John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE. All time is yielded back.

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Floria (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, readers of Forbes might have seen an article earlier this month entitled ``Russian Navy To Be First To Field Hypersonic Cruise Missiles on Submarines.'' Articles like this are a timely reminder of the ever-present need to invest in our military. It can be easy to take U.S. military superiority for granted, but our military preeminence did not come out of nowhere. Our military is strong as a result of sustained investment and commitment. If we don't stay committed to maintaining our military strength and advantage, we will lose them. Meanwhile, as the Forbes article reminds us, other countries are busy investing in their militaries. Great powers with aggressive military tendencies are building up their armed forces and investing in the weapons and equipment of the future. We need to ensure that our military is not falling behind. Later today, we will vote on additional measures related to the National Defense Authorization Act--legislation that we take up every year to authorize funding for our military and our national defense. Both the House and Senate passed versions of this legislation this summer. Now Members from both Houses are working on reconciling the House and Senate versions of the bill. The Senate-passed National Defense Authorization Act was a strong bill, and I hope the final bill will look a lot like it. Right now, our military is rebuilding after years of underfunding and the strains of the global War on Terror. In November 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, and the Commission noted that we would be especially vulnerable if we were ever called on to fight a war on two fronts. Here in the Senate, Members of both parties have been working together to address the military's rebuilding needs and ensure that we are prepared to meet any threat. The bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act that we passed in the Senate in June authorizes funding for our military's current needs and for the equipment and technology of the future. It invests in ships, combat vehicles, and planes--including development of the future B-21 bomber, which will be based at Ellsworth Air Force Base in my home State of South Dakota--and continued procurement of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which I hope will someday soon be based at Joe Foss Field in Sioux Falls. It authorizes funding for research and development and advanced technology. It authorizes funds to modernize our nuclear arsenal to maximize our deterrence capabilities. It focuses on ensuring that we are equipped to meet threats on new fronts, including in the space and cyber domains. Of course, while up-to-date weapons, equipment, and technology are essential, the greatest strength of our military is our men and women in uniform. Both the Senate and House versions of the National Defense Authorization Act authorize a 3.1-percent pay increase for our troops-- the largest increase in a decade. This is not only something our troops have earned, it is also an important way to retain troops in our All- Volunteer Force when the economy is as strong as it is. Both the House and Senate bills also focus on addressing the recent significant health and safety issues faced by many families with private on-base housing. I hope House and Senate conferees will produce a strong bill and that both Houses will be able to pass this legislation in the near future. In a 1793 address to Congress, President George Washington noted: If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war. The surest way of preserving peace is to be strong militarily. Weakness is a tempting target for aggressive regimes and evil men. Strength, on the other hand, can and does restrain those who might otherwise pursue war with the United States or our allies. Maintaining our military strength helps ensure the security of our country and her inhabitants, and it also helps promote peace around the world. We can't change the fact that there will always be bad actors who will threaten our freedom and security, but we can ensure that we are always prepared to meet any threat. I look forward to passing a strong National Defense Authorization Act in the very near future. I yield the floor. Recognition of the Minority Leader

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 Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, in just a few days, we will mark the 1- year anniversary of the President's concluding negotiations on the United States-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement. It is time for Congress to ratify this agreement now. The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement will benefit pretty much every sector of the U.S. economy: the automobile industry, textiles, digital trade and e-commerce, services, manufacturing, and yes, of course, agriculture. As the representative of a State whose lifeblood is agriculture, farmers and ranchers are always at the top of my mind, and a huge focus of mine right now is helping our struggling agricultural economy. Low commodity and livestock prices, natural disasters, and protracted trade disputes have made a tough few years for our Nation's farmers. One of the most important things we can do to help our agricultural economy recover is to open new markets for American agricultural products. During August, I spent a lot of time talking to farmers back home in my State of South Dakota. Again and again, they emphasized that they need action on trade from Washington. With so many trade deals currently up in the air, farmers and ranchers are struggling with a lack of certainty about what international markets are going to look like. While they share the President's goal of addressing trade imbalances and securing more favorable conditions for American products, they also believe that we need to conclude the agreements that we are negotiating as soon as possible. The longer negotiations drag on, the tougher their situation gets. That is why I have repeatedly stressed the need to bring these agreements to a swift conclusion, and I emphasize that point to the President nearly every time I talk to him. However, there is one deal we don't need to wait for, and that is the United States-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement. As I said earlier, negotiations on this agreement concluded a year ago, and it is high time for Congress to take it up and pass it so that farmers and ranchers can start seeing the benefits. The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement is a big win for farmers and ranchers. Of particular interest to South Dakota are the agreement's dairy provisions. Dairy is an important and rapidly growing industry in South Dakota. Drive the I-29 corridor north of Brookings, SD, and you can see firsthand the massive dairy expansion that we have experienced over the past several years. The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement will preserve U.S. dairy farmers' role as a key dairy supplier to Mexico, and it will substantially expand market access in Canada, where U.S. dairy sales have been restricted. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates that the agreement will boost U.S. dairy exports by more than $277 million. The agreement will also 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, and so much more. Above all, this agreement will provide farmers and ranchers with certainty about what the Canadian and Mexican markets are going to look like going forward. American farmers depend upon these markets to sell their products, and it is vital that farmers have a clear idea of what these markets are going to look like in the future. Republicans in the Senate are ready to take action on the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement at any point. I hope House Democrats will quickly work out their remaining issues and indicate their willingness to vote on this deal. The administration has made addressing Democrats' concerns a priority throughout the negotiation process, and it is time for Democrats to bring this process to a swift conclusion. As I mentioned, we are almost a year now past the time when the President signed this agreement, and it has been available for consideration by the House of Representatives for that entire time. It is high time that we act on this trade deal and get it over here to the Senate, where we can vote on it and get it to the President for his signature. Last week, seven former U.S. Agriculture Secretaries, from both Democratic and Republican administrations, sent a letter to House and Senate leadership stating their strong support for the United States- Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement. The Secretaries noted: With farmers facing one of the lowest net farm incomes in the last decade, USMCA would create enhanced export opportunities and help fully capitalize on increased global demand for food products. Furthermore, USMCA would significantly boost farm incomes and create jobs both on and off the farm in rural communities. Again, that is from seven former U.S. Agriculture Secretaries, serving both Republican and Democrat Presidents. Life hasn't been easy for our Nation's farmers and ranchers over the past few years, and I can certainly attest to that, as I have looked at what the economy in South Dakota has been like in these last several years. The surest way that we can stabilize and boost farm income and help farm country is to conclude agreements like the USMCA. I urge my Democrat colleagues in the House of Representatives to make getting this deal done in the House, over to the Senate, and across the finish line their No. 1 priority. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam 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 South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

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, last week, the Senate confirmed President Trump's 150th judge. That is a significant milestone and one that has been harder to achieve than it normally would be thanks to the Democrats' determination to delay judicial confirmations. Again and again, the Democrats have used the time-consuming cloture vote process to delay the confirmations of President Trump's nominees--even of nominees they ultimately chose to vote for. By this point in President Obama's first term, the Republicans had required cloture votes on just three of President Obama's judicial nominees--three. Compare that to today. As of September 12, the Democrats had required cloture votes on a staggering 71.7 percent of President Trump's picks for the bench--71 percent. Basically, for more than two out of every three judges, the Democrats have required cloture votes. That simply means they have filibustered that particular nominee. The way you end the filibuster is by invoking cloture. When the Republicans were in the minority when President Obama was in the White House, at this point in President Obama's first term, the Democratic majority had invoked cloture just three times for three judges whom the Republicans had tried to block. As I said, right now, at the same point in President Trump's first term, we are talking about almost 72 percent of all of the nominations combined having been filibustered. If you think about that and if you add it up totally, cumulatively, it is about 100 now compared to 3 during President Obama's first term at the same time in office. As I have said, many of these were nominees the Democrats ultimately went on to vote to confirm. In other words, it was not that President Trump nominated scores of extreme nominees whom the Democrats felt they couldn't support. Again and again, the Democrats have delayed a nominee, then turned around and voted in favor of him or her. In one particularly memorable example, in January of 2018, the Democrats forced the Senate to spend more than a week considering four district court judges even though not one single Democrat voted against their confirmations--not one single Democrat. These judges could have been confirmed in a matter of minutes by voice votes. Instead, the Democrats forced the Senate to spend more than a week on their considerations--time that could have been spent on genuinely controversial nominees or on some of the many important issues that face our country. So far this September, the Senate has confirmed six district court judges. The Democrats forced cloture votes on four of them despite the fact that all four were eventually confirmed by huge bipartisan margins. In fact, one was confirmed by a unanimous vote of 94 to 0. If the Democrats had had a serious reason for their obstruction of the President's judicial nominees, they would not have been repeatedly turning around and voting for them. Their obstruction isn't based on principle; it is based on partisanship. They don't like this President, so they are obstructing his nominees even when they agree they are well qualified for their positions. As a result, we are forced to spend hours upon hours of Senate floor time on uncontroversial nominations-- time we could be using for other priorities. Democratic delays are also not helping the judicial vacancy rate, which is still high despite the Republicans' efforts to get judges confirmed. High numbers of vacancies result in there being long waits to get cases heard, which serves nobody. While Democratic obstruction is bad enough, unfortunately, we have a lot more to worry about. In recent months, the Democrats have moved beyond obstruction and into directly threatening the independence of the judiciary. Court-packing--an idea that pretty much everybody thought had been consigned to the dustbin of history almost a century ago--is enjoying a revival among members of the Democratic Party. For anyone who needs a refresher on this concept, the theory of court-packing is quite simple. If the Supreme Court is not deciding cases to your liking, add more judges to the Court until you start getting the decisions you want. It is not hard to see why this is a terrible idea, but that hasn't stopped it from gaining traction in the Democratic Party. In fact, five prominent Democrats--including a Democratic Presidential candidate and the second- ranking Democrat in the Senate--recently filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court that threatened the Court if it failed to rule according to the Democrats' preference. They wrote: The Supreme Court is not well, and the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics. Translation: If you don't rule the way we want you to, you will not like the consequences. Threatening members of the judiciary is within the domain of dictators and despots, not Members of the U.S. Congress, and it is deeply disturbing that prominent Democrats apparently now see nothing wrong with trying to intimidate the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, it is becoming apparent that there are few lengths to which the Democrats will not go in their increasingly desperate partisanship. Just this week, we saw the Democrats leap on the opportunity to drag Justice Kavanaugh's name through the mud again based on yet another vague and unsubstantiated rumor. More than one Democratic Presidential candidate instantly cried that he should be impeached. What was the basis for such a drastic suggestion? It was a New York Times article that was, as the leader pointed out, so short on reporting that it ran on the opinion page of the New York Times instead of in the news section, not to mention that after running this piece, the Times had to quickly issue a correction and note a glaring omission in the original story. What was the omission? It was the fact that the supposed victim of Justice Kavanaugh's supposed behavior declined to be interviewed and that her friends said she had no memory of the alleged incident. It is not hard to see what is behind the Democrats' relentless campaign to smear Justice Kavanaugh's name. They are furious that it was a Republican and not a Democratic President who had the opportunity to choose a Justice to replace a perceived swing vote on the Supreme Court, and they are afraid that Justice Kavanaugh will not issue the rulings they want. Here we get to the heart of the problem with the Democrats' increasingly unhinged leftism and attacks on the judiciary. The Democrats aren't looking for judges or a judiciary that will rule according to the law; they are looking for a judiciary that will rule in accordance with the Democrats' preferred policies whether they have anything to do with the law or not, and that is a very dangerous goal. Sure, it might seem nice when an activist judge who shares your political opinions reaches outside the meaning of the statute and rules for your preferred outcome. Yet what happens when that same judge reaches beyond the law to your detriment? What protection do you have if the judge and not the law becomes the highest authority? The only way to ensure the protection of individuals' rights is to ensure the rule of law, and that means having judges who will make decisions according to the law, not according to their personal preferences or the principles of a particular political party's. In the wake of the Democrats' threat to the Supreme Court, all 53 Republican Senators sent a letter to the Justices that underscored our commitment to protecting the independence of the judiciary. We noted in the letter: There is no greater example of the genius of our Constitution than its creation of an independent judiciary. . . . Time and again, our independent federal courts have protected the constitutional rights of Americans from government overreach even when that overreach was politically popular. If we want our courts to continue protecting Americans' constitutional rights, then we need to ensure they remain independent. The Democrats' interest in having judges who will rule according to their preferred outcomes is not new, but in the past, their interest has not led them to attempt to bully judges into voting their way. I hope the Democrats will think better of their repressive tactics before our independent judiciary becomes the victim of their political agenda. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).