Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about legislation I have recently introduced, although it is a follow-on to legislation I pursued over a number of years.

We have now introduced in this Congress the Cuba Trade Act. This is legislation which would lift the trade embargo to allow farmers and ranchers and small businesses and other private sector industries to freely conduct business, to sell products--agricultural products in particular--to the nation of Cuba and to its people.

Last month, I spoke about the terrific difficulties our farmers in Kansas and across the country are facing due to low commodity prices. The farm economy has fallen by nearly 50 percent since 2013, and that decline is expected to continue in 2017, making this perhaps, if not the worst, certainly one of the worst economic downturns in farm country since the Great Depression.

In 2016, harvests in our State and across much of the country were recordbreaking yields and historic in their magnitude, in fact. What that means is there are still piles of wheat, corn, and other grains all across Kansas just sitting on the ground next to the grain mill bins that are already filled to capacity. To sell this excess supply, our farmers need more markets to sell the food and fiber they produce.

Approximately 95 percent of the world's customers live outside U.S. borders. Markets in the United States will continue to grow, and they will evolve and will continue to meet the domestic consumer demand, providing the best, highest quality, safest food supply in the world, but in order to boost prices for American farmers, we need more markets. We need them now, we need them in the future, and we need to be able to indicate to our farmers that hope is in the works in global markets.

We have talked about the importance of trade, of exports from the United States, and particularly for the citizens of Kansas. That is particularly true for an agricultural State like ours where, again, 95 percent of the consumers live someplace outside of the United States. Cuba is only 90 miles off our border. They offer the potential for increased exports of all sorts of products but especially Kansas wheat.

In fact, while we are introducing this legislation now, we started down this path to increase our ability to sell agriculture commodities, food, and medicine to Cuba back when I was a Member of the House of Representatives. I offered an amendment then to an appropriations bill that lifted the embargo--the ability to sell; it would allow the ability to sell those foods, agricultural commodities, and medicine to Cuba for cash, up front. That bill was passed. It was controversial then. This issue of what our relationship ought to be with Cuba has always been contentious. But I remember the vote was about I think 301 to 116. A majority of Republicans and a majority of Democrats said it is time to do something different with our relationship with Cuba.

This was a significant step in opening up the opportunity to the products of American farmers and ranchers to that country. No longer were food, medicine, and agriculture commodities prohibited from being sold. And it worked for a little while, but unfortunately, in 2005, the Treasury Department changed the regulations, and it complicated the circumstances related to the embargo.

Cuba imports the vast majority of its food. In fact, wheat is Cuba's second largest import, second only to oil.

A point I would stress is that this is a unilateral sanction. Keep in mind that when we don't sell agricultural commodities to Cuba, somebody else does. While our unilateral trade barriers block our own farmers and ranchers from filling the market, willing sellers such as Canada, France, China, and others benefit at American farmers' expense. When we can't sell wheat that comes from a Kansas wheat field to Cuba, they are purchasing that wheat from France and Canada and other European countries. When the Presiding Officer's rice crop can't be sold to Cuba, it is not that they are not buying rice; they are buying it from Vietnam, China, or elsewhere.

It costs about $6 to $7 per ton to ship grain from the United States to Cuba. It costs about $20 to $25 to ship that same grain from the European Union. However, we lose this competitive advantage because of the regulations in place that drive up the cost of Cuban consumers dealing with the United States.

To understand what we are missing out on in Cuba, consider our current trade relationship with the Dominican Republic. The DR is also a nearby Caribbean nation with a population comparable to Cuba. Income levels and diet are similar. Between 2013 and 2015, the Dominican Republic imported an average of $1.3 billion of U.S. farm products. During that same time span, Cuba imported just $262 million--over $1 billion in difference. That is right. That is $1 billion of exports that U.S. farmers are missing an opportunity on because of the U.S. trade restrictions on Cuba. This example helps illustrate the substantial potential that exists for increased sale of agriculture commodities to Cuba.

The Cuba Trade Act I just introduced simply seeks to amend our own country's laws so that American farmers can operate on a level playing field with the rest of the world. While boosting American exports remains the primary goal of lifting the embargo, I also think there is an opportunity for us to increase the reforms and to improve the lives of the Cuban people as well.

I have often said here on the Senate floor and on the House floor and back home in Kansas we often say: We will try something once. If it doesn't work, we might even try it again. Maybe we will try it a third or a fourth time. But after more than 50 years of trying to change the nature of the Cuban Government through this kind of action, through this embargo, many Kansans would say it is time to try something else.

The Cuban embargo was well-intentioned at the time it was enacted. Today, however, it only serves to hurt our own national interests by restricting Americans' freedom to conduct business with that country. In my view, it is time to make a change, and we ought to be able to sell wheat, rice, and other agricultural commodities from the United States for cash to Cuba. This legislation would allow that at no expense to the American taxpayer.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, following leader remarks on Monday, March 13, the Senate resume executive session for the consideration of Executive Calendar No. 18, and that the vote on confirmation occur at 5:30 p.m.

Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, there will be no further votes this week in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I am here on the floor tonight to speak about our Nation's efforts to end global hunger. It is an undertaking that countless individuals, foundations, and government agencies have devoted a significant amount of time, resources, and effort attempting to solve.

Those who have dedicated their lives to feeding the hungry deserve our deepest gratitude and respect. They made the decision to improve the lives of others less fortunate than themselves, and they often have done that at their own loss of comfort and their own well-being. There is no nobler a calling than trying to do something for someone else, especially when it costs you something as well.

Regardless of our faith, our creed, or our religion, almost all of us are taught early in life that it is our duty to help those in need. Americans consistently have taken that moral responsibility to heart. As individuals, we help our neighbors through our churches and other local organizations. We help feed our hometowns. As a country, we lead the world in providing food aid to millions of people who are in need of that assistance.

In 1983, at a signing of a World Food Day proclamation, President Reagan cited 450 million people in developing countries who were undernourished. Our global population has risen by 3 billion people since that time, and today there are nearly 800 million undernourished people in the world who do not have enough food to lead healthy, normal lives.

While strides are being made in the fight against food insecurity, it is clear that our commitment cannot waiver, and ending hunger must remain a priority.

At that same White House ceremony, President Reagan chided the Soviet Union for failing to provide humanitarian relief to those in need. President Reagan offered a direct challenge to the Kremlin to explain why the Soviet Union only provided weapons but not food assistance to the underdeveloped world.

While the threats in the world today are different than those faced during the Cold War, American food assistance remains a powerful foreign policy tool. American food aid elevates our country's moral standing and leadership in the world, as realized by President Reagan, but our efforts to reduce food insecurity also serve our own national interests by promoting political, economic, and social stability in the world.

Food-related hardships and hunger--either due to price increases or food shortages--act as a catalyst for protests and armed conflicts. We have witnessed regions of the world that are critical to America's strategic interests descend into chaos due to people not having access to affordable food.

From 2007 to 2011, spikes in global food prices led to increased food insecurity and unrest in the world. In the Middle East and North Africa, food-related challenges were one of the major drivers of the mass uprising that we call the Arab Spring.

In Syria, Islamic State rebels use the promise of food and basic necessities to recruit soldiers. Food shortages have led refugees to leave camps and return to an active war zone in search of food for themselves and their families.

Closer to home, food prices contributed to rioting in Haiti in 2007 and 2008. As food prices increased and economic conditions deteriorated, U.S. Coast Guard interceptions of people from Haiti attempting to immigrate to our country rose by 20 percent, straining Coast Guard resources.

The National Intelligence Council warns that a continuation of the fundamental contributors to food insecurity--such as expanding populations, slowing of agricultural yields, and gaps in infrastructure and distribution systems--will result in increased food insecurity, hunger, and instability in the

Middle East, Africa, and South Asia over the next 10 years without greater, greater intervention by the United States and others.

In America, we take our food system for granted. Americans spend less than 10 percent of our disposable income on food. Even though less than 2 percent of our country is directly engaged in farming, Americans have direct access to the safest, most affordable, and highest quality food in the world.

I am proud of the wheat farmers and the ranchers in my home State of Kansas. Agriculture production is a noble calling. Feeding the world is important and a meaningful way to spend one's life, and Kansas families have done it for generations.

Our country's food system at home is critical to our own security and well-being, and helping other countries achieve food security and stability serves our national interests as well.

Utilizing U.S.-grown commodities in food aid programs also benefits American farmers and ranchers by creating export markets for our agricultural products, sometimes reducing an excess of supply.

Almost 10 percent of exports of the hard red winter wheat grown in Kansas in 2016 was utilized by international food programs, representing a significant market share for wheat grown in our State. Today's low commodity prices only serve to highlight the need for ag export markets for producers.

A few months ago, I called on the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Department of Agriculture to significantly increase the amount of wheat in our global food aid programs.

Our country's abundance of food imparts a moral duty to provide humanitarian relief to those in need. We have witnessed great unsettlement and mass migration in the world due to political instability and civil wars. The vast majority of people affected, including displaced refugees whose lives were uprooted and whose ability to feed themselves was taken away, are suffering through no fault of their own.

In other parts of the world, people are born into such poverty that simply finding sufficient food is a daily challenge. Reading recent articles, the question has often been: Where am I going to find food to feed my family?

People in Cambodia indicate they have no idea. It is a day-to-day, moment-to-moment, meal-to-meal experience. Even if that food is available, it is often not accessible to people without the means to pay for it.

Many of these people--weary, desolate, and hungry--survive only because of the generosity of the American people. Those hungry and less fortunate depend on a nation with moral strength and clarity to give them a helping hand.

There is still more work to be done in the fight against hunger, and America ought to continue to rise to the challenge of providing food and helping people feed themselves throughout the world.

It is a turbulent world stricken with conflict, and sometimes the hunger and problem seem so great that it would be easy just to walk away and say it is too big of a problem to solve. But certainly we have the ability.

We have the means to feed one person. If we can feed one, why not two? And if we can all feed two, why not three?

We can't simply look at this challenge as being too big to overcome and that the world will always have hungry people and then just say: We have no responsibility to respond.

Food aid provided by the U.S. reduces despair and increases stability. My point is that it has a moral component. It is the right thing to do, but it is also beneficial to our own Nation, providing stability around the globe and increasing our own national security.

The importance of these issues motivated me when I was in the House to chair the House Hunger Caucus, and now I cochair the Senate Hunger Caucus. I can't remember what year it was, but I had a midlife crisis. I have probably had several since then. But my thoughts were at that point in time, back in my House days, that at least then I thought of myself as a pretty good Member of Congress. I answered the mail. I met with constituents. I visited my State on a weekend-by-weekend basis. I had input. I did the things that a good Member of Congress is supposed to do. I represented my constituents well.

But we all can do something more than just be a good Member of Congress, and that was my conclusion. If there is an issue that we want to champion, if there is an issue on which we want to make a difference, if there is a moral cause we want to rise to the occasion to support, hunger, particularly for Congressman--now a Senator--from Kansas, ought to be a place I put my stake in the ground and go to work.

I suppose I have taken a few months off of this issue--and maybe I am having another midlife crisis--but it is time for me to reengage and to engage effectively as best I can to see that we live up to a moral commitment that also benefits our own country.

So I now cochair the Senate Hunger Caucus. I have since I came to the Senate. I serve with a number of my colleagues, including the one who is on the floor tonight, the Senator from Illinois. I ask my colleagues to join us in the effort to meet the needs of a hungry world, to take the step to see that one more person is fed, one more family has less insecurity, one more mother or father no longer worries about whether their children are going to go to bed hungry.

Former Kansas Senator Bob Dole has set many standards in the way that he led his life, which we should all aspire to meet, not the least of which is his unwavering commitment to ending hunger. Those of us in this Senate today ought to seek to carry on Senator Dole's legacy. I would encourage my colleagues to join me and others as we work to put the Senate Hunger Caucus together, to enhance its ability to address the issues that we face in the real world to fight hunger.

I am committed to reengaging these efforts. Along with the other caucus cochairs--Senators Boozman, Casey, Durbin, and Brown--I would extend an invitation to each of my colleagues to join that caucus so that we can take the small step of fighting hunger by becoming more knowledgeable, more aware and engaging in the moral and strategic battle to end hunger around the globe.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to be speak as in morning business.

Madam President, the Natural Resources Conservation Service is one of the best opportunities we have--and some of the best stewards we have for caring for lands in Kansas are our farmers and ranchers. What a great combination in the public-private partnership when we work together to improve our water quality and quantity, work to make sure our air is cleaner, make certain, as best we can, that the dust doesn't blow in Kansas.

While we talk about environmental issues, I want to mention the work that goes on in my home State and places across the country with a partnership that occurs by the Department of Agriculture--USDA--its agency, the NRCS, and landowners in my State.

I want to highlight the circumstances those farmers and ranchers find themselves in today. In 2016, the price of wheat hit a decade low. Wheat prices fell from a high of $7.60 a bushel in 2013 to $4.11 per bushel in 2016, from $7.60 to $4.11 in just a short period of time.

Unfortunately, those prices have continued to stay low. Often in Kansas, when commodity prices are a challenge for those who raise crops, we are able to supplement our income by the price of cattle--our ability to raise quality beef and to sell that in markets and to compensate for the challenges that occur on the crop side of agriculture.

Unfortunately, the same thing has happened in the livestock market as well. Live cattle prices dropped from $166 per hundredweight in January of 2015 to $132 per hundredweight in January of 2016; again, a fall from $166 to $132.

Those things combined, low commodity prices, low price for wheat, low prices for cattle, mean that agriculture in rural America is hurting greatly. This is a tremendous challenge and appearing to be perhaps the most difficult time that agriculture producers, farmers, and ranchers face in the Midwest since the thirties.

I have come to speak about this today. Senator Roberts, the chairman who chairs the Agriculture Committee, is having a hearing of the Agriculture Committee in Kansas during the next few days. I appreciate the opportunity he is providing Kansans to have input as the process begins for a new farm bill. I congratulate him and welcome the input that everyday folks who earn a living in agriculture will have as a result of his efforts.

What I want to highlight today is that with the circumstances so challenging, we need to do things that reduce the input cost associated with production agriculture. But the focus I want to make today is that we need every market possible for our farmers and ranchers to sell into. Ninety-five percent of the mouths to feed, 95 percent of the consumers are outside the United States, and our ability to survive in agriculture in Kansas and this country is related to our ability to export those agriculture commodities, as well as food products, around the globe.

In the confirmation hearings that I have been involved in based upon my committee assignments and in addition to conversations with the nominee to be the Secretary of Agriculture, Governor Perdue, I have highlighted time and time again the importance of exports.

If we face this struggle--a struggle we do absolutely face today--a way we can help improve that circumstance is to sell more grains, more meat products, more beef, more pork into foreign country markets. It is not happening the way it needs to happen to lift the prices and therefore increase the chances that farmers and ranchers will survive the difficult and challenging economic circumstances.

I almost said ``as an aside.'' Let me mention another challenge. It really isn't an aside, it is so important. We have difficult times in agriculture. It is a cyclical world, and prices are up and prices are down based upon the laws of supply and demand. But in difficult times, we have always in the past been able to count upon a lender, a banker who is willing to help that farmer, that rancher get through difficult times.

The regulatory environment our bankers now face, particularly in rural communities where there is a relationship--we often operate in banks in my State, and certainly in rural communities across Kansas, as a result of a relationship. So our bankers--those who lend money to farmers--know those farmers. They know their families. They know their parents, their grandparents. They were the financier. They were the ones able to lend working capital to farmers in good times and bad.

Our regulators and I have visited with the Officer of the Comptroller of the Currency, the FDIC, the Federal Reserve, the state banking commissioner in our State, all with the message that in these difficult times, we can't let the consequences of Dodd-Frank overwhelm the ability for a banker to continue to make decisions about lending money to agriculture producers. We can't let the authority of making that decision, based upon long generations of relationships between those in agriculture and those in financing agriculture, be overcome by the rules and regulations that followed the passage of Dodd-Frank, particularly as it relates to those relationships with community banks and lenders.

So while it is challenging in agriculture due to the prices, one of the reasons we have been able to survive over the years in low-price times is because of that relationship and understanding.

I know this farm family--this is the banker talking--I know this farm family, and I have lent money to them for a long time. I lent money to their father or their grandfather, their mother

or their grandmother. They have the integrity, the character, and the ability to repay.

If the lending in rural America becomes nothing more than a computer program in which you punch in the numbers and character becomes something that is irrelevant--there is not a computer program to measure character. If we lose the opportunity for a relationship developed between a lender and a farmer, we lose the ability to make things work in difficult times. Those times are with us.

The primary point I would like to make today is that we need exports and we need them now. And while there is always a debate about the value of a particular trade agreement--and that debate is useful--we ought never lose sight that there is no real debate about the value of exports. So we need to put in place the mechanisms that allow farmers and ranchers and others in my State to be able to export a product around the globe.

I would encourage the administration and I would encourage Members of Congress, as we develop our policies in this new session, to make certain that exports are front and center in our economic policy because the survival of the folks I represent in Kansas and the communities in which they live is in jeopardy if we don't get those markets back and if we don't retain those markets.

Exports are important to us. We can't afford not to pursue each and every one of them. If we are not going to have multilateral trade agreements, we need to have bilateral trade agreements, and we can't wait very long for those agreements to take place.

Again, 95 percent of the consumers live outside the United States, and our ability in Kansas to have a bright future is determined by the ability to connect with those consumers outside the United States.

If I can take just one more moment to also point out that I have requested USAID and the Department of Agriculture in our food and hunger programs around the globe to increase the role that wheat and other commodities play in feeding a hungry world. We want to sell commodities in the export market, but as we develop our programs to combat hunger, we can get something that is very noble and something very valuable--helping people around the globe be able to go to bed with a full stomach is a desirable and noble goal, and the utilization of an increasing amount of agriculture or commodities grown in the United States in that effort would benefit farmers in our country, as well. It is the proverbial win/win. The noble accomplishment of helping people fight back food insecurity and at the same time creating an additional opportunity for the export of wheat, for example, which, because of significant amounts of harvest, is in an overabundant supply--is in abundant supply here in the United States.

Madam President, thank you for the opportunity to visit with my colleagues here on the Senate floor today and to express the desire to work with each of them as we develop the efforts to make certain that exports are front and center, particularly as they relate to agricultural interest of the United States.

Madam President, I yield my time.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have the opportunity to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to express my entire remarks during this period of time.

Mr. President, Ladd Seaberg, a Kansas resident whose home was in Atchison, KS, passed away on Kansas' 156th birthday. My State lost an individual who epitomizes all that it means to be a Kansan.

Throughout his life, Ladd was dedicated to serving his family, his friends, his colleagues, and his hometown of Atchison.

Atchison is along the Missouri River, the Kansas River, and right on the border with the neighboring State. They have a long history in that community, and he and his family have had a long opportunity, which they have taken advantage of, to benefit the citizens of that community. He fought a courageous fight with a terrible, progressive neurodegenerative disease, and he was laid to rest last week.

As a stalwart figure of Northeast Kansas who worked at MGP Ingredients for 40 years, he will long be remembered for his character and his leadership. Most everything good in Atchison involved Ladd and his family.

Ladd was not born a Kansan. He was born in West Texas and graduated from Texas Tech University, where he met his wife Karen Cray during a national science fair put on by the U.S. Air Force. Naturally, they both won first place awards at the fair, and later moved to Karen's hometown of Atchison, where they made their life and raised their family.

With a degree in chemical engineering and the mind of a true engineer, he had a passion for understanding the way things work on a mechanical level. His love of tinkering led him to a longtime hobby as an avid amateur radio operator.

Upon moving to Atchison, he began working at MGP as a distillery production manager. During his first 11 years there, Ladd rose to become the company's president and later CEO and, then, chairman of the board. He had an integral role in bringing the company public, when it became listed on Nasdaq's exchange.

Ladd and his beloved wife Karen, who now serves as MGP's board chairwoman, were blessed with two daughters and six grandchildren, who still live in Kansas today.

Beyond his leadership at the company MGP, where his intelligence and encouraging management style will long be remembered, Ladd contributed on numerous boards and to even more organizations that improve the lives of those who live in the community and around the State. To name but just a few, he was a founding member of the International Wheat Gluten Association, separately represented the U.S. grain community at the World Trade Organization meetings, and was a board member of the Kansas Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

He was also one of the original founders of the Atchison Area Economic Development Council, a longtime member of the Historical Society, and a former chairman of the Atchison Area Chamber of Commerce board.

Ladd's leadership was indispensable on the Amelia Earhart Memorial Bridge committee to construct a new bridge in 2012 across the Missouri River named for a fellow pilot and fellow Kansan, Amelia Earhart, one of our State's proudest daughters.

He cared deeply about education in his community, as evidenced by the recognition he and his wife received from Benedictine College, the Cross of the Order of St. Benedict, the institution's highest honor. His faith also played a significant role in his life, having served as an elder and deacon of the First Presbyterian Church of Atchison.

One can hardly overstate what he meant to northeast Kansas, as Ladd always sought opportunities to serve his fellow Kansans. He was a mentor to many and gave of himself to all who were fortunate enough to pass his way.

I appreciate his contributions to our State, and my prayers have been with his wife and family, father and grandfather. It is sad that Ladd was laid to rest, but may he rest in peace.

Mr. President, there is a lot going on in the Senate, and I am grateful for that. I hope we can resolve our differences and begin to work on policy. Personnel do matter. But what I want to highlight, as we look at the agenda for the Senate, when we look at an agenda for this Congress and the Federal Government, is the appropriations process.

One of my goals as a Member of the Senate--I didn't expect this when I was elected; I didn't expect there to be a problem--what I want to see is the Senate function. All 100 U.S. Senators, whether they are Republican or Democratic, ought to take a great deal of responsibility for seeing that this place, the U.S. Senate, gives each Senator the opportunity to present his or her ideas, to represent his or her constituents, and to make a difference on their behalf. One of the ways we can do this is in the way that we appropriate money.

The appropriations process is important. At the moment, we are operating under a continuing resolution that expires in a few months. We have had lots of conversations about the first 200 days of this Congress, the first 100 or 200 days of the administration. We have talked about the importance of confirming Executive nominations. We have talked about the importance of dealing with the consequences of the Affordable Care Act. We have talked about the need and the desire to repeal regulations that are onerous and damaging to our ability to create jobs. We certainly have talked about the need to do an overhaul in a comprehensive way of the U.S. Tax Code.

I want to raise to my colleagues' attention and hopefully generate awareness about one of the things that seem to be missing in that discussion about what our agenda is or should be, which is the necessity of doing appropriations bills.

The way this place is supposed to work is that by law, by April 15, we are to have passed a budget, and then 12 separate appropriations bills march their way through the Appropriations Committee and come to the Senate floor, where they are available for amendment, discussion, and debate by every Member of the Senate. We ultimately pass each of those 12 appropriations bills and send them to the House or vice versa. Those 12 appropriations bills fill in the blanks.

Unfortunately, what has happened way too often is we have gotten in the habit of passing something we call a continuing resolution. Continuing resolution means that we are going to fund the Federal Government, its agencies and departments, at the same level of spending next year as we did this year. That suggests that there is no ability to prioritize how we should spend money. That is poor government. In fact, if you have had continuing resolutions year after year, the priorities of spending that were in place 2, 3, 4 years ago have become the priority of spending next year.

In my view, it would be a terrible mistake for us to reach the conclusion that we can do no better than a continuing resolution in the appropriations process this year that takes us to the end of the fiscal year. It is not just about priorities; we need to get spending under control. In fact, the appropriations process has generally done that. There is a reasonably flat line in the growth of government spending on the discretionary side, the things that the Appropriations Committee deals with, the things that we as Senators deal with on an annual basis.

In addition to determining priorities and levels of spending, another reason this is important is that it is our opportunity to influence decisions made by various agencies, departments, and bureaus of the Federal Government.

In my view, the Constitution of the United States created the Congress--the congressional branch, the legislative branch--for reasons of trying to restrain Executive power. When we do a continuing resolution, we leave so much discretion, so much power in the executive branch. It doesn't matter whether it is a Republican President or a Democratic President, Congress is here to protect the American people from an ever-encroaching desire on any administration to garner more power and to make more influence in the Nation. Congress has the ability, if we will use that ability, to restrain Executive action. We are going through a series of Congressional Review Act procedures in which we are rejecting regulations made in the final days of the past administration.

A more effective long-term approach to dealing with the expansive nature of the bureaus, departments, and agencies is to have an appropriations process in which the agency head, the Cabinet Secretary, or the bureau chief knows that his or her relationship with Congress may determine how much money he or she has to spend within that agency. If we do a continuing resolution, there is little reason for an agency head, a Cabinet Secretary, or a bureau chief to pay attention to Congress, and that is contrary to the constitutional provisions giving us the responsibility to appropriate money, and

it continues the practice of an administration expanding their role in the lives of Americans and its businesses.

We need an appropriations process different from just a continuing resolution. We need to have the opportunity for agency heads to know that the appropriations process is going to matter to them. It causes them to have conversations and discussions with us, gives us the ability to tell an executive branch official: This doesn't work in my State. This is very damaging. This rule or regulation you are proposing is harmful. Can you go back and do it in a different way? Do you understand what this means in this circumstance?

Again, our leverage to have those conversations is often whether or not we are going to appropriate money and what that level of spending will be for that agency.

The other aspect of this is that in the absence of that dialogue and change of heart by that agency head, we then have the ability to say as a Congress that no money can be spent to implement this idea, this regulation, this rule.

While we focused attention--rightfully so--on the Congressional Review Act and its ability to limit and in this case repeal and reject regulations, the long-term ability to rein in any administration that exceeds its authority and operates in a way that develops regulations that lack common sense or an appreciation of how they might affect everyday Americans is through the appropriations process, and a continuing resolution will once again take away the constitutionally mandated, the constitutional responsibility we have in doing our jobs to protect the freedoms and liberties of the American people.

We have had a lot of conversations about what we are going to try to accomplish. One of the things that I want to make sure is on the agenda is, when the time comes, which is now, the conversation is--I hope the conversation is not ``Well, we have run out of time. We are just going to do another continuing resolution and fund the Federal Government for the next few months at the same level as we did last year.'' We need to exert our authorities to make sure the American people are out of harm's way from what government can do. The Constitution was created to protect Americans from an ever-expansive government, and it only works when Congress works.

The time is short. We hear that the administration is going to offer supplementals or amended requests for additional spending, especially in the defense arena. We need to get our appropriations work completed so that they have an opportunity to supplement, to make suggestions to Congress about what that appropriations bill should finally look like. We are close to failing in our responsibility to do that. Congress needs to do its work.

All 100 Members of the U.S. Senate can have their opportunity to have input in how money is spent. We can defend and protect the taxpayer; we can defend and protect the consumer; we can defend and protect the job creator; we can defend and protect the employee--but not if we don't do our work, not if we don't do appropriations bills and we rely once again on this technique of shrugging our shoulders, throwing our hands in the air, and saying that the best we can do is tell an agency that their spending authorities will be the same next year as they were last year.

We need to do our work. We need attention. The appropriations process should begin. And I ask my colleagues to give serious thought to helping accomplish that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, throughout his life, Bob Boaldin was dedicated to serving God, his family, his friends, and his community in Elkhart. As a stalwart figure of southwest Kansas who worked in the communication industry for many years, he was in many ways responsible for connecting the Big First to the world.

Bob was born on November 3, 1939, in Oklahoma City. He grew up in Elkhart, KS, and graduated from the local high school. While attending one semester at Oklahoma Panhandle State University, he met his wife of 58 years, Dian Whitecotton. He and Dian raised two sons and a daughter: Travis, Trenton, and Roxanna. Bob was a wheat and milo farmer who worked part time at the Elkhart Phone Company until 1964, when he began his lifelong career in communications.

In the 1970s, he purchased Elkhart Telephone Company and became the owner of Elkhart TV cable system. He also served as president of the State of Kansas Telephone Association and on the board of directors at the OPASTCO, Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telephone Companies. He was a founding member of the organization's Foundation for Rural Education and Development, which continues to help graduating high school seniors succeed by offering them academic scholarships. In 1986, Bob also began serving on the board of the U.S. Telecom Association.

His service to Elkhart and to Morton County will not be forgotten--he was a city councilman, mayor, and county commissioner for many years. He also worked as a local EMT for 13 years. He was an avid supporter of the county fair and always sought opportunities to serve his city and his State.

Bob's leadership abilities and desire to help his community led him to a number of roles advising members of the local and State levels of government, joining the Kansas Supreme Court Blue Ribbon Commission, helping to found WEKANDO, Western Kansas County Commissioners Organization, participating in the Kansas 911 Coordinating Council, and serving as president of the State of Kansas Legislative Policy Group.

He loved his cow-calf operation and worked hard to keep his cattle well fed. He was an active member of the Hillcrest Baptist Church community and gave his time during his younger years as a Sunday School teacher, nursery worker, school superintendent, and deacon.

Bob was an exemplary neighbor, friend, and leader. His lifelong efforts to improve the quality of life for those around him will impact generations of Kansans to come. I am thankful for my friendship with him and for his service to so many. Our prayers are with his wife and family. May he rest in peace.

Mr. President, I would like to take just a few moments of the Senate's time this evening. We all work in an environment in which we are surrounded by dedicated people. One of those in my world, Todd Novascone, who has been my chief of staff for 12 years, has had his last day of work in our office today. I wanted to take just a few moments to pay tribute to him and others like him.

I think we are here because we want to make a difference. I have no doubt that is the case for my 99 colleagues here on the Senate floor, but it is also true for all the folks who work here in the Senate Chamber, who work in our individual offices, and who work in the committees. The goal is to be in the Nation's Capital in the hope that we can make better things happen for America. I have had the privilege of being surrounded by many dedicated individuals--most of them Kansans--over the period of time that I have served in the Congress of the United States of America. I know that my ability to work on behalf of Kansans and on behalf of the citizens of our Nation is greatly altered and improved by the fact that people who care about America, who care about our home State, are there by my side. One of those most important to me has been my chief of staff.

Todd was an elected official in his own right. He was elected to the Kansas House of Representatives and served there with distinction. Twelve years ago, back in the days when I was a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, I asked him to uproot his family and move to Washington, DC, and assume the task of managing our office and helping accomplish the things that we all wanted to accomplish. He has done it with great style and with grace and with friendship. He has been the person who has motivated us to do better and has always done it in a way in which we felt good about what we were doing, in a management style that made us feel good about ourselves, bringing us together, not taking us apart, making certain we knew that the outcome was important, but how we got there--matters that are important to us as individuals, as human beings with integrity, doing things right, telling the truth-- those things were always honored and achieved because of his leadership.

People are hard to replace, and Todd is especially difficult to replace. I spend almost every week in the Nation's Capital, away from my own family. Like many people here in the Senate, those who work in our offices become part of our family. That is certainly true with the people who work in my office today. I feel that, although when I came to Congress I was more their age, now there is a significantly wider gap in the age of our staff and me. But my wife and I believe that I am surrounded by people who are part of our family, and Todd is certainly that. In fact, his family grew while he was my chief of staff. His two children, Grace and Will, were born during the days of his time as an employee in our office. Again, as a reminder about how to put things in perspective, he was always taking care of his kids. He was always there for their school activities, part of the school board, involved in their athletic and musical activities. That is a good thing for a chief of staff to know because if it is important to him, he will make certain that his commitment is permitted, honored, and encouraged by those who work in the office.

So tonight, I just want to say thank you to Todd Novascone from Hanover, KS, who decided to devote 12 years of his life here in the Nation's Capital, trying to make things better, trying to make our office work well, and trying to achieve the things all of us want to achieve for our Nation. So, Todd Novascone, thank you for a job well done, thank you for being my friend, and thank you for the way you have conducted yourself on my behalf.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have one more role to undertake this evening.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 19, submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.