in 201011 years from -- 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's 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. and 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. and they, too, said that a price on carbon and an end to the subsidy that the fossil fuel industry enjoys and that is at the heart of its political intervention that has prevented us from taking action on climate change needs to go. you've got to add a price on carbon, and you've got to get rid of the fossil fuel subsidies. that is their prescription for avoiding economic catastrophe. well, maybe they don't know what they're talking about, but $32 trillion worth of money thinks that they know what they're 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're a fake free marketeer who's really fronting for the fossil fuel industry. but if you're not a fake on

market economics when it's the industry who funds your party involved, it's pretty straightforward stuff. it's 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. 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% 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 four years following the british columbia carbon fee, fossil fuel use decreased by 17% in the province compared to increasing by 1% 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. and why would it not when 100% of the revenues raised for british columbia's carbon fee are returned to taxpayers in the form of other tax cuts? and it's popular. 70% of british columbians support the policy. what about the u.s.? california has put a price on carbon by 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 other states are relatively low. around 5 bucks for us in rhode island. schatz and i have introduced the

carbon fee act again starting at 50 bucks per metric ton of emissions in 2015. it's the mid range of the office of management and budget's 2015 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 akeel to true conservative republican colleagues. as one republican former legislator said, it's not just an olive branch, it's 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 is mentioned in congress in press releases, floor statements, and online by members of congress. this is how often democrats have mentioned it from 2013 to 2018. i'm afraid i'm 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, all republicans in congress, all their press releases, floor statements, and online communications. grand total, 678 mentions. i mean, seriously. and it's gone down as it's gotten worse, because i think it's difficult to talk about if you're a republican. everybody's looking around at the wildfires. everybody's looking around at the sea level rise move coming

up. everybody is looking around at the storms. everybody is looking everyone 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's how often republicans talk about it, and here's how often democrats do. we should probably do better, but anyway, that's where we are. and if that doesn't show the effect of the industry squelch ing 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's 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. mr. president, 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 sleazefest. with that, i yield the floor and per the previous order, i think senator menendez is here to be

recognized momentarily. i saw him come onto the floor a moment ago. thank you, mr. president. 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 that he has done on this critical question of climate change, and i'm 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 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 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 styness on the -- climate scientists in the u.n. environment program, that includes the climate assessment assembled by 13 federal agencies and 300 government experts --

our federal agencies, 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's 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 consequence of climate change are anything but abstract. regional food and water shortages, inundation of coastal communities that are home to billions of people around the world, mass migration and refugee crisis, our own national climate assessment makes clear that the united states, for all of our wealth and good fortune, is far from immune from the efforts 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 and trends depicting climate change's harsh reality are undeniable. it is a fact that the average global temperature on are earth has increased by about 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 wildlife risks. it is a fact that sale level has been rising over the past century and the rate has

increased in recent decades where in 2017 global mean sea level was three inches above the 1993 average, the highest annual average in the satellite record. none of these facts are new. none-these facts are denial -- none of these facts are deniable. this was predicted 20 and 30 years ago. to echo a common sentiment to climate change leaders on the urgency of the situation who said, quote, 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 at the paris agreements in november of 2016, and the agreement

requires the rules be completed this year making the cop in katowice the most important. it has nonbinding global reduction goals, reductions to prevent a two degree celsius increase in average temperatures. the paris agreement outlined transparent reporting so that parties can hold each other accountable via diplomatic engagement as opposed to binding legal precedent or punishment. of course, success comes down to execution. that's 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 bound to result in repeating past mistakes and detrimental outcomes. china is emboldened by president trump's plan to abandon the paris agreement. china slowed progress at cop 23 and will continue its efforts. in the leadership vacuum that president trump 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, quote, 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 united states 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'm proud to say that new jersey is a national leader in deploying clean energy technologies, creating clean energy jobs, and planning an investment 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 3,50. new jersey increased its renewable energy standard to 50% by 2030 and set a new state carbon emission reduction goal by 2050. 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 tra subjectry, the world to -- trajectory, the world could see global temperature increase by 12 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 increase 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 published a statewide paper -- published a column by robert cop, the director of the institute of earth, ocean, and atmospheric sciences, highlighting many of these issues. our winters have been warming faster than our summers, pests like the pine beetle and ash borough are no longer kept in check. perhaps even more alarmingly, we have seen our crops bud earlier and earlier only to see them decimated by cold snaps later in the season. in the garden state, famous for

our tomatoes, cranberries, blue berries, and other specialty crops, that's a big deal. as temperatures rise, we also expect to see a surge in heat-related deaths and illnesses due to allergies and asthma, like mosquitoes increase carrying disease. our coastal communities have begun to see how changing water temperatures are changing fish migrationings, making it -- migrations, making it harder for our fishermen to earn a living. 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 understanding the devastating consequences it can have to our families, our communities, and our

infrastructure. there's 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 transactional relationship this president has with the fossil fuel fossil industry. he is putting politically connected corporations ahead of the best interest of the american people. proof of the administration's favoritism for fossil fuel is exemplified by the only u.s.-government sponsored event at cop-24 in poland entitled, 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 like mongolia and other countries that face crisis 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 shows the administration's contempt for the united states booming renewable energy sector, which according to the trump department of energy employs more americans than the u.s. fossil fuel industries by a 5-to reality. all told, nearly one million americans work in the energy efficiency, solar, wind, and alternative vehicle sectors. that represents five times the number of workers employed in the fossil fuel electric industry, which includes coal, gas, and oil workers.

as a 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 to 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 super power, 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 at

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's essential to u.s. national security interests, as defined by our own department of defense, and growing u.s. economic opportunity. with that, mr. president, i just want to take one other 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's an administration that doesn't want the american people to know what it's doing. so it's 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 foreign money to influence our elections. these special interests know so long as the money keeps flowing, there's someone in congress to do their bidding. at a time when americans want a transparency from their government, this rule would allow special interest to hide their donors from the i.r.s. it's been eight years since the supreme court citizen united decision, a decision which gave corporations the right to spend unlimited, unchecked, and more often than not, undisclosed money on our elections. for eight long years more and more money has flowed from corporate coffers into campaign ads and political expenditures and republicans have defended it every step of the way. let me demonstrate the magnitude of the dark money pumped into our recent elections.

in 2016, outside groups spent $1.4 billion, much of it funneled to trade associations and nonprofits. in 2018, outside groups spent more than $1.3 billion. these funds weren't spent by the candidate's campaign committees but by groups that did not have to reveal their donors and dislow it to the public. spending by independent, outside groups reached an all-time high of 49 million in this year's congressional elections in my own state of new jersey. when state and county parties spent about $8.1 million. in other words, outside groups this year spent -- outspent party, formal parties by over 600%. all of the secret cash and dark money undermines the ability of the american people to hold their government accountable. but for the president and some

of my republican colleagues, that's not enough. ask yourself, under these rules what's to prevent anonymous foreign corporate donors with unlimited amounts of cash to influence the american political system and help elect a candidate who benefits them? and then exert influence over that candidate once elected? it's 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's the wrong direction and a dangerous one. as we now know, the president benefited from this dark money, particularly money that came from the n.r.a. what's baffling, however, is that the administration would make it easier for hidden money to flow to 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. but she may be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to russians trying to pass money into our electoral system. under this administration's rule, uncovering those efforts will be made harder, not easier. that is why tomorrow i will be urging the f.b.i. and the f.e.c. to investigate whether other covert russian sources may be behind political contributions the n.r.a. has made during the 2018 electoral cycle to any house or senate candidate. we need to know who's 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. they want disclosure. they want to reduce special interest in our politics and they want this government to work for them. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the privileges of the floor be granted to my military fellow juan ramirez for the remainder of his fellowship through june of 2019. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, there's been a lot of discussion this evening by my colleague from new jersey, my colleague from rhode island about the issue of climate change and the impact. i come from a part of the country where climate change is there. it is with us. it is real. and it is -- it is something

that we look to as alaskans with a reality of this world view. i spend a lot of my time here in the united states senate focused on not only the united states arctic but the arctic as a whole, the eight arctic nations that we intersect with. i would like to take a few minutes this evening to speak about the happenings in the arctic, our new reality as we are seeing greater opportunities but also greater challenges in an area that i find is an extraordinary place on our globe. it was about 150, maybe a little more than 150 years ago but massachusetts senator and the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee at the time charles sumner, he argued the

geo strategic importance of alaska to our young nation at the time. and senator sumner spoke about how the elusions represented this gateway to aish ya. this was a maritime route to the west coast, roughly 1,000 miles shorter than the southern route through the sandwich isles that was popular at the time. and it was about 70 years later thereafter that general billy mitchell who is the father of the air force, he testified before congress and he said that i believe that in the future, whoever controls alaska controls the world. i think it is the most strategic place in the world. and then we had world war ii. the japanese who also recognized this strategic importance of the elutians and they briefly seized and occupied the islands of atu and kiska.

while the war may be forgotten by many here at home, the world continues to remember the strategic significance of the north. and although general mitchell saw the strategic geographic location of alaska, he could not have imagined the environmental changes that would make sea routes accessible to commerce year round. nor could he have imagined the rich mineral wealth beneath the arctic. now, he might have been able to imagine that russia would take a major interest in the arctic given its proximity. from the straits region of alaska, one can indeed see russia from your window, not too many people on little diomede but i have been there and big diomede sits just about two and a half miles across the water. but i doubt that general

mitchell would ever have been able to imagine that nations like china or india would take an interest in the very remote and often forbidding north. less that they would be fielding ice breakers in 2019 and 2020 and china and india are. you might wonder why singapore -- why singapore would take such an interest to justify observer status on the arctic council. and so while places like singapore are seeking observer status, the united states passed the chairmanship of the arctic council and with it -- with it most of our diplomatic efforts towards the arctic. the arctic executive steering committee and other institutions within the executive branch focused on the arctic have in my view kind of wasted away just

when the rest of the world has redoubled its focus on the arctic. but the department of defense is as clearly -- they get t. they're starting to recognize -- get it. they're starting to recognize what general mitchell did. before the subcommittee back in may 2016, i asked secretary carter whether we were doing what we needed to do from a defense standpoint to address changes in the arctic. and his response was pretty frank and i think very revealing. he told me -- and this is his quote -- the arctic is going to be a major area of importance to the united states strategically and economically in the future. i think it's fair to say that we are late to the recognition of that, but i think we have the recognition. and now you are asking what comes in behind that recognition. i think a plan that is more than aspirational is needed and i would be happy to work with you

toward that end. so at that time, secretary carter's candor was refreshing if not long overdue. but i have to tell you, i have to tell you we are still waiting for a plan that is more aspirational in the arctic, not just a plan but a plan that is fully resourced. and as an appropriator, i know full well how difficult that is to achieve. sometimes around here like a tree that falls in the forest, when there's nobody there to listen, seems like official washington doesn't recognize that something new and very real is occurring until they read it in "the new york times" or perhaps "the washington post." well, on thanksgiving day this year, "the washington post" really laid it out. they had a special section, some 16 pages and it's entitled ow the new -- entitled "the new

arctic frontier." i would like to quote from the cover of this special section. it provides, as the arctic slowly thaws, the united states, russia, china, and other interested nations are reconsidering how they strategically approach the region. corporations have launched new missions to search for oil. commercial fishing continues to evolve. shipping and luxury cruise lines alike are planning to send more vessels north. coastal erosion has prompted questions about how some alaskan villages will survive and how the u.s. government should react. against this backdrop, militaries are increasingly preparing for potential conflict in the arctic. the united states is shifting forces to the north planning to build a new class of ice breaker ships and cultivating stronger relationships with nordic militaries. russia meanwhile is investing in ice-capable vessels and infrastructure improvements and china has declared itself a new

arctic state. well, this really sums up where we are today. truth be told, general mitchell has been proven correct in ways that he probably could not have imagined when he said alaska is the most strategic place in the world. for example, right now, here today anchorage has the fifth busiest cargo airport in the world. not in the country. but in the world. so we're sitting here in anchorage, alaska. we are less than nine and a half hours from 90% of the industrialized world. so whether you are -- whether you're going to singapore, london, mexico city, less than nine and a half hours, again

from 90% of the industrialized world. so many carriers like fedex, ups, alaska airlines, atlas and others are already using anchorage as a cargo hub because of this very, very central location and these very real opportunities for commerce. we're also looking to regain ted stevens international airport's position as a hub for international passenger travel. now, we're getting ready for the holiday season, for christmas. i think santa had this figured out a long time ago. he knew that the shortest way to get around the globe whether you're going to fiji or london or los angeles or seoul, the quickest way is over the pole. even santa understood the geographic -- the geo strategic position of the arctic. but it is alaska.

it really is alaska sitting right up there which is the gateway to america's arctic that is at the center of all of this. and that's just not me bragging, me as the alaska senator being parochial about it. it is real. it's compelling. and it's demanding of attention and action. and i know that that's not easy. "the washington post" editors observed that the arctic pore tends great opportunities -- portends great opportunities and challenges so let's get to work on this. that's my central message today. it's time that we get to work and move ahead with a plan that fits the challenge that the arctic represents for america. we talk a lot about aspiration, a time for aspiration is over. it's time for action. and that starts -- that starts by fully funding the first of the coast guard's polar security

cutters whose purpose is to provide assured year round access to our polar regions. these are platforms that can project seapower anywhere any time and are fully inner operable with interagency and international stakeholders to carry out national defense operations. these cutters will include sufficient space, weight, and power to conduct multimission activities that support our nation's current and future needs in the arctic. the polar security qatar will allow us to continue to continue to engage with our fellow arctic nations and our allies and our strategic competitors. but i share with you a picture of our existing polar ice breaker, but when you look around the world, the various flags, here we are sitting in

the united states, one of eight arctic nations. and we have two ice breakers. you say two. maybe that's all we need. well, one of them is permanently in dry dock in the seattle seattle-tacoma area. s -- she's never going to see activity again. the other one, polar star, she's on her second life. she is working hard, but she is down in antarctica. and she will be in antarctica until she, too, is retired. and then what -- where does that leave us? where does that put us? we have a medium manufacture strength vessel, the heli, she does great work. but that's what the united states has. canada has nine government-owned. they're either operating or under construction.

china, four. china, who is just determined -- who has just determined that they should be a near-arctic state. russia -- 34. and when you count those that are nongovernment-owned, it's well over 40. so here we are, the united states of america, an arctic nation, and we're down to about one icebreaker. so we've got some work to do here. over the past several years, funds have been secured through the navy to get started in building a new polar security cutter, and this year the administration wisely decided -- and i thank them for working with us -- but they've decided that it's time to lock in the project by budgeting the remaining funds necessary to complete the project. it is about $750 million. that's a lot of money. that's a lot of money. but i would submit that that investment in a polar security

cutter is a small price to pay for the ability to project u.s. sea power in the arctic. and the question of whether or not we follow through on this very important step, this is going to be a -- this is going to be determined this week or perhaps next as we complete the fiscal year 2019 appropriations projects. so i would dare to suggest that our competitors in the arctic are watching very, very closely whether we have the resolve to follow through on the first of these polar security cutters. bringing the polar security cutter online will bring us capacity, we aappreciate that. but the next and perhaps more difficult challenge is to build the infrastructure to support the next phase of u.s. sea power in the arctic. and most critical for that is the development of deepwater court in the bering sea. our reality is, right now, the

alaska deepwater port that is nearest to the arctic is located in dutch harbor. dutch harbor is some almost 1,000 miles away from the arctic. so when you're down in -- when you're down in the aleutians -- and i'm looking at my imaginary alaskan map here. but when you're done -- when you're down in the aleutians, it's 1,000 miles to get up to point hope, to barrow and that area. and so a port is a critical piece of infrastructure that is needed. and it will serve many, many uses. it can support the navy, the coast guard, noaa's research mission. it will support search-and-rescue activities that may be necessitated by increasing commercial vessel traffic in the arctic, and it will provide a platform for the u.s. to harvest some of the

economic upside of commercial vessel transits. rear admiral john white, a recent event that was sponsored by the wilson center, he characterized the requirement for a deepwater port in the arctic it is a a no-brainer is what he said. he went on to say, but unfortunately it's not a no-coster. last summer navy secretary spencer looked at some various sites, potential sites for a deepwater port, and he's very engaged in seeing how we can be working together to bring the funding partners to make this happen. and we look forward to working with him towards this endeavor. but his engagement is so greatly, greatly appreciatived. he clearly -- great lay, greatly appreciated. he clearly understands the developments here. so all these developments are far more positive than we have seen in years.

but they're building blocks. and the race to protect america's strategic interests in the arctic demands attention on more than just defense, and it will take coordination. that's why i'm going to be introducing today two pieces of legislation that are designed to reinvigorate america's national and commercial strategic efforts. for well over a decade now, you've heard me talk about how the diminishing arctic sea ice presents both opportunities and concerns. so if you look at this map here -- so you're looking at planet earth from the perspective that most of us in alaska view, which is from the top on down. you've got the u.s. arctic here with alaska, you've got the canadian arctic here, here's russia coming all the way around

to iceland, greenland, down in this area. but, as i mentioned at the beginning of my comments here, we recognize the impact that climate change is having on the arctic, rapid impact more so than any other part, clearly, of the united states. the latest report from the u.s. global change research program underscored this fact. since the early 1980's, the annual average arctic sea ice extent has gone down by about 4% per decade. the decrease for september sea ice extent -- this is the time of year where we have the least amount of ice -- this time period has been even more pronounced at somewhere between 10.7% and 15.9% per decade in terms of the decrease in the sea ice. so what does all this mean? according to that report, it means we are likely to

experience a sea ice-free arctic summer before this century is out. so, again, when you're looking at the top of the globe, you're looking at the arctic here, all of the area in the light blue -- you can't see the red around it -- this was all the extent of the sea ice, september sea ice, back in 1979. now in 2015, three years ago, the extent of that september ice is just here on the pink. and so, as you appreciate that you're losing this through more parts of the year, it does -- it does points to a reality that we are like lay to see in the -- that we are likely to see in the not-too-terribly-distant future about a sea ice-free summer. loss of ice in the arctic goes

hand in hand with temperature warming. over the last seven years it's been somewhat common to refer to the arctic and say that it's warming at twice the rate as the rest of the country. this latest climate report shows us that that's not exactly right. in fact, the north slope of alaska -- so this corner right there -- the north slope warming at 2.6% times the rate of the continental united states. so much of the rest of the state of alaska is warming at more than twice the continental u.s. rate as well. so it's not just twice as fast. it's more than twice as fast. so, again, we're paying attention. and i face this reality, i hear about this reality every time i step off an airplane in a rural community. i listen to the people there, particularly the elders, as they

share their knowledge. record-low extensive arctic sea ice threaten many of our indigenous communities because of threats of coastal erosion. less ice, waves build up, beat against the shore, erode it. but it's more than just the coastal erosion. it is the impact on their traditional ways of life, food security issues, hunting, access to resources to basically exist. so we are in tuned, but it's not just -- it's not just through the eyes of the people that are living there. this is abundantly clear in both the scientific data that's collected by our state and our federal agencies as well as the experience of rural alaska natives. according to this most recent report, the cost of infrastructure damage from a warming climate in alaska alone -- we had our own chapter in the

report -- the cost could range from $110 million to $278 million per year. so changes to our air, our water, our soil, our food security, our disease ecology directly and indirectly resulting from our warming climate are going to impact the lives and the health of every alaskan. so, on the one hand, the future in the arctic looks increasingly challenging for our rural communities. and then, on the other hand, the future also represents a new frontier. there's opportunities out there whether they are in construction, in tourism, in energy, in minerals, in shipping, in community development. so you've got challenges, you've got opportunities. for some time now, my team and i i have been working on two

pieces of arctic legislation to support responsible development in the u.s. arctic. it hang been easy to meet the expectations and the needs of rural and indigenous communities that are most impacted by climate change in the u.s. arctic while at the same time focusing on economic development, environmental stewardship, human security. but we've really been trying to mesh these all together. and i believe that these two bills that i am introducing along with senator sullivan, the arctic policy act of 2018 and the shipping and environmental arctic leadership act of 2018 -- that's the seal act -- i think that they are steps in the right direction, helping us move closer to meeting these objectives so. so the first bill will statutorily establish the arctic executive steering committee under the department of homeland security and provide the

coordination necessary to advance a truly integrated plan for the arctic. by reinvigorating the central coordinating body for arctic issues, the legislation will provide a venue to deliver the type of plan america needs and, more importantly, a place to work that plan into action across agencies. as it stands now, everybody has a little bit of a piece of something when it comes to the arctic. but it doesn't really seem that there's any coordinating entity, and when you don't have anybody that ultimately has that responsibility, often p times it's hard to see the progress. we know federal policy does not exist in a vacuum. so, in addition to establishing the arctic executive steering committee, the legislation will also establish an arctic advisory committee to ensure that residents of the arctic and alaska native people have a seat at the table for the development

of policy. they don't want to be sitting back and being told what is happening. they want at seat at the table. and as the indigenous peoples of these regions, they have fully that right. further, the legislation calls for the establishment of regional tribal advisory groups starting with the bering sea regional tribal advisory group to advise the federal government as it shapes national priorities within the region. these tribal advisory groups will be empowered to provide advice on specific challenges or regionally important issues. i like to say that you go out into rural alaska, you go out to a small village. you're not going to find a lot of ph.d.'s out there. but what they do have, they've dot got a ph.d. in arctic living. they know what's going on. their very life, their survival

depends on understanding and appreciating their world around us t in the arctic we've got an opportunity to show the world here how to integrate indigenous knowledge and voices into policy and science. and that's why the legislation will also update the arctic research and policy act of 1984. this was legislation that my father introduced when he was here in the senate. but this will include -- we will update this to include more native voices at the arctic research commission and thereby push to include traditional knowledge and community coordination in our nation's scientific efforts in the arctic, especially our efforts to study and understand climate change. the second piece of legislation that i'm introducing is a shipping and environmental arctic leadership act of 2018, the seal act, which establishes a congressionally chartered seaway development corporation

in the arctic. this corporation with work with representatives from noaa, from the state department, from the coast guard and d.o.t. as well as representatives from the state of arkansas the alaska business community, alaska coastal and subsistence communities, and the alaskan maritime labor organization to help develop an arctic shipping union whose leadership will advocate for safe, secure, and reliable arctic seaway development. and further ensure that the arctic becomes a place of international cooperation rather than competition or conflict. the capacity to get maritime and shipping services funded by means of international cooperation is not a new concept. we've seen it done. it exists with the st. lawrence seaway development corporation in the united states. this is one example where countries which share a large maritime border, the united states and canada, are able to

develop a seaway system, one that is safe, secure, and reliable for its users. i have people stop me and say well, this is so many years off where we're going to see levels of commercial activity in the arctic. there is no -- there is no real need to move on this, is there? well, again, i would just remind you of some of the charts that you have seen. the multiyear ice that once made the arctic impassable and shielded our northernmost border year-round is diminishing again due to climate change, and because of this, shipping in and around the arctic traffic will increase. so when you -- when you appreciate where we are with the northwest passage here, northwest passage by 2025 intermittently opened, but the

pathway, you're going from the bering straits right off of alaska here through rotterdam, you are going to have an opportunity to basically be cutting through there. the northern sea route falling through russia. by 2025, they anticipate that this sea lane will be open for full -- a full six weeks. the transpolar route going more directly over the pole by 2025 have two weeks of open shipping. so yes, shipping is going to increase. when you can figure out a quicker way to get from asia to europe, when you can shave off days, when you can use less fuel, you are saving money, so this is from a trade perspective, this is hugely significant.

but this looming increase in commercial vessel traffic also translates to greater demand for services and processes necessary to ensure that arctic shipping can be reliable and safe for shippers who need to transport goods from one place to another on a timetable. this last chart that i'm going to share is just a reminder of not today's reality. this is the number of vessels that were tracked between year 2014 and 2015. so this is the aleutians right down here. this is where the great circle route ships come through. it's so black here, you can't even tell that these are lines, but this demonstrates the level of existing traffic that we have here. but even three years ago, the number of vessels that transited up to -- to the arctic, whether it was to go over into the

beaufort or the chukchi or that direction, this is here, this is now, this is what's happening in the arctic. so what we're seeking to do with this seal legislation is to help fund a system of arctic ports. not just one port but a system of arctic ports, ports of refuge for ships in trouble and ports to send, receive, and transship goods and people, private aids to navigation, all-weather tugs that can help ships that may have lost power or steerage and to provide a commercial architecture to support the private sector investments in and use of icebreakers that can help ships that may be boxed in because of the ice. that happens. so as we talk about this proposal that we are laying down

in this legislation, i have likened it to uber for icebreakers. it helps people kind of understand what it is that we're looking at here. port infrastructure will also benefit rural arctic communities and bring down costs for delivering fuel, groceries, and other necessities, which in my state at this time are just extraordinarily high. i think that this legislation can help the united states organize and attract investment opportunities for ports and icebreakers for our own safety and that of commercial vessels that are venturing into the arctic, as well, again, as for those who live there. so these two bills, building on the strategic efforts of the department of defense and the strides that have been made in the ndaa can provide the legislative direction needed to help develop that aspirational plan that secretary carter recognized that we need. and while i will be introducing these now, i'm also going to be reintroducing them in the next congress, and i would certainly

look forward to working with any and all of my colleagues, interested parties, as well as the executive branch to refine them in the hopes that we can truly, truly reclaim america's leadership role in the arctic in this next congress. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be suspended, please. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kennedy: mr. president, i represent -- have the honor of

representing louisiana in the united states 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 knows americans agree with that. but other people never change. i don't know why it is. if i make it to heaven, i'm going to ask, but there are some people out there. they are not mixed up. they are not confused. they're not sick. it's not a question of whether

their mom or daddy loved them enough. they're just bad. unfortunately, they're just bad. and for that reason, i think we all recognize that prisons are a necessary fixture that make our communities safer. as we prepare, mr. president, 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's let out about 2,000 prisoners. now, the inmates that 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 that he let go weren't paired with programs to reduce recidivism. he just let them go. he did it under a statute that 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% of inmates have been rearrested. now, that's over 14 months, a very short period of time. the governor and his department of corrections said we're only going to release nonviolent criminals. well, somebody forget to tell the criminals that 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 have been rearrested. that's higher than the 22% i

just quoted. that's a recidivism rate of 33%. 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're scared to say anything because the governor controls a lot of their budgets and their money, but if you ask nine out of ten law enforcement officials in my state privately if they support it, they will tell you no, and the tenth is probably lying. the head of the district attorney's association, in fact, has publicly said that louisiana 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's 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 talking about victims at all. it's always criminals. mr. president, i have 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 from south louisiana about what this failed experiment of criminal release in louisiana has cost his family. in his words, this -- and his words, this gentleman's words have been weighing on my heart and my mind since i read them, and i'd like to read a bit from that letter now. i'm 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.

he 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. quote -- there's a state law which states that anyone convicted of a d.u.i. with vehicular homicide with a blood alcohol level of .15 or greater has to serve a minimum of five

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 h i want you to know that when i say my prayers at night, i pray for a better louisiana, end quote. 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's precisely what happens when policies like criminal release programs are pursued without considering the victims or their families. it's not justice, mr. president. i believe in justice. i think most americans do. what is justice? we talk about it a lot. i agree with what c.s. louis said. justice is when somebody gets what they deserve. i'm not saying that deterrence and rehabilitation is not important in a prison system. they are. but they have nothing to do with justice. they have to do with the

effectiveness of your prison system. c.s. louis 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's justice. he's getting what he deserves. and c.s. lewis didn't just say that. emanuel comp said that. he didn't say rehabilitation isn't unimportant. they just have nothing to do with justice. and hagel said the same thing and st. augustine said the same thing and all of the great thinkers of history.

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 the terrorists. it doesn't have anything to do with rehabilitation. those are all important factors, but they have nothing to do with justice. the criminal release program gone wrong has had other effects on louisiana, too. it frees people like tyrone smoky white. let me tell you about him. our governor rett him go. he repaid the state promptly by robbing two roofers at gunpoint. less than a week later, mr. white was released under louisiana's criminal release program despite having more than 60 arrests on his record -- 60 arrests.

a criminal release program gone wrong looks like a convicted felon named richard mcclinton, who upon being granted early release illegally gets himself a gun, uses it to fatally shoot another man. he then leaves his victim to die , like roadkill. -- on the side of the road with multiple gunshot wounds. a criminal release program in louisiana anyway gone wrong looks like a duane watkins. he's pedophile. he got to walk out of jail early. not just once but two times. watkins earned ten years for illegally supposing a gun as a felon, and he got out early and promptly sexually abused two young girls. he earned three 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 two months after his early release, he approached kelly and heather jose at a shopping mall. when he asked to borrow their phone to call a cab, the couple asked offered -- the couple offered him a ride. mr. duane watkins decided to repay their generosity by kidnapping them, shooting them, burning them to death in their own car so badly that they are 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 her soul -- at

barksdale air force base. she enlisted in the air force in 19998. health care actor jose, the other victim, was a small business owner. she loved working in the ministry of her church. they were good people, just trying to do a good deed. this was a senseless tragedy, and it did not have to happen. and just this weekend, mr. president, our sheriff from tato parish asked a question, why is duane watkins out of prison after violating his parole and sexually abusing two young girls? many of us are asking that same question. but the answer is very simple -- the edwards' administration failed criminal release program. mr. president, 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're reneging, mr. president, on the justice we promised to victims like mr. prince who lost a child. you want a put a price tag on justice? have at it. i don't. we also failed in louisiana the jose's three children. they don't have parents anymore. mr. duane watkins took care of that. he should have been in jail serving his time. that's justice. louisiana's failed experience has cost law-abiding folks dearly, mr. president, in every corner of my state. and i just want to implore my colleagues in the senate to please think about more than

just the catch and release. think about more than just the money. think about the lives of the victims and their families as well. because they're supposed to count, too. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: will the senator withhold his request in -- withhold his request? the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: a few months ago, i had the 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'd struggle to do better than this place. the ranch is owned by pat and sharon o'tool. it's been in the family 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 five years old. the ottoman entire was still around. our world has transformed since then, but the ladder ramp has endured through the depression, the dust bowl, two world wars and the transformation of our economy. and of course 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're joined on the ranch by their daughters and their son and a whole bunch of grandkids. i'm sharing the story of lard ranch because in many ways it is the story of farmers and ranchers across my state-and-cross the country -- and -- across my state and across the country. one of the privileges of representing a state like colorado is that i've had the opportunity to learn about

places like lard ranch and the -- like ladder ranch and the legacy 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. and knowing that if you are in agriculture, you can do everything right and still fall behind because of forces beyond your control. and today farmers and ranchers in this country are facing tremendous uncertainty. they've got persistent drought, which is growing worse due to climate change. threats of wildfire. they've got low commodity prices and challenges with finding people that can work because of our immigration debate here in washington. find the seasonal labor that they need. there is a having you -- they're

struggling to hire the workers that they need. now on top of all that, they've got the confusion of the existing trade policies of the united states. two weeks ago the usda announced that farming is projected to drop 12% this year. when you add it all up, all the uncertainty, add the policy up, add the up, farm something going to be down 12% this year. all of this acts as a weight upon our farmers and ranchers, making it harder for them to pass on the legacy of their work to the next generation. earlier in year, our agricultural 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 there's an entire generation out there deciding whether or not to pursue a career on the family

farm or ranch. and they're certainly looking at all of this uncertainty. a lot of them are deciding that it's not worth it. that's why the average age of farmers is what it is in the united states. we owe it to our farmers and ranchers to provide consistcy where we can and to help preserve the legacy of american agriculture for years to come. by passing the 2018 farm bill, that's exactly what we've done. this bill means more certainty for america's producers. in this volatile environment, this bill maintains crop insurance appeared makes risk-management tools more effective. most important to colorado this bill helps our farmers and ranchers diversify their operations for the first time in 50 years because of this farm bill, mr. president. 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 urged a cloud of uncertainty for years. our farmers worried about maintaining access to their water. they couldn't buy crop insurance or transport seeds. some ran into red tape opening a bank account or even applying for federal grants. despite these challenges, hemp cultivation in my state grew sixfold over the last four years. again, it is interesting the majority leader has wanted this as well because climate -- the climate in kentucky and the climate in colorado don't have -- they have almost nothing in common. but hemp grows in kentucky and it grows in colorado. and we see help as an opportunity to -- and we see hemp as an opportunity to produce products for our farmers. this bill also helps farmers and

ranchers hand more opportunities to the next generation. it makes it easier for people to secure conservation easements. it invests in america's harm economy to keep up our competitiveness in the 21st century. it helps places like in my state deal with forest health. working with the presiding officer, we increased funding for wildlife habitat and provide for opportunities for hunting and fishing on private lands. working with senator boozman from 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. it creates tools for farmers and ranchers to ever -- and we increase 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. a lot of credit lies in the approach we took in the agriculture committee. that's a committee that should be like this for all our committees. it's a committee we don't have partisan differences. if we have differences, we have regional differences and we work them out. that's why that committee, which i have proud to serve on, is one of the only functioning committees in the senate. we passed a five-year farm bill the last time there was a farm bill, not a six-month one, not a six-day one, but a five-year farm bill, and this is another one because republicans and democrats both know we have got to support our farmers and ranchers, not create even more uncertainty for them. the other privilege of being on that committee, mr. chairman, is that i spend a lot of time in my state in counties where it's

unlikely that i am ever going to win 10% or 20% of the vote, but i keep going back and back, not because i think i'll win but because i think as a country we've got 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 challenges like climate and drought every single day. they don't have the luxury. 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 farm or ranch to the next generation and handing them more opportunity, not less. to them, that's all that matters. and that's the ethic we should be applying to our national policy. mr. president, i know my time is short. i would ask that my next remarks appear in a separate place in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. chairman. 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 v.a. benefits to veterans exposed to toxic chemicals while serving 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's 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 health care in the world as a reflection of their service. this moment, we should rededicate ourselves to that goal by passing this significant bill. let me end by thanking senators 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's the right thing to do. mr. president, i yield the floor. i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. perdue: i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. perdue: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. perdue: mr. president, i have five requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the

majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. perdue: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 560, s. 1092. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 560, s. 1092, a bill to protect the right of law-abiding citizens to transport knives interstate, and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. perdue: i ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn and that the thune substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to, that the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. perdue: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 581, s. 2961. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: send number 581, s.

2961, a bill to reauthorize subtitle a of the victims of child abuse act of 1990. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. perdue: i ask unanimous consent that the blunt amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the committee-reported substitute amendment be amended, be agreed to, the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. perdue: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 612, h.r. 6964. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 612, h.r. 6964, an act to reauthorize and improve the juvenile justice and delinquency prevention act of 1974, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. perdue: i ask unanimous

consent that the grassley amendment at the desk be agreed to, that the bill as amended be considered read a third time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. perdue: i know of no further debate on the bill as amended. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate, the question is on passage of the bill as amended. all in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill as amended is passed. mr. perdue: i ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. perdue: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 695, s. 3482. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 69 a 5 -- 695, s. 3482, a bill to amend the public health service act to reauthorize the emergency medical services for children program. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection.

mr. perdue: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. perdue: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 701, h.r. 1872. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 701, h.r. 18272, an act to promote access for united states diplomats and other officials, journalists, and other citizens to tibetan areas of the people's republic of china, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. perdue: i ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. perdue: i know of no further debate on the bill. the presiding officer: if there is no per debate, the question is on passage of the bill as amended. not amended. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it.

the bill is passed. mr. perdue: i ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. perdue: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 5759 which was received from the house. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 5759, an act to improve executive agency digital services, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. perdue: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. perdue: i ask unanimous consent the committee on the judiciary be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 3996 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 3996, an act to amend title 28 united states code, and so forth.

the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged. the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. perdue: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. perdue: i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 154. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 154, promoting awareness of motorcycle profiling, and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged. the senate will now proceed to the measure. mr. perdue: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. perdue: i ask unanimous consent the committee on the judiciary be drarnlgd from further consideration of s. res. 711, and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

the clerk: senate resolution 711, designating november, 2018, as national runaway prevention month. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged. the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. perdue: i further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. perdue: i ask unanimous consent that the senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following senate resolutions which were submitted earlier today -- s. res. 719, s. res. 720, s. res. 721, s. res. 2722, and s. res. 723. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate will proceed to the resolution en bloc. mr. perdue: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed

to, the preambles be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table all en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. perdue: i ask unanimous consent that the armed services committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 565. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 565 honoring the 40th anniversary of naval submarine base kings of naval submarine base kings >> on the 40th anniversary the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. perdue: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. wednesday, december 12. further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning

hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. further, following leader remarks, the senate resume consideration of s. res. -- s.j. res. 64, and that the senate vote on adoption of the resolution at 12:15 p.m. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. perdue: if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the

to testify add a senate judiciary committee hearing and those speeches by heidi hyde camp and joe donnelly. >> talking about running for office as women giving advice to those women thinking of her career in politics is half hour discussion was part of the women rules summit in washington dc. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you for joining us. [applause] i'm very excited to be here i am joined by