Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise to speak of a friend and colleague whom we lost this week.

Mike Enzi, a Senator from Wyoming, retired from this body in January of this year when his successor was seated but served here honorably for several decades.

I think the simplest description I can give of him is that he was a kind, good, and decent man. I worked with him on the Budget Committee, but I got to know him best through the Wednesday morning Prayer Breakfast, where to say he was a regular participant is an understatement. Even after he left the Senate, he was at every single Prayer Breakfast, including last week's, from his home in Wyoming via Webex.

He was a devoted family man and a devoted man in the service of his country in this body. He had a rare quality. Unfortunately, I don't think it was all that rare some years ago, but it seems to be becoming rarer and rarer. It is a quality my father preached to me years ago. You can disagree without being disagreeable. That was the way he was. He and I disagreed on a large number of matters, particularly on the Budget Committee, but he never was overbearing; he never was condescending; he never was harsh. It was always in the spirit of disagreement, in good faith, based upon principle.

I want to talk about Mike Enzi, but I also want to put him in the context of modern politics because I think there are a couple of lessons we can learn from him to try to change the course that we seem to have embarked upon.

One of the problems with modern American politics is, we don't have opponents; we have enemies. We have converted those we disagree with to people we demonize and say are bad people; they are evil. They aren't. They have different views. They have different values. Perhaps they have different principles. But to convert opponents into enemies is to poison our democratic system. It is to poison our ability to work together in the common good. If you make someone into an enemy, they are going to be an enemy even when it comes to something where you might agree, and Mike Enzi never did that.

One of the things Mike Enzi taught me was the 80-20 rule. We have all heard of 80-20 rules in various contexts. His 80-20 rule was, if you are working on a difficult public issue, work on the 80 percent where you can agree, and put the 20 percent where you disagree aside. He was able to do that throughout his career.

He was famous before I got here, but he was famous for working with Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts when they were both on the HELP Committee.

I said: Mike, how did you get along with Ted Kennedy?

He said: It was easy--80-20. We put the 20 percent aside where we knew we were going to differ, and we worked on the 80 percent where we could, and if everybody applied that principle around here, we would get a lot more done.

He was also a principled Senator. Indeed, he would have been on the floor today, making a point of order about the supplemental budget that we just passed because he believed in the principle of the Budget Act; he believed in the principle of balancing budgets. He was an accountant, and he was a principled man.

And he was also decent and kind, as I mentioned, but there is one story about him that I want to tell that has stuck with me, and I have told it 100 times, although I never told it while he was with us. Now that he is lost to us, I think he would be OK with my telling this story.

I was having dinner with him one night early on when I was here in the Senate, and he mentioned that he was concerned about the possibility of having a primary opponent in the Republican primary in Wyoming, and I was incredulous.

I said: Mike, you are one of most conservative Senators here. How can somebody possibly get to your right? And here was my precise question:

What will they charge you with?

And his answer was as profound as it was disturbing. He said:

They will charge me with being reasonable.

Think about that for a minute. He was concerned about the possibility of losing a primary election because he had been reasonable; because he applied the 80-20 rule and tried to work together to solve problems, even though there were disagreements on other areas. But he could lose--he could have lost his election because he was willing to listen to the other side, to be reasonable, to try to find accommodation, and, yes, compromise.

And this isn't only a Republican issue; this is a growing issue across our country in primaries, particularly in gerrymandered districts where the primary is the election.

And we are getting a new crop of Representatives and Senators who are coming here who have been told: Don't you dare compromise. Don't you dare listen to those other people. You better watch whom you are having lunch with.

I remember spending some time with our immortal Senator Margaret Chase Smith from Maine, whom I got to know fairly well before we lost her in the midnineties. And she said, during the McCarthy period, you literally had to worry about whom you had lunch with in the Senate dining room. Because of guilt by association, you would be associated with some liberal Senator.

We don't want that to be the case. It shouldn't be the case. But if you can lose a primary because you are viewed as someone who is willing to compromise, whether you are getting that primary from the left or from the right, imagine what it does to our ability to get things done.

If people come here knowing that one of the ways they can jeopardize their career is by listening to the other side, trying to get to know what is going on on the other side and compromising to get something done, it is paralysis. It is one of the reasons we are in paralysis.

Mike Enzi said:

They are going to charge me with being reasonable.

I think this is one of the hidden problems in American politics today. It is not what your position is on abortion

or gun rights or foreign policy or any other--immigration--it is whether you are willing to talk to the other side, listen, and try to get to a compromise to solve a problem. That can cost you your seat. What a pernicious doctrine. What a dangerous situation.

Democracy is built upon compromise. We have 535 people in this building. We are going to have 535 different viewpoints, interests. We represent different States, different areas. We have different principles. We have different values. We have got to compromise, otherwise it is just perennial gridlock, which, by the way, our constituents hate.

When I talk to people in Maine, what they most--the biggest question I get is, Why can't you people work together? Why can't you get anything done? Why can't you talk to one another and sit down and break bread together and solve problems?

This idea of not being able to compromise--this body is a product of compromise. At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the debate almost fell apart on the issue of representation.

There was the large State plan and the small State plan, and the worry was, if it was only one body of the legislature, that the big States with more population would overrun the smaller States. They couldn't figure out what to do, and finally one of the delegates from Connecticut proposed what was called the Great Compromise, which was the invention of the U.S. Senate.

This body itself is built on compromise. But there is no human problem that can be solved without compromise. Nobody has it all right. Nobody has all the answers. No party has all the answers. No group of people have all the answers. You always are better off listening to other people, debating, and coming to some consensus solution.

I have a friend in Maine who has a big sign in his office that says: ``All of us are always smarter than any of us.'' And I think that is a profound observation. It means that there is wisdom throughout this room and throughout this body and that we have to tackle these difficult problems--difficult, challenging problems that we have using all the wisdom that we could possibly get our hands on, and that means listening to other people even though we may not agree with them.

I just sat and listened to the Senator from Oklahoma make an impassioned and, I think, powerful statement about immigration. He raised questions in my mind that I want answers to. That is the way this place is supposed to work

But if I can't go back to Maine--if I can't go back and admit I listened to the Senator today and he raised questions that bothered me, if I can't say that, if that in itself would endanger my career, then if people are coming here fearing that kind of being locked out, we will never get anything done.

So, to me, Mike Enzi was a hero and a model--and a model of the kind of person that we need in this body. I didn't agree with him on a lot of issues, but he was always willing to listen.

And I did agree with him. There was some measurable percentage--I don't know, 10, 20, 30 percent--where we did agree, and he was a very effective ally because he was so respected here because people knew that he made his own decisions.

And we need more people like him, and we need to remember the principle that he shared with us, which is be reasonable.

When we are in a place where being reasonable is an offense that can cost you your job, we are in real trouble as a country. We are in real trouble as a democracy.

It is hard enough in a democracy to make decisions and to get things done. That is inherent in our system. The Framers wanted to design a system that was difficult and cumbersome to operate, and they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

But it was always based upon a principle of listening, of debating, of changing minds, and, yes, of compromising.

So I want to pay tribute to Mike Enzi today not only because, as I said, he was a kind, good, and decent man, but because I think he was an example of the kind of people that we need here and the way we should conduct ourselves and the way we should do our work.

And we also have to talk to our constituents and say to them: You have to let me listen to the other side. You have to give me a little space to try to do something good. It may not be perfect. It may not be just what you like. But it may be what we need. It may be the best we can do in a pluralistic, democratic system, where people have different outlooks, viewpoints, values, and priorities.

So we lost a great man this week. We lost a great person. We lost a great Senator. We lost a great friend. We will miss him.

I miss not only Mike and that great smile, but I miss what he stood for, the way he conducted himself, the way he treated his fellow Senators and everyone that he encountered.

Mike Enzi was a great man. I hope we can live up to his example.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise to talk about a moral obligation and a national security obligation.

We are leaving Afghanistan after 20 years, the longest war in the country's history. During the entirety of that 20 years, there were brave people in Afghanistan--Afghanistan people--who helped us, who were translators, who were guides, who assisted us in the struggle against terrorism and in the struggle against the Taliban.

And as we leave, those people are in grave danger. The Taliban has made no secret of the fact that they are in grave danger. They have already started killing them.

If we leave without providing for the safety of those people, providing them a way to maintain their lives, it will be a stain on this country that will exist for generations.

Not only is it a moral and ethical obligation, though, it is a national security obligation because if we don't take care of the people who took care of us, who is going to come to our aid the next time? Who is going to come to the aid of the Americans who turn their backs on those that risk their lives on behalf of this country? The answer is no one.

So this is not only an ethical and moral obligation, this is a matter of national security in terms of our standing in the world and our ability to work with allies and others against adversaries of this country and other countries in the world.

The average time, I am told, it now takes to process the paperwork for one of the people whom we are trying to get out of Afghanistan through the special visa program is 600 days. We are going to have a military presence in Afghanistan less than 90 days. There is a mismatch there.

We have got to take steps to protect these people. Now, maybe its surging--we have talked about military surges; let's surge some paperwork people to get this work done faster. But I don't believe we are going to be able to do that.

Now, by the way, I am not saying we open the door to everyone--there are 18,000 people on their list; that is not to mention their families--that we just open the door and say everybody come here because, as we know, Afghanistan has been the home to very dangerous terrorist groups, al-Qaida, ISIS, and others.

So we do have to have some processing, but we have to be able to process these people in a way that protects

us in terms of our national security but also gets them out of harm's way. One possibility--and I am delighted that just a few hours ago, the President mentioned that he is going to be working with other countries to find a safe place to move these people while we are doing the processing. I think that is exactly what we have to do. We can't just hope that when we leave in August or September 11, as the deadline the President has established, that we just hope that the Taliban won't take over Kabul, that the Taliban won't take over other regions of the country and start murdering people who helped us.

This isn't a speculative problem. This isn't something we think may happen. They have told us it is going to happen. And I have learned all my life, believe people when they tell you what they are going to do, and this is one of those situations. We know what is coming. If what ends up coming is a bloodbath, that blood is on our hands.

I have talked about the national security, but I think, more important, this is a moral and ethical obligation to meet the safety needs of those people who have helped us. I have friends who have fought in Afghanistan, and they are agonized about this. They are agonized about what is going to happen to people that they know, that they have worked with, and that have put their lives on the line for America. What is going to happen to those people when we leave?

This is a moment of test for this country. This is a trial for us, and history is going to judge us as to how we meet this test. This isn't something--we are not talking about landing a man on the Moon or some kind of terrible technological challenge; this is just putting resources in the right place and making the arrangements to take care of these people. It can be done. It can be done. And if it isn't done, shame on us.

I know that is a phrase that is often used, but it fits in this case. If we don't protect those who protected us, shame on us.

On December 1, 1862, Abraham Lincoln came to this Capitol to talk about the course of the Civil War and what was happening. And he was trying to move the Congress out of the politics as usual as they dealt with this extraordinary crisis. His final words echo over the last 100- plus years, and I think they apply exactly today. Here is what Abraham Lincoln said:

Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this

Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite

of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance,

can spare one or the other of us. The fiery trial which we

[now] pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the

latest generation.

This is a test of the moral integrity of this country. We must--we must--defend those who have defended us from a peril that we know is imminent.

This fiery trial through which we pass this summer, will light us down--we in the Congress and the administration, as Lincoln said, ``will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a Maine legend who will soon be leaving his post after nearly a half century of diligent, inquisitive journalism that has kept our State's citizens better informed. At the beginning of July, Mal Leary will sign off for the final time from Maine Public Broadcasting, concluding a 45-year career during which he became one of the most trusted voices in Maine media.

When listeners heard Mal's distinctive Maine rasp come across the airwaves, they knew they were getting the straight news from a model journalist. His integrity and intelligence came through in every story, diving into the policy details in a measured, well-reasoned way that did not betray a bias toward any ideology, political party, or elected officials. Most importantly, every time you finished listening to a Mal story, you knew more about your community and your State than you did just a few moments before.

Mal wasn't only held in high esteem by listeners. I can tell you from personal experience that when Mal is in a room, elected officials notice his presence. He loomed large among the Maine press corps, and his ability to unravel and explain a complicated policy question was only matched by his political instincts. While others, including legislators, were focused on the questions of the day, Mal would look two or three steps down the road to anticipate the pitfalls facing any given proposal. I learned quickly that I always needed to have my facts straight before I talked to Mal Leary.

His innate understanding of both policy and policymakers made Mal's interviews one-of-a-kind. I would often start a conversation with him, expecting to discuss the issues of the day, only to be questioned on an issue that wouldn't come up for another few months or review a legislative hearing from 3 weeks prior. Refusing to be a prisoner of the moment, he always looked at the big picture, and, critically, he made sure that the elected officials he covered did the same.

Maine will be poorer without Mal Leary roaming the State capitol, but he is leaving the Maine press corps in good hands that he had a part in training. A fountain of institutional knowledge, Mal was always generous with his time and his experience, filling in young reporters on the historical context behind long-gestating problems or making sure folks were up to speed on legislative procedures. This next generation of reporters have each grown by absorbing Mal's wisdom, working to compete with him, or a combination of the two, so although he may be leaving for greener pastures, his lessons and influence will remain.

I find a bit of irony in these remarks because even as I attempt to honor Mal, I sense that he will have some discomfort taking the compliment. The definition of a model reporter, Mal wasn't focused on befriending his subjects or accumulating personal accolades; he was always dead set on getting to the truth and bringing that

truth back to the people of Maine. That is why he is so beloved by all--OK, by most--even when he was asking hard questions; at the end of the day, Mal always told the story straight. He was always fair.

I have long believed that journalists are people we, the public, hire to tell us about priorities that we don't have time to attend to ourselves; instead, we rely on friends to give us the scoop. That is exactly who Mal was for thousands across Maine--a friend, who filled them in on the latest goings-on in Augusta, Washington, and everywhere in between. As our friend rides off into the beautiful sunsets of Maine, I want to express to him my best wishes and Maine's enormous gratitude for his work to make our State better.

Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to an exceptional man in my home State of Maine, Nick Archer. I have been so fortunate to have been surrounded by outstanding people both as my time as Governor of Maine, as a private citizen of Maine, and now as U.S. Senator. Some of those people have been woven into my world through all facets of my career, and Nick Archer is one of those individuals.

Nick recently retired from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection after nearly 35 years of employment. But to Nick--and thankfully for all of us Mainers--his position at Maine DEP was more than a job. His interest in protecting the environment spans over four decades and extends into so many of his passions in life. Not being one to shy away from difficulty, Nick understood the history and the importance of industry, agriculture, and forestry in Maine but also realized the environment needed to be protected for the vibrant future of Maine's land and waterways. He worked throughout his career to build partnerships and build on communications between the two and was known for his common sense and matter-of-fact approach. Nick's approach was always in the spirit of compromise but firmly rooted in the protection of our great resources. Solution focused--he set expectations high for integrity, innovation, and ingenuity and enjoyed thinking outside the box.

As if his career wasn't impactful enough, Nick also gave his time to so many community service activities. An avid outdoorsman, he was in leadership roles at both the local and State levels in Fish and Game Clubs and Sportsman's Alliance of Maine. If there was a need at a fishing derby or any outdoor activity involving youth engagement, Nick Archer was the first to sign up and donate both time and money. He is a cheerleader for a myriad of causes from veterans organizations to local Rotary clubs. I am thankful Nick is staying in the great State of Maine for his next chapter and spending time with his favorite people, his family.

In Maine, we are blessed with people who have exceptional work ethic and a piece of their heart in their communities and those people often do not want any recognition. I am sure Nick is one of those people, but having known him, having his assistance to my office staffers, and knowing his truly altruistic nature, I will take the risk and am so proud to honor him and his dedicated service and commitment to the State of Maine and to the communities it encompasses.

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

Mr. President, later today we will have one of the most consequential votes we have had in this

body in years, perhaps the most consequential vote in terms of our climate and the risk that climate change imposes on all of us here in America and across the world. It is a pretty straightforward vote, although it is an interesting procedural problem.

The vote is a Congressional Review Act vote to repeal the repeal of the regulation on the release of methane from oil and gas, both drilling and transportation. A repeal of a repeal is the legislative equivalent of a double negative, and, of course, we all know a double negative produces a positive, and that is exactly what will happen in this case.

Some years ago, regulations were imposed upon the oil and gas industry to control the escape of methane from drilling operations. This isn't about natural gas or oil; this is about fugitive gases that escape into the atmosphere as part of the drilling process or the transportation process.

The problem is that methane is the nuclear weapon of climate change. Methane is 80 times as dangerous as CO2 in the atmosphere, in terms of capturing heat and contributing to climate change--80 times; not 80 percent more, not 8 times more, 80 times more.

Now, the good news is methane only persists in the atmosphere for about 20 years; CO2, unfortunately, over 100 years. So because of its short residence time and its high potency, removing it now will have immediate and substantial effects on the overall amount of greenhouse gas that is in our atmosphere.

There is nothing we can do in the short run to deal with climate change that is more significant than the vote that will take place on this floor in a few hours. This is probably, as I said at the beginning, one of the most important votes that we will have in this Chamber in order to forestall and slow the climate catastrophe that everyone acknowledges is headed toward us--whether it is wildfires, whether it is changes in ocean temperature that affect sea life, whether it is hurricanes, whether it is pure temperature.

Let me talk a bit about climate change as a national security issue. I serve on the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees. It is a national security issue for a number of reasons. One is sort of dollars and cents. It affects our military facilities around the world that are going to be affected by rising sea levels. We are going to have to spend billions of dollars in order to shore up those facilities. So that is just kind of nuts and bolts, dollars and cents.

But the part that really worries me is migration. We all know about the migrants from Syria, from the Syrian civil war. I don't know the exact number--maybe 4 or 5 million. But those migrants upset the political system of all of Europe and created a major political crisis.

The estimate for climate migrants because of the inhospitality of the climate in the band around the central part of the Earth is in the hundreds of millions--between 100 and 200 million climate migrants who are escaping a place that they can't live in anymore because of drought, because of famine, because of a lack of drinking water, or just because of high temperatures.

Humans aren't evolved to live in places that are at 130 degrees of heat. So people are going to be on the move. Think of the disruption caused by the immigration or the migration from Syria and multiply that by 10, 20, 30, 40 times. That is what we are talking about, and that kind of pressure and famine and drought and all of those things throughout history are what have caused wars.

It is a threat multiplier. It is a threat creator. It is, in fact, a national security issue. This isn't about just being concerned about whether we will have more warm days in April. This is a national security issue, and it is of worldwide import

Now, why is this vote today important if it is a worldwide issue? I have had people say to me: Angus, why are we going through all this? Why are we going to cost ourselves any money when it is just as big a problem coming from China or India?

We can shut down all of our businesses in Maine, and we are still not going to be able to solve this problem, nor could we if we did it in the United States. Molecules of methane or CO2 don't care about borders. They go around the world, and they are causing this problem to happen around the world.

But, yes, this vote today is important because it is a signal to the rest of the world that we are serious about this problem. A negative vote today is a signal to the rest of the world that we don't care, and the rest of the world is going to be paying attention.

This is a global problem. It is going to take solutions from every country and particularly from the larger emitting countries, like the United States, like China, like India. But we have to show that we are willing to do it here, if we are going to ask other people to make these kinds of steps in their country. And that is why I think this vote has international implications as well as national.

Now, what about the cost? Are we imposing some enormous cost, or are we talking about new technology? No, this is a relatively cheap way to get a major improvement in the emission of greenhouse gases.

We are not talking about carbon capture, which is very important, but we are a ways away from cost-effective carbon capture technology, and the costs are still very high. This is of relatively low cost.

Regulating methane emissions from oil and gas production is

the right thing to do for our climate and the air quality of

communities across the country.

I couldn't have said it better myself, but I am reading someone else's words.

It's widely acknowledged that methane is a highly potent

greenhouse gas with a global warming potential 80 times

greater than CO2. Beyond the long-term impacts

related to climate change, methane emissions also have

implications for local air quality. We owe it to the

communities where we live and work to reduce these emissions.

Who said that? Angus King didn't say that. Shell Oil said that. Many, if not most, of the major producers of oil and gas in this country are supporting this vote today. This is not a vote where fossil fuel is on one side and the environmental community is on the other. No, this is a broad coalition of people worried about health, of people worried about the environment, of people worried about climate change, and also people in the industry who are worried about the effects of this on their industry if we don't take care of this.

And here is very interesting data. We all know that different technologies have different impacts on the environment, and these bars are the emission levels per unit of energy produced of various alternatives: air pumps, wood pellets, natural gas, propane, heating oil, coal. These are all in use in the United States.

We have substantially lowered our emission of greenhouse gases because of the conversion from coal and oil to natural gas, and that hasn't been caused by regulation or by the dead hand of government. That is because of the market, because of the enormous production of natural gas in this country.

Now, here is the problem--and I have always thought of natural gas as a transition fuel. Sixty percent of our electricity in New England comes from natural gas, and, indeed, our CO2 is down because of that. But here is the problem. See this little black line here? That is the actual emission from natural gas if you count methane.

So the environmental, the climate advantage of natural gas disappears if you count the methane that is released in the production of natural gas. But it is controllable. It is not inevitable. It is not something that is impossible.

There are now technologies to survey pipelines to detect leaks and to prevent them. It is really pretty straightforward. If you have a pipeline that is leaking and is putting methane in the atmosphere that is 80 times as bad as CO2, let's fix it. And that is all we are talking about today.

We are talking about restoring commonsense regulations on the release of dangerous climate-change-inducing gases, principally, methane. Some of the other things that are released are also dangerous for people living in the area of the well or the pipeline leak.

I am not opposed to the use. I mean, right now, as I say, natural gas is the preferred alternative--and you can see why--except for the methane problem. So let's eliminate that. Let's make the chart look like this. Then, natural gas works. But we have to deal with methane.

This is the low-hanging fruit of climate action. This is an opportunity for this country to make a statement internationally, to make a statement to our people, and to do something about the most serious environmental problem we face.

Every day that goes by, it gets more expensive to deal with. Every day that goes by, it is going to be more difficult for our people, the impacts are going to be more catastrophic, and the impacts are going to be more difficult in terms of what we have to spend to deal with it.

So let's spend relatively little now to eliminate one of the most serious risks. It is not minor. It is a very significant part of the climate issue, and it is one that we can do at a relatively low price, with not a heavy hand of regulation but commonsense regulation. And we can do something important for the American people and, indeed, for the people of the entire world.

This is an important vote this afternoon. I hope it is a resounding vote. It should be. It should be a resounding vote to say to the world and to say to the people of this country: We are on your side. We understand there is a problem heading for us, and we are going to act to deal with it.

This is our responsibility. It is why we are here, and we have the capability to do this starting today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have 15 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 Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 28, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 28, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on legislation and nominations.

Committee on Environment and Public Works

The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 28, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 28, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing nominations.

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 28, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 28, 2021, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Indian Affairs

The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 28, 2021, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 28, 2021, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 28, 2021, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Veterans' Affairs

The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 28, 2021, at 1:30 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing.

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 28, 2021, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities

The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 28, 2021, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support

The Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 28, 2021, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Subcommittee on Strategic Forces

The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 28, 2021, at 4:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Subcommittee on Government Operation and Border Management

The Subcommittee on Government Operation and Border Management of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 28, 2021, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor Dominic LaJoie of Van Buren, ME, who was recently named as National Potato Council, NPC, president for 2021. The National Potato Council is a grower-led organization managed by an Executive Committee and Board of Directors, which oversees its operations and provides guidance on its policy activities. It does not surprise me that Dominic LaJoie was chosen as the 2021 president to lead the council's Executive Committee because Dominic epitomizes the qualities that are needed to bring State potato grower organizations together at the national level. He has a proven history of promoting collaboration and respectful, healthy debate to further best practices and innovation in agriculture for years. Dominic has also served on the Maine Potato Board and has been a long standing and active participant of the National Potato Council in previous years including serving on the Trade Committee and as first vice president and vice president of the Environmental Affairs Committee.

But those are the only the highlights of one well-deserved appointment. What truly makes Dominic stand out is his heart for farming, for his family and for his community all while stepping up to serve in a national seat. Dominic and his family are fourth generation potato farmers. He is so humble and proud to work with his brother and nephew, along with the support of their wives and children, on the land that was farmed by their parents and their grandparents before them. Dominic's work ethic and character have shone through throughout his career as a farmer, but never one to just sit idle, their farm diversified and added grain and root vegetables, and they have worked to carve out new niche products in the natural snacks and health food markets. He is active in many civic activities and in his church, and when given a chance to speak of his wife and four children, his already genuine and wide smile broadens even further with an acknowledgment of his blessings.

I was pleased to tour their farm in Van Buren a couple of years ago and learned directly about their farm: the innovations and value added products; their focus on precision farming and efficiencies to enhance the productivity of their legacy farm and stewardship of the land they grew up on. Upon one of Dominic's awards received in recent years, he was asked if he had advice to those who are considering taking up farming, and he replied ``Never give up, be open-minded and embrace change, take chances.'' It was immediately clear to me that Dominic's successes through attention to detail, sound business practices, and a true commitment to the future of agriculture was what brought him to be nominated and appointed as president of the National Potato Council for 2021.

I would like to recognize and thank Dominic for his ongoing commitment to upholding the legacy of potato growers in our State and this country. I cannot speak highly enough of Dominic and look forward to his service as the president of the National Potato Council Executive Committee.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, following morning business, on Wednesday, March 24, the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of Calendar No. 40, Rachel Levine, to be an Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, and Calendar No. 38, David Turk, to be Deputy Secretary of Energy en bloc; further, that at 11:30 a.m., the Senate vote on cloture on Calendar Nos. 40 and 38, in that order; further, that if cloture is invoked on either of these nominations, all postcloture time be considered expired at 4:45 p.m. and the Senate vote on confirmation of the nominations in the order upon which cloture was invoked; further, that if either nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 123.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 125.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I understand that there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:30 a.m., Wednesday, March 24; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the nominations, as provided under the previous order.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Sullivan.