Floor Statements

Mr. President, on November 6, millions of Americans, including thousands of Vermonters, headed to the polls to cast their votes in these midterm elections. Back home, Vermonters reelected our governor, Governor Phil Scott, a Republican, to another term in office. They also returned Democratic majorities to the State house and senate.

I was moved by the remarks delivered by Governor Scott on election night. Of the elections, he said, ``Vermonters are saying they want us to work for them, not against each other. They are saying we need to listen to one another and prove to the rest of the nation that in Vermont we can and will rise above partisan politics.''

I have spoken in Vermont about Governor Scott's speech. I believe his remarks show how we work together in Vermont and how we should work together in Washington. I am proud of the challenge put forth by Governor Scott. I know that, in Vermont, it is a challenge we can meet.

The book will soon close on the 115th Congress, one in which one party controlled majorities in both the House and Senate and the White House. The book will open on the 116th Congress, where I hope we can move forward with the bipartisan spirit that Governor Scott challenged us all to adopt in his remarks on election night. As it has throughout our Nation's history, Vermont is leading by example. It is an example I implore every Senator to follow. Let's focus on what unites us, rather than promote greater division between us.

I ask unanimous consent that the remarks of Vermont Governor Phil Scott be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, small business are at the heart of many communities around the country, but in a small State like Vermont, local businesses and their owners truly bring people together. Lloyd Squires and his bustling Burlington bagel business, Myer's Bagels, is one example. For the past 22 years, Lloyd has dedicated his life to running this Vermont establishment, making more than 3,000 hand-rolled bagels every day.

Lloyd grew up in Montreal and struggled with homelessness as a teenager. However, his life turned around at age 15 when Myer Lewkowicz, the owner of the Montreal-famous St-Viateur Bagel, offered Lloyd a job that allowed him to finish school, put a roof over his head, and learn from Myer's teaching. Myer had moved to Montreal and started his bagel business in the 1950s, having survived the Buchenwald concentration camp. Lloyd worked side-by-side with Myer for 15 years until Myer passed away. To honor his mentor, Lloyd opened up Myer's Bagels in Burlington, VT, in 1996.

Lloyd has worked tirelessly over the last two decades to develop his growing business. Before Lloyd received his green card, he would drive the 4-hour roundtrip from his home in Montreal to Burlington, VT, each day. Lloyd lives much closer now, but still drives 4 hours each day to deliver bagels around the region. Lloyd gives 1,200 bagels away each week to local charities. When asked, Lloyd will tell you that his favorite part about running his business and working incredibly long hours is being able to talk to his customers and develop close relationships with the community.

I am proud to recognize the business and community that Lloyd Squires has helped create in Vermont over the past 20 years.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a Burlington Free Press article titled, ``A day in the life of Lloyd Squires, Vermont's `best' bagel maker.'' It shares Lloyd's hard work and the story of how he has gone from being homeless as a teenager to a cornerstone of our community.

Mr. President, earlier this month, Marcelle and I, with Marcelle's brother, Claude Pomerleau, attended the Kennedy Center Honors Dinner at the State Department. We were moved by Deputy Secretary of State John J. Sullivan's remarks, which touched on his deep admiration for foreign service and his great appreciation of American arts and culture. I wanted to share with the Senate his remarks, which were filled with historical references and bits of humor.

I ask unanimous consent that Deputy Secretary of State Sullivan's remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, a remarkable Vermonter has reached a remarkable milestone. Enid Wonnacott of Huntington, VT, deserves our thanks for and recognition of her more than 30 years of agricultural leadership in Vermont and the Nation.

Enid has led the Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont, NOFA-VT, since 1987. Her early leadership of NOFA coincided with my chairmanship of the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Enid was a constant source of counsel to me about the importance and unlimited potential of organic agriculture for Vermont and the Nation, and she was a strong advocate and adviser as I worked to make the National Organic Standards Act a part of the 1990 farm bill. This is the law that authorized the national organic standards and labeling program, ushering in the remarkable and still-burgeoning growth of America's thriving organic sector.

Since that time, Vermont continues to be a leader in our country's now $60 billion annual organic industry. To this day, I continue to look to Enid for advice on organic agriculture and nutrition issues. Enid Wonnacott's many accomplishments are presented in a profile published in ``Seven Days'' in Vermont on October 30, 2018. I ask unanimous consent for the profile to be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, before I begin, I would note my long friendship with the Presiding Officer. I was delighted to see him come back to the Senate. I wish him well now as he leaves the Senate. He is always welcome, by both Democrats and Republicans, when he comes back.

I realize the Presiding Officer is constrained and cannot respond to whatever I say about him, but I assure him that I will stay within the Senate rules and say only nice things because that is all I know about him.

FIRST STEP Act

Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Minnesota who has just spoken. She, like me, is a former prosecutor. I have often said that is the best job I ever had. My wife, Marcelle, reminded me of some of those times at 3 a.m., when I was going to murder scenes, and that maybe it is easier to be in the Senate where you can sleep all night.

A lot of us who have been prosecutors, both Republicans and Democrats, or those who have been defense attorneys, Republicans and Democrats, have come together. Because of that, the Senate is considering passing probably the most significant bill to reform our criminal justice system in nearly a decade.

The First Step Act takes modest but important steps to remedy some of the most troubling injustices within our sentencing laws and our prison system. It is my hope that this bill represents not just a single piece of legislation, but a turning point in how Congress views its role in advancing criminal justice because there will be a lot of advances we must look at.

I have been working to bring fairness to our criminal justice system for decades, both before I was in the Senate and since I have been in the Senate. For far too long, the legislative response to any and all public safety concerns was as simple as it was flawed: No matter the perceived ill, we turned to arbitrary and inflexible mandatory minimums to cure it. That knee-jerk response, I believe, is changing. I truly believe the error of mandatory minimum sentencing is coming to an end.

Today is a glowing recognition that one-size-fits-all sentencing is neither just nor effective. It routinely results in low-level offenders spending far longer in prison than either public safety or common sense requires. It comes at a steep human cost, especially in communities of color. It also comes at a steep fiscal cost that leaves us less safe. The United States houses more prisoners and has higher incarceration rates than any other country in the world. This is not something for Americans to point to with pride. The cost of housing Federal offenders consumes nearly one-third of the Justice Department's budget. Because public safety dollars are finite, this strips critical resources away from law enforcement strategies that have been proven to make our communities safer.

By taking steps to responsibly reduce our prison population, we can save both money and reduce crime. That is a lesson states across the country have already learned. Prison rates and crime rates can fall together. It is past time for the Federal criminal justice system to catch up with the States.

Five years ago, as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee--and drawing on my own experiences as a prosecutor--I convened hearings and advanced the core pieces of legislation that now form the basis of the FIRST STEP Act. Despite strong bipartisan votes in Committee at the time, some doubted we had the support needed to ensure passage on the Senate floor. Each year since then, an expanding group of dedicated Senators and advocates have methodically built support for these reforms. Today, that support is outstanding. It's not just bipartisan; it is nearly nonpartisan. And with the efforts of Senator Durbin, who has been championing these efforts as long as anyone, along with Senators Grassley, Whitehouse, Lee, Booker, and others, we now stand poised to pass meaningful criminal justice reform for the first time in a decade.

It is true, this legislation doesn't go as far as I would like. Far from it. I support ending mandatory minimum sentences. I would prefer we do more to fix racially disparate treatment. I would like to see the full elimination of the existing crack-powder cocaine disparity--a glaring injustice we must eventually address. You can have a well- respected person on Wall Street or in a law firm or anywhere else spend a certain amount of money for powder cocaine. You can have somebody in the inner city spend exactly the same amount for crack cocaine. We have told the person who has the good social standing: What a terrible thing you have done. You may have to spend a few weekends volunteering at soup kitchens, and we hope you don't do it again. The person from the inner city, spending the exact same amount on crack cocaine, is going to have a mandatory sentence in prison.

I would like to see a broader judicial safety valve and additional retroactive activity. Any laws that we consider unjust today were just as unjust yesterday or a year ago or even a decade ago.

But this is the nature of compromise. You don't get everything you want. And when I look at the scope of reforms before us today-- including a modest expansion of the safety valve, retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act, a reduction to some of the most indefensible mandatory minimums on the books, as well as reforms to add evidence-based practices to our prison system and reentry efforts--I believe this is a historic achievement.

The FIRST STEP Act also includes my Second Chance Reauthorization Act, which I introduced with Senator Portman. Our bill both extends and improves Federal grant programs providing reentry service to ex- offenders. That includes employment assistance, housing, substance abuse treatment, victim support, and more. Almost every single offender in our justice system, someday, is going to be released. We owe it to both them and to the communities where they will live in to ensure they can lead productive lives.

In many ways, the FIRST STEP Act represents the best of the Senate. It represents what this institution is capable of when Senators listen to each other, and when they come together to solve complex and contentious issues, instead of exploiting them for momentary political gain. When Senators are willing to be patient, to compromise, and to persist through inevitable setbacks, real progress is possible.

Senators, no matter what their political party, understand that each one of us is here to be part of the conscience of the Nation, and we should work together. For the remaining Members of the Senate who are not yet ready to support this legislation, I hope you will reconsider. I hope you will review the breadth of bipartisan support, both here in the Congress, in the White House and in the broader stakeholder community. I hope you will consider why even important law enforcement voices like the Fraternal Order of Police and the National District Attorneys Association support this bill.

For the Members who do support the FIRST STEP Act, I hope you will continue to work to reform our criminal justice system in the years ahead. Many of our lives are based on decades-old, misguided assumptions, and they don't reflect evidence-based practices. There is still so much work to be done, and injustices and racial disparities to address.

This week, we are showing what is possible. By working together, we can continue to enact meaningful legislation in the years to come that will keep us safe, save money, and prove America is a nation of fairness and second chances. This is a carefully negotiated compromise.

I hope all Members will vote no on amendments to this carefully negotiated compromise and vote yes on final passage. This former prosecutor would be very happy if we do.

There is a Senator seeking recognition.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I know I was supposed to speak next, but I know the distinguished Senator from Missouri has a unanimous consent request, so I yield to him.

Madam President, without losing my right to the floor, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota for remarks on the matter we just moved.

Madam President, I commend my two friends, the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Minnesota, for what they have done.

I am going to speak briefly about S.J. Res. 54. It would remove U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities either in or affecting the country of Yemen--except those forces engaged in operations directed at al-Qaeda or associated forces--unless and until a declaration of war or specific authorization for such use of U.S. Armed Forces has been enacted.

I commend my distinguished friend from Vermont, Senator Sanders, for the leadership and perseverance he has shown on this issue. He has rightly insisted that the Congress, which alone has the power to declare war, act in response to the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen-- a catastrophe, we have to acknowledge, that the United States shares responsibility for causing as a result of our support for the Saudi military.

The Saudi military, by any objective measure, is guilty of war crimes in Yemen, and it is long past time for us to say: enough.

International outrage over this issue has been building steadily as the number of civilian casualties in Yemen--one of the world's poorest countries--has swollen into the thousands as a result of Saudi Arabia's intervention and ongoing aerial bombardment. We have all seen the photographs of the dead and the dying, of children who are nothing but skin and bones. Some

85,000 children have starved to death--85,000 children--and another 13 million Yemenis civilians are at risk of starvation, according to the United Nations.

Of course, the Houthis and the Iranians who support them share the blame for the death and destruction in Yemen, but we are not supporting them. We are not sharing intelligence with the Houthis and the Iranians or providing targeting assistance. We are not selling them weapons. That is what we are doing for the Saudis.

This joint resolution is about more than that. As if the kidnapping of the Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri, the blockade of Qatar, the imprisonment of Saudi women's rights activists, and the carnage in Yemen were not enough, the outrage toward Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman finally boiled over with the horrific, premeditated murder of Jamal Khashoggi--a respected journalist who dared to criticize the royal family. Mr. Khashoggi's murder by Saudi Government agents at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul and the blatant lies by top officials in Saudi Arabia who tried to cover it up exposed the depth of the depravity of the Saudi royal family.

I have spoken about that despicable crime multiple times already so I will not repeat what I have said, but we know the Saudi royal family is still lying about who was involved. We also know that since long before murdering Mr. Khashoggi, the Saudi Government has had a sordid history of abducting, imprisoning, and executing dissidents and others after sham trials that violate international law.

The vote today on S.J. Res. 54 is the Senate's first response to the Saudi royal family and to the Trump administration. The disaster in Yemen is so appalling, and the murder of Jamal Khashoggi was so wicked, so repulsive, that no amount of money, no amount of oil, and no amount of lies can obscure it.

The Trump administration lobbied hard against this resolution, warning that despite the Saudi royal family's many misdeeds, the U.S.- Saudi relationship is too important to risk. No one is seeking to sever relations with Saudi Arabia. Far more important is that the United States, which is a great country, stands for the truth, for justice, for the laws of war, and that we don't stand by when a whole society of impoverished, innocent people is being destroyed or when top officials of another government--whether ally or adversary--conspire to murder a journalist or dissident and lie about it.

We have to make clear, the United States is not for sale, our integrity is not for sale. If the Saudi royal family hopes to salvage its tattered reputation and its relations with the United States, it will need to take far more decisive action to end the war in Yemen and bring to justice all those responsible, at the highest level, for murdering Jamal Khashoggi.

Mr. President, my distinguished colleague and dear friend is here to seek the floor, and I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, it occurs to me that if Americans had any doubt that President Trump is fixated on

wasting billions of tax dollars to wall off our 2,000-mile southern border, all they had to do was watch his jaw-dropping press conference yesterday in which he demanded another $5 billion of America's hard- earned tax dollars for his political pet project, which, throughout his whole campaign, he gave his solemn word that Mexico would pay for.

I have been here during the terms of eight different Presidents. I have never heard the words I heard from our President yesterday. I never thought that any President, Republican or Democrat, would use them. When President Trump boasted that he would be proud to shut down the government if Congress does not bow to his spending demands, I had to play it back, watching it two or three times, making sure that is exactly what he said. He was very proud of it. I must say it is one of the most reckless statements I have ever heard uttered by a President of the United States of either party.

The President's job, like yours and mine--all of us--is to keep the Federal Government operating for the hundreds of millions of Americans who depend on government services every day, from our national parks, housing services for the elderly, the disabled, our veterans, and for assistance to our Nation's farmers. Just yesterday, we passed a bipartisan farm bill, and I praise Senator Roberts, a Republican, and Senator Stabenow, a Democrat. They came together and passed a bipartisan bill by an overwhelming margin.

A lot of work went into that to protect our farmers, but if the President shuts down the government, there is not going to be anybody in local USDA--U.S. Department of Agriculture--offices to answer questions from farmers about what that new law means for them, just as farmers are making their plans for next year's planting season. They cannot just turn it on and turn it off. They have to plan months in advance.

When I first came to the Senate 44 years ago, the idea of threatening to shut down the Federal Government as a negotiating tactic was unheard of. Now it seems we go through this every year, and neither party is blameless. But before President Trump, no one bragged about it. No one seemed to relish it. No one was foolish enough to call it good for the country, no matter what party they were from. No one treated shutting down the government as if it is some kind of reality show, some kind of game, without the slightest concern for the consequences for the American people and hundreds of thousands of Federal workers and their families over the holidays or for the huge amount of the taxpayers' money that would be wasted as a result.

President Trump's performance yesterday amounted to throwing a temper tantrum on national television. He is either oblivious to what he is doing, does not know what he is doing, or he simply does not care about the real world consequences of a shutdown. Hundreds of thousands of Federal employees would be furloughed or working without pay 3 days before Christmas, and millions of Americans would be cut off from critical government services. Instead, the President eagerly offered to ``take the mantle'' for shutting down the government over his pet project--a wall, which we do not need.

What could be the driving fixation for building medieval wall along the southern border? Maybe he has actually begun to believe his own fearmongering and lies about migrants, asylees, and refugees. After years of demonizing and vilifying migrants to rally his most ardent supporters, perhaps his own demagoguery has finally gotten to him. Maybe he is actually believing the things he has been saying. Only that--a self-made, alternate reality in which vulnerable women and children have miraculously transformed into hordes of gang members and terrorists--could explain such an irrational obsession for a wasteful wall that does absolutely nothing to stop actual threats to our Nation's security. Only in an altered reality would one act as though teargassing little children in diapers makes sense.

The President may not be able to tell fact from fiction, but he may be purposely blurring the lines between them. But as vice chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, it is my duty to ensure that taxpayer dollars go toward solving problems we know to exist in fact. So let's talk about the facts. It is time for a reality check.

President Trump, justifying a litany of anti-immigrant policies, has repeatedly claimed that there is a crisis at our southern border with a ``drastic surge'' of undocumented migrants attempting to flood into our country. That is false.

The truth is that illegal border crossings are at historic lows. At the end of 2017, arrests of people attempting to enter the United States illegally dropped to the lowest level since 1971. Between 2000 and 2018, border apprehensions fell sharply, from roughly 1.6 million in fiscal year 2000 to approximately 400,000 in fiscal year 2018--a 75- percent drop. Now, we all agree that illegal immigration is a serious problem, and we should address it, but saying that we are experiencing a crisis-level surge of illegal crossings at the border is pure fiction. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the President would use pure fiction as a scare tactic.

There is not a true crisis to point to, so the President is manufacturing one. Ever the reality TV showman, he opted to focus America's attention on images and videos of a caravan of migrants marching toward our southern border. In the runup to the recent elections, pointing at vulnerable migrants while they were thousands of miles from our border, President Trump immediately began warning of an imminent ``onslaught,'' ``invaders,'' an ``assault on our country,'' and a ``national emergency.'' Inconveniently for the President, these people were 1,000 miles from our border. Thousands of them are defenseless women and children. Most Americans just do not think of the word ``invaders'' when they see barefoot toddlers being pushed in strollers by their mothers. The sad reality is that many of these people are fleeing desperate situations in their home countries and are looking for sanctuary. They are not coming here to perpetuate violence; they are running away from violence.

They do not want violence. They are not coming here to bring violence; they are trying to escape violence--violence against their children, violence against their families.

When the pictures on TV actually began to be shown and were defying the President's narrative, he changed course. He began making the case that hidden among these families are stone-cold criminals and unknown Middle Easterners, as if anyone from the Middle East is inherently a danger to us. What is his proof? He has none.

In fact, to quote the President's own words about the composition of the migrant caravan: ``There is no proof of anything.''

Just yesterday, President Trump even claimed we needed the wall because we recently captured 10 terrorists over a ``very short period of time.'' This statement had fact checkers, actually people within his own administration, scratching their heads because nobody knew what he was talking about.

A Homeland Security official claimed that President Trump was referring to a government statistic indicating that 10 people suspected of terrorist ties are prevented from entering the United States every day ``by air, sea, or land.'' What a multibillion dollar wall along our southern border would do to prevent a suspected terrorist from flying into JFK Airport I cannot figure out, but President Trump does not seem to know or care about the difference.

The conservative Center for Immigration Studies issued a report last month, concluding that only 15 suspected terrorists have been apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border since 2001, and a suspected terrorist includes anyone coming from a handful of specific countries, like Syria. It does not mean they are, in fact, terrorists or have any connection whatsoever to terrorists.

So President Trump's unsubstantiated vitriol against immigrants is matched only by his flamboyance about the wall. Despite his claims yesterday that wall construction is under budget, the largest component of fencing that Congress has funded, a 25-mile barrier in the Rio Grande Valley, has ballooned in cost from $445 million to $787 million. That pricetag for fencing is $31.5 million per mile. We American taxpayers are paying for that. Despite the President's claims that additional wall funding is an urgent need, the

Trump administration has spent only 6 percent of the $1.7 billion Congress has appropriated over the last 2 years to build or replace fencing on the southern border.

Facts matter, Mr. President. The $5 billion he is clamoring for would be better spent on real homeland security, such as Coast Guard boats that can save lives, grants to nonprofit churches and synagogues to secure themselves against shootings like those in Pittsburgh and Sutherland Springs, more Customs personnel and technology to seize the fentanyl that is fueling our Nation's opioid epidemic and actually killing our citizens. Let's remember, fentanyl is mostly coming through our legal points of entry and our mail facilities, not between the ports where the President wants to build his wall.

Perhaps in President Trump's alternate reality--where illegal crossings are at historic highs, migrant caravans of hardened criminals are invading our country, and terrorists are slipping past our Border Patrol agents every day--the need for a giant, concrete wall seems like an urgent necessity. But if, like everybody here, you live in the real world, where the facts and statistics mean something, his obsession with building a wall is exposed for what it is--a desperate attempt to please his base and protect his ego and to make us forget that he gave his word. He gave his word. He gave his word that Mexico was going to pay for it. Now we know that was a flatout untruth.

As stewards of American taxpayers' hard-earned money, we have a responsibility not to throw away billions of dollars in a project that is built on a foundation of fact-free fearmongering. To be clear, this is not the way we appropriate money. This is certainly not the way we fund and run the U.S. Government. If the President wants to shut down the government because he cannot muster the votes to fund his wall, as he says he does, the American people will see that he cares more about his misguided campaign promises and misstatements than he does about doing his job--the job of making the government work for the American people.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, after months of hard fought and oftentimes contentious negotiations, the Senate passed the conference report on the 2018 farm bill, titled the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, by a vote of 87 to 13. This conference bill tracks closely with the bill passed by the Senate earlier this year and embraces the bipartisan tradition of the farm bill. This is well-balanced legislation that will provide much needed certainty to the country's struggling farmers; maintain food security for millions of American families; provide for cleaner waterways, better soils, protected open space, healthier forests, and the preservation of family farms; will make our drinking water safer; and will give rural America a much-needed economic boost.

I thank Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow and all of their staff, as well as my own staff, who have worked day and night on this bipartisan effort. As I know from being chairman of the committee during the 1990 farm bill, it is no easy task to balance the needs of the various regions and commodities and the sometimes conflicting priorities among Senators when we are working within a fixed budget.

This farm bill makes continued improvements to the Margin Protection Program, MPP, after the enhancements to the program that I led in February of this year. The newly named Dairy Margin Coverage program brings the margin level up to $9.50, lowers premium costs for a farm's first 5 million pounds of milk, and allows overlap of this program and other Department of Agriculture supported insurance programs. This bill will also help farmers initially blocked by USDA from enrolling in MPP due their participation in the Livestock Gross Margin Insurance for Dairy. They can now retroactively sign up for the improved margin protection program and access the critical benefits they missed out on this spring. A new program to incentivize milk donation is also included in this bill and will allow processors and producers to partner with charitable organizations to donate milk and reduce the waste of milk dumping.

As the father of the organic farm bill, I am pleased that the 2018 farm bill increases the funding for the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative and guarantees $50 million a year in mandatory funding by fiscal year 2023. This will ensure baseline funding for future farm bill debates and further protect this critical investment in our local and organic food system. I must add though that I am concerned by one aspect of this bill that I felt was an unnecessary change to the Organic Foods Production Act. From the beginning of the farm bill process, it was clear that some agricultural groups and some Members of Congress did not fully comprehend the importance of the National Organic Standards Board, NOSB, and the role that it plays in maintaining the integrity of the organic seal. Since first authoring the Organic Foods Production Act, I have long argued that the statute was working well, and the many tweaks and adjustments Members sought could easily be addressed administratively.

As such, I was opposed to the statutory changes sought by the House and Senate bills and am disappointed that two of the NOSB provisions related to the redundant language on voting procedures and those dictating the composition of the board were included in the final farm bill.

While I view the NOSB provisions included in the final bill to be silent on the 2013 sunset policy change, I remain opposed its inclusion because I believe it only causes confusion in the organic market and unnecessarily muddies the waters on an already contentious issue within the organic community. With respect to the makeup of the board, the current statute already included a carefully crafted balance of perspectives and interests. I feel strongly that the voice of the independent organic farmer must remain a prominent part of the NOSB and should not be diluted or drowned out as larger organic companies seek a role on the board with their employees or representatives. I

feel very strongly that the two NOSB handler seats versus the farmer slots are a more appropriate avenue for such companies to be represented on the board. While I am disappointed that this House provision was included in the final farm bill conference agreement, I will continue to support the nomination of independent organic farmers to the NOSB farmer seats and the unique perspective they bring to the board.

Ranking Member Stabenow must be applauded for the newly combined Local Agriculture Market Program, LAMP, that also secures $50 million by 2023 and will allow the work of local food programs to continue bringing fresh, local, and nutritious food to the tables of Vermonters and Americans everywhere. For Vermont farmers hoping to diversify and remain viable, this bill legalizes the growth and sale of hemp as an agricultural commodity and allows growers to be eligible for crop insurance. The compromise addresses concerns raised by criminal justice advocates regarding the hemp farming ban of individuals with drug- related felony convictions, and I am glad Vermonters will more fully be able to take advantage of this durable and profitable crop.

The conference agreement continues the proud tradition of providing nutritional assistance to our fellow Americans with the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, and wholeheartedly rejects the provisions included in the House bill that would have cut food access for millions of families. This bill continues our commitment to worldwide stability and productivity with programs like McGovern-Dole, Food for Peace, the Global Crop Diversity Trust, as well as valuable research to support farmers here at home and around the world. When people here and abroad do not have to wonder where their next meal may come from, children do better in school, workers are more productive, and our world is stronger.

Our Nation's conservation tradition is reinforced in this bill, with significant funding and necessary improvements to programs like the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program conserving family farms, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program fighting nitrogen and phosphorus runoff, and the Conservation Reserve Program in which I was able to include a fix allowing Vermonters to use the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program to further protect water quality where they were disqualified before. The worst of the House of Representative's forestry provisions were negotiated out of this bill to make sure we are protecting our forestland based on the best available science and expertise.

This bipartisan farm bill provides critical economic development support to address the unique challenges and needs faced by our rural communities. The Rural Economic Area Partnership, REAP, Zone is renewed to continue developing our rural economy and the Northern Border Regional Commission, NBRC, is reauthorized and increased to $33 million, with an additional $5 million to build capacity in eligible counties. This bill also expands the eligible territory for NBRC investment to all fourteen counties in Vermont. The Commission will build upon the more than $10.5 million in matching funds and $18 million in total economic development and infrastructure projects invested in Vermont since 2010. The bill reauthorizes the good work of State Rural Development Councils through 2023 and reestablishes the position of Under Secretary for Rural Development that had been eliminated, in the 2017 USDA reorganization. I am pleased that I was able to reach a compromise for a 10-year reauthorization of the National Oilheat Research Alliance, NORA, a vital program that funds the development of improved and efficient oilheat technology to increase safety and reduce consumer costs.

I would be here all night if I were to talk about all of the wins for Vermont that were included in this farm bill, so I will close by saying that the 2018 farm bill should be viewed as a watershed moment in much needed bipartisanship and compromise. It will help millions of Americans, farmers, families, and children and will protect our natural resources, economic vitality, and public health. This is why we are here: to help people who need it, protect our national security, and ensure our planet is productive and clean for this generation and for generations to come. This bill must pass the House of Representatives and be signed by the President to deliver real help to real Americans everywhere.

Mr. President, I have long supported juvenile justice programs, and I have long supported runaway and homeless youth programs. During the 20 years I served as the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee and in my current role as the vice chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I have championed bipartisan reauthorizations and supported funding for these programs, overcoming the House of Representatives, which zeroes out juvenile justice programs in its appropriations bills year after year. These programs make a real and lasting difference in the lives of the children and teens they serve. The two programs are funded separately in separate appropriations subcommittees, and their reauthorizations have traditionally moved separately.

I am pleased the Senate today passed the long-debated Juvenile Justice Reform Act. This legislation makes needed, comprehensive, and long overdue updates to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. It mandates research to study, identify, and address disproportionate minority contact in the juvenile justice system and separates young offenders from adult jails and prisons. It also reauthorizes funding for key juvenile justice programs. Funding for these vital programs is key to preventing youth from coming in contact with the juvenile justice system and ensuring youth have the opportunity to get the help they need to avoid repeating the cycle. Reducing recidivism is not just the moral thing to do; it saves future State and Federal dollars.

The Grassley substitute amendment, which passed the Senate this evening, reauthorizes the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act at a lower level than I support, and a lower level than is supported by the providers and advocates in the field who know firsthand what the actual needs are to help these youths. It also fails to make important programmatic improvements that Senator Collins and I have been working on for years. These improvements include provisions to prevent and respond to human trafficking--to which runaway and homeless youth are particularly vulnerable--by requiring staff training to identify when a child entering their program has been a victim. Training program staff to identify young victims of trafficking helps ensure staff refers children and teenagers to appropriate services and takes steps to prevent their further traumatization. These young people have experienced major, unimaginable trauma, and we need to make sure they receive the right counseling and treatment to help them recover. Our reauthorization of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act also includes important nondiscrimination language to ensure all youth who try to access programs can do so regardless of their faith, race, or sexual orientation. Unfortunately, these improvements will have to wait.

While we have much to celebrate with the passage of the Juvenile Justice Reform Act, I am disappointed that some Members on the other side of the aisle demanded the inclusion of an extension of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act and lowering its authorization without the improvements contained in my legislation with Senator Collins. The House passed and the Democratic hotline cleared H.R. 6964, a clean version of the juvenile justice Reform Act with no reference to the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. Unfortunately, Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee refused to run the hotline on the Republican side. This in effect held hostage these important juvenile justice reforms to leverage authorization cuts to a completely unrelated program.

These two pieces of legislation have not moved in the same reauthorization bill in 30 years. They are funded through different appropriations bills, administered by difference departments, and their authorizations serve different purposes. Senator Collins and I have worked for years on a comprehensive bipartisan reauthorization

of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act and expressed our concern with including a lower reauthorization with no improvements as part of Juvenile Justice Reform. Unfortunately, members on the other side were willing to hold up passage of Juvenile Justice Reform for yet another Congress, over an unrelated program.

In the interest of ensuring programmatic improvements and reauthorization of juvenile justice programs, Senator Collins and I agreed to a 2-year reauthorization of Runaway and Homeless Youth programs at an 8-percent reduction from its last authorized levels. Although I am disappointed that Runaway and Homeless Youth programs are reauthorized even in the short term without needed programmatic improvements, I look forward to working with members of the House and Senate to pass a bipartisan, comprehensive Runaway and Homeless Youth reauthorization in the 116th Congress.

It is my understanding that the House Committee on Education and Workforce will prioritize a comprehensive reauthorization of Runaway and Homeless Youth next Congress, and I hope the Senate Judiciary Committee will do the same. If so, we have a chance to make a real difference in the lives of some of the most vulnerable children in our Nation. It is time we seize it.

Mr. President, this evening the Senate unanimously passed the Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act of 2018. I was one of the earliest cosponsors of this bill, and I strongly support it. For far too long, the Chinese Government has tightly restricted access to Tibet, preventing U.S. diplomats and journalists from reporting on the systematic human rights abuses and destruction of Tibetan culture perpetrated by the Chinese Government and arbitrarily preventing Tibetan-Americans from visiting their families. Passing this legislation represents a strong, bipartisan step toward addressing that decades-long injustice. I would like to thank Senator Rubio and Congressman McGovern for their work on this legislation over several years.

The Chinese Government arbitrarily requires a special permit for a foreign diplomat, reporter, or tourist to visit Tibet, a requirement China does not impose for travel to any other provincial-level jurisdiction, even Xinjiang. The Chinese Government frequently denies requests for these permits to Tibet. Even when it does grant permits, it generally requires foreigners to be accompanied at all times by a government-designated guide. This arbitrary system not only makes it exceptionally difficult to report on the situation in Tibet, but it also gives the Chinese Government significant leverage, which it reportedly exploits in various ways, over persons who hope to obtain a permit.

In a 2015 white paper, the Chinese Government claimed that, under Chinese rule, ``Tibet has been transformed from a poor and backward society to one that is advanced in both economy and culture.'' Setting aside that this statement would look perfectly at home among the discredited justifications for 19th century colonialism, if it were true, then one would expect China to welcome the world to witness its rule in Tibet; yet in 2016, the Washington Post reported that Tibet ``is harder to visit as a journalist than North Korea.'' International media cannot even enter Tibet except on infrequent, tightly controlled tours organized by the Chinese Government. The situation is much the same for U.S. diplomats.

It is not just journalists and officials whose freedom of movement is restricted. Tibetan-Americans attempting to visit their homeland report undergoing a discriminatory Chinese visa process, different from what is typically required for American citizens, and often find their requests arbitrarily denied. I have heard about this problem directly from my Tibetan-American constituents in Vermont. I have spoken about it with the leader of the Tibetan Government-in-exile.

This issue has even touched a Tibetan-American member of my staff, Nima Binara. His 89-year-old grandmother, Kaedungkhangsar Yangchen Dolkar, was a naturalized American citizen who hoped to see her homeland and her relatives one last time before she passed away, a visit the Chinese Government refused to grant. Denying a person's right to visit their homeland is a petty display of authoritarian control and one that we should not tolerate in the 21st century.

I vividly remember visiting Tibet in 1988 and meeting its warmhearted people, appreciating its profound culture, and seeing its breathtaking landscape. With this legislation, we are now a step closer to the day when all American tourists, journalists, and diplomats can make such a trip without undue restrictions. This legislation will also make it more difficult for China to hide its atrocious human rights record in Tibet behind a cloak of isolation. It will make it easier for Tibetans inside Tibet to interact with the outside world and more likely for the world to realize that Tibetans are a distinct people who deserve their right to self-determination.

The House has already unanimously passed this bill. I urge the President to sign it into law without delay.

Mr. President, of course, the senior Senator from Florida can speak from experience because he has been there--something no other Senator currently serving has ever done.

I believe they are bringing a chair over. If not, I will go get it.

On Friday, December 21--coming up fairly soon, just 11 days from today--the continuing resolution, what we call a CR, under which much of the government currently operates, is going to expire. Now, if we don't pass the remaining seven appropriations bills--bills that I believe the Senate is prepared to pass--the government will shutter the doors of nine Federal Departments and dozens of Agencies, and services the American people rely on will grind to a halt, coincidentally, just 3 days before Christmas.

There is absolutely no reason for the government to shut down. The Senate and House Appropriations Committees have been negotiating for weeks. I commend those Senators on both sides of the aisle. They have worked with us and certainly our staffs in conducting these negotiations.

We have a seven-bill minibus that would fully fund the Federal Government through the remainder of the fiscal year. We are very close to a deal. Six of the seven bills are nearly complete. Most of the funding issues are resolved. Only a few policy issues remain. A few hours of debate, and they would be all done.

Because we are the United States of America and we have to care about all

parts of the country, we are working on a disaster package for the victims of Hurricanes Florence and Michael, the California wildfires, the Hawaii volcano, the earthquake in Alaska, and other disasters from this year that have devastated the homes, communities, and lives of so many of our fellow Americans. These bills could be finished in short order, they could be put before the Congress for a vote--I suspect they would pass virtually unanimously--and then sent to the President for his signature into law.

So Republicans and Democrats have worked together. The appropriators have worked together. There is only one thing standing between fully funding our government and a shutdown; that is, President Trump. For months now, he has repeatedly called for a government shutdown unless we provide $5 billion for his boondoggle border wall. Last month alone, President Trump publicly threatened to shut down the government over his wall at least five times, saying things in his Presidential statements, as we are pointing out here, such as: ``This would be a very good time to do a shutdown,'' as though any American believes it is a good time, with disaster funding and everything else pending, for a shutdown.

Those reckless and damaging threats are not new for President Trump. He set a destructive and uncompromising tone for our negotiations earlier in the year saying: ``I would shut it down over this issue.'' Then, something I never thought I would hear from the President of the United States of either party, he said: ``I'd love to see a shutdown,'' during a February press conference. This from a man who is supposed to have an obligation to all Americans.

Time and again, though, instead of showing his obligation to Americans, President Trump has used the government and the American people as a bargaining chip for his fabricated solution to his manufactured crisis. Now, just days before the CR is set to expire, the President appears ready to make good on his threat. He wants to score a made-for-reality-TV moment, and he doesn't care how many thousands of hard-working American men and women are going to suffer for it.

We have been negotiating the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill for weeks, but as we get closer to the December 21 deadline, the President is digging in. His position is: Fund the wall-- his wall--or he will shut down the government.

The President likes to stir up drama, but a government shutdown is not the backdrop for one of his reality TV shows. A government shutdown is a dreadful thing to do to so many loyal Americans. This is the real world. It has real-world consequences.

I will give some examples. If the government shuts down on December 22, an estimated 380,000 Federal employees will be furloughed without pay just days before Christmas, never knowing if they will be paid. Nearly 430,000 Federal employees, including FBI agents, U.S. marshals, the Coast Guard, Border Patrol, and TSA employees will be forced to work without pay. The Secret Service, which will protect the President if he goes to one of his golf courses over the holidays, will be working without pay, but this is even worse: Millions of Americans-- farmers, small businesses, homeowners, veterans, the disabled, and the elderly--will go without the government services on which they rely and for which they paid their taxes. There is no reason for this. In fact, it is unconscionable to put the country through this.

I oppose the President's plan for a 30-foot-high wall along the southern border, especially--aside from the fact that it will do no good, this is a wall the President gave his solemn promise to the American people that Mexico, not American taxpayers, would pay for. He gave his word over and over and over again at rallies throughout the country, saying Mexico will pay for it. I haven't seen one cent coming from Mexico, but the President is going to punish the American taxpayers if they don't pay the money he promised Mexico would pay.

The United States is a country founded by immigrants. Walling ourselves off from our neighbors to the south is not only an expensive waste of American taxpayer dollars, it is immoral, it is ineffective, and it is an affront to everything this country stands for. We are better than this.

In fact, if we do what the President wants to do, we would have to seize land from ranchers and farmers in Texas and other border States-- seize land from them that has been in their families for generations. It would require building walls through wildlife refuges and natural preserves. Incidentally, we would end up cutting ourselves off from the Rio Grande in the process because we can't build a wall down the center of it. Basically, we are saying to Mexico: By the way, we are going to pay for the wall President Trump promised us you would pay for, and to help you out, we are going to give you the Rio Grande. You can have our half too. This is a cockamamie idea.

After all that and billions of wasted taxpayer dollars, what would be accomplished? Would it stop people from fleeing violence in their home countries and seeking sanctuary? Of course not. Would it stop drug smugglers and human traffickers from engaging in illegal activity? Definitely not. In fact, as one of my Republican friends said, show me a 30-foot wall, and I will show you a 31-foot ladder or a tunnel.

These are complex issues. We need real solutions, not bumper sticker slogans or angry tweets.

We had such a solution in 2013. The Senate passed bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform. In a 2-to-1 vote, Republicans and Democrats joined in on comprehensive immigration reform. The Republican leadership in the House would not bring it up because they were afraid it might violate the sacred Dennis Hastert rule, as they said to us.

Everyone agrees we need to keep our border safe and secure. That is not a Republican or a Democratic idea. We all believe our borders should be safe and secure. President Trump is not the first person to say that. We have all said that. In fact, over the last 2 years, we in Congress have invested more than $3 billion for that purpose. It is the largest infusion of border security funding in recent history.

I am on the Appropriations Committee that gave that money. We have directed U.S. Customs and Border Protection to acquire new technologies that are proven to work on the border and at our ports of entry, purchase new air and marine assets, and hire additional personnel. This approach has resulted in the acquisition of integrated fixed towers on the border, remote video surveillance systems, enforcement helicopters and other aircraft, and upgrades to existing unmanned aerial systems. I have visited the border and seen some of those. For the ports of entry, where the large majority of illicit narcotics and other contraband enter, we have significantly increased funding for nonintrusive inspection equipment, and we have hired over 360 new Customs officers.

These are successes. These are things that work. These are things that do better than we have ever done before, but does the President tweet about this? No. He is fixated on building his wall not because it is good policy, but he hopes it will fire up his base.

This is not about border security, it is about politics, pure and simple.

Over the last 2 years, Congress has provided nearly $1.7 billion to build or replace fencing on the southern border, but the administration has hardly spent any of that money, and the projects it has undertaken have ballooned in cost. In fact, of the money we gave them, they have only spent 6 percent of the funds--6 percent. This is such an amazing need to only spend 6 percent.

We have recently learned that one project in the Rio Grande Valley that was supposed to cost, according to the administration, $445 million, will now cost the taxpayers nearly $787 million, a 77-percent cost overrun, at a pricetag of $31.5 million each mile. This is not for roads. This is for barriers. The President doesn't talk about that, nor does he talk about the fact that the American taxpayers will have to pay it, not Mexico.

The administration is not responsible with the money we have already provided. Why trust him to spend responsibly the additional money they demand? The President wants the hard-working American taxpayers, not Mexico--even though he promised American taxpayers, gave his word, that

American taxpayers wouldn't have to pay for this, that Mexico would. Now he says: Forget what I said before. Give me a check for $5 billion more or I am going to waste hundreds of millions of dollars by shutting down the government. That is a cynical, political stunt.

The President's own budget request to Congress for fiscal year 2019 was $1.6 billion for his wall, not $5 billion. I opposed this request when he made it in the spring, and I still do. I don't want to appropriate another dime to advance a nebulous and ineffective agenda that I fundamentally oppose, knowing the President will not keep his word and have Mexico pay for it. Our system of divided government requires compromise, so we came up with a bipartisan compromise to meet the President's $1.6 billion request, with restrictions on where the money could be used and what type of barriers could be built, such as bollard fencing but not a 30-foot concrete wall. Instead of taking ``yes'' and declaring victory, the President repeatedly moved the goalpost and redefined the fine print. So much for the ``Art of the Deal,'' more the ``Art of the Steal.''

By manufacturing a crisis over his wall, President Trump appears willing to shutter the doors of the Justice Department, Farm Service Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, the Small Business Administration, the National Park Service, the Department of Transportation, among others--that is just a few--grinding vital services for the American people to a halt, services the American people have paid for with their taxes, all to protect his ego and satisfy his base.

Actions have real-world consequences for hundreds of thousands of Federal employees and their families and millions of Americans who pay taxes and depend on their government to function properly.

Taxpayers don't send their hard-earned money to Washington so the President can shut down their government. Our job is to be good stewards of taxpayer money, not bend to the whim of the President's tweets. Congress controls the power of the purse, not the President. It is our job to make responsible, thoughtful decisions.

There is a bipartisan path forward. We can pass a seven-bill minibus comprised of bipartisan bills that meet the needs of the country or we can pass a six-bill minibus with a continuing resolution for Homeland Security.

Republicans do control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, and they are in the driver's seat. The only reason the government shuts down on December 22, 3 days before Christmas, is if the President wants it to and the Republican leadership lets the President close the government. Let's hope that doesn't happen.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in 1948, in the wake of two World Wars that caused death, destruction and atrocities on a massive and unprecedented scale, the world came together at the nascent United Nations to establish the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

These rights, envisioned as the ``foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,'' included article 19, the right of everyone to freedom of opinion and expression. This, of course, mirrors our First Amendment, which for more than two centuries has served as the cornerstone of our democracy. Article 19 also includes the ability to ``receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers,'' as necessary to the realization of that right. The free and independent press has fulfilled this essential role around the world ever since.

Today is the 70th anniversary of that landmark declaration; yet as we commemorate that historic achievement, I have never been more concerned about the state of freedom of the press. Increasingly, around the world and even here in the United States, governments are actively trying to intimidate and silence the independent media. This year alone, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, over 43 journalists have been murdered for nothing more than publishing facts and informing the public. Countless others have been harassed and threatened. President Trump, who has called the press an ``enemy of the people'' and routinely denigrates journalists who do not portray him in a favorable light, has inspired the world's autocrats to decry ``fake news'' and imprison and even assassinate journalists who courageously report on corruption and other government misconduct.

Eleanor Roosevelt, one of our country's greatest defenders of human rights, served as chairwoman of the UN commission that wrote the Universal Declaration. Its commitment to the ``inherent dignity'' and ``equal and inalienable rights'' of all people is a testament to her vision of a more humane, just, and peaceful world, but like any such statement of principles, the declaration is aspirational. It has tangible meaning only to the extent that people apply it in practice. As the oldest democracy whose First Amendment has inspired countless people on every continent, it is incumbent on us all to defend the right of free expression enshrined in article 19 of the Universal Declaration, here and around the world.