John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, defense funding is always an imperative. There are always going to be bad actors who threaten our country, whether they are major powers like China or Russia or terrorist organizations like ISIS or al-Qaida. We have to be prepared to counter those threats. In the United States, we are used to having the most outstanding military in the world. In fact, we have come to rely on it. We assume our military will always be the best because it has been the best for as long as we can remember, but we can't forget that our military preeminence is the result of sustained investment. While our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines constitute the most advanced and proficient fighting force in the world, they can't do their jobs or maintain our military superiority without adequate resources. That includes funding, not just the weapons, equipment, and technology of today, but also the weapons, equipment, and technology of the future. It is too late to modernize our military when the threat has reached us. We need to invest in the equipment and technology of the future now so that when the threats of tomorrow materialize, we will be ready. This means delivering platforms like the future B-21 bomber on schedule and making robust investments in the cyber and space domains. Right now, our military is rebuilding after years of underfunding and the strains in the war on terror. Here in the Senate, Members of both parties have worked together over the past couple of years to meet our military's funding and rebuilding needs. I hope that trend will continue. In November 2018, the bipartisan National Defense Strategy Commission released a report that warned that our readiness had eroded to the point at which 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. That is a dangerous situation for our country to be in, and we need to keep working to rebuild our military so that we are not trailing behind other nations. Other countries are certainly not holding back when it comes to military preparedness. Russia and China are busy investing in their militaries as we speak, and they have recently conducted joint military exercises. As the leader noted on the floor on Monday, military spending in China over the last decade has nearly doubled. Meanwhile, these countries have continued to flex their military power outside the borders of their countries, underscoring the need for other nations to be prepared to deter their aggressions. Of course, while we may be in a new era of great power competition, we still face threats from rogue states and terrorist organizations. We need to be prepared to meet multiple threats on multiple fronts if we want to ensure the security of our Nation. Later today, the leader is planning to have the Senate vote to begin debate on a package of appropriations bills, including this year's Defense appropriations bill. Less than 2 months ago, the Democrats in both the House and the Senate agreed on an increased funding level for our military, which is reflected in the Defense appropriations bill. The Defense appropriations measure funds current military priorities and invests in the research our men and women in uniform need to be prepared for the future. It also provides for a 3.1-percent pay increase for our military, which is the largest pay increase in a decade. So it would be very disappointing if the Democrats chose now to play politics and put their personal political agenda over the security of our country and the welfare of our men and women in uniform. The military needs to be funded through regular order appropriations bills, not through temporary funding measures that leave the military in doubt about funding levels and unable to start essential new projects. So I hope that our Democratic colleagues will honor the commitment they just made and will work with the Republicans to pass the Defense appropriations package before the end of the fiscal year. Likewise, I hope the Senate Democrats will resist the temptation to play politics over this year's national defense authorization bill and will work with us to initiate a conference with the House to resolve our differences. Our colleagues have the opportunity to take both of these important steps this week.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I spent a lot of time talking to South Dakota farmers over the August break, and I can tell you that if there is one thing on farmers' minds right now, it is trade; it is markets; it is having a place to sell the things that we raise and grow. Farmers and ranchers have had a rough few years. Low commodity prices and low livestock prices, natural disasters, and protracted trade disputes have left our agricultural economy trailing behind our economy as a whole. As farmers emphasized to me during August, one of the biggest things we can do to help our agricultural economy is to implement trade agreements that benefit American farmers and ranchers. The United States is currently involved in trade negotiations on multiple fronts-- with the European Union, with China, with Japan, and with other Asian- Pacific countries. Like many farmers and ranchers, I support the President's goal of addressing trade imbalances and securing more favorable conditions for American products abroad, but we need to conclude these agreements as soon as possible. The longer negotiations drag on, the tougher the situation for farmers, who face retaliatory tariffs as well as a lot of uncertainty about what markets are going to look like. We have had some recent successes. In August, the administration announced a deal to increase U.S. beef sales to Europe. In May, the administration announced a deal with Japan to remove all remaining age restrictions on U.S. beef, giving American ranchers full access to the Japanese market for the first time in more than a decade. Yet that is just a tiny fraction of what needs to get done on the trade front when it comes to agriculture. Every time I speak with the President and his administration, I emphasize what South Dakota farmers have told me: We need to conclude negotiations on the various trade deals that we are working on, and we need to do it now. We need to open new markets, expand existing ones, and give farmers and ranchers certainty about what those markets are going to look like. While we are still in negotiations on a number of agreements, one deal that we don't need to wait for is the United States-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement. This agreement has already been fully negotiated by our three countries, and Congress can take it up at any point. The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement is a clear and significant win for our farmers and ranchers. Canada and Mexico are the No. 1 and No. 2 export markets for American food and agricultural products. This agreement will preserve and expand farmers' access to these critical markets and will give farmers certainty about what these markets will look like in the long term. I am particularly pleased with the improvements the agreement makes for U.S. dairy producers. South Dakota has experienced a massive dairy expansion over the past few years, and this agreement will benefit U.S. dairy producers by substantially expanding market access in Canada, which is 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. Of course, while I have been talking a lot about farmers, the benefits of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement will not be limited to the agricultural industry. Virtually every sector of our economy will benefit from this agreement--from manufacturing to digital services, to the automotive industry. It will create 176,000 new U.S. jobs, will grow our economy, and will raise wages for workers. The Republicans in the Senate are ready to consider the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. We are just waiting for the House Democrats to stop threatening to oppose the agreement and to show a willingness to put it to an up-or-down vote in the House of Representatives. The administration has made addressing the Democrats' concerns a priority throughout the negotiation process, and it seems to me that if you are a Democrat who is unhappy with the status quo, voting for the USMCA is the best way to fix it. I am encouraged by the fact that the Democrats appear to be working with the administration to reach a resolution on this agreement, and I hope they will continue to work with the White House to bring this agreement to a vote as soon as possible in the House of Representatives. America's farmers and ranchers need the United States- Mexico-Canada Agreement. While it won't be a cure-all for all of the problems that are facing farm country, it will be a significant step forward. Congress should pass this agreement as soon as possible and allow farmers and ranchers and the rest of the American economy to start realizing the benefits. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), The Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, it was a good August. While I head back to South Dakota almost every weekend, August gives me the chance to spend multiple uninterrupted weeks back home visiting with South Dakotans and traveling to the far corners of the State. August is also fair season in South Dakota, and there is nothing better than a South Dakota fair. This year I got to attend the South Dakota State Fair, the Brown County Fair, the Sioux Empire Fair, the Turner County Fair, and the McCook County Fair, to name a few on the list. As usual, I had a great time at all of them. Of course, the people are the best part of the fair, although I have to say that the fair food is not far behind. I am still enjoying at this late date the Tubby Burger that I had at the Brown County Fair, and I will tell you that they don't have burgers like that here in Washington, DC. Agriculture is the lifeblood of South Dakota, and, as always, a lot of my conversations over August were centered on agriculture. Farmers and ranchers have had a very rough few years, and addressing the needs of our agriculture community is one of my top priorities in Congress. One big concern for our producers is ethanol and biodiesel. While we received some good news this year with the approval of year-round E15 sales, the ethanol industry is still facing significant challenges owing to the excess of small refinery waivers that have been issued--an issue we continue to try to address. Perhaps the biggest concern for our farmers right now is trade. Multiple protracted trade disputes have exacerbated an already struggling ag economy and have left farmers and ranchers unsure how markets are going to be going forward. While ranchers received some good news in August with the announcement that the administration has reached a deal to increase U.S. beef sales to Europe, that is just a tiny fraction of what we need to be doing trade-wise. Each time I speak with the President and his administration, I tell them what South Dakota farmers have told me: We need to conclude negotiations on the various trade deals we are working on as soon as possible to open new markets and to expand existing ones and to give agricultural producers certainty about what the playing field is going to look like going forward. One of my priorities right now is pushing for passage of the United States-Mexico-Canada free-trade agreement. The United States-Mexico- Canada Agreement will preserve farmers' access to two of our Nation's most significant agricultural export markets--Canada and Mexico--and substantially expand market access for U.S. dairy products in Canada. Negotiations on this agreement have already been concluded. We need Democrats in the House to indicate their willingness to take it up and pass it. August is always a great time to share with South Dakotans what I am working on in Washington and to get their feedback, which is why I am glad I had the opportunity to host several townhall meetings across the State, toured numerous local businesses, and visited nearly every corner of South Dakota. As South Dakotans know, I am a longtime member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. I served as chairman of the committee in the last Congress, and I currently chair the Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation, and the Internet. This has given me the chance to address a number of issues facing Americans and South Dakotans, from the frustration of illegal robocalls to the data privacy concerns we all face in the internet age. It has also given me the chance to focus on digital issues that affect rural States like South Dakota, particularly the lack of high-speed internet access in rural areas. To residents of large cities, being without access to high-speed internet is unthinkable, but for families in rural areas, which lack the telecommunications infrastructure of cities and suburbs, even basic internet access can sometimes be a struggle. Broadband access is frequently just a dream, and that has real consequences for these Americans. It is not just a matter of being able to stream Netflix without interruption. In our digital economy, a lack of reliable, high-speed internet access means losing out on opportunities to grow your business, it means fewer educational opportunities, and it means fewer healthcare resources in areas that already lack easy access to specialty care services. Telehealth promises to reduce some of the geographic barriers to care for individuals in rural areas, but it depends largely on high-speed internet access. Then there is the rapidly developing field of precision agriculture. Precision agriculture, which uses tools like robotics and remote monitoring to help farmers manage their fields, promises to help farmers substantially increase their yields while reducing their costs. But, once again, it depends on reliable access to high-speed internet. That is why I have made this issue such a priority. Nationwide, the digital divide is shrinking, as more and more Americans gain access to broadband. In South Dakota, we are ahead of the curb, thanks to people like Sioux Falls Mayor Paul TenHaken, who has worked aggressively to remove barriers to telecommunications investment in cities like Sioux Falls. I was very encouraged by the Federal Communications Commission's recent announcement that it will invest $705 million over the next decade to bring broadband to rural areas in South Dakota that currently go without. There is more work to be done, and I am committed to pushing this issue until reliable broadband access is standard in rural America. During the last week of the August break, I brought the Commerce Committee to Sioux Falls to conduct a field hearing on rural broadband. We brought an FCC Commissioner with us so that he could hear directly from South Dakotans who are on the frontlines of rural broadband expansion and leading the innovations that come along with it. It was a great hearing, and I am very encouraged by the progress we are making on this issue. I look forward to doing more work on this issue in the coming months. I am energized by the time that I spent with South Dakotans during the August break, and I am looking forward to continuing to fight for South Dakota's priorities here in Washington this fall.

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 Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Arizona (Ms. McSally), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Perdue), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea,'' the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) would have voted ``yea,'' and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts).

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

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