John Thune

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. THUNE

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

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. Madam President, we have begun consideration of this year's National Defense Authorization Act, which is annual legislation to authorize funding for our military and national defense. Like last year's bill, this year's National Defense Authorization Act emphasizes military modernization and readiness and the need to ensure that we are prepared to counter threats from great powers like China and Russia, as well as terrorists and rogue states. I am offering a handful of amendments to this legislation, including an amendment to address training opportunities for our Nation's military pilots and aircrews. In my home State of South Dakota, we are privileged to play host to Ellsworth Air Force Base, home of two B-1 bomb squadrons of the 28th Bomb Wing, the airmen who are the backbone of operations, as well as the 89th Attack Squadron and its control stations for MQ-9 Reapers. It is also home to the Powder River Training Complex, training airspace for Ellsworth aircrews and crews from across the United States. In the very near future, Ellsworth will be the home of the forthcoming B-21 bomber. When I was first elected to the Senate, Ellsworth's future was not looking bright. In fact, in 2005, just a few months into my first term, Ellsworth was targeted for closure by the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. Fortunately, thanks to the efforts of a lot of dedicated people, we managed to demonstrate to the Commission that Ellsworth was a vital national security asset and that closing the base and moving its fleet of B-1s would actually cost money. Since then, strengthening Ellsworth has been a priority for me and for a lot of other people back home in South Dakota, and Ellsworth has been going from strength to strength. One of my proudest achievements as a Senator was helping secure the expansion of the Powder River Training Complex, the training airspace over Ellsworth. The expansion quadrupled the size of the airspace. But prior to the expansion, the airspace was only large enough for one B-1 bomber to train at a time, which meant crews had to commute elsewhere to meet their training needs. Today, the airspace is large enough to hold large-force training exercises, involving a variety of planes from other bases. In fact, the Powder River Training Complex is now the largest training airspace in the continental United States. In addition to the vast space it offers for training exercises, it also provides a valuable opportunity for pilots to train in conditions that resemble combat missions, such as low-altitude flying over mountainous terrain. Since the Powder River Training Complex was expanded, Ellsworth has hosted a number of successful large-force exercises. This May, Ellsworth hosted its most recent Combat Raider large-force exercise, which featured B-1, B-2, and B-52 bombers, J-STAR and AWACS radar systems, F-16s, and KC-135 tankers. Notably, F-35s from Hill Air Force Base in Utah also participated, marking the first of what I think will be many training opportunities for the F-35 in the Powder River Training Complex. These Combat Raider exercises highlight the potential of the PRTC for training our military aviators, and I want to make sure that we can meet these training needs as we look to bring the B-21 into the fleet. That is why I filed an amendment, Thune amendment No. 759, to require a strategic airspace review. My amendment would require a report on how far our current national airspace system meets our national security requirements and how we might improve this system to meet current and future training needs. The Air Force and the Federal Aviation Administration would be required to consult on this report to develop a full picture of the strategic value of our national airspace. The report would also analyze whether the current airspace system gives the military sufficient access to the airspace it requires to meet its worldwide operational, training, and testing needs. In particular, it seeks to determine whether current civil and military cooperation mechanisms are providing for the effective and efficient management of the national airspace system for military training. It also asks whether the current Department of Defense and FAA processes provide sufficient time to plan for large-force exercises. For example, in the Powder River Training Complex, the Air Force needs to go through a lengthy process to secure altitude waivers from the FAA to fly higher on just a few days a year for just a few hours a day. We absolutely need to have appropriate procedures to ensure safety and coordination with commercial airlines, but the Air Force also needs enough lead time to schedule its aircraft and airmen traveling from other bases. We shouldn't be missing out on critical training opportunities because of a lengthy process that is ripe for expediting. So my amendment would take a look at this process, including whether FAA air traffic control centers could temporarily or permanently realign their boundaries to streamline their role in military training. For example, the Powder River Training Complex straddles the convergence of the Minneapolis, Denver, and Salt Lake City air traffic control centers, and coordinating with all three can be cumbersome. This report would explore whether we can make the process more efficient for both the FAA and the military. It would also review whether the current airspace system is sufficient to prepare military aviators to meet high-end threats, including fifth-generation aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, and hypersonic weapons. It is important that we ensure that our airmen can train in realistic conditions so they can deliver when America is counting on them the most. Just as in sports, you play like you practice--although we all know this isn't play, and the stakes for getting it right are very high. That is why my amendment would investigate whether current civil and military cooperation mechanisms are sufficient for our military to replicate contested combat airspace, denied access airspace, and airspace without the use of GPS--the kinds of conditions aircrews would likely encounter if they got the call to fight tonight. My amendment also takes a step back to look at the state of our national airspace system. It calls for an audit of special-use airspaces, military operations areas, commercial routes, and other routes, and it asks if parts of underutilized airspaces can be effectively returned to the national airspace to boost commercial route efficiencies in high-traffic areas in exchange for more generous military training flight permissions in low-traffic areas. Comparatively, we don't get as much commercial airline traffic up in the Powder River Training Complex, creating a great opportunity for fifth-generation aircraft to really stretch their legs and meet their training needs. I have talked a lot about our military's need to have the best training opportunities available. However, I want to clarify that this is not a one-sided amendment. Our military goes to great lengths to respect commercial and general aviation needs, and that is reflected in my amendment. First and foremost, the FAA is consulted throughout the entire report process. Additionally, the bill reviews whether commercial and general aviation receive sufficient notice regarding exercises and special-use waivers, and, as I mentioned, it looks for ways to make Department of Defense and FAA interaction more efficient. As a former chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee and a current member of the Commerce Subcommittee on Aviation and Space, I know that the management of the national airspace is complicated. My amendment simply seeks to gather information so that we can take a productive look at our national airspace and make sure our military aviators can get the most out of their training opportunities while respecting the needs of commercial and general aviation. The Armed Services Committee chairman and ranking member, my colleagues, and staff members have a lot of amendments to consider. Hundreds of amendments have already been filed on the National Defense Authorization Act, and there are more to come. I would ask that my amendment No. 759 be considered for inclusion as we work together to restore and modernize our military and ensure our men and women in uniform have the tools they need to defend our country. I thank my colleagues. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, this week we will begin consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act, the annual legislation to authorize funding for our military and national defense. This year's legislation builds on last year's bill, with its emphasis on restoring military readiness and ensuring that we are prepared to meet threats from major powers like China and Russia. Some may take it for granted that we have the strongest military in the world, but our military strength, built on the service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform, requires sustained investment. In recent years, budgetary impasses paired with increased operational demands have left our Armed Forces with manpower deficits and under-equipped for confronting the threats of the 21st century. Given the multitude of threats around the world, we cannot afford to become complacent or ease our preparedness. The truth is, the last time our military underwent a comprehensive modernization, Ronald Reagan was President. 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. Repairing this readiness deficit has to be one of Congress's most important priorities. Last year's National Defense Authorization Act took major steps forward on modernization, making significant and targeted investments in the research, manpower, and materiel needed to equip our military to face 21st-century threats. We have made real progress, but there is a lot more work to be done. This year's National Defense Authorization Act focuses on building on the progress we have made. It invests in the planes, 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 South 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 threats on new fronts, including in the space and cyber domains. It is important that we invest in these new areas of the battlefield to ensure we are prepared to meet and defeat threats. We are once again in an era of great power competition, where states like China and Russia harbor imperial ambitions. The National Defense Authorization Act will help ensure that we have a credible deterrence and are equipped to meet threats from great powers as well as rogue states and terrorist organizations. This legislation will also invest in our relationships with key allies and security partners to help counter shared threats. Importantly, this NDAA will help our military bases rebound from recent natural disasters. Finally, of course, this legislation will invest in our most important resource--our troops and in their families. This year's National Defense Authorization Act authorizes a 3.1- percent pay increase for our troops, the largest increase in a decade. They more than deserve it, and an increase is important for recruitment and retention in our All-Volunteer Force when the economy is as strong as it is. The bill also focuses on addressing the recent significant health and safety issues faced by many families with private on-base housing, and it contains measures to support military spouses seeking employment and increased access to childcare on military installations. It also allows parental leave to be taken in multiple increments, better adapting to the lives of our warfighters. In his first annual address to Congress, George Washington noted: ``To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.'' There is no better way to preserve peace and protect our Nation than to ensure that the U.S. military is the best equipped, most capable fighting force in the world. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the National Defense Authorization Act and to give our military men and women the tools they need to defend the country. 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. Madam President, our economy is thriving. Republican economic policies, particularly the historic tax reform legislation that we passed at the end of 2017, have helped to produce economic growth, higher wages, and better opportunities for workers. Unfortunately, our Nation's agriculture economy is trailing behind the economy as a whole. A combination of natural disasters, low commodity prices, and protracted trade disputes have left farmers and ranchers and rural businesses struggling. Although 2019 crop prices have improved, millions of acres of cropland will go unplanted and leave many farmers with no crops to market this year. Farmers and ranchers have a tough job. Feeding our Nation and the world is tough, backbreaking work. Farmers and ranchers put in long days that start before the Sun rises and often end long after the Sun sets. Yet, no matter how hard they work, all of their labor can be undone by one devastating storm or flood. For most Americans, a bad storm might mean a wet or a delayed commute. For farmers and ranchers, it can literally mean the loss of substantial parts of their livelihoods. I am proud to represent South Dakota's hard-working farmers and ranchers in the Senate, and addressing their needs is one of my biggest priorities here in Washington. Right now, I am working on several fronts to expand economic opportunity for farmers and ranchers and help them access the support they need. I recently requested a meeting with the Department of Agriculture to discuss cover crop harvest flexibility on prevent plant acres, Market Facilitation Program payments, and Conservation Reserve Program signups. Last Thursday, the Deputy Agriculture Secretary--the second highest ranking official at the Department of Agriculture--and the USDA Under Secretary for Farm Production and Conservation came to my office to meet with me on these issues. One important topic of discussion was of moving up the November 1 date for haying or grazing cover crops planted on prevented plant acres. South Dakota's farmers and ranchers 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 at all this year. The situation is similar throughout the entire Midwest. As a result, many farmers are thinking about planting quick-growing cover crops on their prevent plant acres for feed and grazing, once their fields finally dry out, in order to protect the soil from erosion. Yet there is a problem. Right now, the Department of Agriculture doesn't allow farmers to harvest or graze cover crops on prevent plant acres or to use them for pasture until November 1. Farmers who hay or graze before this date face a reduction in their prevent plant payments, which is crop insurance to help them cover their income losses 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 in Northern States like South Dakota, November 1 is too late for harvesting thanks to the risk of snow and other late fall or early winter storms. It is also too late to maximize the use of cover crops for pasture since the ground can freeze before cover crops are fully grazed. Due to last year's severe and lengthy winter, feed supplies have disappeared and have left no reserves. Corn stalks, which are a source of grazing and bedding, will be in short supply this year, which will result in severe feed shortages and a need for additional roughage. That is why I have been pressing the Department of Agriculture to move this date up for farmers in the Northern States. Cover crops are a win-win situation and can reduce feed shortages for many livestock producers. They help the environment by preventing soil erosion, which can pollute streams and rivers and worsen flooding, and they benefit farmers by improving soil health, which improves future crop yields. It is important that we don't discourage farmers from planting cover crops by insisting on the November 1 harvest date, and I emphasized that point to the Deputy Secretary and the Under Secretary. I know the Department of Agriculture is looking at this issue right now, and I will continue to encourage the Department to reach a decision that addresses the reality that is faced by northern farmers. Another subject I raised at the meeting last week was of the Conservation Reserve Program signups. All farmers are familiar with the Conservation Reserve Program, or CRP, as we refer to it, which provides incentives for farmers to take environmentally sensitive land out of production for 10 to 15 years. The Conservation Reserve Program helps the environment by improving soil health and water quality and by providing habitat for wildlife, including endangered and threatened species. It also helps farmers by reducing their crop insurance costs and providing them with an annual payment for the land they have taken out of production. I have spent years pushing for an increase in the Conservation Reserve Program's acreage cap, and we finally got a substantial increase in last year's farm bill. Yet the Department of Agriculture needs to expedite both general and continuous CRP signups to allow farmers to take full advantage of the cap increase. Taking millions of acres of land out of crop production in the next year could have a big impact on the farm economy by driving up commodity prices, which will boost farms' incomes. In order for this to happen, we need to make sure that farmers can get their less productive land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program and out of crop production by next year. That is why I have been urging the Department of Agriculture to make sure farmers can sign up in a timely manner. I also urged the Department to expedite signups for the Soil Health and Income Protection Program. I introduced the Soil Health and Income Protection Program, which became law as part of last year's farm bill, in order to address the concerns of farmers who were interested in the Conservation Reserve Program but didn't want to take portions of their land out of production for a decade or more. The Soil Health and Income Protection Program, or SHIPP, provides a new, short-term option for farmers that will allow them to take their worst performing cropland out of production for 3 to 5 years instead of the 10 to 15 years that is required by the CRP's rules. Like the CRP, it will protect our environment while it will improve the bottom line for farmers. The sooner we get this program implemented, the sooner farmers and the environment will see the benefits. I have also been pressing the USDA to issue guidelines for the second round of Market Facilitation Program payments, and I emphasized this point again at last Thursday's meeting. While I know our farmers would rather receive a check from the marketplace than from the government, we have safety net programs in place to help in exactly the kinds of situations our farmers find themselves in today. I continue to press the administration on when the government will wrap up negotiations on the various trade deals that are under consideration. I strongly support the administration's goal of strengthening market access for our Nation's farmers and ranchers, and we have made real progress in those negotiations. Now it is time to push for a conclusion to these deals. In addition to increased market access, farmers and ranchers need certainty about what international markets will look like. I am also pushing for the congressional consideration of one already concluded trade agreement--the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement--in the near future. This agreement will preserve and expand farmers' and ranchers' market access to Canada and Mexico, and Congress should take it up and pass it as soon as possible. To all of South Dakota's farmers and ranchers, I know you all have had a very tough few years. I am working hard here in Washington to do whatever I can to support you, and I will keep fighting every day to get our agriculture economy thriving again. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``nay.'' (Mr. COTTON assumed the Chair.)

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

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, last week I came to the floor to discuss the agriculture economy. While the broader economy is thriving, our Nation's farmers and ranchers are struggling. A combination of low commodity prices, protracted trade disputes, natural disasters, and weather-related issues have meant a tough few years for farmers. Nationwide, net farm income is about half of what it was in 2013. One of the biggest things we can do in Washington to help our Nation's farmers and ranchers is to negotiate favorable trade deals that expand existing and open new foreign markets for American agricultural products. That is why I have been pushing for a speedy conclusion to the various trade agreements that our country is currently negotiating. I strongly support the effort the administration has been making to secure more favorable export markets for American products. We have made real progress in negotiations. Now we need to wrap up the various agreements we are discussing as soon as possible so that we can get farmers and ranchers certainty about what international markets are going to look like. Of course, there is one agreement that has already been wrapped up-- the United States-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement. This is a hugely important agreement that will boost almost every sector of the American economy, from automotive manufacturing to digital services, to dairy farming. It will create 176,000 new jobs and increase wages for workers. Passing this agreement is a big priority for the ag industry. Mexico and Canada are huge importers of American agricultural products. The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement will preserve and expand American farmers' access to these key markets. More than 950 food and agriculture companies and groups sent a letter to Congress, urging its passage. In my home State of South Dakota, Mexico and Canada are the No. 1 and No. 2 customers for our agriculture exports. Maintaining and expanding South Dakota farmers' access to these markets are critical. I am particularly pleased with the improvement that the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement makes for U.S. dairy producers. Dairy is an important and rapidly growing industry in South Dakota. If you drive the I-29 corridor north of Brookings, you can see firsthand the massive dairy expansion that we have experienced in South Dakota over the past few years. The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement will preserve the 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 the agreement will boost U.S. dairy exports by more than $277 million. The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement also makes targeted improvements for U.S. poultry, egg, and wheat producers. Wheat is another important South Dakota product, and I look forward to the boost this agreement will give South Dakota wheat growers. As I said earlier, one of the most important things we can do to help the struggling agriculture economy is to negotiate favorable trade agreements for U.S. producers and open new markets for American agricultural products. The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement is ready to go, and Republicans in Congress are ready to pass it. Now Speaker Pelosi needs to indicate her willingness to take up this agreement in the near future. This agreement will provide certainty for American producers and expand market access for a vast array of American goods and services. It is a win for our economy and a win for American workers. We should pass this agreement as soon as possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

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

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

Mr. THUNE

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