Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I appreciate your comments. I guess it is OK to call you Joe.

Mr. ROBERTS. And I appreciate your friendship. You did mention something else about, there is no objection on your side. Well, about 2 hours ago, when we got this whirlwind or this dustup going again, when our distinguished leader pointed out that we have a good bill, and it is a bipartisan bill, and now we are talking about the footprint that the airlines--the carbon footprint, that we have to take a look at that, and on the boards of these corporations, we want to investigate whether they are truly diverse, et cetera, et cetera, and something about the Green New Deal. That is not pertinent to this particular situation, to say the least. Then when you said an objection, here is what I am worried about: We had the Democratic leader, whom I have known from his House days--we used to play basketball together, for goodness' sake, both of us very slow. What I was doing on the court at my age, I have no idea. My job was to set blind-side picks on Democrats, which I enjoy, one of whom was Chuck Schumer. But here we have the Democratic leader--Susan Collins, sitting right here, stood up to be recognized, and there were three objections to her even talking? That is going back to the days we really don't want to go back to. This is not the Senate I came to 24 years ago or, for that matter, the House 16 years ago or as a staff director for 12 before that and 2 before that in the Senate. I mean, I have been around here for quite a while. And these are not the worst of times. I mean, Washington was on fire when we had the horrible assassination of MLK. Then we went through Watergate, and then we went through the Vietnam war. Actually, it was the Vietnam war before Watergate. And that tore the country apart. Here in this Senate, we were able to come together to try to reach bipartisan agreement. I am telling you that this blanket of comity and respect is pretty threadbare right now. We are right there--for a lot of reasons. I could go back to the Kavanaugh hearings or the impeachment hearings, where one of the House Members--I was sitting right here, he was talking right here, looking right at me, and said: You are on trial, and if you do not vote for this, it is treachery. I said: What? Me? I mean, what was that all about? At that time, by the way, we could have taken first steps with regard to this virus. I know that the assistant or the deputy leader there on your side said: Everybody take a deep breath. We don't want to take a deep breath anywhere now. But I will tell you that I hope we can come together on this and see if we can't reach some agreement. Let's get on the bill. We have got 30 hours to do it. The Senator from West Virginia said that if we could just come to an agreement--I suppose he is meaning beyond those two doors. We have been meeting along and along and along. I would ask the Senator, the distinguished Senator who is sitting right down here, who is about ready to do a speech, how many workshops have we had? I thought there were three. I guess there are five. But each one of them worked with our Democratic counterparts, and they got--I mean, they produced a bipartisan agreement. I really don't understand why we can't get to at least vote for cloture, and then we have 30 hours to--and maybe we could cut back that 30 hours. I would hope that is the case if we finally come to an agreement. But with some of the things that I have heard that you want put in this bill, A, they don't fit, and two, they are counterproductive. Let me just say this. There is a saying out in Dodge City, KS: There is a lot of cactus in the world; you don't have to sit on every one of them. And it appears to me that is what we are doing. I have a nice square saying that is in an 8-by-10 right next to my desk, and it is a quote from Lyndon Baines Johnson: ``Sometimes you just have to hunker down like a jackass in a hailstorm and just take it.'' Well, I am tired of just taking it. I am tired of the partisanship. I am tired of all of this work that we have put together to address what everybody understands is a national pandemic--a world pandemic--and here we are, messing around, trying to say: Oh, no, we can't vote for cloture and address some of these things with the now five working groups who have worked together to produce a product. That is wrong. That is really wrong. So I plead with my colleagues. I don't do this. I don't come down to the floor and make partisan speeches. You do that to introduce an amendment; half of your folks won't vote for it. The same thing the other way around. When they say ``Senator Roberts,'' I hope they remember that I am chairman of the Ag Committee, and I work very well with Senator Stabenow, and we produced a great farm bill. So I don't like doing this. But I have to warn my colleagues, this so-called blanket of comity that we always have here in the Senate is pretty threadbare. I hope we can get past this, and I hope we can vote to get to cloture and then get to a bill as soon as we can

Mr. ROBERTS

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

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, tomorrow, on this floor, the Senate will reconvene again as a court to vote on two Articles of Impeachment against President Trump. Now, after performing my due diligence, along with many others, and considering all assertions by the House and Senate managers, I believe the President should be acquitted from both charges. I do not believe that removal from office is warranted, more especially during an election year. I, like everyone in this body, listened to 12 days of debate and testimony covering nearly 90 hours. I spent time meeting with my fellow Senators in order to reach a conclusion that was, one, fair; and two, met our constitutional mandates; and three, what will best serve our Nation. I did not seek that responsibility. However, I have tried to carry it out to the best of my ability. As a Senate juror, I was asked to weigh whether or not the House Articles of Impeachment charging the President with obstruction of Congress or abuse of power had merit and, if true, whether the offenses rose to a level that requires the President to be removed from office--again, during an election year. And like many of us, I am troubled by multiple factors. Quite frankly, I am troubled with the House managers' demand that we in the Senate fill in the gaps of their investigation and call more witnesses, something they failed to execute themselves. The job of the Senate is to be an honest jury, if you will, and not take up the role of prosecutor or prosecution. Nonetheless, after hearing House managers' statements, it is clear this is exactly the role they insisted we do. I am troubled that countless times the House managers made Senators feel as if we were the ones on trial. I believe the House managers were both incorrect and demanding, constantly stating that Senators have no choice but to agree with their line of reasoning, and if we did not, then we would deal with the consequences--a veiled threat yet to be defined. I served in the House 16 years. For 12 years before that, I was chief of staff for a House Member. I know the House. I truly enjoyed my service there. But you don't come to the Senate and point fingers at Senate Members and make the insinuation that we are on trial if we do not do the right thing, as they have concluded. Enough of that. Additionally, my top concern was what precedence would be set for future Presidents and their expectations of privacy in conversation with their advisers, not to mention the future, with regard to this situation, once again, with our Nation finding itself in a whirlpool of partisan impeachment. I have been most troubled that the House managers have not put cause before personal animus. I would think, back in the day, perhaps, that they had a barrel--like a rain barrel to capture the excess water off of the roof. I know we had that in Dodge City. I think it probably sat right over there. It is flowing over with personal animus. It is a rain barrel to catch that and get rid of it and let us get back to our business. I deeply regret that. As has been stated frequently, Alexander Hamilton described it best, that charges against the President ``will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger [to our Nation] that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.'' I don't know how many Senators and, for that matter, the distinguished professor from Harvard, Professor Dershowitz, said that over and over again. Unfortunately, the warning of Alexander Hamilton and our Founders have come into fruition today. It is infectious and harming our ability to function as the United States Senate, where the threads of comity are already getting pretty frayed, threadbare. In this regard, I appreciated yesterday when the White House counsel showed clips of major bills important to the American people that we have done in a bipartisan fashion, despite our differences, despite the animus in the Senate, especially highlighting something called the farm bill, where we achieved 87 votes, with the support, by the way, of the distinguished Presiding Officer. We don't always agree on every issue on the Ag Committee, but we can work together to accomplish great things for America. We have done that with the farm bill. Along with Senator Stabenow and the entire Agriculture Committee, we are the least partisan committee in this distinguished body. That is what we do in the Senate; that is what we do on behalf of our farmers, ranchers, our growers--everybody throughout rural and smalltown America--and we are charged with certainty and predictability, and we had to get it done. That is what the White House has done on a number of occasions. We use the threads of comity to get things done. It needs a lot of restitching. So I ask, have President Trump's actions risen to the level and vision by our Founding Fathers and the Constitution as high crimes and misdemeanors warranting removal from office? Our Constitution requires that the threshold for that judgment must be set by each Senator sitting as a juror. All of us in this Senate have concerns about the direction this country is heading, but let me just stress that we have come through, time and time again, dark times. These are not the worst of times. When I first arrived here in the Senate as a chief of staff for Senator Frank Carlson, it was within weeks we had the horrible tragedy of the assassination of Martin Luther King. Washington was burning. Marines were on the Capitol steps with sandbags and live ammunition. That was tough. Vietnam tore the country apart, so did Watergate, so did the impeachment of Bill Clinton, so did Iran-Contra, just to name a few. Today a charge of impeachment against the President has placed this Nation in jeopardy again. The House managers' assertions are exactly the kind of situation the Framers were trying to avoid--the remarks by Alexander Hamilton that I just read--as they devised the impeachment mechanism to remove a sitting President whose actions endangered the Republic. However, as we did back then, we will once again come together. As I said, these are not the worst of times, and we have always pulled it together. We are a strong nation because we have strong people. We are a strong nation because it is in our nature to work together, even as we disagree among ourselves. So I made my choice very clear, and my plea is, let us restore the threads of comity in this distinguished body. Work together, we must. We will emerge strong because we will. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I send a question to the House counsel for a question.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of Chris Allen, who worked as my senior economic policy adviser. It is fitting that I do so on the Senate floor because Chris Allen would be the first one to tell you he loved his job. This statement was delivered so frequently and with such sincerity that one was compelled to look inward and remind one's self of what a privilege it is to work in the U.S. Senate on behalf of the American people. Chris Allen was a student of history and a lover of politics. Ladies and gentlemen, Chris Allen loved tax policy. If that doesn't tell you what a special person he was, I don't know what does. Chris's attitude about his job extended to his coworkers. He loved his coworkers. When he was on my staff, Chris was always willing to help junior staff, senior staff, or interns. It didn't matter--he had time for you. He rolled up his sleeves and pitched in. He gave you advice. He truly cared. When it came time for my 2014 campaign, Chris spent his vacation days with me in Kansas--knocking on doors, walking in parades, and being a force of positive energy no matter what we faced. Normally these are grueling tasks but not for Chris. He had fun. He loved it. As a matter of fact, posted on the wall of our little Hart kitchen, we have a selfie on election night of my crew at the victory party. The picture is entitled ``This is what victory looks like.'' And right smack-dab in the middle is one smiling Chris Allen. Now, when I am heating up my coffee, I look at Chris in the picture, and I can feel his joy as he is surrounded by our family of staffers. Elections weren't his only love. Chris Allen loved a cold beer. He loved a natty jacket. He loved loud pants. Sometimes he loved wearing them together. He loved his lacrosse. He loved his Baltimore neighborhood. He loved all things English and French. He loved researching his ancestry. Chris Allen loved his parents, his in-laws, his brothers, his nieces and nephews, but nothing compared to his love for Lynda, Lucie, and Sophie. He was not just a proud dad who boasted of his daughters' accomplishments big and small; he was better. He was a father who took delight in the things his daughters said and did, big and small. They were cherished. May they understand today and always that we loved Chris, and he loved them. I always looked forward to my briefings with Chris. For one, he got my jokes. He understood my references to radio and television shows and personalities that my other staff would have to research and look up. But he was also understanding of the history of the issues, even those not in his portfolio. He was an excellent steward of my priorities on the Finance Committee, so much so they stole him from me. At the time I told him, ``Listen, you still work for me, you are just sitting down the hall.'' To illustrate Chris' popularity, I would like to share this story. There is an annual, all-day legislative meeting held in Washington for a Kansas group that requires a lot of preparation. My staff must be able to speak about a variety of topics and difficult issues before an audience of at least 100 Kansans. At one of these such meetings, Chris had just left my office to work at tax nerd nirvana, the Senate Finance Committee. I called him back to answer a few tax questions while my new staffer transitioned into the role. Before Chris was scheduled to arrive, a number of questions about taxes came up and my staff deferred to him, mentioning they would wait for the ``real tax guy'' to show up. Their repeated deference to him built up a feeling of anticipation in the room. At long last, Chris strolls in, and heads swivel around to the back of the room to see the great tax man cometh. It was like Elvis had entered the building. The audience got to their feet and gave him a standing ovation. One man was even moved to testify how Chris had helped his community on a rural tax issue and it had made all of the difference. And at the front of the room on the panel, there sat Chris in his dapper jacket, his head tilted back and his beaming smile. He loved to help and they loved him. Whether it was the tax reform bill or pension legislation, Chris' brilliant mind made the measure better--every time. And his work will have a long lasting influence on our Nation and literally millions of Americans. What a career Chris Allen had. Everyone in this room will probably agree that Chris's best stories were about himself, and he was usually his own punchline. Something had happened to him. He had messed something up, or he had gleefully embarrassed his daughters. You can hear him now. I was a bit player in one of his favorite tales. It was his first Finance Committee hearing working for me. Chris had prepped for days--weeks probably. He was both nervous and excited. As we walked over to the committee room, he told me he was calling Lynda, hoping she could watch the hearing on CSPAN and catch him sitting behind the dais. So I decided to have a little fun with Chris. As the time for questions got to the Senator next to me, I very dramatically motioned to Chris. Chris looked shocked--I am sure he was thinking, ``Oh no, what could I have forgotten to tell him.'' Chris leaned in, and I put my hand to the side of my mouth: ``Chris, this is your moment. Look very serious. Nod your head a few times. Now point at the paper I am holding--now tell me something very crucial . . . we are going to make sure Lynda sees you!'' Chris got the biggest kick out of it, and we met the goal--he was on CSPAN. So while we take the issues and the policy very seriously, and we negotiate very intensely--and Chris could sure do that--we can also stop for a minute to appreciate where we are and what a privilege it is to do these jobs. As I said, Chris never forgot or took it for granted. He appreciated every minute in the Senate. I understand Lucie has shared a link to a Google doc for Chris's friends and loved ones to share their ``short but interesting stories about Chris.'' I encourage everyone to do so. These stories will be a treasure trove for Lynda, Sophie, and Lucie. I hope you can preserve them in some way with his genealogy work. I know he would like that. I will conclude with a note to Lynda and the girls: I always say you are only as good as your staff; it is your friends and family who make you what you are. In my office, staff are family. Chris was family; you will always be family. Besides, Chris still works for me. He is just sitting and smiling a few floors up.

Mr. ROBERTS

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

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I am honored to pay tribute to Johnny Isakson. I don't know how I could top anything that has been mentioned by Senator Perdue and, especially, Senator Coons--Senator Chris Coons has given us a charge to follow Johnny's example--and Senator Grassley and now Senator Murray and everybody who will follow me. I have a problem. I did all of this on Veterans Day. I tried to point out that his committee has passed 57 bills. I don't know of any other committee that has done that on behalf of the people who wear the uniform of the United States--who do so much on our behalf--and, more especially, for the VA and what that is all about. There has never been a better chairman than Johnny Isakson. I said all of that. I also said, in this body, there are those who choose ideology and partisan issues while Johnny is someone who works with his colleagues to pass legislation that benefits not only our Nation's veterans but every American's pocketbook and daily life. The reason I just sort of read through that is that we have just had lunch wherein nearly every Senator was in attendance with the exception of those who are running for President, and they would have liked to have been there. By my count, there were seven standing ovations-- seven. Each Member, both of the leaders, and the people who have served with Johnny either as a minority member or as a chairman gave their amazing tributes to this wonderful man. Isn't it amazing that in this very difficult time in the Senate, when the bar of civility is about forehead high--you don't want to run into it here--that here is a man who has given us a way out? I have never seen that before. Johnny has had, I think, 50 years of public service. I have him beat if you add in staff time and 40 years of public service--by the way, of being elected 24 to 0. I have never seen such an outpouring of affection and genuine admiration for an individual, be he a Member of the House or the Senate, as was experienced at this lunch. It was Chris Coons who, during his tribute, said: Why don't we use this as a wonderful way to see if we can get past all of the trials and tribulations that we have gone through in the Senate and work together for a change? People talked about, when they had come to the Senate, that it wasn't this way. Actually, it was. Yet we look very fondly upon the past. So I hope that people can take Chris's challenge to heart. It is a pretty easy deal. Johnny knows it by heart, for that is who he is; yet, if a person or a group of people or Senators in this body love to come down here and make speech after speech--in many cases, they are very partisan, and many of the younger Members do this--I give them that. I mean, that is their right. I remember, in the early days when I was in the House, that I did that a couple of times and then was talked to by some of the senior Members who said: We don't do that here in order to get along, especially in the all-powerful House Agriculture Committee and now the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee. We always work together because we are nonpartisan on that committee. So you ignore that. Then, if you really do take the time to know that individual, as opposed to the individual you have seen on the floor, you will find out this is a person who is very interesting. You will find out this is a person worth knowing. You will find out that you have common ground. You will find out that you can get a vote for them in order for them to vote for the farm bill or for a veterans' program or for any other thing. So I think that is the example that Johnny has set. I don't know if there is anything more I can add after seven standing ovations and obviously many, many people actually telling the truth about you. I know, Johnny, it must be a little much for you. Frankly, I am getting a little tired of it. I would just like to say what I said back then when I was speaking of your tremendous success as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee when I said: ``Johnny, thank you for your service; now thank you for your message; now thank you for being simply who you are.'' And I said: ``Senators eventually come and Senators go.'' I do not think we will see the likes of Senator Johnny Isakson for years to come. We love you. I love you. I will miss you greatly. Thank you for your fortitude and courage in fighting Parkinson's as an example to so many. Semper fi, my dear friend. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, thank you to my colleagues from West Virginia, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and now the great State of Montana. The distinguished Senator from Montana is sitting at the desk that was occupied by Conrad Burns, a Senator from Montana who was a private in the U.S. Marine Corps. I thank the Senator from Montana for his remarks and for his service in this body. I rise today to speak in support of our Nation's veterans, Veterans Day, which is coming up on Monday, and the 244th--244th--birthday Sunday of our Nation's force in readiness, the U.S. Marine Corps. I am a marine--the senior marine in the Congress--and my dad was a marine serving in Guam, Kenya, Okinawa, and Iwo Jima. Tough duty. On this holiday, we remember those who have sacrificed for our freedoms, especially the more than 1 million who have given their lives for our country. Every American should remember these heroes. As a nation, we are also home to more than 18 million living heroes who have served with distinction in our armed services. On this Veterans Day, I would especially like to single out a great veteran who has also served with honor and respect in this body-- Senator Johnny Isakson. John Hardy Isakson, born December 28, 1944, just 3 short years after the attack on Pearl Harbor, began his service to our country in the Georgia Air National Guard from 1966 to 1972, leaving the service at the rank of staff sergeant. He then continued to serve as a member in both the Georgia State Senate and House, as well as the U.S. House of Representatives, before his fellow Georgians sent him to the U.S. Senate. In 2005, he came back full circle to his military roots, joining the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and in 2015, he took over the chairmanship. Let the record reflect that, as chairman, he has worked tirelessly-- tirelessly--to reform veterans' healthcare and benefits, as well as to bring oversight and accountability to the Department. Under his leadership, the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs has passed 57 pieces of legislation that were signed into law--57. You heard that correctly; 57 bills became law. I think I have had the gavel in four different committees--57? I don't think I have gotten to that yet. Let me just go through some of the most significant reforms that Johnny Isakson steered through the Senate that became law: the VA MISSION Act, which puts veterans in charge of their own healthcare; the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act, which holds the VA accountable to the veterans it serves; the Harvey W. Colmery--happens to be a Kansan--Veterans Educational Assistance Act, which improves veterans' GI bill benefits; the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, which modernizes the VA's appeal process; and one of the most important, the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act, which helps get mental health services to our warfighters who need them the most. This is only a small portion of his long list of accomplishments, and his committee is not resting on their laurels. As of this morning, they have held 110 hearings, conducted more than 80 oversight visits, and have confirmed 23 Presidential nominations. In my experience as chairman of a Senate committee--I think three of them, maybe four--you simply can't get this type of work done without help from those across the aisle. This is just another example of who Johnny is as a person and a legislator. He doesn't make promises he can't keep, and he is willing to put partisanship aside in order to get the absolute best care for our Nation's men and women who have served. In this body, there are those who choose ideology--I understand that--and partisan issues--I understand that as well. But Johnny Isakson is someone who works with his colleagues to pass legislation benefiting not only our Nation's veterans but every American's pocketbook and daily life. I have a lot of personal memories when Johnny would rope me in to coming to a meeting, a bipartisan meeting, to try to get what we thought was a very important bill done. Sometimes I had some concerns about joining those outfits that he seemed to put together when nobody else could, but I learned pretty quickly that I better go, first, to find out what was going on and then, second, to watch this man carefully craft a bipartisan agreement, working with colleagues, listening to them. When Johnny spoke, people usually got to the edge of their chairs and listened. That is how he got it done. On behalf of the more than 18 million veterans and their families this Veterans Day, we celebrate his leadership and sense of duty to country. Johnny--Johnny Isakson--thank you for your service. Senators eventually come and go. I do not think we will see the likeness of Senator Johnny Isakson for years to come. Semper fi, my dear friend. I love you. We love you. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, about a month ago there was a headline in one of the publications that people pay attention to that read: ``Senate Republicans Amp Up Pressure for an USMCA Vote.'' USMCA, by the way, is an acronym for the new trade agreement between Mexico, Canada, and the United States. I initially thought it was ``United States Marine Corps Always,'' but that is not the case. About nine of us came to the floor and pointed out this was imperative, and if we were going to have a new trade agreement to replace NAFTA, if we could at least get some price recovery and also make some progress with regard to Canada and Mexico--historically great trading partners--it might be a good thing to get the USMCA passed. That was a month ago. We were assured, at that particular time, by folks over in the House of Representatives--our colleagues over there--that they would do everything in their power to see if we could get it done. It is not done. Still, it is not done. Still, farmers, ranchers, growers, and everybody connected with agriculture, and, for that matter, trade, certainly have been waiting and waiting. Times in farm country, as I think most people know, are pretty rough these days. So at least passing USMCA would be something everybody could agree to. I rise in support of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement again--1 month later. It is time to move forward and pass this important legislation now. ``Now,'' that is my acronym for ``right away,'' ``yesterday.'' As chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I want to talk about not only my producers in Kansas but all producers throughout these United States and across the country. Time and again, we have asked why there is a delay. Farmers tell me, time and again, they wonder what on Earth is going on back there. Well, that is obvious to everybody, with the ``i'' word being considered over in the House, but even with that, this is a situation where, if that were brought up to a vote, both the administration and House Members--both sides of the aisle--it would pass, more so especially since our Trade Ambassador, Robert Lighthizer, has been working with my colleagues across the aisle over there in an effort to settle labor issues and also environmental concerns. I have been down that road before with the Honorable Kika de la Garza, the late Kika de la Garza, but a wonderful man who was chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. I was the ranking member and then became the chairman. We worked on NAFTA, writing that bill. We would revert to that bill, but after months and months, there was finally an agreement between Canada, Mexico, and the United States. We were ready to do this, and it had to go to the House of Representatives. Ambassador Lighthizer and Bob--he used to work for Bob Dole, a good friend of mine--had been working with Democrats over time on these two issues. He tells me he is pretty close to a deal--except we are not. Now, Ambassador Lighthizer, on behalf of the administration, is not going to send this deal, if you will, this trade agreement, to the House unless there is a clear intention that it will be brought up. He doesn't want to be held hostage. So the House has to move. I want to continue to point out that USMCA, this new trade agreement, will not only increase market access for farmers and provide new opportunities for dairy, poultry, for egg producers, for all the commodities we talk about--wheat, corn, et cetera--but it will also address longstanding nontariff barriers that will help our Kansas farmers export wheat to Canada. That used to be the case with Mexico. The Kansas winter wheat, once harvested, would get on the Kansas City railroad, down to Mexico. They would sell the wheat to Mexico, where they sorely needed it. It was a very good business trade agreement. That has pretty much dried up. Let me go back to 2017. At that particular time, 110,000 Kansas jobs were supported by trade with Canada and Mexico, and, I am sure, the neighboring States are even equal to that or much more than that. While many of those jobs are spread across all sectors of the economy, many are tied to the agriculture value chain; that is, farmers, ranchers, and growers, to the consumer. In total, Kansas exports $4 billion of products to Canada and Mexico each year--$800 million from agriculture alone. It is nearly impossible for me to overstate the importance of this trade deal to my home State of Kansas. We are not going to experience price recovery in farm country because of the supply-demand situation worldwide, and we are in a lot of trouble in farm country. The least we could do is consider USMCA, where we know we have the votes to pass it in both Chambers, both in the House and the Senate. In fact, the call for Congress to get moving on this trade deal has united more people from different political and professional backgrounds than almost any other issue in recent memory, including organized labor. I recently started a web series, if you will, ``Trade Tuesday,'' to give a platform to the many constituents who have voiced their support to me by saying: ``Pat, where on Earth is the UMSCA bill?'' We have featured farmers and manufacturers from around Kansas, including Rich Felts. Rich Felts is a great friend of mine, a farmer from Southeast Kansas, and the president of the Kansas Farm Bureau. Rich hit the nail right on the head. He said: We are an exporting State. We produce much more than we are ever going to consume [in Kansas], and if we want to grow our economy, specifically our economy in the State, we have to export the excess commodity. I think it is easy to say we want trade, we don't want aide, and this is going to be a step in that direction if we can get this passed by Congress. I could not agree more with Rich on the importance of this trade deal to farmers and producers in Kansas, but it is not only the agriculture industry that is interested in getting USMCA across the finish line. We have also featured Jason Cox, the president of Cox Machine, Inc., a small aerospace company based in Wichita, KS--typical of the small business community of my State. He recently said: Trade is very important to our business, both on the raw material supply side as well as the selling side. This USMCA is important for us to help lower the cost of raw material that we buy and pass that savings along to our customers so we can get more work and produce more goods [and also jobs]. Look, my colleagues, it has been nearly a year since President Trump and the leaders of Mexico and Canada signed this new trade agreement. It was November 30, 2018. We are running out of time to get this deal done for folks like Rich and Jason and the many other workers whose livelihoods depend upon trade. There are deadlines. If we get past the deadline, we will go back to the original NAFTA bill, which--as I look back in my public career, I was happy to work with Kika de la Garza, as I said--the former chairman of the House Ag Committee, and he helped me to write NAFTA at that particular time. As a result, the ag sector has grown by leaps and bounds in not only producing enough food and fiber and other products for our consumers but also for a troubled and hungry world. We need this trade agreement. I sincerely hope my friends in the House can quickly come to an agreement with the administration so that we can all do what is right by our constituents and get this bill passed this year. I would point out that the ag chairman today in the House is Collin Peterson. He is a veteran. He is a friend of mine. Mike Conaway is the ranking member--same thing. They are for USMCA. It is bipartisan in the Ag Committee over there. I would also give a shout-out to Robert Lighthizer, who is our Ambassador, who has been meeting constantly day in and day out--trying to iron out any labor or environment portions of this trade agreement where we have some holdup. We are not going to go anywhere if we continue to insist on these kinds of requirements. You know, these are sovereign countries. These are our neighbors. For us to try to dictate labor standards and environmental standards for them is a little much, but I understand that is what we have to do. I don't know, here, what more we can do. I can come to the floor every day. I can just say that we had 9 Senators here before. I think we could get a mutual agreement to say: Hey, let's get this done. Let's separate it from all of the goings-on that are happening in the House of Representatives today. I hope Speaker Pelosi--she knows about this. California depends on this big time, and, as Speaker of the entire United States--I am not trying to lecture her or point fingers at her, but she knows exactly what the situation is. If she would just send a signal to Ambassador Lighthizer and we would send that trade pack up and we could get a vote, I think it would pass overwhelmingly, and at least we would have something we could claim we are doing in behalf of our farmers, our ranchers, our growers, and everybody who is supported by the agriculture industry. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

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

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank all of my colleagues and especially Senator Daines for pointing out what is happening in rural and smalltown America. As a matter of fact, most of my colleagues-- Senator Hoeven, Senator Capito, Senator Daines, Senator Boozman, Senator Blackburn--all represent large States, and we represent cities, of course, but also rural and smalltown America. I thank them for their concerted efforts. We have all been working together. I thank Senator Hoeven more particularly for his work on funding, as he is the distinguished chairman of the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, and I echo his support for getting these appropriations bills done. I just want to talk and add to their comments about this national issue of immediate concern, substance abuse and opioid addiction. I think it is timely because just 1 year ago, the President of the United States signed the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act into law. This was the legislation that was the culmination of months of bipartisan work. I emphasize the word ``bipartisan.'' We talk about it a lot but seldom see it. This is one effort that we got done. This moved across several committees and both Chambers of Congress. So I think it is something we can take great pride in, showing folks back home that we can actually do something together. I am proud to be part of this effort on behalf of both the Finance and HELP Committees in the Senate. The legislation included a bill I introduced to encourage the use of electronic prior authorization in Medicare Part D, which would help overcome one of the primary challenges to patients receiving their medications, including treatments for substance abuse disorders and non-opiate alternatives to treating pain. The SUPPORT Act also included our language that would help shed light on the best practices and the barriers to using telehealth for treating substance abuse disorders in children who are covered under Medicaid. It will also focus on how we can utilize telehealth to help children in rural and underserved areas, including how treatment can be offered in school-based settings. All of us who have spoken on this issue have the same problem. In last year's farm bill, the Senate Agriculture Committee, of which I am proud to be chairman, also included provisions to help those suffering from substance abuse disorders, primarily in our rural areas. We prioritized funding in the community facilities and distance learning telemedicine programs for projects focused on treating addiction, including opiates. I am proud of these efforts, but there is so much work left to do to combat addiction. This is a real epidemic as has been stressed by my colleagues. Real progress starts at the local level. In my home State of Kansas, we continue to need assistance in preventing meth use, as was so eloquently discussed by my colleague from Montana, Senator Daines. We still have use and abuse taking a heavy toll on many communities throughout the State. Patients suffering from addiction in rural parts of the country face many challenges in accessing the clinical services they really need. We have heard from many Kansans who have to travel long distances, sometimes across State lines, in order to access substance abuse treatments. I recently spoke with many Kansas district attorneys for a second year in a row. Last year they came in, and I thought they were going to talk about the criminal justice act that we had just passed. No, they wanted to talk about meth. I said: Well, wait a minute, I thought we made some real progress in eliminating the meth labs in Kansas. That is the case, but for a second year in a row, they pointed out again the meth coming in from Mexico, which was demonstrated by Senator Daines. There was a tremendous concern over this kind of meth, which is so much more powerful. Their No. 1 concern was individuals in many parts of the State who were suffering from addiction and constantly cycling through the court system and clogging up the courts. These individuals often do not have access to substance abuse treatments that can help control their addiction and keep them out of the criminal justice system. That is why I introduced this year the Meth Addiction Act. All of us have individual acts, and we also hope that we can meld them together. This is a bill to extend the reach of these treatments to more people who so desperately need them. Our bill would allow our community mental health and addiction treatment facilities to connect patients via telehealth to physicians who are authorized to prescribe the controlled substances that treat addiction. This would help to empower local and rural providers to use every tool necessary to combat this epidemic. In addition, last year, I had the privilege of attending a drug take- back event in Kansas, hosted by Walgreens and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas. This is the kind of local initiative that is especially important, as we have consistently heard about the importance of preventing diversion as one way of combating this epidemic. At the same time, we must be careful and make sure that efforts to address the problem do not deny patients the controlled substances if they have a legitimate and clinical need for these treatments. That is why safe disposal of these medications is such an important tool in solving this very complex issue. This initiative offers people year- round options to help to prevent diversion of addictive medications to their friends and loved ones, without limiting access to treatment. Finally, I would like to recognize that 2 weeks from now, the city of Topeka, KS, the capital of Kansas, is hosting the Kansas Opioid Conference. The people who are truly on the frontlines of the opioid crisis in Kansas will be in attendance to address these issues through all sorts of collaborative efforts at the State level and the local level. They are the ones who will help us find the solution that will help us make real and lasting progress against this epidemic. Unanimous Consent Agreement Mr. President, I have this important message from a very important staff member. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now recess from 3 until 4 p.m. today for a briefing.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to my dear friend and colleague, the former senator from Alaska, Ted Stevens. He was an incomparable and one of kind senator. With Ted, they broke the mold. To me, he was my friend, mentor, and a person that comes along your pathway of life who changes everything. In all my years in the House, I seldom sheathed my sword with appropriators who were always rustling our mandatory and authorized money. Our cause was just, but seldom successful. It did not take Ted and Danny Inouye long to convince me not only to sheath my sword but give it to them. I had been in the Senate for just a few months when Ted cornered me on the Senate floor, jabbed me in my shoulder and said, ``You're coming with me to North Korea. Don't argue with me, Dole says you are Mr. Agriculture. You don't have to say anything, just nod your head.'' He was trying to arrange a third-party grain sale to alleviate constant famines in North Korea. He and Danny almost pulled it off. If you wanted to get things done, it was a good idea to listen to Uncle Ted. His advice: ``Get to really know people. Don't pay attention to partisan diatribes, socialize and gain their trust.'' By following his advice, it is amazing what you can get done. I still apply those lessons today; it works: 87 votes for a farm bill that the President just signed last year. Example may be better than advice, but when the two join hands they make a team that is hard to beat and that would be Ted Stevens and his friend--if not brother--Danny Inouye. Either one could be chairman, and the result would be the same in behalf of our military and national security. We who have the public trust know we are only as good as our staff, and Ted had the best, many of whom are in the audience. As the Senator toting the bucket for our beloved Marine Corps, I mention one: Sid Ashworth. Back in the day, the Commandant would trust me to follow up after meeting with Ted. We all knew the Air Force got top dollar; then the Army, Navy, and maybe we got retread tires and bailing wire. Sid said, ``Take in three requests. Make the first so big, he'll say, `You know we can't afford that.' Then with number two, make that difficult to understand and fill it with acronyms, and he'll shut you down. Finally for your third request: take your number one ask and plead your case, `What am I going to tell the Commandant? At least give me this.' '' And it would work. Then I would call the Commandant and casually say, ``Sir, we're okay, we got our top ask.'' Thanks, Sid. My relationship with Ted was simple, I did what he asked. On a CODEL, very late at night, we were watching ``Band of Brothers''--again; it was Ted's favorite. All lights were off, it was past midnight, everyone fast asleep. I was sitting next to Ted whose eyes were closed, so I got up quietly and attempted to turn the TV off. Ted said in a very loud voice, ``Leave it on, this next part is the best part.'' I sat down. ``Temper is a valuable possession, don't lose it,'' Ted Stevens. Our Tuesday policy lunch often included discussions of appropriations bills versus policy and ideology. One day, Ted had enough and shouted, ``When are you people going to understand, without Democrat votes, we cannot pass appropriations bills!'' He left the room, slammed the door so hard that Mike Mansfield's portrait almost fell to the floor. I waited about a minute, followed him down to his Appropriations office. I strode in and said, ``Why in the hell did you do that?'' He said, ``You don't understand, I'm not angry, I just use my anger as a tool.'' Nevertheless, when he donned his ``Hulk Tie'' colleagues steered clear. Ted Stevens had a wonderful perspective on life. A successful person can lay a firm foundation with bricks that others have thrown at him. Even the longest day will have an end, and it did. The Alaskan of the Century was vindicated. With this grand portrait, he returns to the Senate, and he will remain here for decades to come. In just 7 months, Ted and Danny will be honored again at the dedication of the Dwight David Eisenhower Memorial, Ted's favorite President. They led the charge to create the memorial. The dedication will be on May 8, 2020, and the memorial will be another part of Ted Stevens' legacy. It was a privilege to know and serve with him and to share his friendship. Alaska and our country are better and stronger thanks to his duty and devotion. We will never see the likes of Ted Stevens again. However, he still lives within all of our hearts, and we thank the Lord for enabling us to live in his space and time. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I wish to celebrate the 129th birthday of Dwight D. Eisenhower. Eisenhower was a fellow Kansan, a strong trailblazer, and an exceptional American. His lifetime traversed many important eras in our Nation. Ike was born as the American Frontier came to an end, and passed away only a few months before the United States stepped foot on the Moon, beginning an exploration into the new frontier of space. Born in Denison, TX, on October 14, 1890, and raised in Abilene, KS, Eisenhower grew up in a humble environment. He always worked hard for what he wanted. From his early years of working 12-hour shifts at a creamery, to pursuing an education at the U.S. Military Academy, to earning the rank of Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe during World War II, to becoming the leader of our Nation and the free world, Ike continually strived for the best. Like so many of his generation, he achieved a great deal for himself and our country, but didn't seek personal credit for his accomplishments. Eisenhower's determination, leadership, and honorable character are the reasons that he remains respected around the world to this day. In fact, just 2 years ago in 2017, historians with expertise on Presidential rankings revised previous figures to now include Eisenhower among the top five of all U.S. Presidents. Although there are numerous examples of Ike's international respect, one particular instance can be drawn from his 1945 Guildhall Address. After Eisenhower received the key to the city of London upon leading the Allies to victory in World War II, he said, ``No petty differences in the world of trade, traditions, or national pride should ever blind us to our identities in priceless values. If we keep our eyes on this guidepost, then no difficulties along our path of mutual co-operation can ever be insurmountable. Moreover, when this truth has permeated to the remotest hamlet and heart of all people, then indeed may we beat our swords into plowshares and all nations can enjoy the fruitfulness of the Earth.'' Today, we are surrounded by Eisenhower's enduring leadership and ideas. The effects of his creative innovation and his focus on the future gave us the Interstate Highway System, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Saint Lawrence Seaway, NASA, and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, now known as the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education. Ike also supported legislation that welcomed Alaska and Hawaii into the Union; eradicated segregation in our Armed Forces; and deployed the Army's 101st Airborne to Central High School in Little Rock, AR, ensuring that the law of educational integration was followed by all States. As the chairman of the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission, I am pleased to announce that the completion of the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial, commemorating and memorializing the general and President, is on budget and on schedule. A dedication ceremony is slated for May 8, 2020, the 75th Anniversary of the Allied Victory in Europe, V-E Day, during World War II. It is truly exciting to realize that, in about 7 months, our Nation will dedicate a Presidential memorial in Washington, DC, celebrating the life and legacy of Dwight D. Eisenhower. I ask you to join me in honoring Eisenhower's 129th birthday. Ike not only championed the free world as an exceptional military strategist, but also led our country to times of prosperity serving as a visionary guardian of the country's well-being. Hailing from America's heartland and devoting his life to the pursuit of liberty, Ike left behind an extraordinary legacy that created a better, more peaceful world.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I applaud the Senate's bipartisan confirmation of Dr. Heath Tarbert to head the Commodity Futures Trading Comission. I am confident that Dr. Tarbert, who is no stranger to public service, will lead the CFTC well. As the former acting Under Secretary for International Affairs at the Department of the Treasury, Dr. Tarbert has exactly the right experience, at the right time, to lead the CFTC. The CFTC needs a strong leader like Dr. Tarbert. He understands how the markets are impacted by actions taken by Congress and U.S. Federal regulators, as well as those of our legislative and regulatory partners around the world. His experience clearly demonstrates appreciation of what led to the financial crisis 10 years ago. Dr. Tarbert also has the support of a range of agricultural groups, all voicing strong sport and appreciation for his experience in the financial sector, the effort demonstrated to understand priority issues, and the commitment to visiting agricultural operations to reinforce the importance of these markets to farmers, ranchers, growers, and agribusiness. The CFTC is charged with fostering open, transparent, competitive, and financially sound markets, while working to prevent systemic risk. The regulation and oversight provided by the CFTC allows end users-- farmers, ranchers, commercial companies, municipalities, energy companies, pension funds, and others--to hedge commercial risk using the derivatives market. These markets allow companies to generate jobs and produce goods and services for our economy. I look forward to working with Dr. Tarbert in his new role. Thank you.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today, I would like to recognize COL Douglas B. Guttormsen on the occasion of his retirement from the Kansas City District Commander for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He has diligently served in this role for 3 years. After earning degrees from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, the University of Missouri at Rolla, the National Defense University, and the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Colonel Guttormsen went on to lead engineering battalions across the United States and around the world. In addition to these assignments, he served in combat operations in Iraq and the Republic of Korea. As commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Kansas City District, Colonel Guttormsen has overseen many military and civil works projects throughout the district. From directing construction projects at the region's military installations to ensuring the levees and dams are structurally sound, Colonel Guttormsen has demonstrated able and consistent leadership. Although his resume boasts many accomplishments, Colonel Guttormsen's work leading the emergency operations center, which plays a vital role in responding to natural disasters whenever and wherever they may occur, is most impressive. This spring, when facing extensive rainfall and severe flooding, he and the entire Kansas City District staff worked around the clock to respond to levee breaches and assist affected communities. Colonel Guttormsen also participated in the Missouri River Flood Forum that Congressman Steve Watkins and I hosted in May, where we saw the extensive flooding at the 4-State Lookout Point in Kansas and then spoke alongside the Department of Agriculture and answered questions from community members. Colonel Guttormsen is a true professional and has exhibited remarkable leadership during his time as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Kansas City District commander. I trust my fellow members will join me in congratulating him and wishing him well in the days to come.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I thank Senator Hoeven for getting us together for a colloquy with everybody who is concerned about this. This is what we do on the Agriculture Committee, working in a bipartisan way when we see an opportunity, and certainly we ought to seize this opportunity. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for leading this. He is an outstanding champion on behalf of agriculture, and he is always riding the posse, which I truly appreciate. I also thank Senator Braun from Indiana, a new and valued member of the Ag Committee, for pointing out some of the obstacles we face. Unfortunately, they tend to be on a partisan basis. There are extraneous things that need to be talked about, and I know Senator Portman just brought that up with his chart, but I thank him for his participation. Senator Grassley, who is a very valued member of the Ag Committee, chairman of the Finance Committee--and obviously that is the committee of jurisdiction--who has especially pointed out, and as Senator Ernst has pointed out, the value of agriculture to Iowa and, for that matter, all of the country. Senator Boozman, who talked about Arkansas, is a valued member of the committee as well, next to the chair in terms of seniority. Senator Portman, as has been pointed out, is the former Trade Representative. On the chart, he simply pointed out in detail why this new agreement is far superior to NAFTA and we are working with, as Senator Grassley pointed out, working groups in the House, with our lead negotiator, and I hope that works out. I certainly hope it works out. Senator Ernst has been an outstanding champion for farmers in Iowa and all around the country. She is on the committee and has compassion and also pointed out the need for certainty. Now, since NAFTA was signed into law, the result has been that Canada and Mexico have been two of our strongest trading partners. I worked on NAFTA back in the day when I was in the House and served as ranking member, and the Honorable Kika de la Garza was the chairman. We went all over the country working on NAFTA. The result with that agreement--and every State could say the same thing, but we are talking about 110,000 jobs in Kansas. Those jobs are across all sectors of agriculture now, and many are tied to agriculture and the entire agriculture value chain. NAFTA secured greater market access for our farmers, our ranchers, our growers, everybody in between, and for our producers. Today, over one-quarter of our country's agriculture exports are destined for Canada and/or Mexico. As with every trade agreement, there is always room for improvement. It has been pointed out by all of my colleagues that the United States- Mexico-Canada Agreement--the acronym for that is USMCA. I did suggest it could also be for United States Marine Corps Always, but that is the acronym we are using. It has modernized the trade pact we have benefited from for over 20 years. The U.S. agriculture industry desperately needs this trade agreement now to offer greater certainty and predictability regarding demand in the marketplace, certainly in predictability. That is what we promised in the farm bill, and we passed the farm bill in this body with 87 votes. That is a record vote, based on the premise that the most important thing we do is provide certainty and predictability for our farmers and ranchers and growers. As chairman of the Senate Ag Committee, I have heard directly, personally, as all my colleagues have, from producers and the broader agriculture industry regarding our challenging farm economy. Every day our farmers, ranchers, and growers experience incredible challenges, including weather variability, and that is putting it mildly. I do not know what we have done to Mother Nature for her to act in this fashion. In Kansas, the wheat harvest is a month late, and farmers still can't get in their fields up in the northwest part, but, amazingly, the yield is pretty good; the protein is staying about the same; and we have seen a little bit--a little bit--of price recovery. We need a lot more. The uncertainty regarding the U.S. trade policy has led some of our most important trading partners to turn to our competitors. That is sadly true. At a time when the U.S. agriculture industry is facing new trade retaliation threats on top of the challenging agriculture economy, we must offer greater certainty and predictability for the farmers and ranchers across the country. I cannot emphasize enough how serious this is. This is the fourth or fifth year that we have experienced this situation. Some farmers and ranchers who produce--not all but some--are in a desperate situation. Congressional passage of USMCA would be--will be--should be--a pivotal step toward restoring the United States as a reliable supplier, not to mention tangible benefits. I urge my colleagues--especially in the House--to get together with Ambassador Lighthizer and work out these concerns that have been talked about--especially by Senator Grassley--and to give fair and swift consideration to this new trade agreement. We must expand critical market access and create new trade opportunities for U.S. agriculture. I again thank Senator Hoeven for his leadership and for sponsoring this colloquy.

Mr. ROBERTS

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

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the votes following the first vote in this series be 10 minutes in length.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, first, before my colleague from Georgia leaves, I want to thank him for his strong statement on the fact that we have to do defense appropriations. I know that the Presiding Officer certainly knows all about this, given her Active-Duty service on behalf of our Nation. As he has pointed out, every service has been affected by this. Speaking for the U.S. Marine Corps, part of the Marine Caucus that we have here, and talking with Bob Neller, who is our retiring Commandant--he has pointed out specifically that they don't have enough to do--I mean, we are proud of the Marine Corps. I always say we do more with less, but this time, you can't do more with less and then less and then less, and that is precisely where we are. I thank the Senator for making an outstanding statement. I join him in this plea on a bipartisan basis to get these appropriations bills done. Thank you.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I have 3 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 9, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: David Fabian Black, of North Dakota, to be Deputy Commissioner of Social Security, and Emin Toro, of Virginia, to be a Judge of the United States Tax Court. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 9, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a business meeting on pending legislation and the hearing on the following nominations: Jeffrey Vincent Brown, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, Robert J. Colville, and Stephanie L. Haines, both to be a United States District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Brantley Starr, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, and Jeffrey A. Rosen, of Virginia, to be Deputy Attorney General, Timothy J. Downing, to be United States Attorney for the Western District of Oklahoma, William Travis Brown, Jr., to be United States Marshal for the Middle District of Louisiana, and Michael Blaine East, to be United States Marshal for the Eastern District of North Carolina, all of the Department of Justice. Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 9, 2019, at 2 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I thank you for your hard work on the sometimes powerful Senate Agriculture Committee. I would have liked to respond to the leader--but I know he is busy, and he is leaving the floor--just to say that I think all Republicans understand there is climate change, and all Republicans know that human activity does contribute to it, and, yes, we ought to do something. The point I am trying to make here is we don't want to do the wrong thing and cause a great deal of disruption in the process. I also thank Senator Thune for allowing me to speak out of order. I know this is a hardship on his schedule, but he has been very kind to let this happen. I thank the sponsors of the Green New Deal for enabling all Senators the opportunity to discuss the practical challenges this resolution actually presents. For me, as chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, it allows me to discuss the real stewards of our land--our farmers, ranchers, growers--and how this legislation will affect them and their ability not only to feed this country but a troubled and hungry world as well. Those of us who represent farm country are grateful for the opportunity to underscore something that too many take for granted. Farmers, ranchers, and growers in the United States now grow the safest, most affordable and abundant food supply in the world. As I just said, we know that it is a troubled and hungry world that needs farmers, ranchers, growers, and their protection to help feed and clothe the world's increasing population. Yes, and I think it will probably go longer than 12 years. As chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I am proud of our bipartisan record on behalf of American agriculture and, in turn, our record of respecting our Nation's natural resources. These things go hand in hand. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle on the Agriculture Committee and those privileged to work in agriculture have always sought to grow and raise more, using as few resources as possible. The men and women who make their living off the land have an imperative and keen interest in the responsible use and management of our natural resources. Show me a farmer who does not practice conservation or does not have access to precision agriculture or the latest technology, and I will show you a farmer who is really in trouble. In short, within agriculture, there is nothing new with the Green New Deal. It calls for ``working collaboratively with farmers, ranchers, and growers in the United States to eliminate pollution, greenhouse gases, and emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible''--that is the language--``by supporting family farming''--that is also in the language--``investing in sustainable farming and land use practices that increase soil health,'' and ``building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food.'' That is in the resolution, the legislation over in the House. Check, check, and check. We have been doing this already, and we continue to look ahead to create thoughtful, well-considered policies. I do not question the intent of the authors of the Green New Deal, but they don't know what they don't know, especially about agriculture. They need to catch up with the Agriculture Committee and with the farm country in general. In fact, we on the Agriculture Committee are so forward-looking that we have embraced innovative methods of investing in agriculture research with the creation of the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research--something new. The Foundation leverages public and private dollars to bring together experts to identify and investigate the researchable questions whose answers have the potential to enhance the economic and environmental resilience of our food supply and the environment. I encourage the Senator from Massachusetts and the leader and other cosponsors to simply ask for a briefing from the folks at FFAR. I would say the same to vocal colleagues on the House side who helped author-- and pardon the acronym--the GND, Green New Deal. But given their unfortunate focus on our livestock industry, I simply do not have time, I don't think, to fully discuss emissions emitted from all livestock or, for that matter, for Congress. Maybe that would be a better answer--perhaps later, after riding point on the herd and getting the cows milked. What is worth our time and what is worth their time is a defense of American agriculture, the best in the world, from attacks by those who are either uninformed or misinformed regarding organic, processed, and precision agriculture--all modern miracles and all sustainable with regard to our environment. America's farmers, ranchers, and others in rural America are constantly working to produce their crops and to raise their livestock in order to feed a growing world and to do so with constant challenges presented to them from other nations. The distinguished minority leader just mentioned the floods we are experiencing in Nebraska, Kansas, and Iowa. This seems to have happened about every 10 years. I am not sure it has happened because of global warming, but at least it has with regard to climate change. We are doing everything possible to bring aid and help to those folks who find their farmland underwater. Farmers are natural stewards of the land, and they must be good at problem-solving. They identify the issues or the trend, find ways to adjust their business and respond to that issue, and improve their way of operating. They would like to do that under a Green New Deal. If they don't adjust to address those challenges and simply do the right thing, their farm or ranch and their livelihood will not be sustainable. It is pretty simple. Every living, breathing person on this Earth needs food in order to survive. Obviously, we cannot and do not produce food in the same manner that our grandparents did because those methods were not sustainable and, today, would not produce food at the scope and scale our troubled and hungry world demands. American farmers and ranchers, who live by the concept of continuous improvement, sound science, and voluntary-based conservation, are a model for other industries and other countries on how to address problems like climate change in a very practical way. America's farmers and ranchers raise the same amount of beef as they did in the 1970s, but they do so with 33 percent fewer cattle. Over the last 50 years, American farmers have reduced water use in pork production by 41 percent, and the list goes on. These are real success stories that speak to how farmers are already managing natural resources responsibly and voluntarily making contributions to address the issue of climate change. Examples like these abound in agriculture. The American farmer, through continuous improvement, embracing sound science, implementing new technologies, such as biotechnology and no- till farming, and being conservation-minded, has achieved unprecedented success that I do not believe the proponents of GND--i.e., the Green New Deal--realize. In the recent farm bill, which passed Congress with overwhelming margins, we strengthened the conservation programs, increased investments in agriculture research, supported risk management tools that will benefit producers of all crops in all regions, and provided additional authorities to address animal health concerns. This legislative package bolsters the sustainability of U.S. farmers, ranchers, and others in rural America while being environmentally sound. Unfortunately, vague proposals or resolutions, such as the Green New Deal, which contain no real details or no metrics are not going to solve the issue of climate change in any meaningful way. Regulating American farmers and ranchers out of business will only result in food and fiber production being outsourced to countries that do not have the same conservation-minded producers that we have here in the United States. Let's face it: Nobody--no one I know of--likes being told what to do, what to drive, or what to eat. Consumers value free choice. They also expect access to reasonably priced food and nutritious food. In fact, consumers will surely continue to demand the choice of animal protein here in the United States, and so any reasonable discussion on the agriculture sector's contributions to solutions on climate change must begin with this acknowledgment. These policy decisions must recognize the complexity of the agriculture and food value chain of growers, input suppliers, processors, handlers, consumers, and the list goes on. They must be based in reality to facilitate a genuine conversation between rural and urban constituencies. I know. I understand. I realize. I get it. There are those who think the Green New Deal is a moral imperative, and it may well be, but farmers continuing to feed the world is also a moral imperative. Too many go hungry each day in America, and ending this is also a moral imperative. Too many people go hungry in a troubled and hungry world as well. In restricting American agriculture in any way, whether it is in resolution form or legislative form, the Green New Deal does not match up with these moral responsibilities. I thank the distinguished Senator from South Dakota for allowing me to step in front of him. That doesn't happen very often. So, Coop, you are up.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 116th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, on behalf of myself and Senator Stabenow, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the committee rules be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS

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

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.