[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 109 (Thursday, June 28, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4689-S4700]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 AGRICULTURE AND NUTRITION ACT OF 2018

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2) to provide for the reform and continuation 
     of agricultural and other programs of the Department of 
     Agriculture through fiscal year 2023, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Roberts amendment No. 3224, in the nature of a substitute.
       McConnell (for Thune) amendment No. 3134 (to amendment No. 
     3224), to modify conservation reserve program provisions.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.


                 Retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I want to take another opportunity to 
pay tribute to Justice Anthony Kennedy, who announced yesterday that he 
will retire from active service and assume senior status at the end of 
July.
  Justice Kennedy deserves our sincere thanks for his service and our 
congratulations on a truly remarkable career. He served our Nation on 
the Federal Bench for 43 years, 30 of which he spent as an Associate 
Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
  His contributions to American jurisprudence have been many. In 
particular, he has earned our gratitude for his steadfast defense of 
the vital First Amendment right to political speech.
  We congratulate Justice Kennedy, his wife Mary, and their entire 
family on this well-earned retirement. We wish them every happiness 
during the additional time they will get to spend together in the years 
ahead.


               Filling the Upcoming Supreme Court Vacancy

  As I stated yesterday, the Senate stands ready to fulfill our 
constitutional role by offering advice and consent on President Trump's 
nominee to fill the vacancy that Justice Kennedy's retirement will 
create. The Senate will vote to confirm Justice Kennedy's successor 
this fall.
  This is not 2016. There aren't the final months of a second-term, 
constitutionally lame duck Presidency with a Presidential election fast 
approaching. We are right in the middle of this President's very first 
term.
  To my knowledge, nobody on either side has either suggested before 
yesterday that the Senate should process Supreme Court nominations only 
in odd-numbered years. The situation today is much like when Justice 
Kagan was confirmed in 2010 and when Justice Breyer was confirmed in 
1994 and Justice Souter in 1990. In each case, the President was about 
a year and a half into his first term.
  So just as on numerous other occasions, the process to confirm 
Justice Kennedy's successor will take place this year. As in the case 
of Justice Gorsuch, Senators will have the opportunity to meet with 
President Trump's nominee, examine his or her qualifications, and 
debate the nomination. I am confident Chairman Grassley will capably 
lead the Judiciary Committee

[[Page S4690]]

through the confirmation process that lies before us.
  The President's nominee should be considered fairly and not subjected 
to personal attacks. Unfortunately, far-left special interest groups 
are already calling on Senate Democrats to oppose anyone--anyone--on 
President Trump's long list of potential nominees. The ink wasn't even 
dry on Justice Kennedy's resignation letter before my friend the 
Democratic leader seemed to echo that right here on the floor--that 
none of the exceptional legal minds on this list would be tolerable to 
him.
  Think of that. These are 25 Americans from all over the country who 
have excelled in their professions. The idea that any of them--let 
alone all of them--would be automatically unacceptable is totally 
absurd.
  Unfortunately, I am afraid this may just be a precursor of all the 
unfair attacks to come, both from inside and outside the Senate.
  Fortunately, we have every reason to expect an outstanding selection. 
President Trump's judicial nominations to date have reflected a keen 
understanding of the vital role judges play in our constitutional 
order: interpreting the law fairly, applying it evenhandedly, setting 
aside personal preferences, and assessing what the law actually says. 
These traits have characterized the excellent nominees the President 
has sent to the Senate. I look forward to another such nomination.
  Mr. President, on another matter, we hope to wrap up our 
consideration of the farm bill, a victory for American agriculture. All 
week, I have highlighted some of the ways this important legislation 
will support the family farmers whose harvest feeds America and 
supplies the world.
  It is an understatement to say this bill comes at an opportune time. 
American farm communities need stability, and they need 
predictability--and they need it urgently.
  The industry is filled with uncertainty. There are volatile world 
markets. There are persisting low commodity prices. There are natural 
disasters beyond their control. All of these things make it harder for 
our growers to go about their business. They depend on the kind of 
long-term certainty that this legislation will provide.
  This subject is extremely important to me, as the proud senior 
Senator from the Commonwealth of Kentucky and as a Member who has 
served on the Agriculture Committee since my first day in office. 
Agriculture is in the bones of our State. It is a huge part of who we 
are. From soybeans and corn to hay and tobacco, to poultry and 
livestock, Kentucky agriculture encompasses a multibillion-dollar 
industry that supports thousands and thousands of good jobs in nearly 
every corner of the Commonwealth. Kentuckians know as well as anyone 
just how important American agriculture is, and we understand as well 
as anyone all of the unique challenges it faces.
  That is why I am pleased to support this bill, which will bolster the 
safety net programs for our producers. It will also enhance 
infrastructure investment in rural communities on everything from local 
water projects to broadband internet, to helping curb the drug epidemic 
in rural America. And it gets Washington out of farmers' way in areas 
where bureaucracy is holding them back.
  One such area is industrial hemp. Consumers across America buy 
hundreds of millions in retail products every year that contain hemp. 
But due to outdated Federal regulations that do not sufficiently 
distinguish this industrial crop from its illicit cousin, American 
farmers have been mostly unable to meet that demand themselves. It has 
left consumers with little choice but to buy imported hemp products 
from foreign-produced hemp.
  Fortunately, this farm bill will change that. It builds on the 
success of the pilot program I initiated 5 years ago and will break 
down the major Federal barriers that prevent American farmers from 
fully exploring the burgeoning hemp market. When this becomes law--
subject to proper regulation and oversight--U.S. producers will no 
longer be barred from this legitimate U.S. market.
  I am also proud of how this farm bill has come about. The chairman 
and ranking member, Senators Roberts and Stabenow, assembled it through 
an exemplary bipartisan committee process that included 73 amendments. 
Here on the floor, 18 more bipartisan amendments were adopted in the 
substitute amendment. It was my personal hope that we could have had 
even more amendment votes, but the Senate is a consent-based 
institution, and Members have the ability to object. Nevertheless, the 
transparent and open leadership of Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member 
Stabenow has been commendable.
  Now the time has come to deliver. The farm bill is too important a 
subject to keep our farmers and their families waiting. After all, the 
groups charged with advocating on their behalf overwhelmingly support 
it. More than 500 industry groups and advocates representing 
agriculture, food, nutrition, hunger, forestry, conservation, faith-
based and research interests have already publicly backed the Senate 
bill. Nearly 70 such groups had this to say in a recent letter to 
Congress: ``During a prolonged recession in agriculture, failure to 
pass a farm bill on time would undermine the financial security of 
America's food, fuel, crop and fiber producers.''
  The Senate must not fail that test. It is time to pass the farm bill.


                               Tax Reform

  Mr. President, on another matter, it has been a little over 6 months 
since this Republican Congress passed historic tax reform legislation. 
Already, we have seen big headlines: millions of worker bonuses, plans 
for thousands of new jobs, and billions of dollars being invested here 
in the United States; individual companies announcing billions in new 
American investments; small business optimism at its highest level 
since President Reagan's first term.
  But these national headlines don't tell the whole story on their own. 
This week, I have discussed how tax reform is already transforming 
American families' kitchen-table conversations: how lower rates and 
larger deductions are letting them pocket more of their hard-earned 
money and how our new corporate tax structure has already started 
paving the way for higher wages.
  If you pick up a local paper in almost any State, you will find yet 
another angle to this story. From Montana to Florida, Americans are 
paying less to keep the lights on. That is right. Despite warnings from 
our Democratic colleagues that tax reform savings would never reach 
consumers, utilities all across America are already making that happen.
  In my home State of Kentucky, the new Tax Code led to announced rate 
cuts of up to 6 percent for Kentucky Utilities and Louisville Gas & 
Electric customers.
  Just this month, Idaho Power announced a 7-percent rate cut for 
consumers.
  In Pennsylvania, Metropolitan Edison is one of 17 utilities that is 
planning to deliver rate savings, thanks to the new tax law. On July 1, 
more than half a million customers in Philadelphia can expect their 
electric bills to drop by as much as 8 percent.
  Help with the monthly bills, higher take-home pay, and new job 
opportunities because American enterprise is thriving are what tax 
reform means around middle-class kitchen tables. This is why 
Republicans passed this historic law.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The Democratic leader is recognized.


               Filling the Upcoming Supreme Court Vacancy

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, yesterday, Justice Anthony Kennedy 
announced his retirement, creating a vacancy on the Supreme Court. 
After Kennedy's departure, the Supreme Court will be evenly divided 
between Justices appointed by Republican Presidents and Justices 
appointed by Democratic Presidents. Whoever fills Justice Kennedy's 
seat on the Court will have an opportunity to impact the

[[Page S4691]]

laws of the United States and the rights of its citizens for a 
generation.
  Because Justice Kennedy was frequently independently minded and was a 
deciding vote on important issues like marriage equality and a woman's 
right to choose, a more ideological successor could upend decades of 
precedent and drag America backward to a time before Americans with 
preexisting conditions could affordably access healthcare, to a time 
before women could not be prosecuted as criminals for exercising their 
reproductive rights, to a time before gay and lesbian Americans could 
marry whom they love. An ideological Justice more extreme in his views 
than Kennedy could eviscerate the rights of workers to organize and 
bargain collectively for a fair wage and stretch the bounds of 
Executive power for a President who has demonstrated little respect for 
them.
  Of course, if Republicans were consistent, they would wait to 
consider Justice Kennedy's successor until after the midterm elections. 
Time and again, Leader McConnell justified his unjustifiable blockade 
of Merrick Garland by claiming the American people should have a voice 
in deciding the next Supreme Court Justice. That was in February of an 
election year. It is now almost July.
  If the Senate's constitutional duty to advise and consent is just as 
important as the President's right to nominate, which the Constitution 
says it is, why should a midterm election be any less important than a 
Presidential election? Leader McConnell is simply engaging in 
hypocrisy.

  Whomever the President picks, it is all too likely they are going to 
overturn healthcare protections and Roe v. Wade. We don't need to 
guess. President Trump has said time and again he would appoint judges 
who would do those two things--overturn Roe v. Wade and overturn 
healthcare protections. On November 11, 2016, then President-Elect 
Trump said: ``I am pro-life; the judges will be pro-life.'' In a debate 
against Secretary Clinton, then-Candidate Trump said: ``Because I am 
pro-life, and I will be appointing pro-life judges, I would think that 
that will go back to the individual states.'' It is impossible to 
conclude that President Trump will appoint a Justice whom we can have 
faith will leave Roe v. Wade as settled law. President Trump said, in 
his own words, that he wants to appoint a Justice to give the Court a 
majority that will overturn Roe v. Wade, so count on it.
  President Trump will, in all likelihood, nominate a Justice willing 
to send Roe ``back to the states''--again, those are President Trump's 
own words--where several are preparing, if not already prepared, to 
roll back a woman's right to choose. In fact, according to the 
Guttmacher Institute, there are at least 18 States where abortion would 
be wholly or partially illegal almost immediately. That is against what 
America wants. It is because the President and his hard-right 
ideological judicial acolytes are way far away from where the American 
people are and are trying to create a Court that will turn the clock 
backward in so many ways, with Roe at the top of the list.
  We also know President Trump will likely nominate a Justice willing 
to reinterpret the Court's ruling that our current healthcare law is 
constitutional. Again, listen to President Trump's own words. On 
January 1, 2016, Candidate Trump said that ``Justice Roberts turned out 
to be an absolute disaster because he gave us ObamaCare.'' Later, he 
said: ``I don't think I'll have any catastrophic appointment like 
Justice Roberts.''
  Even Justice Roberts was too far to the middle for the President on 
healthcare. President Trump made it crystal clear that he is going to 
nominate somebody hostile to the Court's ruling on healthcare. There is 
no other way to interpret President Trump's words, so count on it. He 
will appoint a nominee who will roll back healthcare protections for 
tens of millions of Americans. America doesn't want that, but, again, 
the hard-right acolytes whom President Trump listens to want to use the 
Court to roll back America's rights and privileges.
  We can be sure the next nominee, of course, will obfuscate, deny, and 
hide behind the shop-worn judicial dodge: ``I will follow settled 
law.'' As we saw this week in the Janus decision, settled law is only 
settled until the Supreme Court Justices on the Court decide it isn't. 
Yesterday, they reversed 40 years of precedent in a ruling that 
stretched the meaning of the First Amendment to meet their ideological 
predispositions--their anti-union bias.
  Already there is a case wending its way through the courts that 
questions the constitutionality of the healthcare law. By repealing the 
coverage requirement, Republicans have removed the foundation upon 
which the Chief Justice based his ruling to uphold the law. If the 
change in the law changes Justice Roberts' mind, which is very likely, 
and the new jurist is as biased against our healthcare system as 
President Trump said he or she will be, millions of Americans could see 
their preexisting condition protections wiped out.
  I say to America, 80 percent to 90 percent of you believe we should 
have preexisting condition protections. The nominee of the President is 
likely to undo them and leave tens of millions of American families 
helpless. Stand up now, America, before this happens.
  The Trump administration decided the Federal Government will not 
defend the law protecting preexisting conditions in the Court. The next 
Supreme Court Justice may indeed be faced with casting a deciding vote 
on the fate of our healthcare, and we already know, unfortunately, the 
kind of vote President Trump wants.
  Now, my friend Leader McConnell warned the Senate to not get into 
personal attacks on the President's nominee. Of course, he doesn't seem 
to mind the President who makes personal attacks his daily MO, but be 
that as it may, I can assure my friend the Republican leader that there 
is no desire and no need to get into personal attacks.
  There are so many weighty issues hanging over the vacant seat: a 
woman's right to choose, the fate of our healthcare law, the right of 
workers to organize, the pernicious influence of dark money in 
politics, the right of Americans to marry whom they love, the right to 
vote. We will discuss these issues on the merits and consider a nominee 
in light of these issues, but discussing a preordained list of 
candidates who meet the hard right's ideological litmus tests? That is 
certainly legitimate, and we are going to continue to bring that up. We 
will evaluate the President's nominees on the issues, but every 
American should have his or her eyes wide open to the fact that 
President Trump is not picking the best legal mind. He has sworn to 
nominate a Justice culled from a preordained list, vetted by the 
Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society--organizations whose 
mission has been to repeal Roe v. Wade and strike at the heart of our 
healthcare law. Does anyone believe a nominee on that prevetted list 
doesn't want to challenge Roe? How do you think they got to be on that 
list, with the Federalist Society, led by Leonard Leo, whose goal is to 
repeal Roe v. Wade, putting it together, and Trump rubberstamping it? 
Given what the President has said, it is virtually certain that members 
of the list of 25 would vote to overturn Roe.
  So let this be a call to action for Americans from all corners of the 
country to rise up and speak out. Don't let this new Court--this new 
nominee, whomever he or she may be--turn back the clock on issue after 
issue because President Trump has embraced a hard-right group who has a 
veto power over nominees. Don't let us turn back the clock, America. 
Stand up. Speak out. Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives--
all should want a much fairer process.
  America, tell your Senators that if you do not want a Supreme Court 
Justice who will overturn Roe v. Wade, those Senators should not vote 
for a candidate from the list.


                              Immigration

  Mr. President, a word on immigration. Yesterday, the House Republican 
majority tried and failed to pass two distinct immigration proposals. 
They cannot find agreement, even within their own caucus, on how to 
handle the situation at the border or broader reforms to our 
immigration system. It is as clear an indication to date that President 
Trump must fix this situation on his own. He has the power to 
immediately and administratively reverse his family separation policy 
at

[[Page S4692]]

the border, which remains intact. He has the power to appoint a family 
reunification czar, to marshal and organize the various Federal 
agencies in charge of reunifying families. President Trump should 
exercise that power to start cleaning up the mess he made with his 
slapdash family separation policy.


                                 Russia

  Mr. President, this morning, the President tweeted that ``Russia 
continues to say they had nothing to do with meddling in our election'' 
before trying to turn the focus back on the FBI. Why does President 
Trump take the word of bullies like Mr. Putin at face value, while 
constantly questioning the credibility of our own intelligence 
agencies? It's outrageous. We don't ask the bank robber if they robbed 
a bank.
  Seventeen intelligence agencies have concluded, definitively, that 
Russia has meddled in our election. There is no reason to question 
their findings. The President just continues to deliberately spread 
falsehoods for the sake of his personal political interests.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hyde-Smith). The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I again rise, especially today, as the 
Senate continues to consider legislation on an issue that is critically 
important to our Nation. It is the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, 
or what we call the farm bill.
  I want to emphasize again--and I don't know how I can emphasize this 
more strongly--that I hope my colleagues will understand that the 
responsibility, the absolute requirement is to provide farmers, 
ranchers, growers, and everyone within America's food chain certainty 
and predictability during these very difficult times that we are 
experiencing in agriculture.
  As I speak, right now in Kansas, farmers are on combines, and trucks 
are taking grain to the elevator or to storage, more likely, with the 
wheat harvest. I can see in several counties, probably up in Northwest 
Kansas. We have finished that in the southern part of our State. These 
are the same folks who have had combines on the move from Texas to 
Oklahoma and now in Kansas. I can see a farmer who had planned on 
harvesting this week, but, perhaps, due to a hail storm, he is in a bad 
situation. Luckily for him, he has crop insurance, and luckily for him, 
we have been able to preserve crop insurance after going through 
several iterations of attempts to cut it--or, as some people say, 
reform it. I can see him saying: When is the Congress going to pass the 
farm bill? When can I go to my banker, my lender, and tell him I have 
assurance that I can keep going on the farm next year, especially if 
his crop has been destroyed, which happens.
  That is the person I am thinking about, especially today, when I 
think we ought to wrap this up. It is time, especially with regard to 
what we have accomplished so far. The bill passed the Ag Committee. 
This bill had a strong bipartisan vote of 20 to 1.
  This month, this bill exactly provides the certainty and the 
predictability that I have just mentioned. The Ag Committee product 
also includes portions of 67 stand-alone bills, and an additional 74 
amendments were adopted in the committee, and we have included 18 
amendments thus far during consideration in the full Senate. We have 
worked to include as many priorities for Members as possible, and we 
want to work on a possible managers' package to include a handful of 
additional amendments. So it is not like a situation where Members have 
not had an opportunity to vote. Senator Stabenow and I have extended 
our outreached hands to Members to say that we stand ready to consider 
your amendments.
  We are endeavoring to craft a farm bill that meets the need of 
producers across all regions and all crops. In Michigan, where 
oftentimes I go with Senator Stabenow and have agriculture roundtables, 
or even individual visits, I look at that great State's production with 
regard, more specially, to special crops. They are struggling. Kansas 
farmers are struggling. California growers are struggling. All of 
agriculture is struggling--not just one or two commodities. We must 
have a bill that works across all of our great Nation.
  More than 500 organizations representing thousands in agriculture, 
food, nutrition, hunger, forestry, conservation, rural business, faith-
based organizations, research, and academic issues have issued 
statements supporting this bill. This is what happens when the Senate 
works in a bipartisan fashion. We are doing just that. This is a good 
bill that accomplishes what we set out to do--again, to provide 
certainty and predictability for farmers, families, and rural America.
  It is especially timely when we have a trade policy that has a 
question mark at the end of it. I dearly hope that the President is 
successful with trade negotiations--with NAFTA. I think we should take 
another look at TPP or China and the problem with tariffs. I know the 
administration is trying to send a very strong message and address the 
trade deficit that we have had, but the moment that happens, there is 
retaliation, and 90 percent of the time, the retaliation comes at 
agriculture and small manufacturers all across the country, and for 
that matter, everybody up and down the food chain and in many other 
areas of the economy as well.
  So, again, that farmer is out there on that combine in Kansas trying 
to finish up his crop. Hopefully, the weather has not destroyed it, 
but, again, if that has happened, he at least has crop insurance. He 
wants assurance, and I know what he is saying because I visit with them 
all the time.
  In my entire public career, this is my eighth farm bill. This is not 
our first rodeo, Senator Stabenow, as you well know.
  I know what he is thinking. He is thinking: Roberts said he would get 
us a bill. Senator Moran says he is going to get us a bill. The entire 
Kansas delegation says: We are working on a farm bill. And we do that 
every time.
  We need to wrap this up today. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues on continuing to move this process forward. I would simply 
say that we need to get this done. Again, the paramount issue is to get 
it done and to provide farmers certainty and predictability.
  If I sound like I am repeating that 10 times, I intend to. All other 
issues, which I know Senators feel are terribly important, come into 
second place. I have strong issues. I mean, this is not the best 
possible bill. It is the best bill possible, and we worked very hard to 
produce that.
  I yield to my distinguished colleague from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I am here to join Chairman Roberts 
with his sense of urgency and his comments this morning.
  We have worked very hard, and the distinguished Presiding Officer, 
who is part of the committee, knows that we have produced a bill that 
is a strong bipartisan bill. It has gone on to address many other 
interests and needs that Members have brought forward in the 
substitute, and we are now working with Members as well. But there is a 
sense of urgency in the country. There are so many things right now 
that are up in the air for farmers and ranchers. It is a very difficult 
time.
  This bill, really, is a bill that provides a safety net for farmers 
and a safety net for families. As for families, because the economy is 
getting better, we are actually saving money. Over $80 billion is going 
to be saved in taxpayer dollars not used over the next 10 years because 
the economy is getting better. People don't need temporary help.
  But for our farmers, because of prices that have dropped 
significantly, because of questions about trade and markets, because of 
questions about labor and so many other things, they are under 
tremendous stress.
  Then, you add the weather. I was just in the Upper Peninsula of 
Michigan on Sunday night and Monday, where rain came crashing down in 
just a few hours and created flooding and mudslides and wiped out homes 
and key operations and other things that are going to take

[[Page S4693]]

weeks and months for folks to recover from. The riskiest business in 
the world is farming. Nobody else is getting up in the morning and 
looking at the weather report and determining whether they are even 
going to have a business.

  By the way, we want them to have a business. We have the safest, most 
affordable food supply in the world because of the folks who are 
willing to get up every day and do this and take this risk for us and, 
frankly, for the world. So we have a responsibility to them.
  It just breaks my heart when I see headlines in the paper now about 
the suicide rate going up for farmers. It is higher than for any other 
group of people. Our strong dairy farmers are people who put everything 
on the line, family operations, and because of the stress coming at 
them from every way now, they are in a terrible situation. They are 
counting on us to do what we can to provide certainty and stability for 
them, and the No. 1 way we can do that is to get this bill passed. I 
can't think of a better way to say ``Happy Fourth of July'' than to say 
that the U.S. Senate, on a bipartisan basis, has overwhelmingly passed 
a bill to support them.
  We know there are other issues on both sides of the aisle. We know in 
conference committee there is going to be a wild and woolly debate as 
we go forward on a number of things. We understand there are other 
issues we can revisit at that time. We both have been through 
conference committees. We know what that is all about.
  Here is what we know right now: We have a strong, bipartisan bill 
that helps every single region of this country. We have a big, diverse 
country, and we help all of our farmers and ranchers. We address 
conservation in every part of our country. We address food access and 
create integrity in programs that are very important to have, and we do 
all of that in a bill we can be proud to pass on a bipartisan basis. So 
now is the time to do that. Then we will continue working.
  We know there is more we need to do to work with the House in coming 
to a broader consensus. We know there are other issues our colleagues 
will want to bring forward in that process, but today--today--we can 
say to farmers and ranchers, large and small: We hear you. We 
understand what is going on, and we are going to do what we can today 
to provide the certainty and predictability they need and a sense of 
confidence that there are people who are fighting for them and who are 
going to continue to fight for them until we can get them the certainty 
and predictability they need. I hope we are on path to doing that 
today.
  It has been my great pleasure to work with the chairman of the 
committee. I am very grateful for our friendship and a great working 
relationship. We are going to do everything we can today, working with 
our colleagues, to get that done.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank my colleague and my friend.
  How many times have we heard from the folks back home: Why on Earth 
do you folks back there keep fussing at one another? Why don't you work 
together to get something done? Well, amen to that. That is the bill we 
have produced.
  I remember the gold medal ceremony of Senator Bob Dole. He was 
presented a gold medal for his tremendous leadership in the Senate. He 
was known for working across the aisle and getting things done. When we 
awarded that gold medal several months ago in Statuary Hall, Bob, at 94 
years old, stood up when they played the national anthem, from his 
wheelchair, on his own.
  For a time on a Tuesday, we were partisan in the House and to some 
degree in the Senate. I could go into all the cloture votes I have felt 
were not necessary--104, 105; I don't know how many we have had--and 4 
months of delay, but I am not going to do that. So on Tuesday, we were 
partisan; Wednesday, we were bipartisan, paying tribute to Bob. 
Everybody said: Well, why can't you emulate his example and work 
together? Then, after Wednesday, on Thursday, we were back to some 
partisan differences or philosophical differences or ideological 
differences. Compromise, again, was a dirty word.
  Well, this is our opportunity. We have proved that we can work 
together on the Ag Committee. We are the least partisan committee in 
the Congress. For goodness' sake, when agriculture is almost in a 
crisis and we desperately need to provide the farmers with the 
knowledge that we are fashioning a bill to their benefit and that it is 
a good bill, why on Earth can't we get this done?
  I thank my colleague for her comments.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, if I might just take one more moment, 
I just want to underscore what Chairman Roberts had said earlier. We 
have 500 different organizations in support of this, from every piece 
of the 12 titles, every part of the country, every agricultural group, 
every conservation--we have hunting and fishing groups. We have folks 
who care about international trade, folks who care about trading at 
home with their neighbors, and people who care about food access. There 
are 500 organizations that have come together around this bill with a 
sense of urgency to get it done, so I am very hopeful we can do that 
today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. PERDUE. Madam President, I rise today to comment on something 
that is somewhat misunderstood in many parts of our country, and that 
is the farm bill.
  I have the privilege to sit in a seat of the U.S. Senate once held by 
Saxby Chambliss, a former chairman of this Agriculture Committee. I am 
fortunate to be from a State where agriculture is our largest industry. 
I am fortunate to sit on this committee, and we have just heard from 
two people, two leaders, the ranking member, Senator Stabenow from 
Michigan, who is my good friend, and my good friend Senator Pat 
Roberts, the chairman. This is a bipartisan committee.
  People sent me up here 3 years ago. They said: Look, we need you to 
go there and get something done. I said: OK, fine.
  We know we have two opposing views in Washington, so that means you 
are going to have to compromise. I made the comment that no one gets 
everything they want. I remind people, anyone, that I am married; I 
mean, this is something that is the American way. I come from the 
American business community. I can tell you that nobody gets 100 
percent of everything they want in any deal. That is what we are 
talking about today.
  This is a bill that moves this agenda forward. It provides 
certainty--and that is what this is about--for our agriculture 
industry. It is not about subsidies. It is not about protection. It is 
about certainty. It is about protecting a strategic industry in our 
country. I want to make that point upfront. This is very definitely a 
strategic industry.
  The United States today enjoys a God-given position in the world. We 
are one of the three major bread baskets in the world. The world needs 
us to be successful in our agricultural industry.
  There are hungry people in the world whom we can feed in our capacity 
here in the United States. Our productivity in many of our commodities 
has gone up in my lifetime dramatically.
  I grew up working on a farm, and I can tell you, I know we produce a 
lot more corn per acre today than we did when I was 6 years old. This 
is an amazing productivity story, and the rest of the world needs that 
today.
  A big reason our State continues to be the best State in the country 
is that we understand this. We have a port that we can export from. We 
have God-given land and water and God-given people who understand how 
to work that land with that given water, and we produce great products 
not only for our country but for the world.
  For the last year and a half, we have been working on this farm bill, 
and all the members of that committee, myself included, have gone all 
over the country, listening to farmers and ranchers around the country. 
I have been all over my State talking to our farmers and ranchers about 
what is important to them.
  I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for providing the 
framework, really, for this particular farm bill. This is, indeed, a 
strategic industry. It must survive, and it is different.
  Getting to a farm bill that balances the needs of every commodity and 
every region is not an easy task. This

[[Page S4694]]

is not a partisan problem. It is not even a regional problem. This is 
the United States trying to make the best use of our God-given 
blessings. I am happy to say that this year's farm bill does that.
  Over the last year, we have all traveled around and heard what has 
been said. One thing is very clear; this farm bill is indeed a jobs 
bill. Getting it across the finish line today, hopefully, is simply a 
must for rural communities in Georgia and around the country.
  We have worked on this in a bipartisan fashion. I am proud to say to 
the people back home that this is a compromise they wanted us to come 
up here and achieve, and it does exactly what we wanted. It achieves 
the objective of providing certainty for an agricultural industry that 
is indeed a strategic asset in the United States.
  We have kept programs in place that have helped farmers in Georgia 
and around the country weather the low commodity market we have seen in 
the last couple of years. The chairman just mentioned that there are 
some entities and commodities that are at historic lows.
  We have cracked down on fraud within the food stamps program. We have 
advanced turf grass and timber research. We have included provisions 
important to land grant universities.
  This farm bill is not perfect, but as I said, it is a great 
compromise that achieves the objective.
  One provision that has been eliminated would help ensure that 
American textile mills have the tools they need to compete with other 
countries, for example. I hope we can find a way to fix that.
  However, as I said earlier, growing up and working on the land, I 
learned many hard lessons. At an early age, I learned that agriculture 
is not just a business; it is a way of life for many people around our 
country.
  This farm bill is an investment in those people, in our ag industry, 
and, indeed, in our country. It is not just the product that is grown 
in the soil; it is the processing, transportation, retail, and, indeed, 
the end consumer.
  There are things here meant to assist farmers only during tough 
times. When we say ``strategic industry,'' we have to be responsible 
for the survival and the transferal of the industry from generation to 
generation.
  Madam President, as you well know, in your home State, as in mine, 
most of the agricultural production in the country comes from family 
farms. President Trump is working to renegotiate trade deals with other 
countries and create a level playing field with the rest of the world. 
This is absolutely critical.
  I have lived in this trade world for most of my career. The President 
is trying to get equal access in other markets around the world. I know 
this is a tough thing after 50, 60 years of having an imbalanced trade 
environment, where the United States served a purpose to develop the 
rest of the world. We have to now stand up and provide a balance within 
those trade deals.
  We have reduced global poverty. Since 1965, when the Great Society 
was signed, the United States almost singlehandedly--on the back of our 
open market, on the back of our trade deals, and on the back of the our 
military, which provided for safe transportation of goods around the 
world--has reduced poverty by more than 60 percent. I have seen that 
happen in my career, in my lifetime.
  Unfortunately, in the United States, the poverty rate today is 
basically the same as it was in the midsixties. That is not a partisan 
comment. We all bear responsibility for that.
  What this President is trying to do is say: Hey, wait a minute. 
Something is out of balance. Our ag community has been harmed by that. 
What we are trying to do is create a level playing field, and this farm 
bill supports that.
  Over the long term, this bill will bring certainty to the American 
agricultural community. The last things family farms need from 
Washington today are more burdens, more regulations, and more 
intrusion. All of that takes away from the certainty and the planning 
it takes to manage a family farm.
  Some people are planting a plant that will not mature for 20 years, 
in some cases. Some of these men and women in these families are 
putting product in the ground that they will not benefit from, that 
their heirs will benefit from. They will have to harvest it after they 
are dead, in many cases.
  People say: Well, we need to take care of the land. Well, absolutely. 
Do you know that the best husbands of the land and the water and the 
air around the world, in my experience, have been farmers? There is a 
very simple reason why. If they don't take care take of their God-given 
blessings in the land, in the water, and in the air, and if they don't 
produce what they need, they surely can't hand it down to the next 
generation.
  Farms across our country have considerable differences, based on 
things from region, to crops, to climate conditions. Given these 
differences, one-size-fits-all measurements clearly don't work. A farm 
in Iowa is different from a farm in Georgia, in many cases.
  As I have said, this farm bill is not perfect. It is unfortunate that 
there is now an amendment on this farm bill that would measure 
appropriate and significant contributions to the family farm by 
applying a single manual labor threshold for farms across the country, 
and I think this is just wrong. The opportunity to qualify as an active 
contributor--and I put that in quotes, ``active contributor''--to the 
farm through management, bookkeeping, and other activities is important 
because it recognizes the contributions of all family members and 
individuals who actually participate in farming operations. I can tell 
my colleagues from personal experience that if it were not for my 
aunts, my cousins, my uncles, our farms would not have been successful. 
I have lived it. I know the difference that we are talking about here 
from region to region.

  If the full scope of active participants in the farm is not taken 
into consideration, a bank may be reluctant to actually finance the 
operation. I have lived that.
  The point is this: Even if an individual never drives a tractor, 
never plows a field, never milks a cow, he or she can still provide an 
important contribution to the vitality of the farm operation. It is a 
business, after all. Businesses have marketing, they have finance, they 
have sales, they have operations, and they have planning. Management 
contributions are as important as manual labor in this industry, just 
like it is in every other industry.
  Amendments like this will lead to burdensome recordkeeping for family 
farms and could indeed put in jeopardy the ability to transfer that 
farm to the next generation.
  President Trump has promised to roll back overreaching regulations 
and look out for rural America. Since he took office, over 870 
regulations have been reversed, bringing relief to family farms and 
rural Americans. With this farm bill, the Trump administration and the 
U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee have prioritized rolling back those 
overreaches. These should be our shared interests because it is good 
for our entire country and our economy.
  Between now and when this farm bill reaches President Trump's desk, I 
hope this problem with the bill gets fixed, and there are ways to do 
that.
  As I said, while the current farm bill is not perfect, I am proud to 
stand today and encourage every Member of this body to support it and 
vote for it. It does provide certainty in a very uncertain world for 
our agriculture community and the families who are the backbone of that 
industry.
  I am delighted to be a member of this committee. I take that honor 
very seriously. The legacy, as I mentioned to begin with, coming in 
behind an esteemed Senator, Saxby Chambliss as chairman--I take this 
responsibility very seriously.
  I want to commend the chairman and ranking member for pulling 
together this farm bill, and I hope to see it come to a vote, hopefully 
today.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                 Retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am a day late with the news, but Justice 
Anthony Kennedy, of course, announced

[[Page S4695]]

he is leaving the bench at the end of the month, and I would be remiss 
if I didn't start my remarks this morning by thanking him for his 40-
plus years of service to this country on the Federal bench.
  He has presided over and authored the majority opinion in many high-
stakes cases of national importance. As the news has pointed out, after 
Sandra Day O'Connor left the Court, he has been that pivotal fifth vote 
in a lot of really significant cases, which is to say, you can't really 
typecast Justice Kennedy, but I do believe he has remained committed to 
upholding the integrity of the legal system throughout the course of 
his career.
  I can say, as a former State supreme court justice myself, I know the 
work he has been doing has been painstaking, time-consuming, and 
extraordinarily important all at the same time. So I express my 
gratitude, on behalf of my constituents, to Justice Kennedy for his 
willingness, ability, and determination to carry out that work.
  While serving on the Supreme Court for the last three decades, after 
having been appointed by President Reagan, he has furthered the pursuit 
of American justice, one case at a time, which is exactly what Justices 
are supposed to do, through calm times and politically turbulent 
times--perhaps, some might say, times like the present. He recognizes 
that our core institutions are essentially democratic institutions, 
answerable to the people through their elected representatives.
  While the Court has a unique role in interpreting the Constitution--
which is the fundamental bedrock law of the Nation--in cases that don't 
turn on the constitutionality of the statute, it is important to defer 
to decisions made by the elected representatives of the people because 
we are the ones accountable to the electorate for those decisions. 
Judges, by their nature, are not because they aren't elected. They 
don't run for election. So their fidelity is supposed to be to the law 
and not to a personal agenda or politics or any other agenda.
  Justice Kennedy was an important member of the Court that recognized 
an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment and 
recently upheld the President's prerogatives to protect national 
security.
  As Justice Kennedy concludes his term this next month, we, of course, 
wish him well, along with his wife Mary and their children, and we wish 
them many more happy--and, hopefully, a little less stressful--years 
together.


               Filling the Upcoming Supreme Court Vacancy

  Meanwhile, the Senate will conduct our constitutional role of 
offering our advice and consent on whomever President Trump nominates. 
As the senior Senator from Connecticut said yesterday, ``The Senate 
should do nothing to artificially delay'' consideration of the next 
Justice. I have heard conflicting views, but I agree with the senior 
Senator from Connecticut.
  This is consistent with the standard set by former President Obama 
and Vice President Biden. In 2010--which was a midterm election--Senate 
Democrats confirmed President Obama's nominee to the court, Elena 
Kagan. Before that, when he was a Senator, Joe Biden argued that 
Supreme Court nominees should not be confirmed during Presidential 
election years. So one was a midterm, Elena Kagan. Merrick Garland--
whom we will hear more about from our Senate Democratic colleagues--
came up during a Presidential election, a time during which Joe Biden 
said that nominees should not be confirmed in the runup to a 
Presidential election.
  After President Trump makes his selection, Senators will have the 
opportunity to meet with the nominee, examine his or her 
qualifications, and debate them. We will have a hearing under the 
Senate Judiciary Committee. This will be the sixth Supreme Court 
Justice nominee I will have had the privilege to serve on the Senate 
Judiciary Committee for and question. Then, this fall, we will vote to 
confirm Justice Kennedy's successor.
  Justice Kennedy placed a deadline on his time in office. He is 
retiring July 31. So any idea of delaying this and leaving the Court 
shorthanded, particularly under these circumstances, really is beside 
the point.
  I know Chairman Grassley will, as usual, manage a fair, thorough, and 
efficient confirmation process. He always does. It is crucial that as 
this process begins to unfold, the President's nominee not be subjected 
to personal attacks from an increasingly agitated and vitriolic 
political base.
  My philosophy on the role of a judge is simple: Decisions should not 
be made on the basis of the judge's personal beliefs but from the 
analysis of legal doctrine and actual reading of the legal texts. The 
President, I believe, understands that. That is the sort of model out 
of which Neil Gorsuch's nomination came. That is also why we confirmed 
so many of his excellent choices in the 18 months of his 
administration.
  I look forward to another outstanding selection and a thorough and 
efficient confirmation process. Then, in the end, we will vote to 
confirm the President's nominee this fall.


            Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act

  Mr. President, on a separate note, yesterday, the White House 
released a statement from President Trump regarding an important piece 
of bipartisan legislation, which I introduced with the senior Senator 
from California, Mrs. Feinstein, called the Foreign Investment Risk 
Review Modernization Act or FIRRMA.
  This concerns, as the Presiding Officer knows, the Committee on 
Foreign Investment in the United States. Our adversaries around the 
world have simply figured ways to game foreign investment in the United 
States to get access to intellectual property and the know-how to 
duplicate that property surreptitiously, taking advantage of the gaps 
in the Committee on Foreign Investment's jurisdiction. So we are 
updating that legislation. It passed unanimously out of the Banking 
Committee, passed then out of the Armed Services Committee, and now is 
a part of the Senate-passed Defense authorization bill.
  As President Trump mentioned, this bill will enhance our ability to 
protect the United States from new and evolving threats posed by 
foreign investment while, at the same time, preserving our ability to 
engage in international commerce and create new opportunities 
benefiting our economy and our people.
  Let me make clear, this is not to discourage foreign investment. I 
think foreign investment is a good thing, but when our adversaries look 
to exploit gaps and antiquated language in some of our statutes in 
order to gain unfair advantage and seek access to intellectual property 
in dual-use technology that has national security implications, we need 
to act, and that is what we have done.
  The President concluded that FIRRMA will provide much needed tools to 
combat the predatory investment practices that threaten our critical 
technology and national security. I think he is exactly right, and I am 
glad he pledged to implement FIRRMA promptly and enforce it rigorously 
once it is enacted into law.
  I wish to express my appreciation to Treasury Secretary Mnuchin--who 
is the convening authority of the Committee on Foreign Investment in 
the United States--and the entire Cabinet for their input and their 
support for what we are trying to do.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
following my remarks the statement in its entirety. I will read a 
couple paragraphs because it was pretty strong. The President of the 
United States said:

       Should Congress fail to pass strong FIRRMA legislation that 
     better protects the crown jewels of American technology and 
     intellectual property from transfers and acquisitions that 
     threaten our national security--and future economic 
     prosperity--I will direct my Administration to deploy new 
     tools, developed under existing authorities, that will do so 
     globally.

  What the President is saying, and what was reinforced by Secretary 
Mnuchin in my conversations with him, is the President is depending on 
this bipartisan legislation being enacted into law and providing the 
tools necessary to protect our national security. If Congress, for some 
reason, stumbles and fails to pass this legislation, the President has 
made clear he intends to act unilaterally to fill that void.
  I applaud the President and this administration for giving Congress a

[[Page S4696]]

chance to work with the administration to fill this gap through a 
bipartisan, bicameral legislative process and to not just leap into 
that void and try to do it unilaterally, perhaps causing more confusion 
and less predictability.
  In conclusion, the President said:

       I applaud Congress on its progress toward passing robust 
     FIRRMA legislation. I urge Congress to send me a strong bill 
     as soon as possible and look forward to implementing it to 
     protect America's security and prosperity.

  The Senate bill we passed takes a carefully tailored approach, and 
the House passed a similar version earlier this week by a vote of 400 
to 2.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues throughout the Senate-
House conference process to ensure the CFIUS review process is 
sufficiently strengthened and meets the goals that we and the President 
share.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Statement From the President Regarding Investment Restrictions

                       (Issued on: June 27, 2018)

       I have often noted, consistent with the Section 301 action 
     initiated by the United States Trade Representative, that 
     certain countries direct and facilitate systematic investment 
     in United States companies and assets in order to obtain 
     cutting-edge technologies and intellectual property in 
     industries those countries deem important. Accordingly, I 
     directed the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with 
     other senior executive branch officials, to report to me 
     regarding appropriate measures to address these concerns.
       I have been advised by the Secretary of the Treasury, the 
     Secretary of Commerce, the United States Trade 
     Representative, the Assistant to the President for Economic 
     Policy, and the Director of the Office of Trade and 
     Manufacturing Policy, among others, that Congress has made 
     significant progress toward passing legislation that will 
     modernize our tools for protecting the Nation's critical 
     technologies from harmful foreign acquisitions. This 
     legislation, the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization 
     Act (FIRRMA), will enhance our ability to protect the United 
     States from new and evolving threats posed by foreign 
     investment while also sustaining the strong, open investment 
     environment to which our country is committed and which 
     benefits our economy and our people.
       After reviewing the current versions of FIRRMA with my team 
     of advisors--and after discussing them with many Members of 
     Congress--I have concluded that such legislation will provide 
     additional tools to combat the predatory investment practices 
     that threaten our critical technology leadership, national 
     security, and future economic prosperity. Therefore, upon 
     enactment of FIRRMA legislation, I will direct my 
     Administration to implement it promptly and enforce it 
     rigorously, with a view toward addressing the concerns 
     regarding state-directed investment in critical technologies 
     identified in the Section 301 investigation.
       Should Congress fail to pass strong FIRRMA legislation that 
     better protects the crown jewels of American technology and 
     intellectual property from transfers and acquisitions that 
     threaten our national security--and future economic 
     prosperity--I will direct my Administration to deploy new 
     tools, developed under existing authorities, that will do so 
     globally.
       To further ensure a robust defense of American technology 
     and intellectual property, I have also directed the Secretary 
     of Commerce to lead an examination of issues related to the 
     transfer and export of critical technologies. Through this 
     review, we will assess our Nation's export controls and make 
     any modifications that may be needed to strengthen them to 
     defend our national security and technological leadership. 
     Additionally, I have directed the Secretary of State, the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, and the 
     United States Trade Representative to engage with our allies 
     and partners to support their efforts to combat harmful 
     technology transfer and intellectual property theft.
       I applaud Congress on its progress toward passing robust 
     FIRRMA legislation. I urge Congress to send me a strong bill 
     as soon as possible and look forward to implementing it to 
     protect America's security and prosperity.

  Mr. CORNYN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The President pro tempore.


               Filling the Upcoming Supreme Court Vacancy

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I come to this lectern to speak on a 
subject of perennial importance. It is a subject I know a little 
something about--one that will not only influence the Senate agenda in 
the near term but will determine the direction of our democracy for 
decades to come. I speak, of course, on the future of the Supreme 
Court.
  Yesterday, Justice Anthony Kennedy--a great friend of mine and a 
wonderful Justice on the Court--announced his intention to step down, 
effective July 31. Justice Kennedy has served this Nation with the 
highest distinction. Over the course of his tenure, he has exercised 
outsized influence on the Supreme Court and has played a pivotal role 
in some of the most consequential Court decisions of modern times--from 
McDonald v. City of Chicago to Citizens United v. FEC.
  As a testament to his independence, he rightly gained a reputation as 
the Supreme Court's swing vote. Sometimes he sided with the Court's 
liberal wing. At other times, he sided with the conservatives. Yet he 
always sided with what he believed to be the correct interpretation of 
the law. What more could we ask from a judge?
  Throughout his public service, Justice Kennedy has mentored a 
generation of jurists who went on to become luminaries in their own 
right. Not the least among them is Justice Neil Gorsuch, a former 
Kennedy clerk who now serves as his equal on the Supreme Court. With 
his onetime pupil now working alongside him--and with dozens of former 
clerks now serving on the Federal bench--Justice Kennedy leaves behind 
a legal legacy that is almost without equal. Although he will be 
stepping down next month, his influence on our judicial system will be 
felt for generations to come.
  With Justice Kennedy's impending retirement, the responsibility now 
falls on us to confirm an able replacement. In the coming weeks, the 
President will announce his nominee to fill Justice Kennedy's seat. In 
doing so, he will seek the advice and consent of the Senate, which is a 
process that entails confirmation hearings and extended hours of debate 
in order to fully vet the qualifications of the President's nominee.
  The questions we should ask during this confirmation hearing should 
focus solely on the judge's qualifications: Does he or she have the 
requisite experience to adjudicate wisely from the bench? Does he or 
she understand the proper role of a judge under the Constitution? Does 
he or she respect our Constitution? Is he or she committed to upholding 
its principles no matter the consequence?
  This process should be simple, straightforward, and, most 
importantly, nonpolitical, but it rarely is. That is because we already 
know the Democrats will do everything they can to politicize a process 
that should not be politicized. We already know that many of them will 
ask questions of the nominee and will have an ulterior motive in mind--
to divine his or her partisan leanings rather than to evaluate the 
quality of his or her jurisprudence.
  How do we know the Democrats will do this? It is because we have seen 
them do it time and again. It started with the character assassination 
of Robert Bork, and it culminated in the unholy inquisition of Clarence 
Thomas. Tensions seemed to subside for a time, but then came the 
unprecedented filibuster of Samuel Alito and, most recently, the public 
flagellation of Neil Gorsuch.
  In every case, the nominee in question possessed indisputable 
credentials and an airtight judicial record, but in every case, my 
colleagues sought to drag these men into the partisan gutter--asking 
questions designed to parse their political positions rather than their 
legal philosophies.
  In my 42 years of Senate service, I have witnessed the gradual 
deterioration of the judicial confirmation process. As the former 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee and now as its longest serving 
Republican member, I have taken an active role in the confirmation of 
every Justice who is currently sitting on the Supreme Court and in the 
confirmations of a number who have retired. Moreover, I have 
participated in the confirmations of half of all article III judges who 
have ever served.
  Throughout this process, I have met some of the brightest legal minds 
this world has had to offer, and I have watched in disgust as my 
friends on the Democratic side have sought to undo these men and women 
for political gain. Judicial obstruction is a serious issue in its own 
right, but it is merely a symptom of a much larger problem--the 
politicization of our courts. In today's America, Republicans and 
Democrats espouse two vastly different visions for the judicial branch.
  On the right, we believe in the judiciary as it is outlined in the 
Constitution--an integral but necessarily limited branch of government 
that interprets laws but doesn't make them. We

[[Page S4697]]

believe in a judiciary that is filled with sober-minded judges who are 
committed to upholding the Constitution as written, not to molding it 
to fit their political preferences.
  On the left, you have a starkly different vision. The left believes 
the judiciary should assume an activist role and step in to fill the 
gaps of legislation when Congress fails. In doing so, the judiciary 
becomes its own quasi legislative body--a Congress 2.0 of sorts--that 
is filled with hundreds of judges who are unelected and therefore 
unaccountable to the American people.
  This conception of judicial power is inherently anti-democratic. It 
undermines the principle of representative government and cedes 
lawmaking power to a cadre of black-robed philosopher kings--a 
cloistered group of men and women who have no constitutional authority 
to make legislation but seek to do so anyway through its opinions.
  Given the left's radical vision of judicial power, it is no wonder 
the confirmation wars have escalated over the years, and it is no 
wonder the Democrats have made a circus of confirmation hearings. They 
seek to politicize the process because ultimately they seek political 
judges.
  As usual, what the left wants is not what America needs. America 
doesn't need political judges. It doesn't need an army of super 
legislators who tell us what to do. It certainly doesn't need a second 
Congress that makes laws on a whim. Isn't the one we have dysfunctional 
enough?
  No. What is best for America is wholly different from what the left 
envisions. America needs a judiciary that is insulated from the 
corrupting influence of politics. Accordingly, we need principled 
judges who put the law before any partisan concern.
  As opposed to political judges, we need impartial judges--judges who 
understand their limited role under the Constitution, judges who are 
content to say what the law is, not what they want it to be, judges who 
act as umpires, calling balls and strikes instead of swinging at every 
pitch that comes their way. In short, we need judges who will interpret 
the Constitution, not remake it in their own image.
  In taking Justice Gorsuch as an example, I have every confidence that 
the President's nominee to the Supreme Court will be qualified, 
competent, and impartial in every way. If the Democrats' treatment of 
Justice Gorsuch is any indication of things to come, then I have every 
reason to believe they will again do everything in their power to 
politicize this important confirmation process.
  They will do everything they can to malign the nominee, no matter his 
or her background or credentials, and will depict his or her as an 
extremist who is outside the mainstream. They will press, prod, and pry 
in an attempt to unearth a political agenda where none is to be found. 
They will bring all resources to bear in an effort to prevent a 
principled, constitutionalist judge from taking Justice Kennedy's seat. 
They will pull out all the stops to accelerate the politicization of 
the Supreme Court, but we will not let them.
  It is up to us to preserve the integrity of the judicial branch. We 
can begin by confirming a Supreme Court nominee who is committed to 
upholding the principles of the Constitution at all costs--a nominee 
who understands that the lawmaking power lies with Congress, not with 
the courts.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues in this endeavor in the 
weeks to come. Yet I have to say I have seen a lot of abuse in the area 
of picking judges and in confirming judges throughout the years. Both 
sides have been complicit in some ways, but I have never seen more of a 
politicization of the courts than that which has come from the other 
side. I hope they will not do that this time.
  I don't know who the President is going to pick. I have a pretty good 
idea of the list of people from which he is going to pick. I know he 
will chat with me about it, as he will with others, but I can guarantee 
you this: He is going to pick somebody who has the ability to go on 
that Court and do the job from the beginning. It is not going to be 
pleasing, perhaps, to some of my Democratic colleagues, and it may not 
be pleasing to some of my Republican colleagues. The fact is, I think 
we can rely on this President to pick an excellent person to fulfill 
this responsibility.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Family Separation

  Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues Senator Tom Udall 
and Senator Richard Blumenthal for joining me to visit the southwest 
border last week. We went to the border to seek answers and to demand 
accountability for the very real human impacts of President Trump's 
cruel and unnecessary policy of separating children from their parents.
  The permanent trauma these policies are inflicting on parents and 
their innocent children, many of whom are refugees who are fleeing 
violence and seeking asylum, is inhumane and horrific. Taking thousands 
of children--some as young as infants and toddlers--away from their 
parents and detaining them as a form of punishment or deterrence is 
ineffective and morally indefensible.
  After all, under the rule of law, refugees who flee violence have a 
right to request asylum. As of now, only about 500 children of the over 
2,000 children in custody have been reunited with their families since 
President Trump signed an Executive order last Wednesday that ended his 
family separation policy. There is still no clear plan from the White 
House that ensures all children will be reunited with their families. 
This is simply unacceptable.
  This crisis was born from malice, and, frankly, it has been inflamed 
by incompetence. As an American and as a father, I will not just sit 
by. What we saw last Friday along the border, which has been ground 
zero for President Trump's so-called zero tolerance policies, has had a 
profound impact on me.
  We learned that there are over 250 teenagers who are being housed in 
a temporary tent city detention facility in Tornillo, TX. We met with 
families who are being held at a Border Patrol station in El Paso who 
told us about their difficult journeys and the violence they 
experienced in their home countries that they are desperately trying to 
escape. Let me share the story of just one of these families who was in 
the Border Patrol's custody.
  I met a father who is in his midtwenties who came here with his, 
roughly, 2-year-old daughter, named Gabriella. He told us they fled 
here, seeking asylum, because his home country of Honduras was violent 
and unstable, and he wanted a better future for his daughter.
  If he had arrived before President Trump's Executive order last week, 
just a few days earlier, his little girl would have been, literally, 
torn from his arms. I can't tell you whether Gabriella and her father 
will be granted asylum. I suspect that will be decided by an 
immigration judge, but at least we know he will be able to keep his 
daughter by his side through this difficult process. It is 
unforgiveable that thousands of families facing similar circumstances 
are still separated, with no knowledge of where their children are, 
with no knowledge of if or when they will be reunited--all because of 
the Trump administration.

  During our visit we also learned troubling details about the process 
facing asylum seekers who are attempting to enter our Nation legally at 
our ports of entry. At the Paseo del Norte Port of Entry in El Paso, we 
learned firsthand how the Trump administration's actions are creating 
unnecessary delays on asylum claims for those fleeing violence and 
persecution. What is more, the mixed messages and outright lies coming 
from the White House and administration officials are creating real 
confusion and chaos on the ground for those actually responsible for 
carrying out the President's policies. There is not enough transparency 
from the White House or from Federal agencies. There is not enough 
oversight from this administration.
  We absolutely need to know what is going on. That is why we are 
calling for immediate hearings on the Trump administration's inhumane 
border policies and accountability and oversight of those responsible 
for carrying those policies out. Anything short of accounting for every 
single child affected

[[Page S4698]]

by this policy is unacceptable and unconscionable. We must hold the 
White House accountable for adhering to our laws, to American values, 
and for executing a clear plan to right these wrongs.
  It is important for us to recognize that the intentionally cruel 
separation of families that we have witnessed in recent weeks and 
months is only one piece of a larger systemic campaign by this 
administration to dehumanize our immigrant communities. These inhumane 
enforcement policies follow President Trump's discriminatory Muslim 
travel ban. They follow his refusal to offer refugee status to those 
from war-torn countries, such as Syria. They follow his cancellation of 
legal status for immigrants who escaped natural disasters and 
unthinkable violence in Haiti, Honduras, and El Salvador. They follow 
his unjust ending of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or the 
DACA Program, and his repeated efforts to derail any efforts in 
Congress to reach a bipartisan consensus on responsible immigration 
policies that would make smart investments in security at our borders, 
that would keep our communities safe, and that would recognize the 
dignity and vibrancy of those border communities.
  Despite President Trump's continued determination to sabotage any 
good-faith efforts, I continue to believe that our Nation desperately 
needs Congress to pass comprehensive immigration legislation. That 
includes a visa system that meets the needs of our economy, a fair path 
to earn citizenship for the estimated 11 million people in our country 
who are undocumented, and a plan that ensures security at our Nation's 
borders. Rather than stirring up division and targeting law-abiding 
immigrants who are working hard to support their families and pay 
taxes, we should focus our enforcement activities and resources on 
violent criminals. We must also act with a sense of urgency to find a 
responsible way forward for the hundreds of thousands of Dreamers who 
are just as much a part of our communities as any one of us. They are 
Americans in every way except on paper. I will not give up on them.
  None of President Trump's callous actions on immigration represent 
the values of the America that I know and love--the America that 
welcomed my father and his family as they emigrated here from Germany 
in the 1930s. When I think about immigration, I always wonder how 
different my life would be if America had turned my family away, had 
turned my father away, or had broken his family apart.
  Sadly, that is not an abstraction. It is not an abstract question for 
thousands of families still desperately hoping to be reunited now. Just 
like my father's family, these families are mothers, fathers, and 
children who are overwhelmingly people seeking to come to America 
because of the promise that our Nation represents. I take heart in the 
groundswell of decency that we have witnessed from thousands of 
Americans who have made their voices heard.
  After we visited the border on Friday, Senator Udall and I joined 
hundreds of New Mexicans for a community event in Las Cruces. I want to 
share an image of a little girl who I saw at the event.
  As you can see on this graphic, her sign reads: ``I love my family 
and I need them every day.'' That is really what this is all about. I 
am sure that the innocent children who have been separated from their 
parents and placed in detention facilities feel exactly the same way.
  At the root of this often difficult debate, I believe we need to 
reaffirm the humanity of these children and their parents. We cannot 
stop fighting for compassionate and responsible immigration policies 
that respect the dignity of these families. We must not turn our backs 
on the ideals and fundamental values that made the United States both 
the most powerful Nation on Earth and a beacon of moral leadership. We 
must continue to make our voices heard and demand reunification for all 
of these children with their families.
  I want to assure New Mexicans and all Americans that I stand with you 
in saying that this is not what we stand for. I will not rest until our 
country is once again seen as the moral leader of the free world.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to join the debate this morning 
on the farm bill and to make sure we get the farm bill passed. It is so 
important to the State of Washington and to our country.
  I know many of my colleagues have been down here talking about 
agriculture, but in the State of Washington, it is responsible for 
about 164,000 jobs. And while we produce about $10-plus billion of 
economic activity, about $180 billion of economic activity goes through 
our ports every year. So if you are growing an agricultural product in 
the United States, there is a good chance you are shipping that product 
through Washington ports, going to Asia and a variety of places.
  The agriculture and food industry is a huge part of our U.S. economy 
as well, and provides 11 percent of total U.S. employment. So to say 
this bill is an important economic tool is an understatement.
  We know that in the United States of America, a trade surplus in 
agriculture has existed for 50 years. So when we are talking about 
making investments and opening new markets and protecting agriculture 
from the trade war that we are seeing, it is very important that this 
bill helps recognize the hard work that the farmers in the United 
States of America have done in growing our economy. We must make sure 
they continue to have those economic opportunities in the future.
  Since U.S. exports gained access to markets like South Korea more 
than a decade ago, Washington farmers in my State have seen increases 
in exports of up to 80 percent for potatoes and 200 percent for 
cherries. Agriculture exports support more than a million jobs around 
the United States, so it's important to maintain our agriculture trade 
surplus.
  I am proud to say that, working with our colleagues, the chairman of 
the committee, Senator Roberts, and the ranking member, Senator 
Stabenow, we have worked to make sure that we are making improvements 
and increasing MAP, the Market Access Program. This critical program 
provides technical assistance and more flexibility for the Secretary of 
Agriculture to help our farmers increase access to new markets. This is 
so important at a time when we are seeing so much chaos in the 
marketplace. We want to make sure we continue to have an aggressive 
attitude toward opening markets--not closing them.
  From 1977 to 2014, it is estimated that our market access programs 
produced an average return on investment of $28 for every dollar that 
was invested--that is, when you are opening a market to sell U.S. 
products abroad. That is a huge investment for us to export our product 
into those countries.
  I know that some of our colleagues have been working across the aisle 
to help make sure that MAP funding is more secure and that we invest 
more. I am working with my colleague, Senator Crapo from Idaho, to make 
sure that provisions are in this bill that give the Secretary more 
flexibility to help us on things like our fruit products and potato 
products from the Pacific Northwest. I appreciate his help making sure 
this bill represents at least some of us who want to increase those 
opportunities for the future.
  Washington State is the third largest exporter of food and 
agricultural products in the United States. Our agricultural sector 
accounts for 13 percent of our economy annually, and we are proud to 
grow about 300 different types of products. There are nearly 40,000 
farms, and, as I said, 164,000 Washingtonians are employed in that 
sector.
  We continue to work to make sure that the type of research that is 
represented in this bill--the R&D that is done in great institutions in 
our State, such as Washington State University, provide good 
information for us. And our agricultural extension programs need to be 
funded to make sure that conservation continues to be an opportunity 
for our farmers. Our farmers

[[Page S4699]]

must have resources to diversify their crops.
  All of these things are important in moving a farm bill through the 
Senate and on to the President's desk eventually.
  I am very concerned that my colleagues in the House of 
Representatives want to cut or limit the SNAP program. This has been an 
essential tool as part of ag for a long time and should continue. The 
notion that we are going to hold up an ag bill at a critical time, when 
concerns about tariffs are impacting our farmers, is wrong. What we 
need to do is move forward on giving the assurances to our farmers that 
we want them to have the research and development, we want them to have 
the tools of conservation, and that we certainly want them to have the 
Market Access Program so they can continue to reach markets all around 
the globe.
  Our ag economy is so important to us in the Pacific Northwest. This 
bill is helping us make a downpayment on it and giving us a little 
flexibility.
  I am going to take the Secretary of Agriculture at his word today. I 
heard him on television saying he is going to mitigate any kind of 
damage being done to farmers based on tariffs. I am going to hold him 
to his word.
  Believe me, as we move this legislation through the process, I am 
going to make sure that every tool is available for the great products 
that we grow in Washington State. I want them to reach market 
destinations. I don't want them to be retaliated against in a trade 
war.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. SMITH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. SMITH. Madam President, I rise today to voice my strong support 
for the farm bill that the Senate is currently considering.
  First, I would like to thank Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member 
Stabenow for their strong leadership on this bipartisan bill. When I 
first became a Senator just months ago, I asked for a seat on the 
Agriculture Committee, and I immediately formed a farm bill working 
group in Minnesota so that I could hear from farmers and ranchers, 
foresters, researchers, rural community leaders, and Tribes, as well as 
experts on nutrition, energy, and conservation, to make sure that 
Minnesota's priorities were included in this farm bill.
  In the last few months, in Minnesota, my staff and I have convened 
over 30 listening sessions around the State, and I am very grateful for 
the input and ideas we have gotten through the farm bill process.
  The farm bill touches the lives of virtually every American, and it 
is vital to my State's economy. This bill will provide important 
stability and predictability to Minnesota farmers, ranchers, rural 
communities, and Indian Country, while also sustaining tens of 
thousands of Minnesota jobs.
  The farm bill works when all three pillars of the bill work together: 
traditional farm programs, rural development, and nutrition. If we 
remove one of these pillars, the farm bill will not be able to stand.
  The nutrition programs reauthorized by the Senate farm bill are of 
vital importance. According to the Agriculture Department, in 2016, 
over 41 million people, including millions of children across the 
country, lived in food-insecure households. This is why, when you talk 
to farmers and ranchers in my State, they know how important it is to 
support nutrition programs, and they understand, as I do, that any 
efforts to weaken nutrition programs will ensure that this bill does 
not pass.
  I was proud to be able to participate in crafting the farm bill as a 
member of the Agriculture Committee. It was a truly bipartisan process, 
an example of how we can get things done when we work together.
  I am very happy that this bill includes many of the provisions I 
worked hard on, on behalf of Minnesota. For example, the Senate bill 
maintains the sugar program, which is so important to Minnesota's sugar 
beet farmers. The sugar industry employs about 29,000 people in 
Minnesota and provides 142,000 jobs nationwide. Sugar is a $20 billion-
a-year industry--$3.4 billion in my State alone.
  The U.S. sugar policy runs at zero cost and ensures that American 
farmers are on an even playing field against subsidized foreign sugar. 
Any amendment that threatens the safety net for sugar farmers could put 
many farmers into bankruptcy and should be opposed.
  This farm bill also expands gains made in the dairy safety net 
earlier this year. I pushed for these improvements to help Minnesota 
dairy farmers who are facing falling milk prices.
  I am pleased that this farm bill will establish a new national animal 
disease preparedness, response, and recovery program. I heard about the 
need for vaccine banks and animal disease readiness at a poultry 
testing lab in Willmar, MN. When Minnesota was hit hard by the avian 
flu outbreak that resulted in the deaths of nearly 9 million turkeys 
and chickens, we knew this new program was needed.
  I have also pushed for other Minnesota priorities that came out of 
the many conversations we had with Minnesotans. I worked hard to make 
sure this bill advances conservation programs so farmers have the 
opportunity to start new conservation plans and then keep them going 
over the long term to protect the environment and increase 
productivity.
  I supported Ranking Member Stabenow's Timber Innovation Act. This 
bill encourages new and innovative uses for wood in building 
construction, which is important for the timber industry in my State.
  I am very proud that this bill expands programs I advocated for to 
help beginning farmers and traditionally disadvantaged farmers. We need 
to make sure producers from diverse backgrounds are able to access USDA 
services. In my State, this means Native American farmers, Hmong, 
Latino, Somali farmers, and veteran farmers.
  Today, as our farmers face deep uncertainty around tariffs, this bill 
includes bipartisan provisions to increase funding for USDA trade 
promotion activities. International markets are essential to the 
profitability of many farmers, including in Minnesota.
  This bill also helps to protect Native food products from fraudulent 
imposters on the market. For example, some food businesses are trying 
to mimic or replicate unique Tribal food products, such as Minnesota 
wild rice, and then sell those foods on the marketplace as 
``traditional'' food items.
  Developing new international markets through trade promotion is 
something Minnesota farmers and leaders in Indian Country have been 
calling for, and we do it in this bill.
  As ranking member of the Rural Development and Energy Subcommittee, I 
am very happy that this bill has a strong energy title. I introduced 
legislation outlining a roadmap for this title in the farm bill, and I 
led a bipartisan coalition of my colleagues urging the committee to 
fund and strengthen the many successful energy programs at USDA.
  One example is the Rural Energy for America Program, which helps ag 
producers, local businesses, and rural communities develop energy 
efficiency and renewable energy projects that create jobs, cut energy 
bills, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
  Another example is the Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased 
Product Program. American farmers can provide the raw material for 
high-value products that replace and improve on products typically made 
from oil. Bioplastics, for example, are better for the planet than 
traditional plastics.
  Another message I hear all the time as I meet with rural development 
leaders across Minnesota is the need for reliable internet service. 
Broadband is the infrastructure of the 21st-century economy. It is not 
just nice to have; it is necessary if we are going to build an economy 
that works for everyone. Whether you are a student doing your homework, 
a business owner selling your products, a farmer using modern precision 
agriculture equipment, or a person who is trying to access healthcare, 
you need access to broadband internet service. I am very glad this bill 
incorporates my Community Connect Grant Program Act to authorize and 
increase funding for this important effort. The bill also seeks to 
modernize speeds so that those living

[[Page S4700]]

in rural communities don't get stuck with lower service quality than 
those living in urban areas.
  The Community Connect Broadband Grant Program will create better 
broadband access to unserved remote and Tribal communities and help 
spur economic growth in rural America. It is a step forward and one of 
the many things that we need to do to connect Minnesotans to people 
across the Nation with affordable, reliable internet service.
  I also hear from Minnesotans about their love of local produce and 
the importance of supporting regional food economies. I am happy to see 
that this bill creates a streamlined Local Agriculture Market Program 
to support developing local and regional food systems, and it increases 
mandatory funding for organic research, another priority of mine.
  I am proud that this bill includes the Rural Health Liaison 
legislation, which I worked on with Senator Jones from Alabama and 
Senator Rounds of South Dakota. The Rural Health Liaison will encourage 
collaboration between USDA and Health and Human Services to address the 
specific healthcare needs of rural communities.
  I am pleased to see the inclusion of my bill encouraging USDA to 
assist veterans in joining the agriculture workforce after leaving 
service. This is going to expand access and job opportunities for 
returning servicemembers.
  As we consider the farm bill on the Senate floor, we also need to 
listen to all of our communities, including leaders in Indian Country. 
We have many good provisions in the bill for Native communities. In 
addition to addressing Tribal food fraud, this bill requires the 
Secretary of Agriculture to support greater inclusion of Tribal 
products in Federal trade promotion efforts. It also expands 
eligibility for forestry program funding to include the 1994 Tribal 
colleges so more students in Minnesota and around the country can get 
involved in forestry research.
  I was glad to join Senator Heitkamp in supporting a new technical 
assistance program that will help Tribes access rural development 
initiatives and will authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to 
designate Tribal promise zones to further improve access to Federal 
economic development resources.
  Finally, I am eager to see Native farmers in Minnesota take advantage 
of the improved resources for socially disadvantaged farmers and 
ranchers in this bill. There are so many opportunities for success in 
agriculture, and it is important that USDA resources are available to 
all communities. But there is a lot left to be done. We still need to 
access many more USDA programs for Native Americans and empower Tribes 
to make sure that these programs work for Tribal communities.
  We need more investment in conservation projects, and we should allow 
Tribes to develop their own technical standards for conservation based 
on their traditions and ecological knowledge.
  When I first became a Senator, I asked to be a member of the Indian 
Affairs Committee. As the newest member of that committee, I have 
picked up on a couple of themes.
  One is that virtually every program for Indian Country is 
underfunded, and, two, we have to empower Tribes to create solutions 
that work for their members. We need to listen to leaders in Indian 
Country and make sure that the farm bill works for them.
  I introduced an amendment to make sure that Tribes have the authority 
to administer the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. 
This is a top priority of the Native Farm Bill Coalition.
  Over 360 federally recognized Tribes participate in Tribal self-
governance programs at the Indian Health Service and at the Department 
of the Interior. With a 30-year proven track record, Tribal self-
governance is widely considered by Tribes and stakeholders as one of 
the most successful Federal Indian policies. Approximately 25 percent 
of Native Americans receive some type of Federal food assistance, and 
in some Tribal communities, participation is as high as 80 percent. 
Giving Tribes the authority to administer SNAP will allow them to meet 
the specific needs of their communities to fight hunger.
  I am hopeful that this very important, bipartisan amendment will get 
proper consideration.
  We need to pass this farm bill now to give the farmers and ranchers 
certainty.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________