By Sen. Debra Fisher On Monday, June 22, U.S. and Russian officials are scheduled to meet in Vienna, Austria, to discuss nuclear arms control. In our political environment today, where news cycles are measured in hours rather than days, major developments in national security such as this often fail to garner the recognition they deserve. But these talks are worth the world's attention. This meeting comes on the heels of President Trump's decision in May to withdraw the United States from the Open Skies Treaty, a decades-old agreement between the then-members of NATO and the Warsaw Pact allowing member nations to fly over each other's territory with observation aircraft. Offutt Air Force Base in my home state of Nebraska is home to the platforms that carried out these missions. Unfortunately, Russia went against the spirit of openness and transparency that the treaty was meant to foster. Russia's misbehavior was nothing new. Less than a year before, President Trump also withdrew from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty, or INF, after more than a decade of Russian violations, many of which were documented by the Obama administration. I believe we were correct to withdraw from these treaties, and the administration made these decisions in response to Russian noncompliance. The president's critics, however, have portrayed the withdrawals as symptoms of an underlying allergy to arms control and other international agreements. They note that we are left with only one major arms-control treaty between Russia and the United States -- the New START treaty. Negotiated a decade ago, New START limits each nation to 1,550 deployed "strategic" nuclear warheads and provides for a system of inspection and verification between the two parties. It is set to expire in February of next year, although the agreement includes an option to extend its terms until 2026. The administration remains open to the possibility of extension, but its future remains uncertain. American officials have expressed interest in including China in future arms-control negotiations, even inviting them to participate in the June 22 talks in Vienna. China declined, and they will continue to expand their arsenal, which intelligence experts expect to double in size over the next decade. The debate over where to go from here is beginning to play out along familiar political lines. Many of President Trump's detractors argue that his expressed interest in a broader dialogue is merely a cover for his true anti-arms control instincts. Others contend that the necessary modernization of our aging nuclear systems, a priority for both this president and his predecessor, should be put on hold until we straighten out our treaties with the Russians. This would be a mistake. Arms control is a worthy goal, but letting our weapons age without replacing them would actually undermine prospects for future arms control, to say nothing of the risk it would pose to our national security. Crucially, we are currently on track for what former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Paul J. Selva has called "just-in-time" modernization, where any delays could result in much of our nuclear arsenal aging out before replacement systems are ready. The outright cancellation of these modernization programs, as some have proposed, would commit the nation to a path of eventual disarmament, as our systems would decay over time to the point of uselessness. This approach would also remove any incentive Russia or China have to negotiate. Mutual reductions lose their value when one side has unilaterally committed to disarm. As former Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov put it in a rare moment of transparency in 2013: "When I hear our American partners say, let's reduce something else, I would like to say to them, excuse me? But what we have is relatively new. [You] have not conducted any upgrades for a long time." In the face of growing alarmism about the future of arms control, we must remember that it has seen dark days before. In 1983, the Soviet Union walked out of talks to limit the number of theater-range nuclear missiles in Europe -- talks that eventually led to the INF. At the time, commentators and even many in government thought this meant any chance of reaching an agreement to limit these missiles had been lost. But negotiations resumed less than three years later, with the Soviets much more willing to participate in good faith. As a split Congress begins our own set of negotiations over the annual National Defense Authorization Bill, I hope my House colleagues will keep this in mind and remember that modernization and arms control should be viewed independently. Each is valuable and should be pursued on its own merits, but we cannot afford any delays to our current schedule of modernization. If we allow modernization to get caught up in the horse-trading of our polarized politics, we will find ourselves with neither usable weapons nor effective arms control. We cannot let that happen.

By Deb Fischer At the 77th Golden Globes Awards last week, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association publicized their commitment to combating climate change and "saving the world" by way of an anti-meat crusade. For the first time in the award show's history, the HFPA offered a menu that completely snubbed real meat. The association's president said in a statement that the plant-based menu raises awareness around "small changes that have a greater impact." The claim promotes a meatless diet as a north star for a world-conscious, sustainable, and morally noble lifestyle. But stunts like this are not only hypocritical, they are overly simplistic and lead people further away from real practices that could help reduce carbon emissions. America's ranchers and producers have been a popular target for blame from climate change activists. A number of these attacks stem from the false assertion that livestock is the largest source of greenhouse gases. However, the Environmental Protection Agency states that all of U.S. agriculture contributes to a mere nine percent of greenhouse gas emissions, with animal agriculture less than half of this amount at below four percent. This pales in comparison to transportation emissions, which accounts for 28 percent. That's why many people find it increasingly difficult to take seriously the climate-friendly message of abstaining from meat for one meal, while attendees arrived at the Golden Globes in an armada of private planes and limousines. And when more than 10,000 flowers flown into California from Ecuador and Italy decorated the ballroom tables. Millions of people around the world rely on meat as source of rich nutrients that simply cannot be replaced. Unlike many plant-based products, meat does not contain the highly processed ingredients to imitate beef's delicious taste. Beef contains only one ingredient and requires a rigorous safety inspection before reaching the market. I recently introduced the Real MEAT Act which would address the growing issue of deceptive labeling of plant-based meat alternatives and help ensure consumers know what they are purchasing at the grocery store. And there's even more evidence that the potential impact of "going vegan" would be minimal at best. According to Dr. Frank Mitloehner, a professor at University of California-Davis, even if Americans followed Hollywood's lead and dropped their appetite for meat, the total amount of our nation's GHG emissions would reduce by just 2.6 percent, while robbing consumers of essential nutrients. A much more effective way to demonstrate a commitment to reducing our carbon footprint would revolve around the event's most discussed topic: the fashion. When these extravagant gowns are only worn once, valuable resources are wasted and the environment pays the price. CBS News reported earlier this year that the Ellen MacArthur Foundation found the "total greenhouse gas emissions related to textiles production are equal to 1.2 billion tons annually -- more than those of all international flights and maritime shipping trips combined." Make no mistake: climate change is a real and serious issue. It deserves the kind of thoughtful, bipartisan solutions that agriculture producers are familiar with. Advances in technology have produced significant improvements to crop yields, irrigation techniques, and fertilizer management. Innovators in Nebraska have developed a tool that connects to center pivot irrigation systems and remotely controls water output based on the amount needed for a particular field. It's estimated that since this tool was launched, it has saved over 21 billion gallons of water, over 34 million kilowatt hours of energy, and over 57 million pounds of carbon dioxide emissions around the globe. Farmers in Nebraska, who depend on a healthy environment to be successful, are already good stewards of our land, air, and water and continually are improving their practices. I respect the decision of those who personally choose to adhere to a vegan diet, but Hollywood Hypocrites need to stop using America's farmers and ag producers as a scapegoat. Deb Fischer is a United States Senator from Nebraska and member of the Senate Agriculture Committee.

By Deb Fischer A group of vegans are suing Burger King over its meatless alternative, the "Impossible Burger." They allege that after the restaurant added the plant-based patty to its menu, Burger King "contaminated" those burgers by exposing them to real meat on the grill. As a lifelong Nebraskan and a cattle rancher, I can't imagine how someone could see beef as a "contaminant." But this lawsuit reflects a growing challenge with imitation meat: Americans are increasingly unsure what's on their dinner plates. Chances are you've heard of plant-based protein products seeking to imitate the taste of real beef. Many of these fake-meat companies are running smear campaigns against actual beef, using deceptive labeling and marketing practices. This has left consumers confused about the ingredients and nutritional values of so-called beef alternatives. I introduced the Real MEAT Act in the Senate because Americans deserve to know whether the meat they are eating is the real thing. In a recent survey, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association found that 80% of consumers believe alternative protein products are nutritionally equivalent or superior to actual beef. There's no evidence to support that claim. A 4-ounce serving of lean ground beef contains a range of nutrients that fake meat lacks, including zinc, iron and B vitamins. Real beef also contains less fat, saturated fat and sodium, as well as more protein, compared with most meat alternatives of equal weight. Beyond Meat, a California-based company, recently removed an inaccurate statistic from its website that claimed eating meat increases your chance of getting cancer and heart disease. The website failed to note that the study it was citing referred only to highly processed meats, not fresh beef. Plant-based proteins are made up of a laundry list of mostly processed ingredients--there are 21 ingredients in an Impossible Burger and 22 in a Beyond Burger. Even so, the NCBA survey found more than a fifth of consumers mistakenly believed that these products do in fact contain meat. Less than half of respondents knew that plant-based "beef" was completely vegan. Misleading labels are to blame for the confusion. Plant-based protein packaging often contains the words "beef," "meat" and "burger" in large letters. The Real MEAT Act would work to end deceptive labeling practices for imitation meat products, clear up confusion by codifying a definition of "beef" for product labeling, and provide a mechanism for the U.S. Department of Agriculture to seek enforcement actions if a product is found to be mislabeled. The bill would also ensure that the packaging for these products clearly states they contain no actual meat. Nebraska farmers and ranchers have been producing amazing beef for generations, and its quality is a source of pride for our entire state. It's delicious and nutritious. Americans deserve to know what they are eating, particularly when they want to be sure that the meat on their plates is the kind of real, irreplaceable beef for which Nebraska is famous. I will continue to work to build support for the Real MEAT Act in the Senate and among my colleagues on the Agriculture Committee. Working together, we can end the smear campaign against real beef and bring certainty to the supermarket. Mrs. Fischer, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Nebraska.