John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, to borrow from Yogi Berra, it is deja vu all over again in the Senate this week. Once again, the Senate is taking up a lot of judicial nominations, and, once again, we will spend a lot of time considering noncontroversial nominees. Now my colleagues across the aisle have started to complain about the Senate's focus on nominations. I am pretty frustrated myself, not because we are considering these nominees--it is our constitutional duty, after all--but because we are being forced to spend so much time on their nominations, but that is what my Democratic colleagues have obliged us to do. Back in the day, most of the judicial nominees we are considering would have been confirmed without the time-consuming cloture vote process. By this point in President Obama's first term, Republicans had required cloture votes on just three of President Obama's judicial nominees--three, Mr. President. Contrast that with today. As of June 5, Democrats have required cloture votes on 76 of President Trump's judicial nominees--76 to 3. Now, of course, some might leap to the conclusion that this is not obstruction for obstruction's sake. They might assume that President Trump has been nominating unqualified or deeply controversial candidates for judicial office, and the Democrats have no alternative but to obstruct and delay the nominations--except that is not the case because Democrats have repeatedly made it clear that they have no problem with many of the President's nominations by turning around and voting for the same people they have obstructed. That is right. Again and again, Democrats have voted in favor of the very same nominees they have delayed. Take Monday and Tuesday's confirmation votes on two nominees for district judge. Democrats forced cloture votes on both nominees. Yet when it came time to confirm them, Democrats turned around and supported the nominations. One nominee received the support of 24 Democrats, including the Democratic whip, while the other nominee was confirmed with the support of 39 Democrats, almost the entire Democratic caucus. Democrats aren't obstructing because they oppose all or even most of President Trump's nominees; they are obstructing because they still can't get over the 2016 election. It has been 2\1/2\ years since the last Presidential election--2\1/2\ years. We are closer to the next Presidential election than to the last. Yet Democrats still can't let the 2016 election go. I realize their preferred candidate did not win, and I realize they are not fans of President Trump, but Democrats act like they are the only people who have ever lost an election, like they are the first to have to deal with a candidate they don't like. To my Democratic colleagues across the aisle, I would like to say: Welcome to life in our democracy. Welcome to life in a free country. While it is never fun, sometimes your candidate is going to lose. That is what happens when you have free elections. I am not suggesting that Democrats should start rubberstamping every item on the President's agenda. They have serious philosophical disagreements with the President's policies, and it is right that they should air them, but to reflexively oppose everything the President says or does simply because he is the President is deeply irresponsible. There are serious consequences to pointlessly delaying nominees, such as backlogs in our court system or a government that isn't functioning the way it should because of vacancies in leadership positions. There are even more serious and immediate consequences to obstructing other measures. Right now, Democrats are holding up desperately needed funding for the serious humanitarian and security crisis at our southern border simply because it is the President making the funding request. The security of our country and the well-being of tens of thousands of immigrants are at stake, and Democrats are refusing to address the situation because they don't like the President. In the first 8 months of this fiscal year, nearly 411,000 unaccompanied children and families have crossed our southern border, more than in any previous full year. Resources are stretched to the breaking point. Shelters are overloaded, and providing adequate medical care is becoming more and more difficult. Federal agencies are simply running out of money. Money appropriated for the care of unaccompanied children could run out by the end of this month. That means 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. Democrats like to style themselves as the party of openness and compassion, and yet they are willing to ignore a humanitarian crisis of massive proportions out of political spite--not to mention the serious security issue. The Department of Homeland Security is being forced to divert resources to deal with the humanitarian crisis pulling more than 700 Customs and Border Protection Officers from legal points of entry to assist with the surge of migrants. I don't think there is a Member in this body who wouldn't agree on the importance of fully staffing our ports and cargo processing so we don't create new vulnerabilities, but Customs and Border Protection is left with little choice. After 2\1/2\ years of unprecedented partisanship and obstruction from Democrats, I would like to think that the Democrats would finally turn their focus to the business of government. Unfortunately, I think it is more likely that their obstruction will continue and that we will see a lot more pointless delays when it comes to nominees and more difficulty getting Democrats to work with us on legislation. I do hope--I do hope Democrats can hold their relentless obstruction long enough to provide humanitarian relief along our southern border and to address the increasingly precarious security situation. It doesn't seem like too much to ask. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mrs. Fischer). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

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

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the votes following the first vote in this series be 10 minutes in length.

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 Iowa (Ms. Ernst), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mrs. Fischer). 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 Iowa (Ms. Ernst), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mrs. Fischer). 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 Iowa (Ms. Ernst), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mrs. Fischer). 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 Iowa (Ms. Ernst), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mrs. Fischer). 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 Iowa (Ms. Ernst), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mrs. Fischer). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I came to the floor last week to talk about the challenges facing farmers right now. While the broader economy is thriving, a combination of low commodity prices, protracted trade disputes, and natural disasters and weather-related issues have left many farmers and ranchers struggling. In my home State of South Dakota, farmers and ranchers are dealing with the aftermath of severe winter storms, heavy rainfall, bomb cyclones, and spring flooding. Planting is behind schedule, and many farmers will not be able to plant at all this year. Yet, while the news has generally been tough for farmers and ranchers lately, there are a couple of recent happenings that are worth celebrating. Japan's announcement that it was lifting age limits on U.S. beef imports is a win for America's ranchers, who will be able to substantially increase their sales to Japan. Also, the administration's move to lift the ban on the year-round sale of E15--15-percent ethanol- blended fuel--went live in the Federal Register yesterday. This is great news for corn producers in South Dakota and around the Nation. I have been advocating for higher blends of ethanol for more than a decade, and I have spent a lot of time advocating for the year-round sale of E15. Year-round E15 is a win-win-win-win situation. It is a win for consumers and for our economy. It is a win for the environment. It is a win for our Nation's energy security. It is also a big win for our Nation's agriculture industry. Year-round E15 will not only provide consumers with a cheaper alternative at the pump, but it will keep gas prices lower. Plus, the year-round sale of E15 means more ethanol can be sold each year, for gas stations will have a greater incentive to sell E15 now that they will no longer have to go through the costly process of reworking and relabeling E15 pumps at the start of the summer's driving season and then of converting them back in the fall. Increased demand will fuel further growth in the ethanol industry, which already supports hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs and contributes tens of billions of dollars to our economy. Year-round sales of E15 are also a win for our environment in that ethanol is a cleaner burning fuel than is regular gasoline, which means fewer greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions by more than one-third. Biofuels like ethanol are key to there being a lower carbon energy future, and the next generation of advanced biofuels will further lower emissions. Another major advantage to ethanol is that it diminishes our dependence on foreign oil. Ethanol is a homegrown fuel, and the more we are producing here at home the less we have to rely on unstable countries or far-off sources to meet our fuel needs. Finally, of course, the year-round sale of E15 is a big win for our Nation's corn producers. America's farmers don't just feed our country. They help fuel it, too. Roughly half of the corn produced in my home State of South Dakota goes into ethanol production. Increased demand for ethanol as a result of the administration's decision could boost demand for corn by up to 2 billion bushels. That would be a significant boost to U.S. corn producers at any point, but it is an especially big deal given the challenges the agriculture sector has faced over the past several years. U.S. corn producers are one of the main reasons I have been a relentless advocate for higher blends of ethanol, and I am very happy the President has delivered on his commitment to year-round sales of E15. As we move forward, I will continue to advocate for biofuels and the environmental and economic benefits they bring. Conventional ethanol has laid the foundation for advanced biofuels, which will have even lower life cycle emissions. American ingenuity has turned the corner to create ethanol from other parts of plants like corn kernel fiber, boosting yields, but we need the Environmental Protection Agency to end the yearlong delays and approve registrations. I will also continue to urge the Environmental Protection Agency to stop its practice of granting small refiner exemptions to the renewable fuel standard that discourage demand for ethanol. These so-called hardship waivers should be limited only to instances where small refiners would no longer be profitable or competitive if they comply with their blending obligation. They should not be granted to refiners who are posting billion-dollar profits and seeking to game the system. We need to make sure the EPA is granting waivers appropriately and in a transparent manner. That said, the year-round sale of E15 will actually help refiners because it will incentivize higher ethanol blending and drive down compliance costs. I am thankful that President Trump made good on his commitment to our farmers to get the E15 rule done, and I am glad he is back in the heartland today so he can hear firsthand about the difference this will make in farm country. While we have a long way to go to get the agricultural economy thriving again, I am heartened by this victory for our corn producers, and I will continue to make our Nation's farmers and ranchers a priority here in Washington. Madam President, 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 Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) and the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito). 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 West Virginia (Mrs. Capito). 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 West Virginia (Mrs. Capito). 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 West Virginia (Mrs. Capito). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me just say that the plans to which the Senator from Wisconsin is referring are plans that tens of thousands of people are buying, and one of the reasons they are buying them is because it allows them to buy the insurance they want at a price they can afford. I can tell you, as I am sure the Presiding Officer can and probably everybody here can, when they travel across the country and talk with the farmers and ranchers and people who are buying their insurance on the individual market, the individual market has blown up. It has exploded. People are paying $3,000 a month in premiums--$36,000 a year--and have huge deductibles. So what they are doing is they are dropping coverage because they can't afford it. One of the reasons they can't afford it is because, under ObamaCare, there were so many mandates and requirements, it drove up the price. So they have these skyrocketing premiums, higher deductibles, and higher copays. I think that is precisely why the administration decided that, let's take these plans and give people an opportunity to buy the insurance they want at a price they can afford. Literally tens of thousands of Americans are now in these plans. What the Senator from Wisconsin is saying is, we are going to throw all these people off these plans. What does that do? That puts them back out, probably uninsured, which is what a lot of farmers and ranchers in places in South Dakota are doing--they are just dropping coverage because they can't afford it. Who can afford to pay $3,000 a month? That is what ObamaCare has left us. That is why we need new solutions. This solution is one that allows people to buy a plan they want at a price they can afford, coupled with association health plans--which Democrats, I think, here in the Senate are also objecting to and opposing--which are also giving individuals opportunities to join larger groups and spread their risk and drive down their premiums. We need plans that people in this country can afford, or more and more people are going to be in the ranks of the uninsured. So, Mr. President, I object.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, our economy has made tremendous strides over the past 2 years. Americans on the whole have access to more jobs, higher wages, and more opportunities. Unfortunately, our Nation's agricultural economy is trailing behind the broader economy. A combination of low commodity prices, protracted trade disputes, and natural disasters and weather-related issues have left many farmers and ranchers struggling. Nationwide, net farm income is about half of what it was in 2013--half. In my home State of South Dakota, farmers and ranchers are currently facing the fallout from severe winter storms, heavy rainfall, bomb cyclones, and spring flooding. Less than half of this year's acreage intended for corn has been planted. Compare that to this time last year, when 96 percent of our State's corn was in the ground and growing. Today, just 14 percent of South Dakota's soybeans have been planted, compared to 83 percent this time last year. To make matters worse, for many farmers, this year's planting season is already over, as their land is completely flooded and will not dry out in time for anything to be planted. Other States that produce the bulk of our country's corn and soybeans are facing similar planting challenges. There have been some recent wins for farmers and ranchers. The administration's announcement that it is lifting the ban on the year- round sale of E15--15 percent ethanol-blended fuel--is great news for corn producers in South Dakota and around the Nation. It is a big win for consumers, too, who will have access to this cleaner, lower cost fuel during the summer driving season for the first time. I have spent nearly my entire time in the Senate advocating for higher blends of ethanol, and I am pleased the Trump administration has followed through on its commitment to address this issue. Another recent win was Japan's announcement that it was lifting age limits on U.S. beef imports, giving America's ranchers full access to the Japanese market. CNBC reports that the U.S. Meat Export Federation predicts that Japan's move could increase U.S. beef sales to Japan by $150 million to $200 million per year. While these victories are important, there is a lot more work to be done to get our Nation's farmers and ranchers back on their feet. I hear regularly from South Dakota ag producers about the challenges they are facing, and I constantly share their concerns with the administration, whether I am meeting with the President or other officials. One of the biggest things we can do for our Nation's farmers and ranchers is secure trade deals that will open new markets for American agricultural products. I support the President's efforts to secure more favorable treatment for American products and his determination to ensure that China honors the trade commitments it has made, but I believe we need to wrap up negotiations on these various agreements we are discussing as quickly as possible. Along with increased market access, farmers and ranchers need certainty about what international markets are going to look like. I am committed to doing everything I can to advance trade agreements with Japan and with the European Union. I am also doing everything I can to move the United States-Mexico-Canada free-trade agreement through Congress in the near future. This agreement would benefit American agriculture, create jobs, and grow our economy, and we should pass it as soon as possible. We should be wary of any action that might jeopardize this trade agreement and the markets it will open for our producers. Another issue of concern to farmers and ranchers is the implementation of the 2018 farm bill. Getting a pro-agriculture, pro- farmer bill to the President was one of my top priorities last year, and I am proud of the bill we delivered. I took ideas and suggestions from South Dakota farmers and ranchers and developed more than 40 proposals aimed at making life better for American agricultural producers. Nearly 20 of my proposals were included in the final bill, including my new short-term, soil-building conservation program for farmers who don't want to tie up ground for 10 years or more in the Conservation Reserve Program. Now that the farm bill is law, we have to make sure that it is implemented in a timely manner and as Congress intended. 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 bill. The Department of Agriculture needs to expedite both general and continual CRP signups to allow farmers to take full advantage of that cap increase. I have been strongly urging the Department to make sure that farmers can sign up in a timely manner. Taking millions of acres of environmentally sensitive land out of crop production in the next year could have a big impact on the farm economy by driving up commodity prices and increasing farmers' profits, but in order for this to happen, we need to make sure that farmers can get their least productive land enrolled in the CRP program and out of crop production by next year. South Dakota farmers and ranchers are the lifeblood of our State, and I am committed to doing everything I can to address their needs here in Washington. In addition to working on trade issues and farm bill implementation, I am working with the Department of Agriculture's Risk Management Agency to ensure that our farmers are treated fairly under crop insurance prevent plant and cover crop rules. I have been working with the Agriculture Department to make certain the recently announced second round of Market Facilitation Program payments do not affect this year's planting decisions. I have also requested that this second round of MFP payments provide equitable assistance to all producers, especially those with failed and damaged crops or who were prevented from planting this year's crops due to adverse weather. And, as I said, I will continue to push for trade agreements with China and other countries so that our Nation's farmers receive a check from the sale of their products overseas instead of from the Department of Agriculture. I also recently led a letter to the President in support of Governor Noem's request for a major disaster declaration in South Dakota, and 2 weeks ago I voted in favor of the Additional Supplemental Appropriations Act, which would provide additional disaster funding for States and Territories harmed by last year's hurricanes and wildfires and this year's flooding. The bill also includes $3 billion to provide assistance for farmers' crop losses from the 2018 and 2019 natural disasters. Our Nation's farmers and ranchers have a tough, backbreaking job. Instead of air-conditioned and heated offices, they labor in the hot Sun, the cold rain, and the snow. They start their days before the Sun rises and often end them long after the Sun falls. Most Americans never think about the blood, sweat, and tears that have gone into that loaf of bread or that gallon of milk that they grab off the grocery store shelf, but we are all the beneficiaries of the hard work and the dedication of our Nation's farmers and ranchers. It is an honor to represent so many of these hard-working people here in the Senate. To South Dakota's farmers and ranchers, I want to say I hear you. I know that things have been incredibly tough for you all over the past few years. I know that you are fighting through a lot of challenges, and I am committed to making sure that Washington addresses your priorities, and I will do everything that I can to make sure that you have access to the support and the resources you need to continue feeding our Nation and the world. 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), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea,'' the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) would have voted ``yea,'' and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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