Floor Statements

Madam President, I thank Senator Hoeven for getting us together for a colloquy with everybody who is concerned about this.

This is what we do on the Agriculture Committee, working in a bipartisan way when we see an opportunity, and certainly we ought to seize this opportunity.

I thank the Senator from North Dakota for leading this. He is an outstanding champion on behalf of agriculture, and he is always riding the posse, which I truly appreciate.

I also thank Senator Braun from Indiana, a new and valued member of the Ag Committee, for pointing out some of the obstacles we face. Unfortunately, they tend to be on a partisan basis. There are extraneous things that

need to be talked about, and I know Senator Portman just brought that up with his chart, but I thank him for his participation.

Senator Grassley, who is a very valued member of the Ag Committee, chairman of the Finance Committee--and obviously that is the committee of jurisdiction--who has especially pointed out, and as Senator Ernst has pointed out, the value of agriculture to Iowa and, for that matter, all of the country.

Senator Boozman, who talked about Arkansas, is a valued member of the committee as well, next to the chair in terms of seniority.

Senator Portman, as has been pointed out, is the former Trade Representative. On the chart, he simply pointed out in detail why this new agreement is far superior to NAFTA and we are working with, as Senator Grassley pointed out, working groups in the House, with our lead negotiator, and I hope that works out. I certainly hope it works out.

Senator Ernst has been an outstanding champion for farmers in Iowa and all around the country. She is on the committee and has compassion and also pointed out the need for certainty.

Now, since NAFTA was signed into law, the result has been that Canada and Mexico have been two of our strongest trading partners.

I worked on NAFTA back in the day when I was in the House and served as ranking member, and the Honorable Kika de la Garza was the chairman. We went all over the country working on NAFTA.

The result with that agreement--and every State could say the same thing, but we are talking about 110,000 jobs in Kansas. Those jobs are across all sectors of agriculture now, and many are tied to agriculture and the entire agriculture value chain. NAFTA secured greater market access for our farmers, our ranchers, our growers, everybody in between, and for our producers. Today, over one-quarter of our country's agriculture exports are destined for Canada and/or Mexico.

As with every trade agreement, there is always room for improvement. It has been pointed out by all of my colleagues that the United States- Mexico-Canada Agreement--the acronym for that is USMCA. I did suggest it could also be for United States Marine Corps Always, but that is the acronym we are using. It has modernized the trade pact we have benefited from for over 20 years. The U.S. agriculture industry desperately needs this trade agreement now to offer greater certainty and predictability regarding demand in the marketplace, certainly in predictability.

That is what we promised in the farm bill, and we passed the farm bill in this body with 87 votes. That is a record vote, based on the premise that the most important thing we do is provide certainty and predictability for our farmers and ranchers and growers.

As chairman of the Senate Ag Committee, I have heard directly, personally, as all my colleagues have, from producers and the broader agriculture industry regarding our challenging farm economy.

Every day our farmers, ranchers, and growers experience incredible challenges, including weather variability, and that is putting it mildly. I do not know what we have done to Mother Nature for her to act in this fashion.

In Kansas, the wheat harvest is a month late, and farmers still can't get in their fields up in the northwest part, but, amazingly, the yield is pretty good; the protein is staying about the same; and we have seen a little bit--a little bit--of price recovery. We need a lot more.

The uncertainty regarding the U.S. trade policy has led some of our most important trading partners to turn to our competitors. That is sadly true. At a time when the U.S. agriculture industry is facing new trade retaliation threats on top of the challenging agriculture economy, we must offer greater certainty and predictability for the farmers and ranchers across the country.

I cannot emphasize enough how serious this is. This is the fourth or fifth year that we have experienced this situation. Some farmers and ranchers who produce--not all but some--are in a desperate situation.

Congressional passage of USMCA would be--will be--should be--a pivotal step toward restoring the United States as a reliable supplier, not to mention tangible benefits.

I urge my colleagues--especially in the House--to get together with Ambassador Lighthizer and work out these concerns that have been talked about--especially by Senator Grassley--and to give fair and swift consideration to this new trade agreement. We must expand critical market access and create new trade opportunities for U.S. agriculture.

I again thank Senator Hoeven for his leadership and for sponsoring this colloquy.

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

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

Madam President, first, before my colleague from Georgia leaves, I want to thank him for his strong statement on the fact that we have to do defense appropriations.

I know that the Presiding Officer certainly knows all about this, given her Active-Duty service on behalf of our Nation.

As he has pointed out, every service has been affected by this. Speaking for the U.S. Marine Corps, part of the Marine Caucus that we have here, and talking with Bob Neller, who is our retiring Commandant--he has pointed out specifically that they don't have enough to do--I mean, we are proud of the Marine Corps. I always say we do more with less, but this time, you can't do more with less and then less and then less, and that is precisely where we are.

I thank the Senator for making an outstanding statement. I join him in this plea on a bipartisan basis to get these appropriations bills done.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I have 3 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Finance

The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 9, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: David Fabian Black, of North Dakota, to be Deputy Commissioner of Social Security, and Emin Toro, of Virginia, to be a Judge of the United States Tax Court.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 9, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a business meeting on pending legislation and the hearing on the following nominations: Jeffrey Vincent Brown, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, Robert J. Colville, and Stephanie L. Haines, both to be a United States District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Brantley Starr, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, and Jeffrey A. Rosen, of Virginia, to be Deputy Attorney General, Timothy J. Downing, to be United States Attorney for the Western District of Oklahoma, William Travis Brown, Jr., to be United States Marshal for the Middle District of Louisiana, and Michael Blaine East, to be United States Marshal for the Eastern District of North Carolina, all of the Department of Justice.

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 9, 2019, at 2 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing.

Madam President, I thank you for your hard work on the sometimes powerful Senate Agriculture Committee. I would have liked to respond to the leader--but I know he is busy, and he is leaving the floor--just to say that I think all Republicans understand there is climate change, and all Republicans know that human activity does contribute to it, and, yes, we ought to do something. The point I am trying to make here is we don't want to do the wrong thing and cause a great deal of disruption in the process.

I also thank Senator Thune for allowing me to speak out of order. I know this is a hardship on his schedule, but he has been very kind to let this happen.

I thank the sponsors of the Green New Deal for enabling all Senators the opportunity to discuss the practical challenges this resolution actually presents. For me, as chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, it allows me to discuss the real stewards of our land--our farmers, ranchers, growers--and how this legislation will affect them and their ability not only to feed this country but a troubled and hungry world as well.

Those of us who represent farm country are grateful for the opportunity to underscore something that too many take for granted. Farmers, ranchers, and growers in the United States now grow the safest, most affordable and abundant food supply in the world. As I just said, we know that it is a troubled and hungry world that needs farmers, ranchers, growers, and their protection to help feed and clothe the world's increasing population. Yes, and I think it will probably go longer than 12 years.

As chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I am proud of our bipartisan record on behalf of American agriculture and, in turn, our record of respecting our Nation's natural resources. These things go hand in hand. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle on the Agriculture Committee and those privileged to work in agriculture have always sought to grow and raise more, using as few resources as possible.

The men and women who make their living off the land have an imperative and keen interest in the responsible use and management of our natural resources. Show me a farmer who does not practice conservation or does not have access to precision agriculture or the latest technology, and I will show you a farmer who is really in trouble.

In short, within agriculture, there is nothing new with the Green New Deal. It calls for ``working collaboratively with farmers, ranchers, and growers in the United States to eliminate pollution, greenhouse gases, and emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible''--that is the language--``by supporting family farming''--that is also in the language--``investing in sustainable farming and land use practices that increase soil health,'' and ``building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food.'' That is in the resolution, the legislation over in the House.

Check, check, and check. We have been doing this already, and we continue to look ahead to create thoughtful, well-considered policies. I do not question the intent of the authors of the Green New Deal, but they don't know what they don't know, especially about agriculture. They need to catch up with the Agriculture Committee and with the farm country in general.

In fact, we on the Agriculture Committee are so forward-looking that we have embraced innovative methods of investing in agriculture research with the creation of the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research--something new.

The Foundation leverages public and private dollars to bring together experts to identify and investigate the researchable questions whose answers have the potential to enhance the economic and environmental resilience of our food supply and the environment.

I encourage the Senator from Massachusetts and the leader and other cosponsors to simply ask for a briefing from the folks at FFAR. I would say the same to vocal colleagues on the House side who helped author-- and pardon the acronym--the GND, Green New Deal. But given their unfortunate focus on our livestock industry, I simply do not have time, I don't think, to fully discuss emissions emitted from all livestock or, for that matter, for Congress. Maybe that would be a better answer--perhaps later, after riding point on the herd and getting the cows milked.

What is worth our time and what is worth their time is a defense of American agriculture, the best in the world, from attacks by those who are either uninformed or misinformed regarding organic, processed, and precision agriculture--all modern miracles and all sustainable with regard to our environment.

America's farmers, ranchers, and others in rural America are constantly working to produce their crops and to raise their livestock in order to feed a growing world and to do so with constant challenges presented to them from other nations.

The distinguished minority leader just mentioned the floods we are experiencing in Nebraska, Kansas, and Iowa. This seems to have happened about every 10 years. I am not sure it has happened because of global warming, but at least it has with regard to climate change. We are doing everything possible to bring aid and help to those folks who find their farmland underwater.

Farmers are natural stewards of the land, and they must be good at problem-solving. They identify the issues or the trend, find ways to adjust their business and respond to that issue, and improve their way of operating. They would like to do that under a Green New Deal. If they don't adjust to address those challenges and simply do the right thing, their farm or ranch and their livelihood will not be sustainable.

It is pretty simple. Every living, breathing person on this Earth needs food in order to survive. Obviously, we cannot and do not produce food in the same manner that our grandparents did because those methods were not sustainable and, today, would not produce food at the scope and scale our troubled and hungry world demands.

American farmers and ranchers, who live by the concept of continuous improvement, sound science, and voluntary-based conservation, are a model for other industries and other countries on how to address problems like climate change in a very practical way.

America's farmers and ranchers raise the same amount of beef as they did in the 1970s, but they do so with 33 percent fewer cattle. Over the last 50 years, American farmers have reduced water use in pork production by 41 percent, and the list goes on. These are real success stories that speak to how farmers are already managing natural resources responsibly and voluntarily making contributions to address the issue of climate change. Examples like these abound in agriculture.

The American farmer, through continuous improvement, embracing sound science, implementing new technologies, such as biotechnology and no- till farming, and being conservation-minded, has achieved unprecedented success that I do not believe the proponents of GND--i.e., the Green New Deal--realize.

In the recent farm bill, which passed Congress with overwhelming margins, we strengthened the conservation programs, increased investments in agriculture research, supported risk management tools that will benefit producers of all crops in all regions, and provided additional authorities to address animal health concerns. This legislative package bolsters the sustainability of U.S. farmers, ranchers, and others in rural America while being environmentally sound.

Unfortunately, vague proposals or resolutions, such as the Green New Deal, which contain no real details or no metrics are not going to solve the issue of climate change in any meaningful way. Regulating American farmers and ranchers out of business will only result in food and fiber production being outsourced to countries that do not have the same conservation-minded producers that we have here in the United States.

Let's face it: Nobody--no one I know of--likes being told what to do, what to drive, or what to eat. Consumers value free choice. They also expect access to reasonably priced food and nutritious food.

In fact, consumers will surely continue to demand the choice of animal protein here in the United States, and so any reasonable discussion on the agriculture sector's contributions to solutions on climate change must begin with this acknowledgment.

These policy decisions must recognize the complexity of the agriculture and food value chain of growers, input suppliers, processors, handlers, consumers, and the list goes on. They must be based in reality to facilitate a genuine conversation between rural and urban constituencies.

I know. I understand. I realize. I get it. There are those who think the Green New Deal is a moral imperative, and it may well be, but farmers continuing to feed the world is also a moral imperative. Too many go hungry each day in America, and ending this is also a moral imperative. Too many people go hungry in a troubled and hungry world as well. In restricting American agriculture in any way, whether it is in resolution form or legislative form, the Green New Deal does not match up with these moral responsibilities.

I thank the distinguished Senator from South Dakota for allowing me to step in front of him. That doesn't happen very often. So, Coop, you are up.

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

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

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an important piece of legislation I just filed, aptly named after the young Kansan whose life and bright future was cut short by a senseless act of violence and whose case now is the inspiration for why we desperately need to update the law.

Almost 12 years ago, on June 2, 2017, 18-year-old Kelsey Smith was abducted in broad daylight from an Overland Park, KS, parking lot. Kelsey's abduction was captured on the store's closed-circuit security camera, which left little doubt about the emergency sense of the situation. This was an emergency.

Here is the tragedy. Four days after Kelsey disappeared, authorities were able to locate her body after a wireless provider finally released the call information from her cell phone--4 critical days. Providing location information as fast as possible is absolutely critical to ensure that law enforcement officials can rescue victims in imminent danger of death or serious physical harm and hopefully prevent future fates similar to Kelsey's.

This legislation is the culmination of years of work among legislators at both the Federal and State levels, including industry stakeholders, privacy advocates, and, most importantly, Kelsey's brave parents, who spearheaded this initiative and have advocated to create commonsense reforms that properly balance the needs of law enforcement with Fourth Amendment protections for all of our citizens.

Through their advocacy and tireless efforts, Missey and Greg Smith have helped enact laws, oftentimes with unanimous support, in 23 States, including my home State of Kansas. This law provides law enforcement with the necessary tools to rescue individuals in emergency situations where the threat of death or serious bodily injury is imminent.

The impact of this law at the State level has been real and measurable. For example, in May 2012, one month after the enactment of its State's version of the Kelsey Smith Act, local authorities in Tennessee were successful in saving the life of a child who had been abducted by a suspected child rapist. Because the child was believed to be in imminent danger, the police were able to successfully receive the location of the suspect's cell phone in a window of time that led to the safe recovery of the child alive and before she was assaulted.

In February of 2015, Kelsey's Law helped save the life of a 5-month- old Lenexa, KS, girl when a car with a baby in the back seat was stolen from its mother. Through Kelsey's Law, police were able to ping that mother's phone, which was left in the car, and, within an hour, the baby was reunited with her parents.

According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the first 3 hours are critical to recovering a child alive. That is why it is necessary that in these narrowly defined, isolated instances in which a person's very life is at stake, an exemption should be made to allow wireless carriers to immediately ping an individual's phone and release to law enforcement the whereabouts of that individual.

Understanding this, my legislation would provide law enforcement with the ability to recover the location of children, other missing individuals, and only in very specific emergency situations; namely, where there is risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Don't just take it from Pat Roberts. Public safety professionals with experience in the field support this lifesaving legislation. According to the retired Johnson County sheriff, Frank Denning:

Time is of the essence in these types of incidents and the

narrow exception for law enforcement to act with immediacy is

key here. For this not to be a Federal law seems unjust to

those who have loved ones in harm's way and this type of

intervention can and will save lives.

Major Scott Boden with the Johnson County Sheriff's Office in Kansas says:

Over my 22-year law enforcement career with the Johnson

County Sheriff's Office, 17 years have been spent in our

dispatch/911 center. During that time, the Kelsey Smith Law

has been the single most important piece of legislation

related to potentially saving the lives of suicidal subjects,

assisting endangered children, and addressing live threats

when cell phone location is necessary and seconds count. The

difference this law has made cannot be overstated and I look

forward to the day it becomes available all across this

country as a resource to assist first responders in their

most critical service saving lives.

Jennifer Lanter, the 9-1-1 director for Loudon County, TN, says:

In Tennessee, we have had the privilege of having Kelsey's

Law enacted for several years. There are multiple examples of

how utilizing this law has resulted in lives being saved that

otherwise would have been lost.

This law enables the men and women that have dedicated

their lives to the protection of others to ensure they are

able to do everything possible to locate someone that needs

help. The benefits of this law being passed at the Federal

level will be far-reaching, and countless lives will be

saved.

It is not just these individual law enforcement officials who support this bill. The bill is also supported by the National District Attorneys Association, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Sergeants Benevolent Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major County Sheriffs of America, the National Association of Police Organizations, the Fraternal Order of Police,

and the National Sheriffs' Association. I don't know of any law enforcement organization that has been left out, and if it has been left out, it would certainly support the bill. CTIA, the wireless association, also supports this commonsense legislation.

Just this morning, I received a letter of support from John Walsh, who is the cofounder of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and was the well-known host of the television show, ``America's Most Wanted.'' Mr. Walsh has dedicated his life to advocating for victims' rights. It began with his fight for the passage of the Missing Children's Assistance Act following the abduction and subsequent murder of his son Adam.

Fortunately, for my colleagues, voting for this bill will not take a blind leap of faith. Kelsey's Law is already saving lives in States like Kansas, New Jersey, Nebraska, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Tennessee, Hawaii, Missouri, Utah, West Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Rhode Island, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Iowa, Washington, Louisiana, Delaware, Indiana, and Alabama. Yes, I wanted to repeat all 23.

Oftentimes, the approval by State legislatures has been unanimous, and that is because Kelsey's Law strikes the appropriate balance between ensuring that law enforcement has the tools it needs to help individuals who are in grave danger and ensuring that the proper checks are in place to guard against government overreach.

My legislation requires all law enforcement agencies to maintain a record of all requests made under the Kelsey Smith Act. This record will include the name of the officer who is requesting location information from a wireless carrier, a description of the request that explains the need for the disclosure of location information, and a declaration that an individual's location information is needed in order to offer him life assistance during an emergency situation that, again, involves a risk of death or serious physical harm.

I stress that nothing--absolutely nothing--in the Kelsey Smith Act prohibits wireless carriers from continuing to operate the robust law enforcement verification systems that they use today in order to make absolutely certain that when a request is made, it is coming from an authorized law enforcement official.

Kelsey was never given the opportunity to attend college or to get married or to have children and experience the American dream that many of us take for granted every day. Yet what she did do was to inspire her mother and her father to make it their mission in life to help educate and empower communities and children in order to help prevent another case like this from ever happening again.

Kelsey's father, Greg, who is a former law enforcement officer himself and a Kansas State senator, said it best when he quoted President Abraham Lincoln to describe what Kelsey had accomplished:

In the end, it is not the years in your life that count. It

is the life in your years.

I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to speak on the floor today and to offer what, I think, is a commonsense bill that will help prevent tragedies like Kelsey's. I also thank Senator Moran, Senator Fischer, and Senator Blunt for their strong support and cosponsoring of this bill. I welcome the President's support as well.

I ask every colleague in this body to consider one question: If it were your children, your grandchildren, your spouses, would you not want law enforcement to have immediate access to information that could potentially save their lives and bring them home?

Let's honor Kelsey's memory by passing this legislation in Congress. I see no reason why it could not pass by unanimous consent.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an important piece of legislation I just filed, aptly named after the young Kansan whose life and bright future was cut short by a senseless act of violence and whose case now is the inspiration for why we desperately need to update the law.

Almost 12 years ago, on June 2, 2017, 18-year-old Kelsey Smith was abducted in broad daylight from an Overland Park, KS, parking lot. Kelsey's abduction was captured on the store's closed-circuit security camera, which left little doubt about the emergency sense of the situation. This was an emergency.

Here is the tragedy. Four days after Kelsey disappeared, authorities were able to locate her body after a wireless provider finally released the call information from her cell phone--4 critical days. Providing location information as fast as possible is absolutely critical to ensure that law enforcement officials can rescue victims in imminent danger of death or serious physical harm and hopefully prevent future fates similar to Kelsey's.

This legislation is the culmination of years of work among legislators at both the Federal and State levels, including industry stakeholders, privacy advocates, and, most importantly, Kelsey's brave parents, who spearheaded this initiative and have advocated to create commonsense reforms that properly balance the needs of law enforcement with Fourth Amendment protections for all of our citizens.

Through their advocacy and tireless efforts, Missey and Greg Smith have helped enact laws, oftentimes with unanimous support, in 23 States, including my home State of Kansas. This law provides law enforcement with the necessary tools to rescue individuals in emergency situations where the threat of death or serious bodily injury is imminent.

The impact of this law at the State level has been real and measurable. For example, in May 2012, one month after the enactment of its State's version of the Kelsey Smith Act, local authorities in Tennessee were successful in saving the life of a child who had been abducted by a suspected child rapist. Because the child was believed to be in imminent danger, the police were able to successfully receive the location of the suspect's cell phone in a window of time that led to the safe recovery of the child alive and before she was assaulted.

In February of 2015, Kelsey's Law helped save the life of a 5-month- old Lenexa, KS, girl when a car with a baby in the back seat was stolen from its mother. Through Kelsey's Law, police were able to ping that mother's phone, which was left in the car, and, within an hour, the baby was reunited with her parents.

According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the first 3 hours are critical to recovering a child alive. That is why it is necessary that in these narrowly defined, isolated instances in which a person's very life is at stake, an exemption should be made to allow wireless carriers to immediately ping an individual's phone and release to law enforcement the whereabouts of that individual.

Understanding this, my legislation would provide law enforcement with the ability to recover the location of children, other missing individuals, and only in very specific emergency situations; namely, where there is risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Don't just take it from Pat Roberts. Public safety professionals with experience in the field support this lifesaving legislation. According to the retired Johnson County sheriff, Frank Denning:

Time is of the essence in these types of incidents and the

narrow exception for law enforcement to act with immediacy is

key here. For this not to be a Federal law seems unjust to

those who have loved ones in harm's way and this type of

intervention can and will save lives.

Major Scott Boden with the Johnson County Sheriff's Office in Kansas says:

Over my 22-year law enforcement career with the Johnson

County Sheriff's Office, 17 years have been spent in our

dispatch/911 center. During that time, the Kelsey Smith Law

has been the single most important piece of legislation

related to potentially saving the lives of suicidal subjects,

assisting endangered children, and addressing live threats

when cell phone location is necessary and seconds count. The

difference this law has made cannot be overstated and I look

forward to the day it becomes available all across this

country as a resource to assist first responders in their

most critical service saving lives.

Jennifer Lanter, the 9-1-1 director for Loudon County, TN, says:

In Tennessee, we have had the privilege of having Kelsey's

Law enacted for several years. There are multiple examples of

how utilizing this law has resulted in lives being saved that

otherwise would have been lost.

This law enables the men and women that have dedicated

their lives to the protection of others to ensure they are

able to do everything possible to locate someone that needs

help. The benefits of this law being passed at the Federal

level will be far-reaching, and countless lives will be

saved.

It is not just these individual law enforcement officials who support this bill. The bill is also supported by the National District Attorneys Association, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Sergeants Benevolent Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major County Sheriffs of America, the National Association of Police Organizations, the Fraternal Order of Police,

and the National Sheriffs' Association. I don't know of any law enforcement organization that has been left out, and if it has been left out, it would certainly support the bill. CTIA, the wireless association, also supports this commonsense legislation.

Just this morning, I received a letter of support from John Walsh, who is the cofounder of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and was the well-known host of the television show, ``America's Most Wanted.'' Mr. Walsh has dedicated his life to advocating for victims' rights. It began with his fight for the passage of the Missing Children's Assistance Act following the abduction and subsequent murder of his son Adam.

Fortunately, for my colleagues, voting for this bill will not take a blind leap of faith. Kelsey's Law is already saving lives in States like Kansas, New Jersey, Nebraska, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Tennessee, Hawaii, Missouri, Utah, West Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Rhode Island, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Iowa, Washington, Louisiana, Delaware, Indiana, and Alabama. Yes, I wanted to repeat all 23.

Oftentimes, the approval by State legislatures has been unanimous, and that is because Kelsey's Law strikes the appropriate balance between ensuring that law enforcement has the tools it needs to help individuals who are in grave danger and ensuring that the proper checks are in place to guard against government overreach.

My legislation requires all law enforcement agencies to maintain a record of all requests made under the Kelsey Smith Act. This record will include the name of the officer who is requesting location information from a wireless carrier, a description of the request that explains the need for the disclosure of location information, and a declaration that an individual's location information is needed in order to offer him life assistance during an emergency situation that, again, involves a risk of death or serious physical harm.

I stress that nothing--absolutely nothing--in the Kelsey Smith Act prohibits wireless carriers from continuing to operate the robust law enforcement verification systems that they use today in order to make absolutely certain that when a request is made, it is coming from an authorized law enforcement official.

Kelsey was never given the opportunity to attend college or to get married or to have children and experience the American dream that many of us take for granted every day. Yet what she did do was to inspire her mother and her father to make it their mission in life to help educate and empower communities and children in order to help prevent another case like this from ever happening again.

Kelsey's father, Greg, who is a former law enforcement officer himself and a Kansas State senator, said it best when he quoted President Abraham Lincoln to describe what Kelsey had accomplished:

In the end, it is not the years in your life that count. It

is the life in your years.

I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to speak on the floor today and to offer what, I think, is a commonsense bill that will help prevent tragedies like Kelsey's. I also thank Senator Moran, Senator Fischer, and Senator Blunt for their strong support and cosponsoring of this bill. I welcome the President's support as well.

I ask every colleague in this body to consider one question: If it were your children, your grandchildren, your spouses, would you not want law enforcement to have immediate access to information that could potentially save their lives and bring them home?

Let's honor Kelsey's memory by passing this legislation in Congress. I see no reason why it could not pass by unanimous consent.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Madam President, I thank Senator Nelson for that touching story.

That would be a Christmas present for not only you but for anybody who has heard the circumstances.

I, too, remember having the privilege of being in public service with President Reagan. He had a human quality that was second to none.

I thank you, Bill, for your service--we used to be on Armed Services together, fighting the battles--but more especially for being a friend. You always had a smile on your face. I probably didn't when we got on the elevators together.

You would say: Pat, what is wrong?

I wouldn't want to go into anything, but I would think, why am I so glum if Bill Nelson is stuck on ``happy'' all the time?

It was the Florida sunshine, I guess.

I thank you for the privilege of being in public service with you, sir. Best wishes for your future, which I know will be very good and very bright, and thank you for that story, which is a great Christmas story. Repeat it often, sir. Thank you.

Madam President, I want to join my colleagues who, over the past few weeks, have come to the floor to thank Senator Orrin Hatch--the great Senator Orrin Hatch--for his service to this institution. Senator Sullivan just informed me that the body here--the Senate--has, by unanimous consent, passed a bill to name a courthouse in Utah after Orrin Hatch. He was sitting as the President pro tempore, and the surprised look on his face was a treasure for everybody who saw it.

Orrin Hatch has consistently maintained a demeanor that represented the Senate well--and that is an understatement--over the course of his illustrious and record-setting 42-year career. As a matter of fact, I think the definition of ``gentleman'' in the new edition of Webster's dictionary simply lists two words: ``Orrin Hatch.''

Whether he agreed or disagreed with any policy positions or with any individual Senator, he always, always treated you with the greatest of respect. Perhaps that is part of the reason that Senator Hatch will go down as one of the most effective legislators in the history of the Senate. All you have to do is go in his office and see all of the awards, the recordings that illustrate his fantastic music career as a songwriter, and all of the bills. I think it is safe to say that no other living Senator has had more bills that he has sponsored and that have been enacted into law than Orrin Hatch. We come here to make a difference. We do that through legislation, and that is an indication of the great legacy that this man has left this body.

Not many people have the wherewithal, the stature, and bona fides to have Members from both parties sing their praises. That has happened, of course, on this floor, and that is what Orrin stands for. Orrin will be sorely missed--and I mean sorely missed.

Senator Hatch is not most people. Simply put, the institution he loves will not be the same without him.

Since coming from the House to the Senate, I have had the privilege of knowing Orrin up close and personal. Our offices are right next to each other. I bump into his security detail every morning and say good morning. I feel very safe about that. Then when we have votes, and just about the time he leaves his office and is accompanied by his security detail, he always asks me: Why don't you ride with me? So I have joined his security detail. Every security detail should have a marine. I tell him that I will be in the back to protect his back if anything would happen; obviously, nothing did. But the Senator from Utah should know that I still have his back, and I will always have his back.

I think the measure of a man, with regard to his long hours in the Senate, is hard to measure until you work with him--and I am talking about Orrin, of course--but work with him with regard to legislation. We are talking about the Finance Committee, and we are talking about the tough legislation that we always have. We would always go to the conference room--those who are privileged to serve on the Finance Committee--and we would walk in, and there would be fruit juice and there would be vitamins and there would be goodies to eat--goodies, of course, that are good for you, as determined by the Senator.

He had that very soft voice, and he would bring people to order. It was a very respectful situation in which we were trying to put together a bill to see if we could move it and work with our colleagues across the aisle. He had such a soft voice that, on occasion, I found that it was best to sit in the back of that conference room and look right at him, so I could tell precisely what he was saying because he never used his voice in a way that was high pitched; it was very calm and reasoned. That was his demeanor. He acted like a Hollywood version of a Senator.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act probably would not have come to pass without the leadership of Orrin Hatch. Boy, was that an effort. We went through the trials and tribulations of tough arguments on both sides. But we always kept in the committee, with him at the helm, a posture of at least trying to work together. We faced some tough issues. At the end of it, there were quite a few amendments. We worked late into the night. The amendments were not going to pass on a partisan vote. That is very unusual for Orrin. He kept his cool. He kept his demeanor.

Finally, at the end, it became an impossible situation in which we were just going to get into a shouting contest, and he maintained order. When he maintained order, he really maintained order. Usually he didn't have to do that.

My first boss in public service, acting as the chief of staff, was Senator Frank Carlson. He was a great man. He helped found the National Prayer Breakfast here, and in many other Agencies, all throughout the government, that spread. He worked with Billy Graham, somebody named Dwight David Eisenhower, and Conrad Hilton--those four, including Frank Carlson, started the Prayer Breakfast.

The Senator always told me there are no self-made men or women in public service. It is your friends who make you what you are, and if there were ever a person you could put in that category in the Senate, it is Orrin Hatch. He is a person who would stand behind you when you were taking praise and beside you if you were taking some boos, but Orrin Hatch never had to do that because in working with him, the chances were that you had a good chance of passing a bipartisan bill.

All of us stand with him with respect and out of friendship. We have a cloth of comity here that is not seen, but it has been observed at least in my 22 years here in the Senate, perhaps a little more than in the rowdy House, of which I was a Member for 16 years, and then 12 before that as a chief of staff. I am sort of like a piece of furniture here, as some would say, with a marble top. But I have seen a lot.

I am very worried about the comity of the Senate. If you pull at those threads, as we have been doing with issues where we should come together, even though there are very tough questions, I worry that we could get into sort of a situation like in Dodge City at the Long Branch Saloon and somebody having a rowdy time there. That should not be the Senate, and it should not be a situation where we pull at those threads of comity to the extent that we won't have any left, and then it is just a shouting contest.

The exception to the rule was the Farm Bill, which the President is going to sign this afternoon. I had the privilege of leading that effort, along with Senator Deborah Stabenow from Michigan.

I had some reporters in the other day, and they said: How did you get along with Debbie Stabenow?

I said: Well, No. 1, we trust each other; No. 2, we are friends; and No. 3, it isn't our first rodeo. We just worked with each other to get it done. We got 87 votes.

That is precisely the example we followed from Orrin Hatch, who did so much--produced legislation with Democrats that you would never think would work with a Republican or vice versa. That is his legacy. That is the man I have been privileged to know as a friend.

There is a video out about Orrin Hatch. He has boxing gloves on, bright blue. There he is--just a couple of days ago when they took the video--willing to throw a few punches, trying to eat bacon with his boxing gloves on. It is a hilarious tribute to him, big smiles on everybody's faces. A tough guy, but not tough to deal with, he always had a way of working things out.

It is a privilege to know Orrin Hatch. Not many people at my age call me ``Boy,'' but he always would come out that back door and offer a ride, and he would say: Boy, do you want to come along?

I said: Yes, sir.

It has been quite a privilege.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon, along with my distinguished colleague and the ranking member of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, to

discuss the farm bill conference report--the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018.

I am grateful that my colleagues approved this measure with strong support. The vote was 87 to 13 earlier this week. I also applaud Members of the House for following suit with a similarly strong vote yesterday, and we look forward to the President signing the conference report into law soon.

The level of support is what happens when the Congress works in a bipartisan and bicameral fashion. Senator Stabenow and I started by listening to producers in Manhattan, KS, and then in Michigan. We continued to listen to stakeholders from all over the country. This is a good bill that accomplishes what producers asked us to do--first we listened; then they asked--to provide certainty and predictability for farmers and families in our rural communities.

The 2018 farm bill meets the needs of producers across all regions and all crops. It doesn't matter what you grow, and it doesn't matter whether you grow it in Kansas or elsewhere in this country--this bill is designed to work for you. It ensures that our voluntary conservation programs will keep farmland in operation while protecting our agricultural lands, forests, and other natural resources.

The bill focuses on program integrity--requiring better management to address challenges with fraud and abuse--and commonsense investments to strengthen our nutrition programs to ensure the long-term success of those truly in need of assistance. We make sure SNAP Employment and Training coordinates with the private sector to provide the skills that are needed for the jobs that are available in the workforce, and with trade and market uncertainty, to say the least, the bill provides certainty for our trade promotion and research programs.

Feeding an increasing global population is not simply an agriculture challenge; it is a national security challenge. This means we need to grow more and raise more with fewer resources. That will take investments in research, new technology, lines of credit, animal health activities, and proper risk management. It takes the government providing tools and then its getting out of the producers' way. More than 900--and counting--organizations that represent millions of agriculture, food, nutrition, hunger, forestry, conservation, rural, business, faith-based, research, and academic interests have issued statements of support.

On behalf of the taxpayer, we have made tough choices and have been very judicious with the scarce resources we have. This is a budget- neutral bill. Most importantly, this farm bill provides our ranchers, our farmers, and other rural stakeholders in Kansas and throughout the country with much needed certainty and predictability.

Simply put, getting this bill done has taken a team effort. I would like to thank my staff members who are as follows: Staff Director James Glueck, DaNita Murray, Janae Brady, Fred Clark, Meghan Cline, Haley Donahue, Matt Erickson, Darin Guries, Chance Hunley, Chu Hwang, Chelsie Keys, Sara Little, Curt Mann, Andy Rezendes, Rob Rosado, Wayne Stoskopf, Katherine Thomas, and Andrew Vlasaty. From my personal office, I thank Jackie Cottrell, Amber Kirchhoefer, Will Stafford, Morgan Anderson, Stacy Daniels, and Ray Price.

I especially thank the distinguished ranking member, Senator Stabenow, and her team, which is led by Joe Shultz and Jacqlyn Schneider. She has been a great partner throughout the Senate and conference committee process. There were some tough days, but we both worked together to get the job done.

I am also grateful to Chairman Mike Conaway and Ranking Member Collin Peterson as well as their staff members on the House Agriculture Committee.

The efforts of Jessie Williams, Amanda Kelly, Bobby Mehta, Katie Salay, and Micah Wortham have been invaluable to the Senate Ag Committee and the conference process.

Additionally, I thank the technical support from Secretary Perdue-- the Secretary of Agriculture has been simply outstanding--as well as his staff down at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. He has been a great and valuable partner throughout this process. We are grateful for his support and the President's support of our Nation's farmers, ranchers, and growers.

I also appreciate the work of the Congressional Budget Office's staff, including Tiffany Arthur, Megan Carroll, Kathleen FitzGerald, Jennifer Gray, Jim Langley, and Robert Reese, as well as of the Congressional Research Service, including Val Heitshusen and Elizabeth Rybicki.

Finally, I am grateful for the help of the legislative counsels in the Senate: Heather Burnham, Deanna Edwards, Larissa Eltsefon, Christina Kennelly, Heather Lowell, Mark Mazzone, and Patrick Ryan. My apologies to all of those folks whose names I just mispronounced.

The staff members have done a fantastic job, and I am pleased they are members of our team.

My predecessor in this business--and one of my mentors a long time ago--was Senator Frank Carlson, of Kansas, who said there are no self- made men and women in public office, that it is your friends who make you what you are. I apply that to staff. All of the people I have just mentioned represent a great team effort in our getting this legislation passed in such fine fashion.

For all of them--and especially to my fellow Senators--we are grateful for the support we have received this week. Together, we have done what we were sent here to do--work in a bipartisan, bicameral manner. This is a good bill for farmers, ranchers, growers, consumers-- many of whom may take their food supply for granted--families and rural and smalltown America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana for his comments and those of Senator Klobuchar, as well as my distinguished colleague and friend from Maine.

Normal; maybe ``supernormal'' would be a better term. Every time Heidi Heitkamp came into our committee room--I had the privilege and the honor of being the chairman of the sometimes powerful Senate Agriculture Committee, along with my distinguished ranking member, Senator Stabenow, whom I will yield to in just a moment. Every time she came into the committee room, it might be a little bit late, but it was like a ray of sunshine came in and a ray of commitment.

Heidi, thank you for that speech. Thank you for those marching orders, if you will. This marine will cease parade rest and come to attention and do the best I can following your example.

I want to say something to Heidi's staff. I don't know if the Senate cameras will do this--they obviously have me on there--but it would be a good idea to pan these young people over there.

Senator Frank Carlson, a long time ago--one of my mentors, my first boss from Kansas--said there are no self-made men or women in public office. It is your friends who make you what you are. I relate to that, saying friends, people, staff. We all think we have the best staff on the Hill, and if we don't think that, something is wrong. You have had the privilege of working for a lady who has great admiration from both sides of the aisle, who has accomplished so much. This time is so special for you, and thank you for what you have done for Heidi. Thank you for getting her prepared, ready. You didn't have to do too much because she does that on her own, but during this special time, see if you can take this step and then the next step in your life--and it prepares you for that next step--and shine. Represent Heidi well. Represent yourself well.

I think you have had a rare privilege to work for somebody like Heidi Heitkamp. She has been a good friend to me and a good friend to so many here.

We aren't going to miss you because you are going to be back in some capacity--maybe taking time off from what you are doing in your home State of North Dakota. Everybody who knows you knows you are going to be back in public service in some capacity.

I think I will stop right there and yield to my distinguished colleague, the ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senator Stabenow.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, very quickly, I want to add to the remarks of my distinguished ranking member, Senator Stabenow, on the sometimes powerful Senate Agriculture Committee, and I associate myself with her remarks.

In a moment or two, we are going to go to the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, for which he had positive contributions. We wouldn't have been able to pass a bill without bipartisan support, which he stressed in his last message to the Senate.

Joe, thank you for being a friend, and thank you for being a great colleague, and thank you for being such a great member of the farmers, ranchers, and growers in Indiana. You have done a good job. We will certainly miss you.

Mr. President, I think we have to ask unanimous consent to give an additional 10 minutes to the distinguished ranking member and me to make remarks prior to the vote on the farm bill.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for her remarks and associate myself with those remarks. I rise today as the Senate considers the conference report on an issue that is critically important to our Nation--the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, the farm bill.

The goal, the responsibility, the absolute requirement is to provide farmers, ranchers, growers, and everyone within America's agriculture and food value chain certainty and predictability during these very difficult times. This conference agreement includes policy improvements from both the House-passed bill and the Senate bill, which passed this body with a strong bipartisan vote of 86 to 11. We have worked to maintain as many priorities for as many Members as possible.

This farm bill meets the needs of producers across all regions and all crops. It ensures that our voluntary conservation programs are keeping farmland in operation while protecting our agriculture lands, our forests, and other natural resources.

The bill focuses on program integrity--program integrity, and commonsense investments to strengthen our nutrition programs to ensure the long-term success of those in need of assistance. With trade and market uncertainty, to say the least, it provides certainty for our trade promotion and research programs.

Feeding an increasing global population is not simply an agriculture challenge; it is a national security challenge. This means we need to grow more, raise more with fewer resources. That will take investments in research, new technology, lines of credit, and proper risk management. It takes the government providing tools and then getting out of the producer's way.

Organizations representing thousands of agriculture, food, nutrition, hunger, forestry, conservation, rural, business, faith-based, research, and academic interests have issued statements supporting this conference report. This is what happens when the Congress works in a bipartisan, bicameral fashion. This is a good bill. It is a good bill that accomplishes what we set out to do--again, to provide certainty and predictability for farmers, families, and rural communities.

We have made tough choices, being judicious with the scarce resources we have on behalf of the taxpayer. This may not be the best possible bill. We know that, but it is the best bill possible under these circumstances. Importantly, it provides our farmers, our ranchers, and other rural stakeholders much needed certainty and predictability.

I encourage my colleagues to support this conference report. Every farmer, every rancher, every grower, everyone within our Nation's food supply is watching to see if we cannot meet our obligations and pass this bill. Let us do that. Let us tell those farmers and ranchers, who are going through tough times, that they are going to be good for the next 5 years. Their lender is paying attention to this bill. Let us support this bill.

I yield back.

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