Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I want to inform my colleagues and the American people about some progress that has been made on a very important bipartisan piece of legislation, plus what a couple other committees are doing along the same line of keeping healthcare costs down--that we are making progress to reduce the price of prescription medicine for the American people. I have been tilling the fields of legislative policy long enough to know that we have our work cut out for us. The ranking member and I of the Finance Committee started out 6 months ago to cultivate a bipartisan consensus for much needed reforms. We knew that we had a long row ahead. Our efforts to reduce drug prices face big-time opposition from Big Pharma. As we worked side by side in a Republican and Democratic way, we planted the seeds to grow a strong bipartisan coalition--one strong enough, I believe, to withstand the influence of moneyed special interests. Now, it should be no surprise to anybody that Big Pharma and other stakeholders in the drug supply chain are working six ways from Sunday to throw sand in our gears. We know they will continue to fight us during the August work period. As a lifelong farmer from Iowa, I learned a long time ago that the fruits of one's labor will not be worth a hill of beans without proper groundwork. For months, we have been tilling the soil and fertilizing the legislative fields to bear fruit at harvest time. We have teamed up with leadership of other key committees of jurisdiction. Together with the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Health Committee, Senators Lamar Alexander and Patty Murray, and the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senators Lindsey Graham and Dianne Feinstein, the Senate has a real opportunity this Congress to deliver meaningful reforms that would yield real savings for what Americans spend on healthcare. Both the Health and the Judiciary Committees have advanced legislative packages that help address drug prices, including bills I have sponsored, such as the CREATES Act, the Stop STALLING Act, and the Prescription Pricing for the People Act. Since January, the Finance Committee, which I chair, and Senator Wyden is the ranking member, has held a series of hearings to examine the vulnerabilities in the drug supply chain that are ripe for abuse. We don't have the answers to all the problems, but it is really crystal clear that a strong dose of transparency is desperately needed to shed light on a convoluted pricing system when dealing with prescription drugs. From the drug manufacturer to the patient's medicine cabinet, the drug supply chain is shrouded in secrecy and is exceedingly complex. This opaque pricing system has allowed exorbitant price hikes to climb higher and higher and higher, with no end in sight. Don't forget, the taxpayers of the United States foot the bill for the lion's share of prescription drugs through Medicare and Medicaid. The woolly drug supply chain allows taxpayers to be fleeced year after year. We need to let the sunshine in to help root out their abusive practices. Secrecy in the supply chain has grown into a noxious weed, damaging our free market ecosystem. Transparency is needed to help rein in unsustainable costs threatening the fiscal viability of Medicaid and Medicare. Seniors, individuals with disability, and low-income Americans depend on these programs for lifesaving medicine and innovative cures. Last week, the Senate Finance Committee approved the bipartisan Prescription Drug Price Reduction Act. The carefully sown Grassley- Wyden bill limits seniors' out-of-pocket costs without limiting access to lifesaving cures Americans expect. It injects reasonable incentives in government prescription drug programs for drug manufacturers and insurers to keep prices low. Pharmaceutical companies and insurers need to have more skin in the game to keep prices down. It also fixes flawed policies that distort free market principles to lower the lid on spending. We all know in the town meetings and other places we go that Americans have spoken very loudly on this subject. They want high prescription drug prices addressed. Furthermore, Americans want Congress to act and to act now. The Senate Finance, HELP, and Judiciary Committees have acted. Now it is time to get the job done. As my fellow lawmakers go home over the August recess, I encourage each of you to share the good news with your constituents. Americans are fed up with sticker shock at the pharmacy counter. We have the opportunity to deliver a badly needed legislative remedy. First, we have to drain the swampy special interests blocking the path to victory. The moneyed players in the drug supply chain will use the August recess to unleash a public relations blitz against our bipartisan efforts. You can bet the farm that Big Pharma, hospitals, and pharmacy benefit managers will whip themselves into a real frenzy to kill these bipartisan reforms. Let's remember why we started down this path in the first place. It is simply democracy working, representative government working. Americans are demanding relief at the prescription counter. We hear it from our constituents in our town meetings, in our letters, in our emails, and in the phone calls we get. Unchecked drug prices are putting Medicare and Medicaid in financial peril. The payment structure is unmoored from fiscal reality, and the American taxpayer is on the hook. Congress has a real opportunity to do something about the spiraling of drug prices. For my colleagues who are on the fence about our bipartisan proposal--and there is nothing wrong with being on the fence because you have plenty of time to become acquainted with an issue you hear from your constituents all the time and to become acquainted with our solution--here are a series of questions I want you to ask yourself: Do Americans want us to act to reduce runaway drug prices? Do Americans want to keep access to breakthrough drug therapies and innovation? Do older Americans want protection from coverage gaps and out-of-pocket costs? Do people with disabilities and poor and elderly Americans who depend on Medicaid deserve access to innovative cures and next- generation therapies? The answer to all of these questions, I think, is a resounding yes. Farmers are smart enough to make hay while the Sun shines. Let's apply that time-tested farm lesson in the Congress. Don't bail out on the opportunity to make a meaningful difference for the people whom we are elected to serve. Too many Americans are rationing or skipping doses because they can't afford their prescription medicines. I will finish as I started out by saying, on behalf of Senator Wyden, Senator Alexander, Senator Murray, Senator Graham, Senator Feinstein, and others, I suggest to our colleagues that this is our Goldilocks moment. Let's not let it be a gridlock moment. Our legislative reforms are not too far right and not too far left. That is what makes our bipartisan remedy to lower prescription drug prices just exactly right for the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 30 seconds.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, there is a bad practice in pharmaceutical pricing called spread pricing. Spread pricing has historically siphoned money from the State Medicaid Programs and given it to pharmacy benefit managers or what we call PBMs. Drug payments and Medicaid should focus on the beneficiary, not the PBMs. The bipartisan prescription drug legislation I introduced this month with Senator Wyden bans spread pricing. This will refocus the system on paying for costs associated with prescribing a drug instead of gaming the system to reap a profit at the expense of the taxpayers. Medicaid funding should go to patients, not to the pockets of healthcare middlemen. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask permission to speak in morning business for 1 minute.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement will be a very big boon to the American worker. In my State, one out of every four American manufacturing firms export to Canada and Mexico. Seventy percent of these are very small or medium-sized businesses. More than 25,400 Iowans depend on manufacturing jobs. By encouraging auto manufacturers to use more U.S. content in our cars and high-wage labor, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement will help American workers compete on a level playing field and benefit from selling to two of our largest trading partners.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, on another matter, at the website ThisIsIowa.com, you can view a video of people visiting a fake real estate office in New York advertising modern, spacious properties. You can see the astonishment, then, on the faces of New Yorkers as they are shown beautiful, modern apartments, as well as homes near art museums and award-winning restaurants. The prices and the neighborhood amenities seem too good to believe. The details are real and so are the job opportunities real. Only the location is not New York. The location is Iowa. Check it out on ThisIsIowa.com. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor to advise my colleagues about a new rule that the Department of Homeland Security published in the Federal Register this very day to finally bring some needed reform to the EB-5 green card program. As I mentioned in my remarks on this topic last week, this rule was first proposed in January 2017. Those of us who want to reform the EB-5 program have been waiting 2\1/2\ years for this rule to become final, and we have been waiting much, much longer than that for some meaningful reforms to this fraudulent-laden program that we tried to get enacted into law in previous Congresses and couldn't get done because of being up against these very powerful, moneyed interests. I think the President and his team deserve a lot of credit for pushing these reforms across the finish line and getting a big win for rural America. As I have said on numerous occasions, Congress intended for the EB-5 program to help spur investment in rural and high-unemployment areas when this program was established in 1990. Unfortunately, over the last 30 years, big-moneyed interests have been able to gerrymander EB-5 targeted employment areas in a way that redirected investment away from our rural and economically deprived communities and towards major development projects in Manhattan and other big cities. Therefore, instead of providing much needed investment for rural America, as originally intended, EB-5 has become a source of cheap foreign capital for development projects in already prosperous areas of America. For the first time, this rule will bring much needed change so that condition cannot continue. Under the rule, States will no longer be allowed to game and gerrymander targeted employment areas. Instead, the Department of Homeland Security will make targeted employment area designations directly based on revised requirements that will help to ensure rural and high-unemployment areas get more of the investment they have been deprived of for far too long under this program, as it has been misdirected. Again, this is a major win for rural America and high-unemployment areas, and I want to sincerely thank President Trump and the people in the administration who worked on this rule for making this happen and looking out for the interests of my constituents in Iowa and other rural States and for areas of high unemployment. This rule also addresses the minimum investment threshold amounts that are required for the EB-5 projects around the country. This is the very first time the investment thresholds have been adjusted since the program was created in 1990. Think of the inflation since that time. For projects that are outside of targeted employment areas, the threshold will be raised from $1 million to $1.8 million. For projects in targeted employment areas, the threshold will be raised from $500,000 to $900,000. The minimum investment amount will be automatically adjusted for inflation every 5 years. It is ridiculous that our country's major green card program for investors has been operating with investment amounts that haven't been adjusted a single time in 30 years. That makes no sense, and I am glad the President and his team have taken necessary action to restore a little common sense to the EB-5 program. There is more work that needs to be done on the EB-5 program, and we will have to do that by legislation, but the President and his administration deserve a lot of credit for finally implementing these first reforms that I and several other colleagues have championed for years. I, more than most, understand the power and influence that big- moneyed EB-5 interests have historically had in Washington, and how they have used that power and influence to consistently thwart any attempt to reform this program in such an obvious way that it is needed. Their unrelenting efforts to stymie EB-5 reform over the years absolutely epitomize the swamp culture that so many voters rejected in the last Presidential election, and getting rid of that swamp culture is exactly what the President campaigned on. This is a perfect example of his carrying out a campaign promise. They are also representative of a culture in Washington that too often disregards the interests of the little guy in rural Iowa in favor of the interests of the rich and the powerful. Again, I applaud the President and his team for standing up to these rich and powerful interests. I am happy to say that, with the publication of this rule, the little guys in rural America finally got a win in the EB-5 program. I now look forward to working with the President and my colleagues to build off of this win and bring further reform to the EB-5 program in the future. Thank you, President Trump.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask to speak as in morning business for 1 minute.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the United States of America has the mightiest military in the world to protect our freedoms and to guarantee peace around the world. That is why it is so important to keep check on the Pentagon's financial ledgers. Taxpayers expect their money to be spent wisely, and it is our job in Congress to make sure that money is spent wisely. I am glad Secretary Esper has said he will work with whistleblowers to stop wasteful spending and to prevent more spare parts rip-offs. These are things that have been of interest to me over the last several decades with the defense budget. I met with Secretary Esper, and I believe he has his heart in the right place to help us accomplish these goals. He has also indicated he will prioritize getting a clean audit of our military services and an opinion that can be certified because the 2010 law that all the audits ought to be certified was not met by 2017, and they are still not done. How can you follow the money if it can't be audited? Our men and women in uniform deserve no less than to make sure every dollar in the Defense Department is spent wisely. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, on April 8, this year I came to the Senate to speak about the end of the special counsel's investigation. Now that Special Counsel Mueller is set to testify tomorrow in the House of Representatives, I would like to reiterate several points I made in that speech that I believe are still very relevant today. I noted that the facts show the real collusion was actually brought about by the Democrats. It is pretty well documented that the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee hired Fusion GPS to do opposition research against Candidate Trump. Fusion GPS then hired Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer, to compile the famous Steele dossier. That document was central to the fake collusion narrative, and it reportedly used Russian Government sources for information. So the Democrats paid for a document created by a foreign national that relied on Russian Government sources. Let's also not forget about news reports that the Democratic National Committee interfaced with the Government of Ukraine to try and get dirt on Candidate Trump--not Trump but the Democrats. Now that is the definition of collusion. Maybe that is why the Democrats seem totally uninterested in figuring out the origins of the Russian investigation because they were a prime mover in making it all happen. Now they have asked the Justice Department to produce the Mueller report's underlying evidence, including all intelligence-related information. I agree with the need to see as much information as possible. In fact, I have cosponsored a bill that would do just that, but the Democrats' fury over Mueller's findings and their inconsistent positions makes me think all of this is more about politics than principle. As I have said repeatedly, to guard against political gamesmanship, there is only one legitimate way to do this. Let's see all the documents, every one of the documents; meaning, that if Congress is going to review the Mueller report's underlying information, it should be able to review information relating to how--absolutely how the Russia investigation started. Anything less will fail to provide the full picture. Furthermore, to be very consistent, we shouldn't stop at the Russia investigation. The Democrats want all of the Mueller information but seem to be turning a very blind eye to other investigations where Congress, as well as the public, have yet to see it all. Again, that leads me to believe that their request for Mueller-related documents is a political ploy. Take, for example, the Clinton investigation. As I have written about publicly before, the Justice Department inspector general produced to Congress a highly classified document relating to this Clinton investigation. That document raises additional questions for the FBI and the Justice Department. These agencies ought to produce additional information to Congress and answer these questions to provide full accounting of what transpired. Here is an excerpt, then, from the inspector general's unclassified report on the Clinton investigation: ``Although the Midyear team [that happens to be the code word for the Clinton investigation] drafted a memorandum to the Deputy Attorney General late May 2016 stating that review of the highly classified material was necessary to complete the investigation and requesting permission to access them, the FBI never sent this request to the Department.'' So this tells us four things. One, the FBI apparently was aware of highly classified information potentially relevant to the Clinton investigation in its possession; secondly, that the FBI drafted a memo in May of 2016 to get access to the information; three, that memo said review of the information was necessary to complete the investigation; and fourth, the fact that the memo was never sent. So, with great emphasis, how could the Obama administration's FBI finish the investigation if they never got access to all potentially relevant information? Now, there ought to be great Democratic outrage at that apparent failure, and there doesn't seem to be. Will Democrats ask the Justice Department for all underlying information relating to Hillary Clinton's investigation? Then there is another example. What about the case called Uranium One? I have been pushing for years for more answers about this transaction that allowed the Russian Government to acquire U.S. uranium assets. I have received classified as well as unclassified briefings about this matter. My staff recently went to FBI headquarters to review additional classified material, and I have identified some FBI intelligence reports that may shed more light on the Uranium One transaction. However, the Attorney General has refused to provide access to those other documents. Well, if the Democrats demand intelligence-related information from the Justice Department regarding the Mueller report, there should be no reason whatsoever why they shouldn't do the same for Uranium One. The American people rightly ought to expect something as simple as consistency. If you aren't consistent with what you ask for, then you will not have any credibility. My attitude and approach is straightforward and nonpartisan. Let's see it all--Russia, Clinton, Uranium One, all of it. As I said on April 8, sunlight is the best disinfectant. As we listen to and watch tomorrow's testimony going on in the House of Representatives, with Mueller coming back to tell us probably nothing new because he said he isn't going to say anything that isn't already in the 448-page report, let's keep that in mind. Let's see all of it--Russia, Clinton, Uranium One, as well as anything the Democrats are asking for in regard to the Mueller report. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, first, I have a duty to perform for the leader. I understand that there are two bills at the desk due a second reading en bloc.

Mr. GRASSLEY. In order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to further proceedings en bloc.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business for 1 minute.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, passing the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement means more market access for our farmers and businesses and more protection for our workers. This agreement includes new commitments in critical areas such as customs, digital trade, services, environment, and labor that are crucial to bringing higher wages and more jobs to American workers. Of course, enforcement is key to a strong and durable trade agreement that will deliver all of the benefits that I just listed. We need enforcement measures that work for all aspects of this agreement. It is time to bring NAFTA into the 21st century, and that is what the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement will do. The time for USMCA is now. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 1 minute.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, with the record rainfalls and the negotiations of Chinese tariffs going on, our farmers are hurting, but we can give them some certainty by passing the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade. In my home State, 86,500 Iowans in farming depend upon agricultural exports to Canada and Mexico, adding $10.3 billion to our State's economy. Manufacturing and services are also going to have a big boom out of this agreement being agreed to. Every third row of Iowa soybeans are exported, and this trade deal will ensure that these farmers continue to have duty-free access to our North American neighbors. The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement also provides new export opportunities for American dairy farmers, poultry, and egg producers. Let's give a boost to our farmers and all the jobs related to farming and in cities and also give a boost to the entire country, by passing the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement and do it very soon. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 1 minute.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in honor of Anti-Counterfeiting Consumer Education and Awareness Month, I wish to highlight the problem of counterfeits sold online. Counterfeiters are increasingly turning to e-commerce to sell all of their fakes. In the past, I have advocated for increased education and awareness efforts because I believe these efforts and education are critical tools in our country's arsenal against counterfeits. I encourage our Customs and Border Protection to identify ways to increase information sharing with their private industry partners. This is one way we can prevent the sale of fakes and keep consumers safe. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, July 20 marks 50 years since Neil Armstrong took ``one small step for man'' and, for the first time in human history, walked on the Moon. The Apollo missions should be remembered for generations to come as a triumph for innovation, for hard work, and for the American spirit. As we commemorate the mission to the moon that captured the world 50 years ago, we should look with anticipation to the next ``giant leap for mankind,'' and thus work to ensure that the United States remains at the forefront of innovation and technology. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, since it is getting close to shutting- down time, I ask unanimous consent to finish my entire remarks. I promise the Presiding Officer I will not be too long.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to talk to my colleagues today about the deeply flawed EB-5 green card program. Several weeks ago, we learned that the Office of Management and Budget at the White House had completed its review of the new rules to update and reform the EB-5 Program. I have been an advocate for reforming this program for a long, long period of time. Several times I have even talked to the White House about moving these regulations along. Now that they have been reviewed by OMB, for the rule to come into effect, it must now be published in the Federal Register. The rule was first proposed in January 2017. We have been waiting for it to be finished for 2\1/2\ years. I hope that President Trump now makes that happen as soon as possible. The proposed rule would raise the minimum investment amounts required under the program. It also makes sure that investments are directed to rural areas and truly high-unemployment areas, as Congress intended when EB-5 was created in 1990. Considering those points of where EB-5 ought to be concentrated and now looking at how they have been diverted from the original intent of Congress is the very best reason for these rules to be put in place--to get us back to square one, the original intent of the law. Since the 1990s, rampant and abusive gerrymandering of the EB-5 Program's targeted employment areas has undermined that congressional intent, which was to direct it toward high-unemployment areas and rural areas. Instead of channeling investment to rural and high-unemployment areas, EB-5 has become a source of cheap foreign capital for big-city, big-moneyed interests. The targeted employment area reforms in the proposed rule would take a first step toward refocusing EB-5 investment in the way that Congress originally intended in that 1990s legislation. In addition to channeling investment away from the areas of our country that need it the most, this is what has happened. The EB-5 Program has been plagued with other forms of fraud and abuse, and this has been going on for years and years. There are examples of EB-5 fraud from all over the country, and I am going to give just a few examples as a reminder to the President why these rules need to be put into the Federal Registry right away. In Chicago, a businessman defrauded 290 investors of $150 million in funds that were supposed to be used for construction of a hotel and conference center near O'Hare Airport. In Palm Beach, FL, a real estate developer and real estate attorney teamed up to defraud 60 Chinese and Iranian EB-5 investors of $50 million. Instead of that money being used to fund the construction of a proposed hotel, it was instead used to pay personal taxes and purchase a 151-foot yacht. In Wisconsin, a businessman used over half of the $7.6 million in funds he had solicited from investors to pay for personal expenses, including Green Bay Packers tickets and the purchase of a Cadillac Escalade. I could go on all day. In May of 2017, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services conducted an internal fraud assessment and found 19 cases of national security concerns within the EB-5 Program. Those are national security concerns. The No. 1 responsibility of the Federal Government is to protect the American people, and that involves national security. These cases related to terrorism, espionage, and information and technology transfer. Unfortunately, multiple bipartisan efforts in the Congress to modify the EB-5 Program have been consistently stymied by powerful special interest groups and big-moneyed interests. Because I have been in the middle of those battles--and they are bipartisan battles--over the years, I know exactly where these big-moneyed interests are coming from and the special interest groups that keep this program from being reformed. Now we have an opportunity for one person--the President of the United States--through regulation, to reform this program in a way that would be very helpful. So that makes the publication of the EB-5 reform rules even more important. I applaud President Trump and the administration for getting the proposed rule to this point, but now it is time for the President and his team to finish the process and make sure the final rule goes into effect as soon as possible. Iowans and all Americans who live in rural and high-unemployment areas deserve to have the investment that Congress intended when the EB-5 Program was created almost 30 years ago. President Trump and his administration now have a chance to finally address some of the very serious flaws in this program that have hurt rural America. We have been waiting for these reforms for over 2 years. It is time for this final rule to be published, and it needs to happen right now, if not sooner.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. First of all, I thank Senator Hoeven for leading this discussion. It is a very important discussion because American farmers, workers, and businesses stand to benefit greatly from the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. This successor agreement to NAFTA will allow for more market access for agriculture, new commitments in critical areas such as customs, digital trade, intellectual property, labor, environment, currency, and the lowering of nontariff barriers--all translating into higher wages, greater productivity, and more jobs. As a family farmer, I can say without a doubt that trade with Canada and Mexico is critical to the prosperity of my State of Iowa, the Midwest, and, for that matter, all of rural America. In 2019, a Business Roundtable study found that trade with Mexico and Canada supported 12 million U.S. jobs. The same study found that 130,000 Iowa jobs were supported by trade with Canada and Mexico in 2017, and $6.6 billion in Iowa goods and services were exported to Canada and Mexico. According to the National Association of Manufacturers, Canada and Mexico purchase nearly half of Iowa's total global manufacturing exports. President Trump and Ambassador Lighthizer delivered a solid deal to enhance this critical relationship with our good neighbors. Now, Congress must act to implement the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. As Ambassador Lighthizer said earlier this year, doing so will not only help the economy of the three countries, but it will enhance the credibility of America's global trade agenda. That is more important than ever, as talks between the United States and China are back on track. I am looking forward to hearing concrete suggestions from House Democrats sometime soon. I am glad Speaker Pelosi has formed working groups to work with Ambassador Lighthizer to address Democrats' concerns and that these meetings are underway. About a month ago, I met for a half hour with Speaker Pelosi, and I can assure you that she wants to get to ``yes,'' but she has a lot of new Members. The House of Representatives has the largest number of new Members in that body since 1974, and there is a lot that new Members have to learn. As Speaker of the House of Representatives, she has to make sure those new Members are comfortable with it. I am sure she wants to get there. Any additions to the USMCA that might come as a result of these negotiations that can improve the outcome of American workers, I am happy to consider. It is important to remember that USMCA is better than NAFTA by nearly every standard, including labor and environment. I hope discussions between House Democrats and Ambassador Lighthizer are an exercise in getting to the ``yes'' that I feel Speaker Pelosi wants to get to. One particular area where everyone can agree is that enforcement across the board is a key compromise that must be hammered out. Factors outside of farmers' hands, such as an oversupply of grain in the global market, an unusually wet spring across the Midwest, and natural disasters, like flooding, have all contributed to increased uncertainty and less profitability for farmers, leading to anxiety among those same farmers. Passing the USMCA will help alleviate some of that uncertainty and anxiety for the years ahead by providing a stable export market for American corn, soybeans, pork, and dairy, to name just a few examples of the benefits not only to farming but the rest of the agenda for manufacturing and services. I yield the floor.