John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 11 a.m. on Wednesday, July 10, the Senate vote on confirmation of the following nominations in the order listed: Executive Calendar Nos. 47, 52, and 51; that if confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action. I further ask that at 4:30 p.m., the Senate vote on the pending cloture motions on the King and Pallasch nominations and that if cloture is invoked, the confirmation votes occur at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, on Thursday, July 11. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture motion with respect to the Wright nomination ripen following disposition of the Pallasch nomination.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, July 10; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Wetherell nomination.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I have 5 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 the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 9, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 9, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 9, 2019, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Aviation and Space The Subcommittee on Aviation and Space of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 9, 2019, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing. 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 Tuesday, July 9, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 106, S. Res. 188.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment to the resolution be withdrawn; that the Cruz substitute amendment to the resolution at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the resolution, as amended, be agreed to; that the committee-reported amendment to the preamble be withdrawn; that the Cruz amendment to the preamble at the desk be considered and agreed to; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I understand that there are two bills at the desk, and I ask for their first reading en bloc.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

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

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

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, if I might, let me describe where things are in the state of play with respect to the supplemental appropriations bill that deals with the border. I know the situation at our border has been at a crisis point for weeks now. Our agencies are stretched to the breaking point, struggling to care for the overwhelming flow of migrants; yet we have House Democrats continuing to play politics with the border funding bill. Again, to describe the state of play, we had a request from the President 7 weeks ago for $4.5 billion to address this humanitarian crisis we are having at our southern border, and the Democrats didn't act on it. They described it as a manufactured crisis. When I say the Democrats, I am talking about the House Democrats, which is where most spending bills originate. After the House failed to act and failed to respond to the President's request for emergency funding, the Senate decided to act. So the Senate Appropriations Committee took up and passed a bipartisan bill out of the Appropriations Committee by a vote of 30 to 1--not a vote that you see all that often around here these days. So that bill was reported out to the floor. In the meantime, the House Democrats decided that maybe it wasn't, after all, a manufactured crisis and perhaps they needed to act. So they picked up a bill--a partisan bill--and passed it out of the House of Representatives on a party-line basis, after which the Senate voted on its bill, the bill I mentioned that was reported out of the Appropriations Committee by a vote of 30 to 1, and it came to the floor where it passed yesterday by a vote of 84 to 8--84 to 8 in the U.S. Senate. Well, just to demonstrate that the bipartisan bill passed by the Senate is the vehicle that should move forward and should go to the President for his signature, the President had indicated he would veto the House-passed bill, but we took it up. We took up the House-passed bill yesterday on the floor of the U.S. Senate. We had a vote on it. It got 37 votes here on the floor of the Senate--not nearly enough, obviously, to pass the Senate. Of course, it was going to meet a certain veto by the President even if it had. That being said, there were 37 votes for the House-passed partisan bill that came out of the House of Representatives. Here on the floor of the Senate, there were 84 votes for the bipartisan bill produced by the Senate Appropriations Committee. Where we are right now is that was sent back to the House. The House, frankly, should just take up that bill and pass it. We know for certain the President would sign it. Again, I think it demonstrates a body of work that reflects the will of both sides, Republicans and Democrats-- certainly in the Senate--to get a vote of 30 to 1 out of the Appropriations Committee or 84 to 8 on the floor of the Senate. You had to have a high level of bipartisan cooperation. That bill to address the humanitarian crisis at our border is awaiting action by the House of Representatives. All they have to do is simply pick it up and pass it and send it to the President, where it will be signed into law, and we will get much needed resources and much needed manpower to the southern border, where they desperately need it. I hope that will be the case. We are being told that the House is now considering sending yet another partisan bill over here to the Senate. The only thing I can tell you is, if you want to get legislation signed into law by the President of the United States that actually does deliver and put the much needed assistance on the ground that is desperately needed on the southern border, the only surefire way to do that right now is for the House to pick up the Senate-passed bill, which passed here with 84 votes, pass it, and send it to the President, where it will be signed into law, and that $4.5 billion will be on its way to the border to assist with all the needs down there that are currently being unmet. I hope that can happen yet today. That is the state of play with respect to the supplemental appropriations bill. Democratic Party Mr. President, I think 2019 is going to go down in history for the Democratic Party. It has been a notable year. While the Democratic Party has obviously always been left of center, I never expected to see the Democratic Party running so far to the left of the American people or wholeheartedly embracing socialism and a government takeover of a large part of the economy. The socialist fantasies are rapidly piling up: a government takeover of healthcare, a government takeover of the energy sector, government- funded college, a government writeoff of all student loan debts, guaranteed income, government-guaranteed housing, and on and on. So what is wrong with that? After all, those proposals sound really nice-- free healthcare, free college, the government guaranteeing you an income. Here is the problem: Providing all that stuff is going to cost a lot of money, an almost inconceivable amount of money. Somebody is going to have to pay. You might say that obviously the government is going to pay, but the government has to get its money from somewhere. Here is the catch: The government gets its money from the taxpayers. Can't we just take that money from rich taxpayers? If you talk to some of the socialist Democrats offering these proposals, they will talk about making the rich pay. The rich are their favorite funding mechanism. Want free college? We just get the rich to pay for it. Want free healthcare? We can just get the rich to pay for it. There is just one big problem with that: There aren't enough rich people in America to even come close to paying for Democrats' socialist fantasies. Deep down, Democrats know it, which is why they tend to get very foggy when pressed on the details of how they are going to pay for some of their plans. Take the junior Senator from Vermont's proposal of a government takeover of America's health insurance, the so-called Medicare for All plan. A conservative estimate puts the cost of that plan at $32 trillion over 10 years. The current cost is likely much higher since the Senator from Vermont's most recent plan for government-run healthcare also includes long-term care, which we all know is an incredibly expensive benefit. The Senator from Vermont did release a list of proposed tax hikes to pay for his proposal. The only problem is, the tax hikes wouldn't come close to covering the estimated cost of his original Medicare for All plan, much less the cost of his new expanded Medicare fantasy. Of course, as staggering as the costs of Medicare for All would be-- more money than the Federal Government spent in the last 8 years combined on everything--they pale in comparison to the cost of the so- called Green New Deal. An initial estimate found that the Green New Deal would cost somewhere between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over 10 years--$93 trillion. That is more money than the 2017 gross domestic product for the entire world. That is right. You could take the entire economic output of every country in the world in 2017, and it still might not pay for the Democrats' socialist fantasy. Once you realize that, it is pretty obvious that the Green New Deal is not a plan that could be paid for by taxing the rich. How about taxing every household making more than $200,000 a year at a 100-percent rate for 10 years? That wouldn't even get you close to $93 trillion. How about taxing every household making more than $100,000 at a 100-percent rate for 10 years? That wouldn't get you anywhere close to $93 trillion. Like Medicare for All, the Green New Deal would be paid for on the backs of working families. I have talked a lot about the money aspect of Democrats' socialist proposals, and that is one of the major problems with these proposals-- they sound nice until you realize that actually nothing is really free. Working Americans are still going to be paying for the cost of all those programs through new and much higher taxes. But that is far from the only problem with some of the Democrats' socialist fantasies. Leaving aside the fact that the Federal Government is not exactly known for its efficiency or bringing programs in on time and on budget, there is the tremendous cost Americans will pay in the loss of their freedom, the loss of their autonomy. Americans are used to choices and being able to make their own decisions. It is part of our heritage. Those are freedoms we cherish. That is not the way things work under socialism. Nowhere is this more obvious than with Medicare for All. Medicare for All doesn't give Americans health insurance options; it takes them away. Are you part of the majority of Americans who are happy with their current healthcare? Too bad. Medicare for All eliminates all private insurance plans and replaces them with a single, government- run, one-size-fits-all plan. Under Medicare for All, private health insurance plans as we know them would actually be illegal. If you are not happy with the government-run plan, too bad; you won't have any other choices. The treatment options would also be limited by what the government decides. If the government doesn't want to pay for a particular cancer treatment, for example, as has happened in other countries with socialized medicine, you will be out of luck. Then, of course, there are the long wait times that are the hallmark of socialized medicine. Imagine having to wait months for diagnostic imagining or needed surgery or having to stand by while your spouse or child is forced to wait months for care. That is the kind of thing Americans would have to look forward to under Medicare for All. Margaret Thatcher once said that the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. Once Democrats have taken every dollar they can from the rich to pay for their socialist fantasies, they will come after the paychecks of ordinary Americans, who will face higher and higher taxes for fewer and fewer benefits and greatly reduced choices. Democrats' socialist dreams would quickly trap the American people in a nightmare. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, there is no more important congressional responsibility than providing for our Nation's defense. There will always be those who wish our Nation harm, and our Nation must always be prepared to defend itself. More than that, our Nation needs to be ready to defend itself because being prepared for war is a strong deterrent to conflict in the first place. As I have said before in this Chamber, it is not our strength that tempts our adversaries but our weakness. Maintaining our strength will ensure that bad actors, whether they are terrorist groups or major powers, think twice before attacking our Nation. In the words of Ronald Reagan, ``well, to those who think strength provokes conflict, Will Rogers had his own answer.'' He said of the world heavyweight champion of his day: ``I've never seen anyone insult Jack Dempsey.'' This week we are considering the National Defense Authorization Act, the annual legislation to authorize funding for our military and our Nation's defense. Like last year's NDAA, this bill focuses on rebuilding our military and ensuring we are prepared to meet 21st century threats. While many take it for granted that we have the strongest military in the world, the truth is that in recent years our military advantage has eroded. Budgetary impasses combined with increased operational demands left our military undermanned, underequipped, and ill-prepared for the conflicts of the 21st century. Meanwhile, other major powers have made investing in their militaries a priority, set on diminishing U.S. influence. 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. The Commission noted that we would be especially vulnerable if we were ever called on to fight a war on two fronts. That is not a good position to be in, and restoring our readiness has to be our top priority. We are once again in an era of great power competition, while at the same time we continue to face threats from terrorists and rogue nations. We have to be able to credibly deter--and, if necessary, counter--any threat. This year's National Defense Authorization Act continues the reinvestment that we have made in our military. It invests in the planes, the combat vehicles, and ships of the future, including the Joint Strike Fighter and the future B-21 bomber, which will be based at Ellsworth Air Force Base in my home State of North Dakota. It authorizes funding for research and development and advanced technology. It authorizes funds to modernize our nuclear arsenal to maximize our deterrence capabilities. It also focuses on ensuring that we are equipped to meet new threats on new fronts, including in space and cyber domains. It is important that we invest in these new areas of the battlefield to ensure that we are prepared to meet and defeat threats. And, of course, this legislation invests in our troops, the men and women who keep our Nation safe and free. This year's National Defense Authorization Act will provide our troops with a well-deserved 3.1-percent pay increase, which is the largest increase in a decade. It also focuses on addressing the recent significant health and safety issues with private on-base housing. It contains measures to support military spouses seeking employment and increases access to childcare on military installations. It also allows parental leave to be taken in multiple increments, which is often a better fit for our military men and women. I am pleased that once again the Senate has taken up the National Defense Authorization Act in a timely and bipartisan fashion. There are few bills more important than this one. I look forward to passing the National Defense Authorization Act later this week and ensuring that our military men and women have the tools they need to defend our country.

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the first- degree filling deadline for the cloture motions filed during yesterday's session of the Senate be at 2:30 p.m. today.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, later today we will hopefully be taking up legislation to address the humanitarian crisis along our southern border. This year, 2019, has seen an overwhelming flood of migrants. So far this fiscal year, roughly 600,000 individuals have been apprehended at our southern border--600,000. That is approximately 200,000 more people than were apprehended during fiscal year 2018, and we still have more than 3 months to go. Agencies that deal with the situation on the border are stretched to the breaking point. Shelters are overloaded, and providing adequate medical care is becoming more and more difficult. The Department of Homeland Security has been forced to pull nearly 1,000 Border Patrol officers from other areas to assist with the surge of migrants. The Department of Health and Human Services, which is tasked with caring for unaccompanied children who cross the border, will be out of money to care for these children by early July. That means that caregivers for these children would have to work without pay, and private organizations with Federal grants to care for these children would go without their funding. The President sent over an emergency funding request to address this humanitarian crisis more than 7 weeks ago, and Republicans were ready to take it up immediately. But the Democrat-controlled House was not interested. Why? Because the President was the one doing the asking. House Democrats' No. 1 priority is obstructing the President. It doesn't matter if he is asking for desperately needed funds to address a humanitarian crisis. Democrats aren't interested. When it became clear the House was not serious about addressing this crisis, the Senate decided to move forward, and last week the Senate Appropriations Committee approved an overwhelmingly bipartisan measure to provide desperately needed resources for the southern border. Now the House is seeking to take up a supplemental of its own. This should be good news, but, unfortunately, the House bill is just another exercise in partisanship. The House is attempting to take up a bill that the President won't sign, as House leaders have known from the beginning. While I suppose we should be glad the House is at least acknowledging the situation at the border now, passing partisan legislation that will go nowhere in the Senate or with the President is no help. The Senate has come together and will pass a real bipartisan measure that the President is expected to sign. The House should drop the partisan posturing and obstruction and pass the Senate bill so that we can get these desperately needed funds to the southern border. Agriculture Mr. President, I have been to the floor several times in recent weeks to talk about the challenges facing our agriculture producers. While the economy as a whole continues to thrive, our Nation's farmers and ranchers are struggling. Thanks to natural disasters, protracted trade disputes, and several years of low commodity prices, farmers and ranchers have had a tough few years. As the senior Senator from South Dakota, I am privileged to represent thousands of farmers and ranchers here in the Senate, and addressing their needs and getting the ag economy going again are big priorities of mine. That is why I spend a lot of time talking to the Department of Agriculture about ways we can support the agriculture community, and I am very pleased that we have one big victory to celebrate this week-- the Department of Agriculture's adjustment of the haying and grazing date for cover crops planted on prevent plant acres. Farmers and ranchers throughout the Midwest are currently facing the fallout from severe winter storms, heavy rainfall, bomb cyclones, and spring flooding. Planting is behind schedule, and some farmers' fields are so flooded that they won't be able to plant corn and soybeans at all this year. As a result, many farmers will be forced to plant quick- growing cover crops on their prevent plant acres for feed and grazing once their fields finally dry out and to protect the soil from erosion. But before last week's Agriculture Department decision, farmers in Northern States like South Dakota faced a problem. The Department of Agriculture had set November 1 as the first date on which farmers could harvest cover crops planted on prevent plant acres for feed or use them for pasture without having their crop insurance indemnity reduced. Farmers who hayed or grazed before this date faced a reduction in their prevent plant indemnity payments--those crop insurance payments designed to help them cover their income loss when fields can't be planted due to flooding or other issues. November 1 is generally a pretty reasonable date for farmers in southern States. But for farmers in Northern States like South Dakota, November 1 is too late for harvesting, thanks to killing frost and the risk of late fall and early winter storms, and it is too late to maximize the use of cover crops for pasture, since a killing frost is liable to flatten cover crops before they are grazed. I heard from a lot of farmers about this November 1 date and the dilemma they were facing about whether to plant cover crops that they might not be able to harvest or graze. So beginning in early May, my office approached the Department of Agriculture about changing the November 1 date. I then led a bipartisan group of Senate Agriculture Committee members in sending a letter to the Department, making our case for farmers. Then, I followed the letter with a request for a face-to-face meeting with top Agriculture Department officials so that I could explain in person the challenges farmers were facing. A week and a half ago, USDA Deputy Secretary Steve Censky and USDA Under Secretary Bill Northey came to my office. During our meeting, I emphasized that not only did the date need to be changed, but it needed to be changed now so farmers could make plans to seed cover crops. The decision about whether to plant a cover crop is a time-sensitive decision, and farmers were rapidly running out of time to make that call. One week after our meeting, the Department of Agriculture announced that it would move up the November 1 date for this year by 2 months, to September 1--a significant amount of time that will enable a lot of South Dakota farmers to plant cover crops without worrying about whether they will be able to successfully harvest or graze them. I met with South Dakota farmers in Aberdeen, SD, on Friday, and they were very happy about the Department of Agriculture's decision. Cover crops are a win-win. They are good for the environment because they prevent soil erosion, which can pollute streams and rivers and worsen flooding, and they are good for farmers because they improve soil health, protect soil from erosion, and can provide an important source of feed. That second benefit is particularly important for farmers right now. Due to last year's severe and lengthy winter, feed supplies disappeared, leaving no reserves. Cornstalks, a source of grazing and bedding, will be in short supply this year, and so will the supply of alfalfa due to winterkill. Cover crops will be crucial to alleviating this feed shortage. I am currently working with the Department of Agriculture to ensure that farmers have flexibility to use existing supplies of available seed for cover crops, and I will be encouraging the Agriculture Department to release Conservation Reserve Program acres for emergency haying and grazing this year to further address the feed shortage. I am very pleased that the Department of Agriculture heard the concerns we were expressing and moved the November 1 haying and grazing date up to September 1 for this year. South Dakota farmers and ranchers can rest assured that I will continue to share the challenges they are facing with the Agriculture Department, and I will continue to do everything I can here in Washington to support our Nation's farmers and ranchers and to get our agriculture economy back on its feet. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 25, 2019, at 9:45 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 25, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 25, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 25, 2019, at 2: 15 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 25, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed roundtable. Subcommittee on Communication, Technology, Innovation, and The Internet The Subcommittee on Communication, Technology, Innovation, and The Internet of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 25, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Subcommittee on Transportation and Safety The Subcommittee on Transportation and Safety of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 25, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.