Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in recess subject to the call of the chair.

Thereupon, the Senate, at 2:15 p.m., recessed subject to the call of the Chair and reassembled at 2:41 p.m. when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mrs. Capito).

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the postcloture time on the Hartogensis nomination expire at 5 p.m. today. I further ask that if 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 know of no further debate on this nomination.

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

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

Mr. President, I am here to take the opportunity to join my colleagues to speak in support of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. I thank Senator Sasse for his continued leadership on this issue. I supported the bill when Senator Sasse introduced it last Congress, and I was glad to see Senator McConnell, our leader, bring this bill to the floor for a vote.

I am astonished--astonished--that we are debating whether it is appropriate to leave born children to die. Today, now, in the year of 2019, how can this be? Science demonstrates that human life begins at conception, and our understanding of neonatal development is increasing every day.

I am a member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services. The National Institutes of Health is one of my top priorities for funding. At the NIH, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development has advanced our knowledge of pregnancy and development in the womb. Under this Institute, the Neonatal Research Network has pioneered research that has led to techniques that saved the lives of children in their earliest stages, when these children are at their most vulnerable.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that more than 10,000 babies are aborted each year after 20 weeks of conception, when science--science--tells us that an unborn child can feel pain inside the womb. That number will increase as a result of recent State-level efforts to end virtually any restriction on abortion when a child could viably live outside the womb. These efforts are extreme and fall far beyond the mainstream of American opinion.

This legislation does nothing to limit prenatal abortion. While we must address that issue--the root causes of abortion and the ways to curb this heartbreaking trend--that is not the issue at hand today in this legislation. The question before us is this: When a child survives an abortion and is born, does the U.S. Senate believe the child can still be eliminated, or should the baby be protected and given all possible care to survive? This act requires healthcare practitioners to ``exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of a child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious healthcare practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.'' Any negligence in this regard is subject to criminal and civil punishment, which at present does not exist.

Should anyone think this is some made-up issue--despite the Virginia Governor's shocking comments revealing an openness to infanticide and New York's expansion of abortion well beyond the age of viability that makes born-alive abortion survivors more likely--we have concrete evidence that this grotesque act happens. Notorious abortion provider Kermit Gosnell is serving life in prison for these very acts.

Closing our eyes to what is obscene does not make it any less real. That it is allegedly ``rare'' doesn't make it any less real or abhorrent. One child purposefully deprived of healthcare and allowed to die is one too many. It is infanticide, which brings us to the crux of this issue. We need to think carefully about the long-term impacts to the definition of ``healthcare'' if Congress refuses to act positively on this measure. Do the guardrails of neonatal health succumb to the belief that infants don't really count as one of us?

Our society is not one of the ancient Romans or the Aztecs. We don't sacrifice our children to please an unknown god. In the progress of human history, principles of the enlightenment--also known as the Age of Reason--declared self-evident truths that all humans are created equal and endowed with the unalienable right to life. Although undoubtedly we have our flaws, these enlightenment principles enshrined in our founding documents remain true to who we are as a nation and who we are as human beings. We recoil when we hear of children who are harmed in any manner. Yet today we are faced with a reality where the ability to terminate an unborn child's life when it is viable outside of the womb is something that is not only tolerated but is passionately defended by the left.

That is bad enough, but to see legislation ensuring that the medical care of born children gets blocked is incomprehensible. The immutable march of progress in human history has met a roadblock today in the U.S. Senate. The Age of Reason seems to have escaped us.

Tonight, the Senate had an opportunity to send a message showing who we are as leaders and as a society as a whole--one that protects the weak and the voiceless instead of one that permits their destruction. I regret and I am saddened that the Senate failed this fundamental test.

I am eager to do more to protect innocent life, including the unborn, but the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act provided us an opportunity to affirm the most basic need for healthcare for a vulnerable child who has already beaten the odds to survive. Let's hope we have another opportunity to give these children the chance at life they so deserve.

I thank you.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that I be able to address the Senate as if in morning business.

Mr. President, I wish to speak this afternoon in recognition of our late President, Ronald Reagan. I want to speak also about his wife Nancy, and I want to highlight their honest and passionate work to educate Americans about the real effects of Alzheimer's.

Last Wednesday, February 6, would have been President Reagan's 108th birthday, and we paused then to reflect not only on the life and legacy of President Ronald Reagan, but we also remember the way he carried himself, the vision he set for our country, and the direction he steered our Nation.

Years after he left the White House, the President and Nancy Reagan continued their public service to our Nation with grace and class, and that was true even as President Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease.

In November of 1994, President Reagan wrote a handwritten letter to Americans announcing this diagnosis that ultimately took his life.

I read lots of biographies, I read lots of history, and this past week I finished a book, ``Reagan: An American Journey,'' written by Bob Spitz. The story of his circumstance with Alzheimer's captured my attention.

The book quotes President Reagan telling his daughter, Patti: ``I have this condition . . . I keep forgetting things.''

The doctors finally put a name to it. On November 4, 1994,

a doctor from the Mayo Clinic informed Nancy Reagan that,

having had an adequate chance to observe the president, the

diagnosis was conclusive: he had Alzheimer's.

According to Fred Ryan, a staff member for the President and Mrs. Reagan, ``She was quite upset, emotional.'' She spoke at length later that evening: ``So we're going to tell him tomorrow,'' she said, ``and I'd like you to be there.''

The next morning, a Saturday, they gathered in the library,

a small, comfortable room at the front of the house where the

Reagans typically received guests. The president seemed

puzzled when the doctor and Ryan arrived. ``Honey, come over

here and sit down,'' Nancy said, directing him to a couch

opposite the two men. ``The doctor has something he wants to

talk about.''

The doctor didn't beat around the bush. ``We think you have

Alzheimer's,'' he told Reagan.

``Okay,'' he responded faintly. ``What should I expect?''

``We don't know much about it,'' the doctor admitted.

``It's a degenerative disorder.'' He ran down a few of the

effects that Alzheimer's patients experienced while Nancy

Reagan struggled to control her emotions. She tried her

utmost to be supportive, but was overcome hearing about the

devastations of the disease. . . . He acknowledged, quite

bluntly, ``There is no cure.''

``Can I ask a few questions?'' Ryan interjected.

While he and Nancy discussed how to handle the president's

activities--his schedule, office hours, appointments, and

appearances--Reagan wandered over to a small round table in a

corner and sat down, staring hypnotically into the yard.

After a few minutes, he picked up a pen and began to write.

When he finished, he handed two sheets of paper filled with

his cramped handwriting to [his staffer]. ``Why don't we get

this typed up and put it out,'' Reagan suggested.

It was a letter dated that November 5, 1994.

My Fellow Americans--

It began--

I have recently been told that I am one of the millions of

Americans who will be afflicted with Alzheimer's disease. . .

. At the moment I feel just fine. I intend to live the

remainder of the years God gives me on the earth doing things

I have always done. . . . Unfortunately, as Alzheimer's

Disease progresses, the family often bears a heavy burden. I

only wish I could spare Nancy from this painful experience.

When the time comes I am confident that with your help she

will face it with faith and courage.

And with faith and courage, indeed, President and Nancy Reagan faced the disease together.

Together, they founded the Ronald and Nancy Reagan Research Institute at the Alzheimer's Association in Chicago, IL, focused on researching, understanding, and treating Alzheimer's disease.

Over the past several decades, this research institute has awarded millions of dollars in Alzheimer's research grants and has continued to see breakthroughs in our understanding of this aggressive and disastrous disease.

Congress has also rightfully come together in a nonpartisan manner to fight this disease head-on. For example, last December, just a few months ago, with legislation that was sponsored by our colleague from Maine, Senator Susan Collins, Congress passed and the President signed our BOLD Infrastructure for Alzheimer's Act, which aims to combat Alzheimer's through a collaborative public health framework. The BOLD Act will create an Alzheimer's public health infrastructure at the direction of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which will establish Alzheimer's centers for excellence across the country, award funding to public health departments to increase early detection and diagnosis, and increase data collection, analysis, and reporting through cooperative agreements with public and nonprofit entities.

I am a member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Health and Human Services, led by my colleague from Missouri, Senator Blunt. I have advocated and successfully worked with my colleague Senator Blunt and the members of the committee to provide $2.3 billion for Alzheimer's disease research in FY 2019, finally reaching the $2 billion funding goal for research laid out by the National Plan to Address Alzheimer's.

I am the cochair of the Senate NIH Caucus, and I am optimistic that these funding increases, combined with NIH initiatives to map the human brain and further develop personalized medicine, will, I hope, lead us closer to an Alzheimer's treatment and a cure.

Eleven years after President Reagan's death, Nancy Reagan continued her Alzheimer's advocacy work, helping to dramatically increase the attention and resources paid to the research of this disease. She recognized that degenerative diseases like Alzheimer's not only pose a financial burden to our Nation and health system but, more importantly and more significantly, these diseases threaten families with significant financial difficulty and tremendous emotional hardship.

As President Reagan's primary caregiver during his battle with Alzheimer's, Nancy reminded us of the importance of caretakers and families and the struggles they themselves go through while watching loved ones suffer.

As we continue our work to treat, cure, and prevent Alzheimer's and other degenerative diseases, we will also continue looking for ways to ease the financial and mental turmoil on caretakers, for they suffer so much as well.

When President Reagan announced his Alzheimer's disease, he did so much more than just admitting to having the disease. He fought it, and he destigmatized it not only for himself but for those who came after him and for those still to come who may be faced with this same circumstance.

In the closing letter that President Reagan wrote--and, incidentally, when he handed it to the staffer and said, ``Type it up and send it out,'' they read it and said, ``Let's just send it in your handwriting, Mr. President.'' So that is what happened, and in that closing letter, President said this:

Let me thank you, the American people, for giving me the

great honor of allowing me to serve as your President. When

the Lord calls me home, whenever that may be, I will leave

with the greatest love for this country of ours and eternal

optimism for its future. I now begin the journey that will

lead me into the sunset of my life. I know that for America

there will always be a bright dawn ahead.

I, too, believe that America's best days are ahead of us, and I implore Washington to reflect upon President Reagan's enduring optimism.

Civil in disagreement and often willing to cross party lines to work toward solutions, I hope we can all remember, like President Reagan, to focus on the real issues facing our Nation, and I hope that all Members of the Congress, from all walks of life, will be bold in leveraging their life experiences to achieve greatness for our Nation, just as President Reagan and Nancy Reagan did, deepening America's resolve to fight this terrible disease.

I honor President Reagan and his wife Nancy. I thank them for their service to our country, and I thank them for their attention to this disease, Alzheimer's. May we also have the courage and will to continue the battle to rid our country, its citizens, and the world of this affliction.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to express my dissatisfaction and disappointment over what is a life-and-death matter for many Americans. My disappointment is about the actions recently taken by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the action they took was reinstating the organ procurement organization LiveOnNY.

I am a Kansan. This is not an organization that is located in my State, but this decision by CMS, when combined with recent policy changes from the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network, misses the mark, and it misses it widely. We should be improving the organ procurement process and increasing the number of available organs for transplant rather than expanding the distance organs travel and moving additional organs from high donation areas to low donation areas.

CMS' recent decision to renew this contract, which was initially meant to be canceled due to years of poor performance, is troublesome. This organization was the only organization out of the 58 organ procurement organizations to have a contract canceled for poor performance, which was only done after numerous reprimands and penalties that failed to lead to improvement.

Conversely, it was reassuring that CMS was finally going to take some responsibility toward ensuring that donor organizations are adequately performing their jobs and protecting patients. However, CMS quickly reversed course and abdicated their duty to protect some of our Nation's most vulnerable patients when they announced they would reinstate this license.

Our Nation continues to face a shortage of organ donors. We need more donor organs, but our agencies and organizations, which should be demanding accountability and improvements, continue to turn a blind eye to a culprit, and that is the consistent failure to live up to expectations and to waste organs that could save lives.

This failure to address this issue increases wait times for patients who need organs and causes unnecessary stress and anxiousness for those who are on that waiting list for a potential organ at a time when they grow sicker and sicker.

Health and Human Services, CMS, or the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services, HRSA, OPTN, and UNOS are all abbreviations for organizations that share the blame for the predicament our country finds itself in.

This is perhaps the most important part of what I want to reiterate or state again on the Senate floor: These organizations have decided that instead of pushing organ procurement organizations to do their job, they will simply draw more organs away from areas with quality donor organizations and high donation rates--places in the Midwest, places like Kansas, places like Missouri. So the solution to a problem--the lack of organs to be transplanted--is not to get more people to donate organs and to improve the organizations responsible for those donations but, instead, to take organs from places that are doing their job and transmit them across the country.

I have written to and am waiting on responses from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Mr. Azar. There are two letters, in fact, that remain unanswered.

The first letter was sent by Senator Blunt and me expressing our concern at OPTN's decision to ignore transplant experts and push through a dangerous new policy related to liver allocations for donation.

The second letter, signed by a quarter of the U.S. Senate, expresses broad concern with OPTN's process and the reasoning behind a proposal that appears to disadvantage areas that have actually done their jobs.

This new policy punishes those who are successful in procuring organs for donation and rewards those who continue to fail and do not appear to attempt to make improvements.

Let's recall that the new policy that we are complaining about was rammed through by OPTN and UNOS, and it will simply shift donated organs, like livers, to wider areas across the country while doing nothing to improve the donor rates countrywide or to improve the performance of OPOs. This is simply an avoidance of the problem, not a solution to it.

CMS has failed to conduct proper oversight of organ procurement organizations, leading to organ shortages that carry a real cost in patient lives, who die while waiting on transplant lists.

This is a matter that affects many States, and it is time for us to have answers from those who make these decisions and who make decisions without input from those affected.

Again, I ask my Senate colleagues to pay attention to this issue-- liver transplants, something that will make a difference in the lives of many Americans in your States and in mine.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am here to speak tonight because something is not right. I want to express my real concern with the recent decision of the national liver allocation policy made by the Organ Procurement Transplant Network made on December 4.

This sounds like something that is far away and perhaps of no real consequence, but the decision that was made has huge consequences on every American and should be receiving more attention than it has to date because the number of organs that are available for transplant and where those organs will be available is being determined by this small group of people.

The decision they made throws aside expert advice from transplant surgeons and hospitals on best practices. It also carries the risk of decreasing organ donation rates, as donors learn their organs will not be used in their own communities but will be shipped someplace in the country. Places in the country today have donor programs designed to encourage donors to donate their organs, and part of that is the understanding that those organs are going to be available for your family, your friends and neighbors, and people within your community.

This decision limits the availability and access to donated organs in areas that currently have low wait times and damages the ability of our major transplant hospitals to perform these services for patients. In December of 2017, following two rounds of public comment period and extensive deliberation by the OPTN board, that board approved a compromise allocation policy that served the transplant community's best interests. This served as a policy reform that was worked out over years to better benefit the entire country based upon compromise by transplant experts, patients, and stakeholders.

However, the next year in 2018, a lawsuit was filed based upon the HRSA allocation policies, and in the face of that single voice of criticism, they disregarded years of work and compromise that was reached the year before. It is unfortunate that the basis for this policy change was litigation, not a determination of how best to improve the Nation's organ transplant, procurement, and allocation process. HRSA has rushed to respond to this lawsuit by abdicating their duty to implement good policy, instead allowing a single case to divert liver allocation policy across the entire United States.

In October, I had a meeting with Dr. George Sigounas, the Administrator of HRSA. He described to me the importance of the comment period on these policies and how seriously his Agency would take them, especially considering that they were the very institutions and doctors who would go on to perform these transplants.

Shortly thereafter, I was disappointed to learn these comments were not comments made by the public, by these institutions, the doctors who perform transplants--that these comments were not even considered by the individuals tasked with crafting and advising the latest policy. In fact, Sue Dunn, the president of OPTN, has informed a number of commenters in the transplant community that their concerns over new policy were not even read by the board that approved the new policy. The reason these comments were not considered was due to the fact that OPTN's comment system was so overloaded in the days leading up to the decision that it caused a complete shutdown of that process.

So many transplant hospitals, surgeons, and medical professionals had deep enough concerns that they took the time out of their day to express them. These are the people tasked with saving lives through transplants each and every day. Yet their opinions, in essence, were deemed invalid. So many comments were submitted that the entire system shut down, and OPTN's response was simply to ignore them.

Further, OPTN did not choose to reconsider their damaging policies in the face of widespread opposition from the medical community. OPTN continues to push forward against all common sense in their pursuit to radically alter the way organs are distributed across the United States. Decisions on national organ allocation should be grounded in expert opinions rather than in a response to a single lawsuit. HRSA and OPTN are making a grave mistake in pushing this damaging policy that carries a significant cost--human lives.

In the meeting I had with Dr. Sigounas, as I indicated, he told me these comments should not just be comments but present actual suggestions of what the policy should be. I

know of institutions and organizations that did that, and to learn they were disregarded causes me to have great concerns.

The Senator from Missouri, Mr. Blunt, and I have probed Secretary Azar, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, on this subject, and we are eagerly awaiting his justification for what appears to be a major significant error. It appears that HRSA and OPTN making policy in such a reckless fashion has become the normal state of affairs. Additional oversight may be necessary to ensure that fairness in organ allocation policy is protected and some common sense prevails in future policy. I know there is a group of Senators who are working on legislation to do just that.

I am very disappointed in the actions of HRSA, OPTN, and UNOS. This process has been flawed from start to finish, guided not by what is best for the country but how to sidestep a single lawsuit.

Organ procurement and allocation policy is too important. It is about life and death and is too important to be simply decided by lawsuits and countersuits, which I fear now will become the way of addressing this issue.

I will continue to work to protect our hospitals, our doctors, and particularly our patients--Americans--from this policy that disregarded all input from those in the transplant community. This discussion cannot be seen as anything coming to a close. It is far from over. I remain committed to finding answers, changing the tide, and putting patients and providers first in these life-or-death scenarios.

I thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, a little earlier in the evening, we cast a vote, one that was done without a rollcall, and I want my constituents to know how I voted because, while I will put a statement in the Record, it will not appear as yeas and nays.

Earlier this evening we passed a continuing resolution, and I voted no. I want my constituents to know how I voted, and I want them to know why.

I indicated to my colleagues within the last 10 days that I intend to vote no on a CR because it is not the way we should be conducting business in the U.S. Senate or in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Continuing resolutions mean that we are just postponing the issues we face today, and they don't get any easier the longer we wait to resolve them.

They also mean that for the appropriations process, of which I am a part and have spent a significant amount of time this year, while we were successful in many, many ways, we have left seven bills without resolution. Because we couldn't resolve them, we are going to fund those Departments and Agencies at the same level of spending next year as this year.

What that means is after the number of hearings we had--the witnesses who were brought in and testified, the oversight we have done onsite at Departments and Agencies and facilities across the country--we are left without that input being included in decisions. It means we are not prioritizing what spending is important.

There may be a few things around here that could utilize additional resources. Maybe the resources level that we fund things at today is what it should be. Maybe there are things we shouldn't fund at all, and there are certainly some things which we could fund at lower levels. But no, we are not going to say that this is more important than this; we are going to say all things are equal. The way we have funded appropriations last year for these Agencies and Departments is exactly the right amount it should be into the future.

Unfortunately, we have done CRs long enough that we are not just talking about, is it right? What was right for last year is the same amount that it should be for the next several months. It goes back years. So what we are saying is that the decisions we made years ago are the same priorities we would have today. That is not true.

Perhaps more compelling to me is that every time we pass a CR, we lose the opportunity to utilize the power of the purse string to rein in the behavior and actions of those who work in those Bureaus, Departments, and Agencies. If Congress is always going to give a Federal Agency the same amount of money in the future as it gave in the past, there is no reason for those Agencies to pay attention to the U.S. Congress, to the House and the Senate, to article I of the U.S. Constitution, which gives the authority for appropriating money to fund the Federal Government to this Congress. We abdicate our responsibilities, and we reduce the opportunity on behalf of our constituents--for me, on behalf of Kansans--to make certain that the things they think are important are the things we fund, the things that are constitutional are the things we fund, and we lose the opportunity to tell an Agency by using the power of the purse string that when you pursue this regulation, when you pursue this policy, when you make the decision you make--Congress isn't going to have the leverage on you to convince you to change your behavior. We lose the relationship that exists under the Constitution for us to have power over those Departments and Agencies in the executive branch.

Common sense tells us that if we determine how much money an Agency or Department receives, they are going to be much more interested in what we have to say, and if they don't listen to us, we have the ability to remove the money, to eliminate the funding.

So tonight, in my view--and I believe this strongly--we missed an opportunity. We have been in this process for a long time now. We set out with the goal of passing all 12 appropriations bills individually. The Appropriations Committee has done that. But they were not all brought to the Senate floor. In fact, for the bills we are talking about tonight, a continuing resolution was passed for them several months ago, taking us to December 8.

At this point in time on December 8, we continued them until this Friday, and now, tonight, we have continued the continuing resolution with the same funding in the future as last--now for the third time in 2 months--to February 8. We are not doing what we are supposed to do, and in this process, in my view, the opportunity existed.

We were very close to reaching an agreement. President Trump has strong feelings about border security. President Trump was willing to work with Congress to find a solution. Somewhere along the line--and there are lots of folks who want to say where the blame lies--maybe it was with Speaker-elect Pelosi; maybe she just is unwilling to allow anything but a continuing resolution to pass. But the amount of dollars we were apart is so minimal, and the policy issues had been resolved. Yet, for some reason, we walked away. If she is the Speaker-elect of the House, I urge her to deal with this issue of appropriations. It is the power of Congress. Republicans and Democrats ought to work together to fill our constitutional responsibilities.

Where are the days in which the Congress--Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate--exhibited their prerogatives, not because we want power but because the Constitution gives us the authority--the responsibility, in fact--to make decisions about spending?

There is no glory in making a decision on spending when we say that today's dollars are fine next week; they are fine the next week; they are fine the next month. We were so close to coming together this year, and it is disappointing that the end result is now a continuing resolution until February 8.

I want my constituents to know that we have done this too many times. Yes, there may be a time in which we want to have just a few days to resolve the final differences. A few days is not February 8; a few days is not now, for the third time. What we needed to decide months ago, we pursued weeks later. What we should have decided weeks later, we failed to address a week ago. Tonight, we failed once again to address the issues of the proper amount of funding. Twelve appropriation bills should march their way across the U.S. Senate floor, should march their way across the House of Representatives floor, and should be sent to a President for his or her signature or his or her veto.

The process that was exhibited this evening failed to allow me to have my vote recorded as it normally is, and it is important for me, for Kansans, and for Americans to know that I oppose the way we are doing business tonight. It needs to change. We have said it before, and if we always say that we can wait another 2 weeks, we can wait another 3 weeks, we will never get back to doing the work we are hired to do by the American people.

I have voted no. It is the right vote.

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

Mr. President, I am on the floor this afternoon to honor a friend, a colleague, and the senior Representative from Kansas, Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins, who has gracefully and honorably served Kansas for two decades in both our State and here in the Federal Government.

While I am going to talk a little bit about Lynn's history and past, none of this should be taken just as something that is being read in her honor. She is a very special person who has served Kansas so well, and she brings such tremendous attributes to public service. We will miss her greatly, and Kansans will have benefited from her service, but she will also remain a role model for many who look for ways to make America and to make our State more prosperous, with a brighter future.

Congresswoman Jenkins grew up on a farm outside of Holton, KS--a small town just about 100 miles away from Kansas City, just north of Topeka, where she learned the value of hard work and perseverance. You cannot meet somebody who grew up working on a dairy farm without determining that they have those attributes, and Lynn has exemplified that in every endeavor.

She was taught that what needed to be done was something she would do. When you do it, you do it right, and every day you need to step up and do your job to make certain things get done. That is a dairy farmer, and that is Lynn Jenkins as a Member of the U.S. Congress.

Before becoming a Member of Congress and before being elected in Kansas, Lynn was a CPA--a certified public accountant. She recognized a real need for financial reform as a result of that experience, and she used her skills as a CPA to benefit Kansas.

In 2003, Lynn was elected the 37th Kansas State treasurer. Lynn then took that same tax and financial experience to Washington, DC, where she was elected the Congresswoman from the Second District of our State.

After her election to the U.S. House of Representatives, Lynn quickly rose to become one of the highest ranking Members of Congress, serving today as the vice chair of the House Republican caucus; she served in that capacity for 4 years. She is a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee.

It goes without saying that in addition to her background as a CPA, her intellect, and her service-oriented mindset, Lynn is one of the most beloved Kansans we have. We meet with many of the same groups here in Kansas and in Washington, DC, and I know that visiting with Lynn is, without a doubt, one of the highlights for Kansans who come to Washington, DC.

Lynn also understands that while it may seem that this environment is a loud and boisterous one and that making your appearances on national TV is an effective way of serving as a Member of Congress, she knows you can really serve your country, and especially Kansas, by rolling up your sleeves and just getting to work. It has been a privilege to witness this firsthand and to work on a number of issues with Lynn over the years. Together we jointly introduced the fair tax legislation, we worked together to protect rural healthcare in Kansas, we made certain our veterans received the benefits they deserve, and we are both chairs of our respective Hunger Caucuses. We are both lucky to have Bob Dole as a mentor, and we have made it a priority to carry on his legacy to end hunger in America and around the globe.

Lynn was also a champion of the Mental Health First Aid Act, modernizing section 529 college savings plans, and was an integral part of passing major tax legislation for the first time in 30 years.

Lynn and I often have shared flights back and forth from Kansas to Washington, DC. She has, like I have, chosen to remain at home in Kansas, and we are often on the same airplane. I could always count on Lynn to have the conversation of what was going on in the House and for her to explain to me what should be going on in the Senate that wasn't. We were able to take care of our constituents' business by being together on that flight to Washington, DC, and on the flight home.

It also goes without saying that Lynn will be sorely missed as a leader and as a sensible voice in Congress and in our Kansas delegation. Her role will be so difficult to fill, but I know she is excited about spending more time with her kids, Haley and Hayden, in that place we so proudly call home, the State of Kansas.

Lynn, I thank you for your many years of service and, on behalf of all Kansans, I want you to know we appreciate, respect, and admire you.

Lynn, thank you for your friendship, advice, and your realness. I wish you the best of luck and countless M&Ms in your retirement from Congress, and in everything that comes next, may you have success and may you have joy. Please know you will be missed, and we look forward to spending time together as you tell me, still, what I should be doing in the U.S. Senate.

Tribute to Kevin Yoder

Madam President, I want to speak this afternoon about another retirement from Kansas, Congressman Kevin Yoder, who has served the Third Congressional District of Kansas for four terms. He is a solid colleague and a good friend.

I met Kevin when he was an intern in our office when I was a Member of the House of Representatives. I remember his tenacity, his spirit, and his passion for serving Kansans, which he continued to feel long after he was an intern in the Moran world.

Kevin went on to serve his fellow students as student body president at the University of Kansas. He earned a law degree from the University of Kansas School of Law. He then served the Overland Park community in the State House of Representatives, and he became chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

As a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Kevin also served as a member of the Appropriations Committee, and there he was, and has been, a steward of Kansas taxpayers' hard-earned dollars.

As a member of the Appropriations Committee, Kevin has made biomedical funding a top priority. I have enjoyed working with him as we advocated for the National Institutes of Health and for the University of Kansas Cancer Center, which was designated as a National Cancer Institute in 2012. Kevin served as a real leader in Congress in advocating for that designation, and it is a point of pride for our State and the hope of many in our region.

He also serves as chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, where he has worked to help protect our borders and our homeland.

Kevin has been a steady leader in his support for Head Start, understanding that education uniquely unlocks opportunity, and he has worked to give underprivileged children a path to success at an early age--an opportunity they unlikely would have otherwise.

Understanding the complex and outdated nature of our country's immigration laws, Kevin has championed legislation that could garner the support of both Republicans and Democrats that would end per- country caps on employment-based green cards, clearing the backlog of Indian and Chinese immigrant green card applications, some of which have been, unfortunately, sitting around untouched on a wait list for decades.

Kevin also grew up in a small town in Kansas and was a farm kid, and he also learned the value of hard work and the issue of being responsible for the consequences of what you do. Kevin will be greatly missed in our Kansas delegation and here in Washington, DC, and his shoes will be hard to fill.

Kevin, I hope you are able to spend some well-deserved time with Brook and your girls. I will miss our flights back and forth between Kansas in which you were showing me photos on almost every trip of your children. I wish the very best for Kevin, for Brook, his wife, and his daughters as they enter this new chapter.

I also pay special tribute to Brook Yoder for her work side-by-side with her husband. They, together as a team, made a tremendous difference in Kansas and in Washington, DC.

So on behalf of all Kansans, Kevin, I say thank you for your dedicated service to our State. Godspeed.

Mr. President, thank you.

We all are surrounded by exceptionally dedicated young men and women who work side by side with us and whose lead we sometimes follow on issues--our staff. I am honored to have such a capable, dedicated, and loyal staff--to me but more importantly, to Kansans and to Americans.

Today I want to take just a moment to recognize the contributions of a member of that staff, U.S. Army CPT Mark Bedrin, who has spent the last year working in my personal office as part of the U.S. Army Congressional Fellowship Program.

Before Mark departs from my office to return to the Army, at the Pentagon, at the start of the new year, I rise to express my admiration and appreciation to Captain Bedrin for all the hard work and dedication in his service to our Nation.

Exactly 1 year ago, when I first learned that Captain Bedrin would be joining our office and our team, I called and welcomed him to the office, and I immediately was struck by his determination and his sense of duty. Since that first conversation with Mark, I knew he would be an asset to our team, and he absolutely has never disappointed.

Mark's nearly 9 years of service in the U.S. Army have developed his leadership capabilities and shaped his perspective on defense issues that are of such national significance, making him a unique asset to our team who, as a member of the U.S. Armed Forces, helps us work to serve Kansans and their families.

Mark's assignments have taken him and his wife, Katie, and their children,

Elizabeth and Patrick, around the world in service to our country. Mark has completed two combat deployments encompassing more than 22 months in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, as a rifle platoon leader during the Afghanistan surge and as regimental battle captain overseeing most of the Regional Command South. He also completed a peacekeeping deployment to the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt, where he commanded a rifle company supporting the Multinational Force and Observers maintaining the treaty of peace between Egypt and Israel. Mark planned and completed multiple missions supporting Atlantic Resolve in Central and Eastern Europe as well.

Although Mark is a native of New York and he had never been to Kansas prior to his working in my office, he immediately got familiar with issues that Kansans face each day and made it a priority to spend time in Kansas and to see firsthand our way of life.

Following his trip to our military installations and equities in Kansas, I was grateful to learn of his impressions at each stop along the way. Like many in the military who visit our State, Mark returned to Washington, DC, with an appreciation for the quality of life that Kansans ensure that their servicemembers have in our State. We take care of their families. I appreciate Mark's noticing that, and it is so true.

Over the past year, I have continually been impressed by Mark's leadership. At every opportunity, he has proven himself to be an important and fully integrated member of our office, our team, and has carried that with equal weight and responsibility with my personal staff. His seamless communications and his skill in tackling issues big and small have been a great benefit to me. Mark has exceeded all of my expectations and has demonstrated a commitment to excellence that has been nothing short of outstanding.

Although I am sad that he will be leaving our office at the end of the month, I know he will serve the Army well next year in the budget liaison office, where I am confident he will be a highly effective ambassador to Congress for the Army.

Mark is one of the most impressive military officers I have had the honor of knowing, and I hold him in the highest regard personally and professionally. He is a significant asset to our country and to the U.S. Army. Mark represents the best that the Army has to offer, and I know he will continue to benefit the future of our Nation.

There is no group of people I hold in higher regard than those who serve our Nation, and I want to reiterate my gratitude to Mark and his wife, Katie, as an Army family dedicated to serving our country.

Once again, thank you, Mark, for all you have done for Kansans this year. Thank you for being an inspiration to me, causing me to work harder and care more. You have been a model of selfless service and leadership. Our entire office, our staff here in Washington, DC, and our staff in Kansas will miss you. All know how much you contributed to the cause, and I know you will continue to do great things throughout your Army career and your life of service wherever that path may lead.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote scheduled for 1:45 occur now.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I am here this afternoon to congratulate Herb Holzapfel on his retirement as chairman of the Farmers' Rice Cooperative.

The Farmers' Rice Cooperative has a long and distinguished history and an equally long history of influential leaders. Herb stands out as one of those leaders--as one of the very best.

It may seem a little bit odd for a Kansan to be congratulating a Californian, but in this job as a U.S. Senator and in my earlier days as a Congressman, as a Member of the House of Representatives, you have the opportunity to meet lots of wonderful, interesting people. As a person who is so interested in agriculture, I had the opportunity of meeting Herb back in my days in the House of Representatives. He is one of those special people who is a joy to know, and he is someone who has such a strong passion for agriculture, and so we easily connected.

His love of agriculture, his engagement in the industry, and his work in the industry have improved the lives of farmers and consumers for more than 40 years, including 33 specifically with the Farmers' Rice Cooperative.

Herb is a passionate public servant. His love for public service dates back to his early moments as a boy when he remembers meeting Ronald Reagan. That was an inspiration to Herb. As he was attending the National Scout Jamboree here in the Nation's Capital, which marked the beginning of a life of serving others, he had the opportunity to become acquainted with Ronald Reagan.

Herb grew up with a sense of duty. He was drafted and served in the Vietnam conflict just 1 year after he married Ginger, his wife. Herb joined the National Guard in the same year and began farming rice. He was offered a spot in the 1975 warrant officer helicopter training school, but he had to turn it down in order to get his rice harvested.

Herb has always been on the lookout for opportunities to serve other people and has never shied away from hard work. His father would always tell him that in order to make something better, a person has to be involved. Herb took that message to heart and committed himself to doing things in the right way--to being fully involved.

Herb joined the Farmers' Rice Cooperative in 1985 and became a board member that same year. In 1998 he was elected chairman of the board and has served in that position since then. For 20 years, Herb has fought for the rice producers and has led and represented them in such a fine fashion. Herb has always focused on finding solutions that will make sure that the next generation of farmers and ranchers is better off than the last.

To accomplish that, he has worked with many Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. As chairman of the co-op, Herb has spent a significant amount of time in Washington, DC, doing just that-- representing agricultural producers in the Halls of Congress. He is one of the most genuine people I have ever met. If you meet Herb, you will remember Herb. He goes out of his way to build genuine relationships with Members of Congress, and he knows the importance of our staffs. He has become a trusted adviser and a source of wisdom and good advice to many people in Washington, DC. In so many ways, that includes me. There has been no better ambassador for agriculture, especially for rice, than Herb. It is not uncommon for Herb to take an incoming call from DC while he is on his tractor back at the ranch.

Herb's legacy at the Farmers' Rice Cooperative is one of his great achievements. He has assisted in the reforming of the cooperative over the past 30 years and has impacted every facet of the company, from dealing with the leadership of the co-op down to the nuts and bolts of the rice mill. He is one who has shown me how rice is grown, which is necessary, because no Kansas farmer knows how to grow rice. His goal has been to leave the company and the industry better than he found it.

I will tell you, Herb, you have achieved that goal in spades.

As I said earlier, Herb never shies away from hard work. This means he will not be slowing down but only changing directions. He will continue to work on the Farm Credit Council's board of directors, which he has been a part of since 2012. Herb's impact on the world of agriculture will continue to be felt for years to come through his work at the Farmers' Rice Cooperative and at the Farm Credit Council.

I thank Herb for his years of advocacy on behalf of agriculture, rice, and all of the things that agriculture is comprised of, including wheat and cattle and corn in Kansas. He made the case for all of us-- for our farmers and our ranchers. I appreciate that very much. I appreciate his standing side by side and our being a team in order to see that good things happen in rural America. I wish him the very best in his new phase of life, and I thank him for his service and his friendship.

tribute to bill snyder

Mr. President, last Sunday, Kansas State University Head Football Coach Bill Snyder announced his retirement, marking the end of his 56- year career coaching football and 27-year tenure in Manhattan, KS.

Coach Snyder made his debut with the K-State football program in 1989. He took the helm of a program that was known as Futility U and America's most hapless team.

When he arrived, the Wildcats hadn't won a single game in the previous two seasons and had the most losses of any Division One football team.

During the now-famous press conference at the early stages of his tenure at K-State, Coach Snyder remarked that, ``I think the opportunity for the greatest turnaround in college football exists here today, and it's not one to be taken lightly.''

Kansans know well today that Coach Snyder lived up to those words.

Coach Snyder boasts a great deal of accolades in his storied career: 215 career wins, 19 bowl game appearances, and two Big 12 championships--which seems especially remarkable, given the state of the program when he took over as head coach.

Deeply engrained in Coach Snyder's legacy is the work he has done off the field developing young men, contributing to the community, giving back, and inspiring so many.

Coach Snyder's ``16 Goals for Success'' have served as guidelines for his players on and off the field.

Snyder said that if his players followed these goals--goals such as ``Never Give Up,'' ``Don't Accept Losing,'' and ``Eliminate Mistakes''--then success would come. His ``16 goals'' represent his own legendary paradigm--that our work is never over and the journey to success is never really finished.

His impact at the university and in Manhattan have reached far beyond the field, where he has helped to increase student enrollment, boost the local economy, and fund major renovation projects across K-State's campus that have allowed for groundbreaking work at the university.

Coach Snyder's involvement, support, and close work with the Johnson Cancer Center at K-State has helped to advance the groundbreaking, scientific research being done there that will one day save lives.

His work in the community to mentor young men and women, develop community leaders, and inspire philanthropy has changed lives across our State. His focus on ``family'' has created and contributed to a remarkable culture in Manhattan.

Coach Snyder has had to overcome numerous challenges during his tenure as a coach, but he has faced those with the same grit and mental toughness that he has instilled in his players.

Even while battling cancer, coach still hit the road to travel Kansas on Catbacker tours; he didn't let anyone or anything get in the way of him meeting with the program's most loyal fans, a large number of them rural Kansans.

Coach's love for traveling the State and meeting with rural Kansans is something we both share, but I think often times Kansans might be more excited to talk about football than politics.

Coach Snyder repeatedly says he came to Kansas State University because of the people, stayed because of the people, and returned because of the people.

To get to Manhattan, KS, you take Bill Snyder Family Highway. To go to a K-State football game, you go to Bill Snyder Family Stadium. On your way into the stadium, you walk by a larger-than-life statue of Coach Bill Snyder. His legacy is permanently sealed in the K-State and Manhattan community.

History will remember Coach Snyder as an incredibly successful football coach and developer of young men, someone with an extraordinary work ethic and a high level of integrity.

I appreciate the impact Coach Bill Snyder has had at Kansas State University. His legacy will be forever enshrined there. Robba and I wish all the best for Coach, Sharon, and the entire Snyder family in this new chapter of their lives.

I yield the floor.