John Thune

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy).

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy) and the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, yesterday, we confirmed Robert Luck, a Florida supreme court justice, to be a U.S. Circuit judge for the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. With Justice Luck's confirmation, the Senate has now confirmed 47 appellate court judges during this administration and 163 Article III judges overall. That is more appellate court judges than had been confirmed at this point in any of the previous five Presidential administrations, and it is a particularly outstanding number when you consider that the Democrats have made confirming these judges as difficult as they possibly can. From day one of this administration, Democrats were determined to obstruct anything this President did, his nominations in particular. Again and again and again, they have attempted to block nominees for no other reason than the fact that they were nominated by this President. Democrats have subjected roughly 75 percent of the administration's judicial nominees to the time-consuming cloture process. Compare that to the treatment of President Obama's nominees. At this point in President Obama's administration, roughly 3 percent of his judicial nominees had been subjected to cloture votes--just 3 percent, 3 percent versus 75 percent for President Trump. The difference in these numbers is not because this President has nominated scores of extreme nominees who Democrats felt they could not support. In fact, Democrats have repeatedly turned around and voted for the very same judges they have obstructed. In one particularly egregious example, in January of 2018, Democrats forced the Senate to spend more than a week confirming four district court judges, even though not one single Democrat voted against their confirmation. These judges could have been confirmed in a matter of minutes by voice vote, but Democrats forced the Senate to spend more than a week on their consideration, time that could have been spent on genuinely controversial nominees or on some of the important issues facing our country. Despite Democrats' obstruction, we have continued to move forward, and as I said, yesterday, we confirmed our 163rd judge to the Federal bench. Today, we will confirm our 164th. We are putting judges on the bench with a real respect for the law and for the Constitution and a commitment to applying the law as written. Now, those sound like basic requirements for a judge, but too often, it seems like my Democrat colleagues are interested not in judges who will uphold the law, but in judges who will act like superlegislators, rewriting the law and the Constitution when they do not fit with the Democrats' political opinions, and that is a very dangerous thing. When judges rule based not on what the law actually says, but what they think the law should be, they undermine a fundamental principle of our system of government. Our system is based on belief in the rule of law. In the American system, the law is supposed to be the final, impartial arbiter. Cases are to be decided based on what the law says, not on what a particular judge feels. Sure, it might seem nice when an activist judge goes outside the meaning of a law and rules for your preferred outcome. But what happens when that same judge reaches beyond the law to your detriment? What protection do you have if the law is no longer the highest authority? Equal treatment under the law, equal justice under the law, these principles can only be maintained as long as judges actually rule based on the law and not on their personal feelings or personal opinions. My Democrat colleagues have shown a disturbing tendency to believe that their opinions are the only ones that should prevail. They disapproved of the outcome of the last election, and so for 3 years, they have done everything they can to undermine a duly-elected President. They are upset by the fact that the President got to replace a perceived swing vote on the Supreme Court, and the solution floated by more than one member of their party was to pack the Supreme Court. For anyone who needs a refresher on an idea that most thought had been consigned to the dustbin of history decades ago, the theory of court-packing is as follows: If the Supreme Court is not deciding cases to your liking, add more Justices to the Court until you start getting the decisions that you want. Listen to Democrats question judicial nominees, and it soon becomes apparent that their biggest concern is not finding judges who will uphold the law and the Constitution, but judges who will uphold Democrats' political opinions and preferred policy outcomes. It is a disturbing trend. It is natural to want your party to prevail and to believe that your ideas are the best ones for the country. It is another thing entirely to start acting like your opinions are the only ones that should ever prevail, regardless of election outcomes or the wishes of the American people. I am proud that we are putting judges on the bench who will rule according to the law and to the Constitution, not their personal opinions, their political beliefs, or the political party of the individuals before their court. I am proud that we are putting judges on the bench who will help ensure that the rule of law is maintained and that everyone in their courtroom receives the equal protection of the law. I look forward to confirming more excellent judges in the near future. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, our most fundamental responsibility as Members of Congress is to provide for our Nation's defense, and a big part of that is ensuring that our men and women in uniform have the resources they need to defend our country. That means, of course, that we have to ensure that our military receives adequate funding to meet today's priorities and to prepare for the threats of tomorrow. It also means we need to ensure that our military receives timely funding. Our military doesn't just need sufficient funding to cover defense priorities; it also needs to receive that money on time, on a predictable schedule. That means passing the Defense appropriations bill before the end of each fiscal year instead of forcing the military to rely on temporary funding measures that leave the military in doubt about funding levels and unable to start important new projects. Right now, we are almost 2 full months into the 2020 fiscal year. We should have passed the Defense appropriations bill by the end of September, but we didn't because, unfortunately, our Democratic colleagues were unable to resist the chance to pick yet another fight with the President. This wasn't supposed to happen. At the end of the summer, the congressional leaders of both parties and the President reached an agreement on funding levels for 2020 and 2021. The leaders also agreed on a number of guidelines for appropriations bills, including a ban on poison pills intended to derail appropriations legislation. The idea behind this agreement was to pave the way for the timely passage of appropriations bills and to prevent the kind of situation we are in right now--almost 2 months behind on passing defense and other funding. Unfortunately, the Democrats chose to renege on this agreement. The Senate Democrats are currently holding up defense funding by insisting on the type of poison pills they promised to forgo just a few months ago. The leader has attempted to bring up the Defense appropriations bill twice, and both times the Senate Democrats have filibustered the legislation. It is deeply disappointing. I understand that my Democratic colleagues are looking for any opportunity to pick a fight with the President, but funding for our men and women in uniform should not be subjected to the Democrats' partisan whims. Thanks to the Democrats, right now, our military is operating under a continuing resolution that leaves the military short of the funding it needs for the 2020 fiscal year. That has real consequences. In addition to leaving the military underfunded, a continuing resolution prevents the military from starting key projects that will help to ensure our men and women in uniform will be prepared to meet the threats of the future. The Pentagon can't start new procurement projects. New research and development initiatives that keep us a step ahead of our adversaries are put on hold. All told, under a continuing resolution, the military's purchasing power is reduced by, roughly, $5 billion each quarter. To put that in perspective, that is the equivalent of losing out on about 56 Joint Strike Fighter planes, depending on the variant, every 3 months. That $5 billion the Pentagon is going without is urgently needed funding for critical military priorities. The longer the Pentagon goes without this funding, the greater the consequences for our military preparedness. Playing politics with our national defense is unacceptable. We owe our men and women in uniform timely, reliable, and adequate defense funding, and we owe every man, woman, and child in the United States the same thing. The safety of every person in this country depends on the strength of our military. I hope that at least some of my Democratic colleagues will see their way to joining the Republicans in getting this year's Defense appropriations bill to the President's desk. It is time to get our men and women in uniform the funding that they need and that they deserve. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, November is National Adoption Month. Later this morning, I will be spending time with a family I nominated to receive an Angels in Adoption Award this year. The Angels in Adoption Program is designed to bring recognition to individuals and organizations who are, in the words of the program, ``making extraordinary contributions to adoption, permanency, and child welfare.'' Angels in Adoption is a program in the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute, and each year Members of Congress are invited to nominate an individual or family to receive an Angels in Adoption Award. I have been making these nominations for more than a decade now. It has been a privilege and an inspiration to meet South Dakota families who have opened their hearts and homes to children in need. This year, I nominated Mike and Kim Adams, fellow residents of Sioux Falls, SD. Mike and Kim have a tremendous heart for children. They have five biological children, but as they learned more about the plight of children in poverty, they were drawn to adoption. God put the country of Ethiopia on their hearts in a particular way. In 2008, they adopted a daughter from Ethiopia--Eva. Within a few years, they had adopted three more children--Selena and Amanuel from Ethiopia and Shakira from Uganda--making them a family of 11. The story doesn't end there. Seeing the poorest of the poor in Ethiopia deeply moved them, and in addition to adoption, they sought ways to help communities stuck in poverty. The needs of children were particularly close to their hearts. In 2013, Mike and Kim agreed to take over two schools in Ethiopia when the agency running them was forced to pull out of the country. The Adams family formed the Adams Thermal Foundation to support the schools. Today the foundation supports more than 1,000 students in two schools in Ethiopia. The schools' mission is to serve children most in need-- those who might otherwise miss out on the opportunity for an education. In addition to academic instructions, schools provide other resources in an effort to alleviate some of the effects of poverty and to make it easier for the children to stay in school. To name one example, at the end of last year, the foundation completed a project to provide a permanent source of clean water to its school in Ottoro, Ethiopia, as well as to seven local villages. In addition to providing essential health and sanitation benefits, the new pipeline also frees children from the hours-long task of fetching water for their families, meaning more children can attend school. In learning Mike and Kim's story, I was struck by how love multiplies and expands. Mike and Kim's willingness to open their hearts has led not only to four children finding a forever home but to hope and opportunity for hundreds more. I feel privileged to have learned their story and to be able to nominate them for an Angels in Adoption Award this year. National Adoption Month is a chance to honor all those who, like the Adams, chose to welcome a child in need of a home. Sadly, not every child is born into a safe and loving home. Some are born to parents who are unable to take care of them. Some lose their parents to war, accident, or illness, and, tragically, some are born to parents who refuse to take care of them or actively seek to damage the great gift in their care. Thankfully, there are parents out there eager to receive these children. Across our country, there are countless parents whose homes and hearts are already prepared to welcome a child in need. They may not yet know the names of their future sons or daughters, but they are ready and waiting to meet them. National Adoption Month is a good time to rededicate ourselves to caring for children in need and helping them find loving families to receive them. In the gospel of Mark, Jesus says, ``Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me.'' There are few actions more worthy of admiration than a decision to welcome a child in need and to create for that child a secure and loving home. I am so grateful for all of the generous families across this country who have opened their hearts and found sons and daughters through adoption. I am also thankful for all of the birth mothers who have chosen adoption for their children to give them better lives in loving families. I am honored to recognize the Adams family today for their embrace of their own adopted children, as well as everything they have done to make life better for children in Ethiopia. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, it has now been 13 months since the administration concluded negotiations on the United States-Mexico- Canada Free Trade Agreement. It has been 13 months of uncertainty for U.S. farmers and ranchers, manufacturers, small businesses, digital firms, financial institutions, and many others. It has been 13 months of wondering what the rules of the road on trade are going to look like going forward. We should have passed the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement months ago. The Republicans in the Senate have been ready to take up this agreement for a long time, but trade agreements have to be considered by the House of Representatives first, and the House of Representatives is controlled by the Democratic Party, which is far more interested in partisan pursuits than in actually doing any meaningful legislating. While the House Democrats are happy to consider far-left messaging bills that have no chance of going anywhere, they have no interest in working with the Republicans to actually get something signed into law. Why? The Democrats have convinced themselves that partisan posturing is more important than securing a bipartisan legislative victory, like a strong, new trade deal that will benefit the American economy. So they are currently opposing a trade agreement that would benefit millions of American workers. Let's be very clear. The Democrats' decision to prioritize partisan politics is having real consequences for the American people. Right now, the members of our military are unable to fund new priorities because the Senate Democrats are blocking the consideration of Defense appropriations. Farmers and ranchers in my home State of South Dakota and around the country are struggling, but the House Democrats refuse to move forward on a trade deal--the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement--that would bring them relief. Thanks to low commodity and livestock prices, natural disasters, and protracted trade disputes, farmers and ranchers have had a tough few years, and one of the biggest things we can do to help them is to take action on trade. Our Nation's farmers and ranchers depend on trade. When I talk to farmers and ranchers at home in South Dakota, they emphasize that the most important thing Washington can do to boost our agricultural economy is to take action on trade agreements. Farmers and ranchers need access to new and expanded markets for their products, and, just as importantly, they need certainty about what international markets are going to look like going forward. The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement would help to meet those needs. It would preserve and expand farmers' access to two critical export markets, and it would give farmers certainty about what these markets will look like long term. I am particularly pleased with the improvements the agreement makes for dairy producers. South Dakota has experienced a major dairy expansion over the past few years, and this agreement will benefit U.S. dairy producers by substantially expanding market access in Canada, where U.S. dairy sales have been restricted. In fact, the U.S. International Trade Commission estimates the agreement will boost U.S. dairy exports by more than $277 million. The agreement will expand market access for U.S. poultry and egg producers, and it will make it easier for U.S. producers to export wheat to Canada. Of course, the benefits for the agricultural industry are just one part of this agreement. From manufacturing to digital services, to the automotive industry, virtually every sector of our economy will benefit from the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. The USMCA breaks new ground by including a chapter specifically focused on small and medium- sized businesses. It is the first time that a U.S. trade agreement has ever included a dedicated chapter on this topic. Roughly, 120,000 small and medium-sized businesses around our country export goods and services to Mexico and to Canada. The USMCA will make it easier for these businesses to successfully export their products. It would be nice if the House Democrats woke up tomorrow and decided that 13 months was long enough to make America's farmers and ranchers and manufacturers and small business men wait for the United States- Mexico-Canada Agreement, but my hopes of seeing action from the House grow dimmer each day. The Democrats in the House should be addressing the American people's priorities. American workers shouldn't be sacrificed for the Democrats' partisan political goals. I hope that enough of my Democratic colleagues in the House of Representatives will urge their House leadership to bring up the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement in the very near future. Americans have waited long enough.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Perdue).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Perdue).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, on Tuesday morning, I visited with Secretary of Defense Mark Esper. We talked about the military's needs and national security priorities, and we talked about the fact that more than a month into the new fiscal year, Congress still hasn't funded the military for fiscal year 2020. We shouldn't have needed to talk about that. We should have passed the Defense appropriations bill for 2020 weeks ago, but Democrats won't let us. Last week, Democrats blocked consideration of the 2020 Defense appropriations bill for the second time. Apparently they have every intention of continuing to block military funding. This is politics at its worst. And make no mistake--this is politics. A couple of months ago, Democrats and Republicans got together and agreed on defense and nondefense funding levels for 2020 and 2021. The idea was to pave the way for the passage of appropriations bills in a timely fashion. It seemed for a moment that despite Democrats' fixation on partisan politics and impeachment, we could actually go about funding the government and the military in a somewhat bipartisan fashion, but apparently that was too much to ask of the Senate Democrats. Senate Democrats are currently running from the agreement, attempting to derail the defense funding bill with poison pills that would prevent the bill from ever being enacted into law. Funding our military should be the first priority of every Member of Congress. The safety of our country depends on the strength of our military. If we don't get national security right, the rest is conversation. Getting national security right means making sure our military is adequately funded, making sure we are funding the needs of the current military and preparing for future priorities. It should go without saying that an essential part of this responsibility is getting that funding passed in a timely fashion. Right now, since we haven't passed the 2020 funding bill, the military is operating under a continuing resolution that maintains funding levels from last year. There are multiple problems with that. In the first place, the military is operating without all the funding it needs. For example, the Pentagon can't fully support the pay increase military members should be getting. In addition, the continuing resolution prevents the military from starting key projects that will help ensure our men and women in uniform are prepared to meet the threats of the future. The Pentagon can't start new procurement projects. New research and development initiatives that keep us a step ahead of our adversaries are put on hold. All told, under a continuing resolution, the military's purchasing power is reduced by roughly $5 billion each quarter. Five billion dollars each quarter that we continue to operate under a continuing resolution is the amount of purchasing power that is lost to our military to meet their critical priorities. To put that in perspective, that is the equivalent of losing out on about 56 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter planes, depending on the variant, every 3 months; or nearly 2 complete Virginia-class attack submarines, like the recently commissioned USS South Dakota; or about 5,000 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles, like those used to clean up the site of the Baghdadi raid or strike Syrian chemical weapons facilities in 2018. That $5 billion isn't spare change; it is funding for critical military priorities. In November of 2018, the bipartisan National Defense Strategy Commission released a report warning that our readiness had eroded to the point where we might struggle to win a war against a major power, like Russia or China. That is a dangerous situation for our country to be in, and we need to keep working to rebuild our military. That starts with making sure our military is fully funded in a timely fashion. On the floor last week, I noted that Democrats would like us to believe that they are serious about legislating and that their years- long obsession with impeaching the President isn't distracting them from doing their job. After the Democrats' defense filibuster last week, it is becoming clear that the Democrats are incapable of putting anything ahead of partisan politics, including the safety of our country and the well-being of our military. It is particularly ironic that the Democrats are blocking this defense funding bill, which would provide $250 million in assistance to Ukraine, at the same time they are trying to impeach the President for allegedly delaying Ukraine funding. Think about that. It is hard to know what to say to my Democrat colleagues. It should not be this hard to convince them that funding our military is more important than scoring points against the President. I hope the leader will continue to bring up the defense funding bill and that enough of my Democratic colleagues will decide to join us in getting this funding to our military. It is the very least we can do for the men and women who spend every day working to keep us safe.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I congratulate a former staff member of mine, James Long, on his recent promotion to colonel in the Air Force Reserve. Jim served for a year as an Air Force fellow on my staff back in 2011. He worked hard and did a great job for us as we worked to make sure the men and women of the military were properly funded, organized, trained, and equipped. In particular, Jim was very helpful with respect to intelligence community issues, having previously served as a senior special agent at the Central Intelligence Agency's Office of the Inspector General, where he conducted and oversaw investigations of CIA officers and contractor personnel. After leaving my office, he went on to work with the Air Force's Office of Special Investigations as the chief of the Crime Integration Desk, as well as being individual mobilization augmentee to the Commander of the Investigations Collections Operations Nexus Center at Marine Corps Base Quantico. Last year, while continuing his work in the Air Force Reserve, Jim was hired by the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General to build its first Major Frauds and Corruption Unit. He currently oversees large-scale criminal investigations and has put together a team of anti-fraud professionals, including special agents, forensic auditors, forensic accountants, data scientists, and analysts, to investigate and uncover significant fraud schemes. His team was also an integral part of the recent high-profile fraud case involving misuse of disaster relief funds that the Federal Emergency Management Agency administered in Puerto Rico following Hurricane Maria. Jim has had a long and distinguished career in the military, where he has served for over 26 years. He first served for 4 years in the Marine Corps, and after going to college, he joined the Air Force Reserve, where he has risen through the ranks to his current position as colonel. Jim continues to have a stellar career serving the Nation, including being deployed to Kirkuk, Iraq, in 2008, where he commanded 57 combat missions. Again, I wish to congratulate Colonel Long on his promotion and wish him and his family the very best as he continues to serve our Nation, both in his capacities at the Air Force Reserve and at the Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Perdue). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun) would have voted ``Yea'' and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) would have voted ``Yea''.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, with respect to the Hunsaker nomination, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I have 7 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Environment and Public Works The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 06, 2019, at 9 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 06, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Joshua A. Deahl, to be an Associate Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Deborah J. Israel, and Andrea L. Hertzfeld, both to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, and Robert Anthony Dixon, to be United States Marshal for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Department of Justice. Committee on Indian Affairs The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 6, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 6, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Veterans' Affairs The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 6, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a closed briefing. Special Committee on Aging The Special Committee on Aging is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 6, 2019, at 9.30 a.m., to conduct a closed briefing. Subcommittee on Energy The Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 6, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, last Friday was an exciting day. I was home in Sioux Falls, SD, to mark a huge milestone for the city and for South Dakota--the unveiling of Sioux Falls' first 5G small cells. By the end of this month, Sioux Falls will have a working, albeit limited, 5G network--one of the first cities in the entire country to have one. Most people take internet access for granted these days. We assume that anywhere we go, we will be able to access our GPS, check Facebook, or send a text message. But the truth is that there are still areas in the United States where it can be difficult to get reliable internet access. Some of those areas are in South Dakota. That is why expanding access to broadband internet in rural communities has been a priority of mine since I came to the Senate. While it can be nice to turn off our phones and take a break, in this day and age, Americans need reliable internet access. More and more of the business of daily life is being conducted over the internet, from scheduling appointments to figuring out the shortest way from point A to point B. The internet has already become an integral part of commerce. Small businesses and farms in areas without dependable access miss out on a lot of opportunities that most businesses take for granted. Both as chairman and as a member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, I have had the chance to draw attention to the state of broadband access in rural communities. I have conducted numerous hearings with testimony from rural broadband providers, farmers, Tribal representatives, and Federal officials both in Washington and in my home State of South Dakota. Over the past several years, we have seen the number of Americans lacking access to broadband decrease significantly, but there is more work that needs to be done. With the advent of 5G technology, we now have to expand our efforts to make deploying 5G technology to rural communities a priority. Most of us think today's internet is pretty fast. We get traffic updates that are basically in real time. We receive emails seconds after they have been sent. We stream our favorite shows at home or on the go. But 5G will make 4G look like dialup. It will deliver lightning-fast speeds up to 100 times faster than what today's technology delivers. That is hard to imagine. After all, as I said, today's technology seems pretty fast, but 5G will enable near-instant responsiveness from our phones and other devices. However, 5G is about a lot more than streaming more shows on more devices or receiving emails instantly. In addition to being up to 100 times faster than current speeds, 5G will be vastly more responsive than 4G technology, and we will be able to connect 100 times the number of devices that can be connected with 4G. Because of this, 5G will enable massive breakthroughs in healthcare, transportation, agriculture, and other key industries. 5G will bring new opportunities and benefits to rural communities in particular. 5G will pave the way for the widespread adoption of precision agriculture, which uses tools like robotics and remote monitoring to help farmers manage their fields and boost their crop yields. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that precision agriculture will reduce farmers' operational costs by up to $25 per acre and increase farmers' yields by up to 70 percent by the year 2050. 5G will also make it easier for residents of rural communities to access business and educational opportunities and long-distance healthcare. The technology for 5G is already here, and it is actually being implemented, as Friday's event in Sioux Falls demonstrates. There is more work to be done before 5G is a reality across the United States. In order to deploy 5G, wireless providers need access to sufficient spectrum, and they need to be able to deploy the infrastructure needed to support the technology in a reasonable and timely manner. Last year, the President signed into law my bipartisan MOBILE NOW Act. It was legislation that I introduced to help secure adequate spectrum for 5G technology. Earlier this year, Senator Schatz and I reintroduced the STREAMLINE Small Cell Deployment Act to address the other part of the 5G equation, and that is infrastructure. 5G technology will require not just traditional cell phone towers but small antennas called small cells that can often be attached to existing infrastructure, like utility poles or buildings. While the Federal Communications Commission, under Chairman Pai, has modernized its regulations on small cell siting, there is more work to be done, and that is where my bill, the STREAMLINE Act, comes in. The STREAMLINE Act will expedite the deployment of small cells while respecting the role of State and local governments in making deployment decisions. Importantly, it will make it more affordable to bring 5G to rural areas by addressing the costs of small cell deployment. 5G has tremendous promise for rural areas, but it will only deliver on that promise if we ensure that 5G cells are actually deployed in these areas. I am proud that we have made a good start in South Dakota. Sioux Falls' mayor, Paul TenHaken, has worked aggressively to remove barriers to telecommunications investment in Sioux Falls. Nationally, we urgently need to take action to remove the final barriers to large-scale 5G deployment. While we have made good progress in securing low- and high-band spectrum, China and South Korea are far ahead of us in opening up midband spectrum to 5G. If we don't want China or South Korea to win the race to 5G and seize the economic benefits that 5G will bring, we need to substantially increase the amount of midband spectrum available to U.S. companies, and we need to do it quickly. We also need to take action on legislation such as my STREAMLINE Act to pave the way for the widespread deployment of 5G infrastructure. America can lead the world in the 5G revolution. The technology is here. We just need to take the final steps to bring 5G into our communities. I look forward to continuing to work to support the nationwide deployment of 5G with all of the benefits it can bring to the American people. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.