Floor Statements

Madam President, I would like to make a very short comment with regard to the distinguished minority leader's remarks this morning.

In the midst of his remarks, Mr. Schumer mentioned something that I think is terribly important. Yesterday, the Rules Committee--and the distinguished Senator used to be the chairman of the Rules Committee. I think I was ranking member at that particular time. He spoke of an agreement to move appropriations bills. I want to thank him for that, and also Senator Durbin, who indicated that as of yesterday.

We did reach an agreement in a bipartisan way to do something about filing cloture 86 times and other things going on and reducing that time period. We will get to that.

The breakthrough could be an agreement that Mr. Schumer has agreed to with regard to appropriations bills. If we can do that, we might be able to get back to the regular order that both of us experienced when we first came to the Senate. Many Members here have not experienced that.

Yes. Consequently, I want to thank you for that. And I know Senator Shelby is eager to do the 12 appropriations bills, and I know Senator Durbin is as well. I think that one statement in the midst of your comments, sir, is terribly important, and I want people to be aware of it, and I thank you.

Madam President, it was an honor for me to speak in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this month in support of my Kansas friend and colleague, Mike Pompeo, as the President's nominee for Secretary of State. I come to the floor to urge all of my colleagues, despite the previous remarks, to vote in favor of this uniquely qualified nominee in such a vital role in our administration's Cabinet.

The point I would like to make, as we go into the very important topics we have to discuss on an international basis, is that we need Mike Pompeo, and we need him now.

As our Nation's most senior diplomat, Mike, I know, will be forthright, will be forceful and thoughtful and, yes, he will be diplomatic. He will give the President and the Congress very candid counsel. He is a man of his word.

Now, I say all of this because I think I, at least, have the credentials to know Mike and to know who he is and what he is about because I have known him for more than a decade, first as a friend and a business leader, then as a congressional colleague, and most recently as a leader of our intelligence community. We had some long talks before he accepted that offer by the President, and I thought he was very well suited.

Mike will represent American ideals and values backed by the strength of leadership of the free world--yes, the free world and the allies that have been referred to by my colleagues across the aisle. The point is, whenever there is a void, the world pays a price. That is why we need Mike, and that is why we need him now.

I am going to again urge all of my colleagues--all of those who voted in support of his intelligence post last year and those who now have the opportunity to support this extremely qualified candidate--to vote yes and to send our senior diplomat to work on the many challenges that face our Nation.

Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, a committee I feel very privileged to serve on with our distinguished chairman. He has a message that I think should be required reading for everybody on this side, and more especially on the other side, and I really appreciate his remarks and his leadership.

Mr. President, I want to speak today on the confirmation of Mr. Gregg Doud, the President's nominee for the Chief Agricultural Negotiator at the Office of the United States Trade Representative. In the Senate, we often say, or I hope we often say, that we are only as good as our staff. I have been blessed with the very best. Gregg is one example of why that is true.

Gregg served as senior professional staff on the Senate Agriculture Committee for me during my time as ranking member, 2011 through 2013. We like to say in Kansas that congressional staff are bucket toters. During those few years, we toted a lot of buckets together.

From the early days of the supercommittee and sequestration, multiple iterations of farm bills, animal disease scares, and the oversight of the MF Global mess, or situation, Gregg handled everything that was thrown at him--and all while wearing his cowboy boots with the pointed toes. Capitol Hill certainly isn't where Gregg started cutting his teeth in agriculture.

He hails from Mankato, KS, where he was raised on a dryland wheat, grain sorghum, soybean, swine, and cow-calf operation. Talk about diversified agriculture. He attended my alma mater, Kansas State University, home of the ever-fighting and always optimistic Wildcats. Good luck to them tonight.

Just last September, Gregg was back in Manhattan, KS, where he was honored as the 2017 Kansas State University Department of Agriculture Economics Distinguished Alumni Award.

From K-State, Gregg went on to work for the U.S. Wheat Associates, which is tasked with developing markets for U.S. wheat all around the world. Eventually, he became the chief economist for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

One of the very first trials that Gregg faced at NCBA was ``the cow that stole Christmas,'' when just before Christmas, in 2003, a case of mad cow disease was confirmed in the United States, resulting in a devastating blow to U.S. beef exports.

Gregg worked on behalf of the beef industry with the U.S. Trade Representative, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the State Department to rebuild the reputation and reliability of U.S. beef exports. Kansas currently ranks as the third highest U.S. State exporter of beef to the global market.

U.S. trade policy has been a very hot topic in the last year, and it is one that Gregg certainly experienced and is well-versed. He served as a ``cleared advisor'' and later chairman of the USDA/USTR Animal and Animal Products Agriculture Trade Advisory Committee. It is a lot of words but a very important committee. It was during the negotiations of a variety of trade agreements, including Australia, Bahrain, Colombia, CAFTA, South Korea, Morocco, Panama, and Peru. Obviously, he has been everywhere.

Gregg's background and experience give him a leg up in the challenge of serving as the Chief Agriculture Negotiator at USTR. He understands what trade means to the agriculture industry, and he has the experience to help maintain U.S. agriculture's role as a reliable supplier around the world. It is certainly a big challenge today.

At a time when the agriculture economy is in a rough patch--fourth year of prices below the cost of production pretty much across the board, all across the country--and commodity prices still falling, farmers and ranchers now depend on trade more than ever. We need continued focus on exporting not just what we make but also what we grow. Let me repeat that. We need to export not just what we make-- there is a lot of focus on that with regard to trade policy now coming out of the White House and this administration--but also what we grow.

Kansas farmers and ranchers work hard. On a regular basis, they have to make sacrifices to overcome the weather, overcome obstacles, and make commonsense decisions that have significant consequences. That is why I know Gregg will be successful in the job of Chief Agricultural Negotiator. He is a Kansas cowboy who knows how to roll up his sleeves and certainly get things done.

Gregg understands why strong trading relationships are absolutely critical to agriculture. I am glad he is at the USTR, where he can get to work with Ambassador Bob Lighthizer and lead the charge in advancing the U.S. trade agenda. Along with partners at the Department of Agriculture--like our champion there, Secretary Sonny Perdue--and the Undersecretary for Trade and Foreign Agriculture Affairs, Ted McKinney, Gregg will ensure that agriculture has a seat at the table and that our farmers and ranchers are being heard.

The U.S. agriculture industry has worked long and hard to increase our competitiveness and markets around the world, but their work is never finished, and they cannot do it alone. I know that with Gregg riding point, the voices of the hard-working farmer and rancher will be well represented all around the world.

Congratulations to you, Gregg, on your confirmation as the Chief Agricultural Negotiator at the USTR. I look forward to continuing to work with you on behalf of U.S. ag.

One more admonition, one more piece of advice. When you are riding point, just make sure you look over your shoulder once in a while to see if the herd is still there, and if it isn't, don't worry about it, we have your back.

I yield my time.

After careful inspection, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have had the unique privilege of knowing Senator Strange in that I have the privilege of being the chairman of the all-powerful--sometimes-powerful--Senate Agriculture Committee.

I hope every Senator will read your comments, sir. I think, perhaps, every Senator in their heart wishes, as you do, that we could get along better. For better or for worse, I think we represent the Balkanization in this country, but we come here with the hope that, yes, through compromise, and, yes, that in working together, we can represent our people in a much better fashion. Your remarks, I think, really hit the nail on the head in terms of what we should be doing.

We do that on the Agriculture Committee. When Luther first came to the Senate and asked to be on the Agriculture Committee, I knew right then he was a special person and would be a special Senator. A lot of people get sentenced to the Agriculture Committee. It is a pleasant sentence, really, when you do that work. I have been privileged to be the chairman in the House and in the Senate for quite a few years. We will not get into that.

The Senator asked to be on the Ag Committee, and so, when we try to put together a farm bill, it is our responsibility--both the distinguished Ranking Member Stabenow and myself--to travel to various States. We have sat on the wagon with the farmer, the rancher, the grower, and said: What do you think? We listen to the farmer first, knowing that if you are fair to the farmer--they are the backbone of the Nation and underappreciated in our society today.

So I have been going to Kansas, Michigan, and Montana, and I said: I haven't been down South, I am going to Alabama. I am going to go down there with our newest Member who wants to be on the Ag Committee and has already demonstrated his affection, not only for the committee but his commitment to represent farmers and growers and ranchers in Alabama. So we planned an event. We were going to listen to every commodity group, every farm organization, and any farmer who wanted to come in and talk to the chairman and the new member of the Ag Committee.

This was a special day for me and, as sometimes happens, planes don't fly. Planes fly to Atlanta, but they don't fly from there, which was the case when we were going down the night before, before we had this opportunity to visit with a lot of folks in Alabama. If you try to find a rental car that time of night, it is difficult. So we finally found a rental car after the third or fourth rental car opportunity, and then we drove to Montgomery.

Now, if you drive from Atlanta to Montgomery--people don't usually recommend doing that, but I will tell you, from about 1:30 in the morning to about 4 a.m., it is an easy drive. Then you get to Montgomery, and you get to that square they have there in Montgomery where they have a statue of Hank Williams. So the first person to welcome me in Montgomery, AL, was Hank Williams. Of course, being a country and western aficionado--or at least fan--I thought that was very special. So we went down and saw Hank. I saluted him.

Then we went off to the hotel. Of course, the hotel had given up our hotel reservations. So that posed a little bit of a problem. They finally made some accommodations for me, at least, but it didn't have a bed. It was an office room. Then I finally figured out it was a wall bed, and I pulled the wall bed down, but there were no sheets and pillows. I just sort of slept in my wardrobe, so to speak. Then I said: I can't sleep. It was getting to be 5:30, 6:30

a.m., and we were starting off about 7 in the morning.

I came down the elevator, and as happened, the elevator door opened up. Across from me was Luther. He said: How did you sleep, Mr. Chairman? I said: As well as could be expected. Finally, I told him what happened.

After all of that, I had probably one of the best days in my service in the Senate, visiting a State I had not visited before. I talked to every commodity group, every farm organization representative. We went out to many different farms. I learned firsthand that a big export factor to China is peanuts. If we are going to be making friends with China--or at least getting to a situation where we have a better relationship with any country--as you know, agriculture can be a tool for peace. It is a stabilizing factor. It becomes a national security situation. We talked about this at length.

I must say I was very impressed with the folks I met there and the respect they had for you, Luther, for wanting to be on the Ag Committee, obviously, and for your record as attorney general and your public service. To a person, they were committed to you and thanking you for your service on the Agriculture Committee.

So wherever you go, whatever you do, I know you are an Aggie. I know you will continue to fight for your farmers, and, as you know, we are going through a pretty rough patch.

Personally, I want to thank you for your friendship, and, personally, I want to thank you for the message you gave to all Senators here, which I think should be mandatory in our quest to see if we can't achieve a better situation in working together to find solutions. The Senator from West Virginia and I feel the same way, and I know whatever you are going to do, you will do so with dignity and with respect and with strong leadership.

Thank you, my friend.

Mr. President, if I have time at the end of my remarks, I would like to yield to the distinguished Senator from Hawaii. I will try to be prompt.

Soon, this Senate will take a historic vote that will impact every American. These votes do not come very often. The last was decades ago. I think we all understand--or at least most of us understand--how critical tax reform is. All of us in the Senate, on both sides of the aisle, are familiar with the burdens and the complexity and the lack of competitiveness associated with our current tax system.

It is abundantly clear that this complexity and our antiquated corporate tax system acts as a brake on our economy. It is equally clear that in recent years our economic growth rate--our gross domestic product--has been stuck at a historic low level of 1.9 percent or less.

There are many opinions as to why our economy has been so stagnant, causing American job loss, unemployment, and more reliance on government programs. I want to underscore what the people of Kansas have told me repeatedly as to why, at least in part, this has happened. Small business owners, manufacturers, our community bankers, other lending institutions, individual workers laid off or workers hanging on paycheck to paycheck, and virtually everybody in rural America-- farmers, ranchers, and growers--at every townhall meeting have told me that the No. 1 issue of concern is the crushing weight of Federal regulation.

That was summed up by one Western Kansas rancher who said: ``Pat, I feel ruled, not governed.''

But we are unwinding right now this regulatory overkill. Today we are making government a partner, not a regulatory adversary. How on Earth did we reach this sad state of affairs? Well, there are many factors-- administrative policies that seem to mimic or compare to the European Union monetary policy, government agendas, and central control. But with this tax bill that can change, and it will change if only we recognize and take this important opportunity--an opportunity that many Members in this body have never had to truly make a difference. This time we can.

Can America get back to a place to make history and, once again, to experience the power of the American dream?

I am confident that we can. We have before us now a comprehensive plan to address these issues, cleaning up and modernizing the Tax Code to help generate more growth in our economy. The bill before the Senate does exactly that, providing meaningful tax relief for families, small businesses, farmers, ranchers, and growers. I am especially pleased with the rates and bracket structure the legislation would put into place on the individual side.

We have done a good job pushing these rate reductions down to lower and middle-income families. This would provide a net tax cut for families in Kansas of about $2,500 and over 10,000 new jobs.

As many have pointed out today, we accomplish this by reducing individual tax rates, raising the standard deduction, and increasing the child credits in the Tax Code.

Let's be clear, these are consensus, bipartisan ideas and proposals that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have, in the past, at least--now not now, because of the legislative standoff we have been going through--regularly proposed and supported.

Let me also comment on concerns raised by some of my colleagues that we simply cannot afford this bill and that it will worsen the country's financial condition.

In putting this bill together, we have used very modest economic growth estimates, below the historic post-World War II norm of 3 percent. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office is currently projecting 1.9 percent growth over the next 10 years, and we learned today that the Joint Committee on Taxation says the Senate bill will create only modest economic growth.

Now, notwithstanding the fact that I have never seen a CBO or Joint Taxation Committee projection that has been really accurate, I think these estimates are far too low. It is hard to believe. It is simply unacceptable.

I refuse to accept that we cannot return to a more robust economic growth. I think we will achieve better growth rates, and observe that we are well on our way. Recent economic activity bears this out.

The economy is now growing at a solid pace with low unemployment and low inflation. Real GDP growth during the first two quarters of the year averaged 2.1 percent at an annual rate, and since January, the unemployment rate fell 0.6 percentage points to 4.2 percent in September. That is the lowest rate in about 16 years. Overall growth is poised to average about 3 percent over the second half of this year--3 percent in the second half of this year.

While these are positive trends, my colleagues, we can do more. We need even stronger growth. Stronger growth leads to higher living standards, less dependence on governmental support, and a lower need for spending on entitlement and other programs.

How do we get there? We have a tax bill--a tax bill to maximize growth, to create jobs, and to increase wages. This is not what we have just heard from many on the other side--trickle-down economics or any other name that they want to call this. This is commonsense economics, which I have yet to see be refuted by any mainstream economist.

Increase the supply of capital in the economy, and you expand the productivity of the economy. This result is more business investment, leading to worker productivity gains--workers who can then earn more, increase their after-tax income, and, in the end, raise their living standards.

I want to turn to an essential sector of our national economy-- agriculture, those who are responsible for feeding America in a troubled and hungry world. I am very pleased that the bill reflects the importance of production agriculture to our economy. It is important to keep in mind that few other sectors of the economy face the multiple uncertainties of production agriculture. We are talking about weather, storms, fires, volatility in our global commodity prices, trade disputes, and transportation issues, and the list goes on.

When we pass this bill, the agriculture industry will have a number of provisions in the Tax Code that recognize the uncertainty and the volatile nature of the income and expense associated with agriculture operations.

These provisions--and we are talking about 34, 35 of them at last count--include accounting rules that allow farmers to manage their income and expenses.

For example, in the year when our commodity prices are low--and, yes, this year they are low--they can account for costs in a way that keeps them in operation.

There are also specific inventory rules to help manage costs associated with the livestock and dairy operations and to handle items needed for other basic operations, such as fertilizer and also crop treatments. There are unique rules for timber operations.

Now, if you want to get down into specifics and just how far we drill down to be of help to agriculture, even baby chickens have their own inventory rule--which, by the way, differs from the rules for ostriches and emus. I would imagine nobody would even think of drilling down to that extend.

There are rules set for how to handle damaged stocks and livestock disasters. They are certainly important as of today. I can tell you that these disaster rules provided a critical boost to ranchers in my State, enabling them to begin to recover from the devastating prairie fires in Western Kansas earlier this year.

Turning to the new provisions in the bill, we have developed it with agriculture in mind. I would be remiss here not to mention the strong input and advice I have received on these matters from Senator Grassley, Senator Thune, Senator Scott, and my other colleagues who also share a strong interest in the agriculture economy.

The bill, for example, liberalizes the depreciation rules for agriculture operations, giving farmers and ranchers 5-

year property depreciation, and permitting full expensing of plant and equipment purchases.

The bill would greatly improve the ability of the agricultural community to use the cash method of accounting, which provides complexity in managing cash flow, which is essential to providing certainty in operations.

There are significant provisions in the legislation that establish a new income tax rate for passthrough organizations. This is a very important issue for the agricultural community. The majority of farms and ranchers are set up as passthroughs, and most of the income earned by farmers flow through these structures.

The bill also includes new rules for farmer cooperatives, which are a very important part of production agriculture. We work very hard to ensure that the benefits of cooperative farming are held whole in this tax reform plan.

The bill also doubles the exemptions for the estate and gift taxes up to $22 million per couple. I know this sounds like a lot to some of my colleagues, but for landowning, cash-constrained farmers, they can hit this exemption amount quickly, especially in my State of Kansas. Even when they do not, many farmers and ranchers spend thousands of dollars a year on lawyers and accountants' fees to plan for the best way to pass their life's work on to their children--something very special in rural and smalltown America.

While I will continue to press for a permanent repeal of the death tax, for now, let's modify it so we reduce its damaging reach.

Finally, and above all, the legislation will provide farmers and ranchers with certainty during a very difficult time that we are going through, certainty that they will be not taxed out of business on a down year, certainty that they will have cash available to fund their own operations, certainty that their hard-earned income, farm, or ranch will not have to be sold off just because someone has died, certainty that the Federal Government recognizes their irreplaceable role in meeting the challenges of a very fractured and hungry world.

I am very pleased, to say the least, that the Senate bill keeps the ag tax provisions but will also help our farmers by creating a much more pro-growth tax system, lowering their tax burden and simplifying the tax provisions relating to the ag sector.

We have an opportunity to experience a renaissance in our American economy. It seems to me that for too long we have had a sort of copycat kind of economic policy based on the European Union. We are talking about a lot of government control. We are talking about more taxes. We are talking about a lot of things that simply have enabled us to tread water.

I know we are in a difficult time in the Senate with regard to partisan differences. It reminds me a little bit of a country western song that obviously my staff would hope that I would not mention, but it was: ``The bridge washed out, I can't swim, and my baby's on the other side.''

Well, the bridge is not washed out, and the tax bill is on the other side, along with an American renaissance that will make America enjoy even more economic growth and get us back to that historic 3-percent growth rate and even more. That bridge is open.

I urge my colleagues to consider it as we go forward in this debate. Hopefully, we have the votes. Then, if we have the votes--and I think we do--hopefully, some of my colleagues across the aisle will join us.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I want to honor the life and work of a man whose inventions--most notably, the large round hay baler--literally changed the landscape of America. Wesley Fisher Buchele, a native Kansan and professor emeritus of agricultural engineering at Iowa State University, died September 13, 2017, at a hospice in Ames, IA. He was age 97.

Wes and his twin brother Luther were born in a Kansas farmhouse near Cedar Vale, KS, on March 18, 1920, to Charles and Bessie (Fisher) Buchele. Wesley and Luther were the youngest of seven Buchele brothers.

Growing up on a Kansas farm in the 1920s and 1930s was hard work. Economic depression in rural America started early in the 1920s and worsened when the Great Depression hit the entire country in 1929. When Wes was 11, his father, Charles Buchele, died, leaving Wes's mother and the Buchele brothers to run the family farm. Wes and Luther and several other brothers were still in school.

The Bucheles ran a raw milk farm. Among other jobs, Wes delivered fresh milk early in the morning on his way to school, which sometimes made him late to school. When the principal found out why Wes was late, he essentially gave Wes permission to be late if needed, saying that Wes had made more money for his family that morning than the principal would make all week.

All the brothers worked to fill their father's shoes, driven by the fear of losing the family farm because of a $5,000 mortgage, roughly $60,000 in today's money. They succeeded. At the close of the Depression, the Buchele farm was the only one in their valley stil1 in the same family's hands as at the beginning of the Depression.

At age 15, Wes was running a four-man threshing crew, when ``it was 105 deg.F in the shade--and there was no shade!'' The Buchele brothers bought a used tractor and ran it 24 hours a day, doing contract field work. One night, Wes pulled a night shift on that tractor, and while plowing, he woke up as the tractor powered through a fence.

The experiences of the sweaty, dirty, grueling work of threshing grain and baling hay led him to a lifelong interest in making the lives of farmers easier and safer.

After graduating from Cedar Vale High School, Wes enrolled at Kansas State College where he earned bachelor of Science degree in agricultural engineering. While at Kansas State, Wes met Mary Jagger. They were married at Mary's hometown of Minneapolis, KS, on June 12, 1945.

At K-State, Wes enlisted in the Reserve Officers Training Corps, ROTC. As second lieutenant in the U.S. Army, Wes was on a troop ship sailing toward Japan for the anticipated invasion when Japan announced its surrender after atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Wes was part of the demilitarizing force on the island of Hokkaido and the northern part of the island of Honshu, Japan. After World War II, Wes served in the Army Reserve for 20 years, retiring as a major.

After leaving Active Army Duty, Wes worked as an engineer for several years for John Deere in Waterloo, IA. He then left John Deere to do graduate work at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, where he earned his master's degree agricultural and mechanical engineering. He and Mary then moved to Ames, IA, where he earned his Ph.D. in agricultural engineering and soil physics at Iowa State University.

After earning his Ph.D., Wes taught at Michigan State University in East Lansing, MI, before returning to Iowa State University in 1963 to join its faculty.

As noted by his son, Steven Buchele, after the move back to Ames, ``Dad never worked another day of his life. For Dad, it was all fun and interesting and ISU encouraged his imagination and he loved teaching and inventing things. It wasn't work, and he earned the name `Wild Wes.' ''

He also earned the name ``Blood and Guts Buchele'' for how he championed the cause of farm machinery safety. In class, he showed hundreds of slides of people who had lost arms or legs, hands or feet to a PTO shaft or a grain auger or what a farmer looked like after being sprayed with anhydrous ammonia. One student said that he never looked at farming the same way after seeing Wes's slides.

At Iowa State, Wes's creativity blossomed. He published hundreds of technical articles, aided greatly by the able editing of his wife, Mary. He was awarded 23 patents, the two most notable being the large round baler and the axial-flow threshing cylinder for combines. Almost all combines sold today are rotary combines that employ a variation of the axial-flow threshing cylinder.

Wes also designed blade guards for rotary lawn mowers, a tandem tractor--a precursor to the four-wheel drive tractor--and devices for harvesting crops like strawberries, alfalfa, and marigolds. He developed a ridge-till farming system that, in addition to saving farmers time and fuel, also helped the environment by conserving topsoil and soil moisture. It was a precursor to today's ``No-till farming.''

Wes loved teaching and mentoring the hundreds of graduate students who came from all over the world specifically to study with him. Upon graduation, they then went into industry or back to their home countries, helping further improve agricultural practices throughout the world.

Wes published three books: ``The Grain Harvesters'' with Graeme Quick, in 1978; ``Just Call Us Luck'' with twin brother, Luther, about their childhood in Kansas, in 2008; and ``Who Really Invented the Cotton Gin'' with William D. Mayfield in 2016. He also wrote many other unpublished books, including a volume two to the Grain Harvesters, and hundreds of short stories.

Leading up to and after retirement in 1989, Mary and Wes traveled the world, teaching in China before and after Tiananmen Square, in Ghana, Australia, Tanzania, Nigeria, and the Philippines.

After the death of his wife, Mary, in 2000, Wes wou1d visit, his four children and their spouses--Rod and his wife, Mary Lou, Marybeth, Sheron and her husband, Curtis, and Steven and his wife, Suzanne, his eight grandchildren, and four great-grandchildren, staying for 6 weeks to 2 months, depending on ``the list.'' ``When Dad arrived, he would ask for `the list,' a list of things that needed fixing around the house, promising to stay only as long as there were things to do on that list. Then he would move on to the next child's family--and a new list,'' said Steve Buchele.

On Labor Day 2017, Wes decided to mow the backyard of the home in Ames he shared with his daughter, Marybeth. As he used a rope to lower the lawn mower down a slope to finish mowing,

he had a major stroke. Nine days later, he died, after hundreds of friends and family came to hospice to say good-bye.

Wes Buchele lived a long, full, productive life with energy and verve. He had, indeed, fulfilled his calling to help make the lives of farmers easier and safer, and our country and our world are better for that.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purpose of H.R. 2266, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 1616 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time.

I know of no further debate on the bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I rise also to talk about my dear friend and mentor, Bob Dole. Senator Dole just celebrated his 94th birthday, and I think it is obviously right and proper to honor his contributions to our Nation.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, I am sorry that I did not catch all of the Senator's remarks, but I think he said that this is a vote on a bill that was introduced in the House.

How many cosponsors are on this bill? Is this a legitimate effort here?

So this is a legitimate bill that is up. Well, it is not up for consideration now in the House.

Is this the Conyers' bill?

Is there at least a preamble to this bill or just an opening of a couple of paragraphs or something? Would the Senator describe it?

And that is in the bill?

Well, I think we have a very honest choice. There has been a lot of talk about single payer. There was a lot of talk about it early on in the debate about ObamaCare. I recall in observations made by President Obama that this was the first step toward single payer. I understand that--well, I know that the former Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, had the same plan, that ObamaCare was the first step toward single payer. All you are doing is just saying, OK, if that is the goal, bring it to a vote.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the distinguished accomplishment of Kansan Paul Kaster on the occasion of his 2017 National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB, Young Entrepreneur Award.

Mr. Kaster, of Leawood, KS, is the founder and owner of Crooked Branch Studio, which specializes in woodworking. I ask that my colleagues join me in recognizing Paul on his outstanding achievements. I wish him nothing but the best for his future entrepreneurial and educational endeavors.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the ranking member of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, for engaging in this important discussion.

I am proud to stand before my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to discuss some of the bipartisan work that we have accomplished through regular order at the Agriculture Committee specifically with regard to H.R. 1029, the Pesticide Registration Improvement Extension Act of 2017, or PRIA 4.

PRIA, while technical in nature, is critically important with assisting both EPA in carrying out administrative functions and industry that relies upon timely, science-based pesticide registration decisions to get products on the market and in the hands of farmers, ranchers, and other consumers.

PRIA, historically, has received widespread support from a diverse coalition of stakeholders, including members of the pesticide registrant community--both agricultural and nonagricultural uses, labor, and environmental advocates, which has contributed to Congress's ability to pass reauthorizations swiftly and by unanimous consent. With the Widespread support of the PRIA coalition, as illustrated by a coalition letter addressed to our committee on June 29, 2017, which expresses support of the amendment to H.R. 1029 and urges swift action, this effort should be no different.

Our committee held a hearing earlier this year to review this issue in an open and transparent manner. As we have heard time and time again, farmers and ranchers want regulatory certainty. EPA and registrants who rely on PRIA to get new products on the market and in the hands of farmers, ranchers, and other consumers want certainty.

My colleague raises an issue that has historically been outside the scope of the technical, fee-based registration process of PRIA. I certainly understand the concerns that have been raised by some groups with regard to certain actions EPA is considering with regard to the Worker Protection Standard and the Certification of Pesticide Applicators rules. My hope is that EPA and the relevant stakeholders can constructively discuss areas of concern related to these issues within the framework of our Federal regulatory process without jeopardizing PRIA.

Current authority for PRIA expires at the end of this fiscal year. With that deadline in mind, our recent committee action is timely and necessary to get PRIA updated.

Should PRIA's authority lapse, pesticide registration will not be available for a wide range of crops that rely on innovative and new solutions for pest protection, and a lapse will have a negative impact on the products requiring registration that are used to protect public health and ensure public safety.

It is important that we get PRIA across the finish line not only to provide certainty to the industry but to also provide new products to growers for crop protection and to consumers to protect public health, and the timely reauthorization provides resources to ensure safety education components are maintained.

I thank my colleague Senator Stabenow and other members of the Agriculture Committee for working with me on this issue together and in a bipartisan manner. I look forward to working with Senator Stabenow and the coalition in support of this legislation to get this bill across the Senate floor as quickly as possible and ultimately enacted into law.

Mr. President, I would like to acknowledge an important event in our history, the Orphan Train Movement. This movement is not only extremely important to Kansas; it also placed approximately 250,000 orphaned, abandoned, and homeless children in homes across the United States. The National Orphan Train Complex, which is headquartered in our very own Concordia, KS--also known as Orphan Train Town--continues to tell stories of children who were impacted by these orphan trains.

The first orphan train arrived in Kansas in 1859 to the city of Wathena, where three children were placed with Kansas families. Since this first train, 12,000 children were moved to Kansas homes. These children would grow up in Kansas, raising families, growing the economy, and serving their communities through farming, teaching, and starting businesses. These children and their journey are an integral part of Kansas history.

The mission of the National Orphan Train Complex in Concordia, KS, is to collect, preserve, interpret, and disseminate knowledge about the orphan trains and the children who rode them. The National Orphan Train Complex is the only organization compiling a master list of orphan train riders to assist future generations with genealogical information. The tireless work done by this organization deserves acknowledgement. I am proud to recognize the 15th annual celebration of Orphan Train Riders, which takes place June 1 through June 4.

I ask my colleagues join me in recognizing the Orphan Train Movement and the National Orphan Train Complex on their outstanding research and preservation of our Nation's history.

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

Mr. President, I wish to thank my dear friend, my colleague from Georgia, for making such an outstanding statement in his own inimitable fashion--sort of a Paul Harvey of the Senate, if you will--and I know that he would never lie on the Senate floor. He might stretch the truth a little, but just a bit. I thank him so much for his testimony on behalf of our next Secretary of Agriculture.

The Senate will soon vote on the confirmation of Governor Sonny Perdue, the President's nominee for U.S. Secretary of Agriculture.

The Department of Agriculture is made up of 29 agencies and offices, and it employs nearly 100,000 men and women who work in all 50 States and around the globe. The Department provides leadership on food, agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, scientific research, and related issues that impact every American every day.

Throughout our Nation's history, our farmers and ranchers and business owners in rural America have survived drought and disease and floods and tornadoes and whatever else Mother Nature throws at them. We just had a big prairie fire in Kansas. Yet, year after year, they produce the safest, most abundant and affordable food and fiber supply in the world.

Today, however, our producers from across the country are facing tough economic times, with multiple years of low prices. These same producers now need a strong market for whatever they produce. During this critical time, the importance of trade for the agriculture industry cannot be overstated. We have to understand within the administration, within this Senate, and with our colleagues in the House, that, yes, it is important to export things that we make, but it is also equally important to export things that we grow.

On top of all of this, our farmers and ranchers and rural businesses have been burdened by regulations from agencies across the Federal Government. I have heard time and again, as has my distinguished colleague who is the Presiding Officer, that the costly and hard-to- understand regulations have and are endangering the ability of our producers to even stay in business.

Members of the Agriculture Committee have a lot of work to do over the next 2 years, including regulatory reform and recommending to our new Secretary what he can do in that regard but also the reauthorization of the farm bill. We intend to do that work in the bipartisan fashion that has served us so well in the past. I will make the statement--I have the privilege of being chairman of the Agriculture Committee--that we are the least partisan committee in the Senate, and today that means a lot. It also means we work well with our distinguished ranking member, Senator Deborah Stabenow from Michigan.

But, now, more than ever, agriculture needs a voice, an advocate, and a champion at the highest levels of government, and Governor Perdue has been nominated to serve in exactly that role.

As has been said, he is from Georgia. He was raised on a farm and practiced as a veterinarian before returning to his home county to work in the grain business. He was elected to serve in local and State government, including two terms as the distinguished Governor of the State of Georgia.

During his confirmation hearing--and I want to underscore that his confirmation hearing was unique in the Senate in that there were no attacks on the nominee--Governor Perdue knew the answers to the questions that he was going to be asked. He didn't have to be briefed. The Governor demonstrated a real understanding of the challenges that now face the agriculture industry and the willingness to work together to find solutions.

The Agriculture Committee received many letters in support of his nomination, including support from six former U.S. Secretaries of Agriculture, representing both Republican and Democratic Presidents, and another from nearly 700 organizations across the agriculture and food value chain.

Last month, the Agriculture Committee voted by voice vote to report Governor Perdue's nomination to the full Senate--a voice vote.

Our farmers and ranchers have been long waiting for this important role to be filled. Once Governor Perdue becomes Secretary Perdue, I know he will put the needs of farmers, ranchers, and others in rural America first, and lead us in both the House and Senate to implement a productive trade policy and economic recovery in rural and smalltown America.

So I urge my colleagues to join in bipartisan support for Sonny Perdue's confirmation as Agriculture Secretary and for being the champion for farmers and ranchers and growers and consumers.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, after a careful counting of the Members present on the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I rise to speak in support of the President's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, who, right now, is about two-thirds through his second day of hearings--better described perhaps as a grilling.

Simply put, I think the President made an extraordinary selection. Currently, Judge Gorsuch serves on the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which includes my home State of Kansas.

Our State has seen firsthand how Judge Gorsuch interprets the law. He has had an outstanding judicial record while serving on the court. What is more, he is highly respected and supported by individuals in the judicial community who align on all sides of the political spectrum-- except, inexplicably, the U.S. Senate.

Judge Gorsuch's qualifications are not only noteworthy but extremely impressive. He graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School. He received a doctorate in legal philosophy from Oxford, as a recipient of the Marshall Scholarship, one of the most prestigious scholars programs in the country. He has litigation experience from his time as a law partner, and he has clerked for not one but two Supreme Court Justices.

Examining his record during his time on the Tenth Circuit gives us some insight into the judge's approach to interpreting the law. When we read his opinions, we know he is a judge who follows the law, applying the text of the Constitution and statutes impartially. Of primordial importance to this body is his critique of the executive branch's tendency to assume the roles of the judicial and legislative branches.

No matter which political party controls the executive branch, this body--the Senate of the United States--must protect its ability to legislate and create laws. The Founding Fathers intended for the separation of powers to remain inviolate.

Judge Gorsuch understands the role of the judicial branch and the significance of maintaining that balance of power. He has made it absolutely clear that he will not legislate from the bench. I repeat. He has made it clear that he will not legislate from the bench. That might just be the problem for those who would like to vote for a judge who would legislate from the bench.

I, along with many of my colleagues here in the Senate today, confirmed Judge Gorsuch over 10 years ago. Judge Gorsuch's record was so noncontroversial, the Senate unanimously supported his nomination. That includes the minority leader, Senator Schumer, and then-Senators Obama, Clinton, and Biden.

I repeat. Judge Gorsuch has received support from across the entire political spectrum. His judicial record over the past 10 years has made him even more deserving of the Senate's full support.

The American people went to the polls in November, knowing the next President would have the distinct honor of nominating the next Supreme Court Justice. The American people have spoken. As the Senate, it is now our responsibility to see through this nomination and appoint the judge to the High Court.

The Wall Street Journal summed up what is happening within its editorial page today in pointing out that Senators want Judge Gorsuch to declare how he would vote in specific areas of the law--questions that every Supreme Court nominee declines to answer. Quoting from the editorial: ``At the 1967 hearings for Thurgood Marshall, then-Senator Edward Kennedy called it a sound legal precedent that any nominee for the Supreme Court would have to defer any comments on any matters which are either before the court or very likely to appear before the court.'' The Journal's editorial went on to say that in the 1993 confirmation hearings, Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg emphasized: ``A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecast, no hints; for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would also display disdain for the entire judicial process.''

I regret to say that profound advice apparently does not apply today.

One of my colleagues serving on the Judiciary Committee pretty well summed up the dilemma we have in the Senate when he said to the judge: ``If you fail to be explicit and forthcoming, the committee would have to assume his views were in line with Mr. Trump's.''

And there is the rub. Judge Gorsuch has written 789 opinions, with only 15 dissents from other judges. The apparent burr in the minority's saddle--the Democrats' saddle--has nothing to do with Judge Gorsuch or his qualifications. The problem is that Mr. Trump is now President Trump.

My question is this. All right, we know you feel that way. In every committee hearing that we have, we know you feel that way. When will this end? When will we get back to what is referred to as regular order? That question lies squarely with my colleagues in the minority.

I am really disheartened to hear the rhetoric coming from across the aisle in the days since the new President took office. The minority has taken extraordinary lengths to extend the confirmation process of the President's nominees--from shying away from our constitutional responsibilities and not voting on nominees in committee hearings to using unprecedented amounts of time to speak on this floor, disapproving of the President and his nominees, or anything else. These stall tactics are unbefitting of the world's greatest deliberative body. We have fallen from bipartisan deliberation, worthy of public opinion and support, to engaging with poisonous arrows of political procrastination.

With the nomination of Judge Gorsuch, we now have an opportunity to fix this sorry state of affairs. This is the opportunity we should seize to restore comity to the Senate. The people of this great Nation deserve nothing else.

I am hopeful that the minority will recognize the superlative qualities Judge Neil Gorsuch possesses and provide him with a fair and swift confirmation process.

That is not happening as of today. But hope springs eternal, even within the Senate as it now exists.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.