John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, last fall, Republicans promised that if we were elected to the majority, we would get Washington working. That wasn't a campaign slogan, that was a commitment. After 6 months of Republican control, I am proud to report we are delivering on that promise. The past 6 months in the Senate have been the most productive months in a long time. We passed bipartisan legislation to approve the Keystone Pipeline. We passed a bipartisan bill to help prevent suicides among veterans. We passed the first significant bipartisan reform of Medicare in years, which will ensure that our seniors have access to physicians and that those physicians are judged by the quality rather than the quantity of the care they provide. We passed bipartisan legislation to give law enforcement new tools to fight human trafficking and provide support for trafficking victims. We passed a bipartisan bill to authorize funding for our national defense to provide for the needs of our men and women in uniform. Those are just some of the highlights. Every piece of legislation I mentioned passed with bipartisan support. One reason that happened is because the Republican majority has been committed to ensuring that all Senators, whatever the party, have the opportunity to make their voices heard. Under Democratic leadership, not only were Members of the minority party shut out of the legislative process, but many rank-and-file Democrats were as well. During all of 2014, the Democratic leadership in the Senate allowed just 15 amendment rollcall votes--15 votes in an entire year. That is barely more than a vote a month. By contrast, the Republican-led Senate has taken more than 130 amendment rollcall votes so far this year or more than 21 votes a month. That is not only more amendment rollcall votes than last year, it is more amendment rollcall votes than the Senate has taken in the past 2 years combined. That is through the first 6 months of 2015. We have another 6 months to go. This week, the Senate is considering what I hope is going to be our next bipartisan achievement; that is, the legislation to help expand U.S. trade with other countries and increase the opportunities that are available for American businesses and American workers. Over the past few years, exports have been a bright spot in our economy, supporting an increasing number of American jobs each and every year. In 2014, exports supported 11.7 million U.S. jobs and made up 13 percent of our Nation's economy. We need to continue to open markets around the globe to American goods and services, and the best way to do that is through new trade agreements. Countries with which we have free and fair trade agreements purchase substantially more from us than other countries. In fact, in 2013, free-trade agreement countries purchased 12 times more goods per capita from the United States than nonfree-trade agreement countries--12 times more goods per capita. For American workers, increased trade means more opportunity and increased access to high-paying jobs. Manufacturing jobs tied to exports pay, on average, 13 to 18 percent more than other jobs in our economy. Unfortunately, while trade agreements have proliferated around the globe over the past several years, the United States hasn't signed a new trade agreement in 8 years. A big reason for that is the fact that trade promotion authority expired in 2007. Since 1934, almost all of the U.S. free-trade agreements have been negotiated using trade promotion authority or a similar streamlined, expedited process. Trade promotion authority is designed to put the United States in the strongest possible position when it comes to negotiating trade agreements. Under TPA, Congress sets guidelines for trade negotiations and outlines the priorities the administration must follow. In return, Congress promises a simple up-or-down vote on the resulting trade agreement instead of the long amendment process that could leave the final deal looking nothing like what was initially negotiated. That simple up-or-down vote is the key. It lets our negotiating partners know that Congress and trade negotiators are on the same page, which gives other countries the confidence they need to put their best offers on the table. That, in turn, allows for a successful and timely conclusion of negotiations. Currently, the administration is negotiating two major trade agreements that have the potential to vastly expand the market for American goods and services in the European Union and in the Pacific. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is being negotiated with a number of Asia-Pacific nations, including Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, and Vietnam. If this agreement is done right, it could have huge benefits for American agriculture, among other industries. Agriculture producers in my State of South Dakota and in the Presiding Officer's State of Iowa understand that trade promotion authority is the most effective way to secure trade agreements that will benefit our farmers and our ranchers. One pork producer in my State of South Dakota contacted me to tell me that a successful TPP deal could increase U.S. pork exports to just one of the Trans-Pacific Partnership countries by literally hundreds of millions of dollars in a year. Discussions of the benefits of trade tend to focus on the economic benefits, and with good reason--it helps our economy. It creates good- paying jobs and raises the standard of living for people in this country and gives access for consumers to lower cost goods and services. But new trade agreements also have the potential to result not just in economic gains for America's farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers but in national security gains for the country. When we make trade deals with other countries, we are not just opening new markets for our goods, we are also developing and cementing alliances. Trade agreements build bonds of friendship with other nations that extend not only to cooperation on economic issues but to cooperation on security issues as well. It is also important to remember that just because the United States isn't negotiating trade agreements doesn't mean other countries will not be. In fact, the United States hasn't signed a single new trade agreement over the past 8 years, but that hasn't prevented other countries from signing numerous trade agreements over the same period. If America fails to lead on trade, other nations such as China will step in to fill the void, and these nations will not have the best interests of American workers and American families in mind. The bill before us today will help pave the way for the United States to cement alliances with friendly nations through trade and will help ensure that any trade deals the United States enters into will be favorable to our economic and our national security interests. The Senate passed a version of this bill last month with a bipartisan majority, and I am hopeful we will have a similarly strong bipartisan vote yet this week. Republicans believe our Nation's problems are best solved when Members of both parties come together to find solutions for the American people. Republicans' plans for our second 6 months in the majority are the same as those for the first 6 months of our majority; that is, to make sure we continue to move forward in a way that addresses the challenges that are facing our country. Unfortunately, last week we saw an unfortunate return to partisanship on the part of the Democrats when they blocked an appropriations bill to fund our troops. It is not that Democrats have a problem with this bill; in fact, many of them voted to support the funding this bill provides when they voted in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act last week. The authorization act is the first step in a two-step process which has to be followed by the appropriations bill that actually provides the funding. But Democratic leaders and the President, even though many of them supported the Defense authorization bill, are upset that government agencies such as the EPA and the IRS aren't receiving the Democrats' preferred level of funding, so they have decided to hold appropriations bills hostage in an effort to get what they want. It is unfortunate that Democrats are holding money for our troops hostage in order to get more funding for the EPA and the IRS. If Democrats believe the funding levels in the appropriations bills are not acceptable, they will have the opportunity to offer amendments to increase the funding. But in order to do that, they have to allow us to actually proceed to consideration of these bills on the Senate floor. What they are, in effect, doing now is filibustering any attempt to bring any spending bill to the floor; most recently, as I mentioned, the funding bill for our troops. The bill that funds our national security interests in this country is currently being held hostage. We can't even get it on the floor to debate it. We are not only talking about ultimately passing it, we are talking about even having a discussion on the floor of the Senate about something as important as funding our troops and the important military objectives we have as a nation. Yet, right now, we have a filibuster being conducted by the Democrats--again, because they want to get more funding for their favorite agencies. Well, that is a bad way to go about this. I am hopeful that this obstruction--which is largely driven by the Democratic leadership--that most rank-and-file Democrats will rethink a strategy that involves opposing every opportunity to fund our Nation's priorities and to get things done for the American people. After years of stagnation in the Senate under Democratic leadership, I think even most Democrats have enjoyed governing in a functioning Senate again. We have dozens of bipartisan bills to show for the first 6 months of this year, and our record of accomplishment can continue if the Democrats abandon their strategy of obstruction and continue to work with us to solve the challenges facing our Nation. They can start by not objecting to proceeding to even getting a bill that funds our national security interests here on the floor of the Senate so we can debate it. As I said, if they don't like the funding levels in there, we will have an open amendment process in which they will be able to offer amendments to change those funding levels. But what they are doing right now is fundamentally wrong, not even allowing consideration of an appropriations bill that funds our military and pays our troops on the floor of the United States Senate. I hope that will change. I hope that the Democrats will join us in making the next 6 months of 2015 as productive as the first 6 months have been and that we can point to bipartisan achievements that are good for the American people, that focus on their basic daily needs, and that will promote policies which will grow our economy and create jobs and lead to a higher standard of living and increased take-home pay for middle-income families across this country. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 23, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, yesterday I missed Senate rollcall vote No. 217, the nomination of Peter V. Neffenger, of Ohio, to be an Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security, because of flight delay issues due to weather. Had I been here, I would have voted in favor of this nomination. I support the Senate's confirmation last night of Coast Guard VADM Peter V. Neffenger who was confirmed to be the next Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, TSA. The TSA has been without Senate-confirmed leadership for too long. John Pistole, the previous TSA Administrator, announced on October 16, 2014, that he would be resigning in December. Since the end of 2014, the TSA Administrator position has been vacant. In January, I along with Ranking Member Nelson, and Senators Ayotte, Cantwell, and Fischer, called on President Obama to send us a qualified, experienced, and dedicated individual to serve as TSA Administrator. Unfortunately, President Obama did not nominate Admiral Neffenger until April 28, 2015, over 6 months after John Pistole informed the administration that he would be leaving. I was disappointed at the length of time it took for the President to send us a qualified nominee. Even the New York Times editorial page, normally quite deferential to the President, expressed the opinion that ``the Obama Administration has been disturbingly slow to give the TSA strong leadership at the top.'' By comparison, the Senate has very rapidly moved the Neffenger nomination, despite two separate committees being involved with his formal vetting. Since the TSA was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security, the Senate has abided by an understanding that TSA Administrator nominees would be vetted by the Commerce Committee, which has primary jurisdiction over TSA, and also by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which oversees the Department of Homeland Security where TSA is organizationally housed. Some could say that this protocol could lend itself to unnecessary delay. However, Admiral Neffenger received three votes in less than 3 weeks, first by the Commerce Committee on June 4, 2015, the second one on June 15, 2015, by the Homeland Security Committee, and last night when he was confirmed by a vote of 81 to 1. So the Senate has moved swiftly to confirm this important nomination, in comparison to the time the Obama administration has taken to send the Senate a qualified nominee. While I am disappointed at the length of time it took for the President to send the Senate a qualified nominee, I applaud the President's selection of Admiral Neffenger to be the next TSA Administrator. Admiral Neffenger has served ably and well for 34 years in the U.S. Coast Guard, rising through the ranks to become the Vice Commandant when the Senate confirmed him last year for that distinguished position. During an assignment to Mobile, AL, he helped to lead the multi- agency response to the 1993 Amtrak Sunset Limited train derailment into a remote waterway in the Mobile River Delta, which killed 47 people. Admiral Neffenger also has substantial experience serving right here in the Senate, having been a Coast Guard fellow and detailee for 3 years at the Senate Appropriations Committee. Admiral Neffenger also served as Deputy National Incident Commander for the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. In that role, Admiral Neffenger coordinated and led over 50,000 people from Federal, State, and local agencies, tribal representatives, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector throughout five Gulf Coast States in the clean-up and response effort. Clearly, Admiral Neffenger has the requisite background and experience to lead reforms at the TSA. Admiral Neffenger has proven himself as a leader, and the TSA is an agency in dire need of strong, capable leadership. In May, the Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General testified in the House of Representatives that, ``[u]nfortunately, although nearly 14 years have passed since TSA's inception, we remain deeply concerned about its ability to execute its important mission.'' Then, earlier this month, news broke that undercover investigators from the Inspector General's office had penetrated TSA security checkpoints while carrying illegal weapons or simulated bombs on 67 of 70 attempts. In other words, TSA failed 95 percent of the time to prevent illegal weapons or simulated bombs from being smuggled through TSA security checkpoints. This is unacceptable, and it is clear that the Inspector General is right to be concerned about TSA's ability to execute its important mission in a rapidly changing threat environment. TSA has also experienced a number of other troubling failures about which I have written to the agency. I have been concerned about the TSA's oversight of Secure Identification Display Area, SIDA, badges at the Nation's airports. In December 2014, it was revealed that a Delta ramp agent in Atlanta allegedly used his SIDA badge to bypass TSA security and facilitate an interstate gun smuggling operation via commercial aircraft. TSA's response to my letter of inquiry about its oversight of SIDA badges stated that TSA does not issue or manage SIDA badges and that this responsibility falls to airport operators--which raised even more concerns about TSA's awareness about lost SIDA badges at our Nation's airports. Another issue I have raised with TSA relates to the potential security gaps in its PreCheck initiative raised in reports by the inspector general. On January 28, 2015, the inspector general released an unclassified summary of a classified report concluding that PreCheck is a positive step towards risk-based security screening as a concept, but that TSA needs to modify its PreCheck vetting and screening processes and improve its PreCheck communication and coordination. The Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General report also stated that, ``TSA did not concur with all recommendations and all recommendations remain open.'' In response to the conclusions and recommendations, I wrote to TSA along with Ranking Member Nelson on March 25, 2015, asking a series of questions about potential security gaps in TSA PreCheck. TSA responded to this letter on April 14, 2015, but the issue of potential security gaps in PreCheck and other expedited screening initiatives must still be addressed as TSA seeks to continue these initiatives, let alone expand them. Admiral Neffenger's proven leadership throughout the course of his service in the U.S. Coast Guard will undoubtedly afford valuable perspective in his role as TSA Administrator. Admiral Neffenger understands the need for TSA to continuously evolve to meet the challenges presented by an ever-changing threat environment. Obviously, the TSA is an agency that needs a strong leader who will bring cultural change to the agency. I am hopeful that Admiral Neffenger can be a leader who can fundamentally reform the TSA. He has a heavy burden, but I believe he is capable of shouldering that burden and I pledge to work with him and my colleagues here in the Senate to see that those changes occur.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, this week the Senate will complete its work on the National Defense Authorization Act by holding a final vote. The National Defense Authorization Act is one of the most important bills Congress considers each and every year. I think this will mark the 54th consecutive year in which Congress has passed a Defense authorization bill, recognizing its importance to America's national security interests. The bill authorizes funding for our Nation's military and our national defense, ensuring that our soldiers get paid, their equipment and training is funded, and that our commanders have the resources they need to confront the threats that are facing our Nation. In particular, this bill ensures our air men and women maintain readiness levels and receive the training they need to safely return home after protecting our national security abroad. In my State of South Dakota, we are proud to host the 28th Bomb Wing at Ellsworth Air Force Base, one of our Nation's two B-1 bomber bases. The B-1s are a critical part of the U.S. bomber fleet, providing our military with critical long-range strike capabilities. These bombers have the highest payload capacity, the fastest maximum speed, and the lowest cost per flying hour of any bomber in our fleet. Bombers from the 28th Bomb Wing have played a key role in the armed conflicts the United States has engaged in over the past 20 years. Whatever the mission, from supporting NATO operations in Kosovo to conducting operations in Afghanistan, B-1s from Ellsworth have been in the thick of the action. During Operation Odyssey Dawn, B-1s from Ellsworth launched from South Dakota flew halfway around the world to Libya, dropped their bombs, and returned home all in a single mission. This marked the first time in history that B-1s launched combat missions from the United States to strike targets overseas. After 8 years of review, the Air Force and the Federal Aviation Administration recently finalized the expansion of the Powder River Training Complex, an airspace training range that serves as the primary training space for Ellsworth B-1s, as well as the B-52 bombers based at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota. The expanded training range will be the largest training airspace over the continental United States. It will save Ellsworth up to $23 million a year by reducing the need for the B-1 bombers to commute for training to other States, such as Nevada and Utah. In an era of tighter budgets, measures such as this, which increase readiness while saving costs, are essential. I was pleased to work with the Air Force and the FAA on this critical expansion, and I am hopeful our air men and women will be able to start using this range for large-force training exercises in the near future. In addition to ensuring our military has the resources necessary to maintain our B-1 bombers, the bill authorizes full funding for one of the Air Force's top acquisition priorities--the Long Range Strike Bomber, which represents the future of our bomber fleet. This aircraft is scheduled to come on line by the mid-2020s and is just one of many acquisition priorities necessary to defend our Nation against future threats. Our Nation's defense budget must consider not only the enemies we face today but also those we will face tomorrow. In addition to the critical funding this bill authorizes, this year's bill is particularly important because it contains a number of reforms that will expand the resources available to our military men and women and strengthen our national security. For starters, this bill tackles waste and inefficiency at the Department of Defense. It targets $10 billion in unnecessary spending and redirects those funds to military priorities such as funding for aircraft and weapons systems and modernization of Navy vessels. The bill also implements sweeping reforms to the military's outdated acquisitions process by removing bureaucracy and expediting decisionmaking, which will significantly improve the military's ability to access the technology and the equipment it needs. The act also implements a number of reforms to the Pentagon's administrative functions. Over the past decade, Army Headquarters staff has increased by 60 percent. Yet, in recent years, the Army has been cutting brigade combat teams. From 2001 to 2012, the Department of Defense's civilian workforce grew at five times the rate of our Active- Duty military personnel. There is something wrong with that picture. Prioritizing bureaucracy at the expense of our preparedness and our Active-Duty personnel is not an acceptable use of resources. The Defense authorization bill we are considering changes the emphasis at the Department of Defense from administration to operations, which will help ensure that our military personnel receive the training they need and that they are ready to meet any threats that arise. The bill also overhauls our military retirement system. The current military retirement system limits retirement benefits to soldiers who serve for 20 years or more--which doesn't apply, by the way, to 83 percent of those who have served, including many veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Defense bill replaces this system with a modern retirement system that would extend retirement benefits to 75 percent of our servicemembers. This bill is the product of a bipartisan process, and it received bipartisan support in committee. I believe it came out of the Armed Services Committee by a vote of 20 to 6. This makes it particularly disappointing that the President is attempting to hijack this bill for political purposes. Despite the fact that this legislation authorizes spending at the President's budget request--his budget request--of $612 billion, the President is threatening to veto this legislation if Republicans don't agree to provide more funding for agencies such as the IRS and EPA, and he has tried to convince Democrats here in the Senate to abandon bipartisan efforts on this bill and back up a Presidential veto. Holding up funding authorization for our troops is reckless, and it is irresponsible. And it is flat wrong for the President of the United States to attempt to hijack this bill not because he disagrees with the bill itself but because he wants to make sure his pet projects receive the funding he wants. At this very moment, threats are multiplying around the world. Russian aggression is on the rise. ISIS fighters are carving a trail of slaughter across the Middle East. Iran is working to acquire a nuclear weapon. Now more than ever, we cannot afford to be holding up funding for our military, especially for partisan political purposes. Democrats and Republicans have had a chance to make their voices heard on this bill, and our joint efforts have resulted in strong, bipartisan legislation that will ensure that our military is prepared to meet the threats of the 21st century. The Senate should pass this bill this week and the President should sign it to make sure our troops have the equipment and the resources they need to do the most important thing we can do as a nation, and that is defend our country. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, before I close, I want to take just a few minutes and discuss the President's health care law. The President made some comments yesterday on the upcoming Supreme Court ObamaCare decision. Referring to his health care law, the President said: What's more, the thing's working. Part of what's bizarre about this whole thing is we haven't had a lot of conversations about the horrors of ObamaCare because it hasn't come to pass. That was from the President yesterday. Let me just repeat and put that into context. The President of the United States thinks that ObamaCare is working and that negative predictions about the law have not come to pass. Well, to respond to that, let me just read a few headlines from the past couple of weeks. This from CNN: ``Obamacare sticker shock: Big rate hikes proposed for 2016.'' From the Associated Press: ``Many health insurers go big with initial 2016 rate requests.'' From The Hill: ``Overhead costs exploding under ObamaCare, study finds.'' From the Associated Press again: ``8 Minnesota health plans propose big premium hikes for 2016.'' From the Lexington Herald-Leader: ``Most health insurance rates expected to rise next year in Kentucky.'' I could go on. The truth is that not only is ObamaCare not working, but it is rapidly unraveling. A May 1 headline from the Washington Post reported: ``Almost half of Obamacare exchanges face financial struggles in the future.'' Hawaii's exchange has already failed. California's exchange is struggling to sign up consumers. One-third of the consumers who purchased insurance on the California exchange in 2014 declined to reenroll in 2015. The Massachusetts exchange is being investigated by the Federal Government. Colorado's exchange is struggling financially and has raised fees for consumer insurance plans. Rhode Island's Governor is pushing for new fees on insurance plans to help fund the $30.9 million operating cost of the Rhode Island exchange. Now, incidentally, that is $30.9 million to run an exchange that serves just 30,000 people. The Minnesota exchange was supposed to cover than more than 150,000 individuals in its small business marketplace by 2016. So far, it is covering 1,405 individuals, or approximately 1 percent of the number it is intended to cover. The Minnesota exchange has cost Federal taxpayers $189 million so far--$189 million for an exchange that provides coverage for just 61,000 people. A recent Forbes article notes that Vermont's exchange ``will need $51 million a year to provide insurance to fewer than 32,000 enrollees--or $1,613 per enrollee in overhead. Before ObamaCare, $1,600 would have been enough to pay for the entire annual premium for some individual insurance plans.'' While the ObamaCare exchanges unravel, health insurance costs on the exchanges are soaring. Insurers have requested double-digit premium increases on 676 individual and small group plans for 2016. More than 6 million people are enrolled in plans facing average rate increases of 10 percent or more. Around the country, rate increases of 20, 30, 40, and even 50 percent are common. One health care plan in Arizona is seeking a rate increase of 78.9 percent--so much for the President's promise that his health care plan would ``bring down the cost of health care for millions''. In my home State of South Dakota, proposed rate increases range up to 44.4 percent. That is not something South Dakota families can afford. The discussion about ObamaCare's success or failure is no longer theoretical. The evidence is in, and it shows the President's health care law is broken. It is time to repeal ObamaCare and to replace it with real health care reforms that will actually drive down costs. Five years under ObamaCare is long enough for American families.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, last fall, Republicans promised that if we were elected to the majority in the Senate, we would get the Senate working again. A big part of that is getting the appropriations process working again. When the Senate is functioning properly, 12 separate appropriations bills are considered individually in the Appropriations Committee and then brought to the Senate floor for debate and amendment. This process is designed to allow Senators to carefully examine programs and consider the best and most responsible way to distribute funding. But the appropriations process has not worked that way for a while. Too often, over the past few years, the majority of the year's appropriations bills have been thrown together in one catchall funding bill, greatly reducing Senators' ability to take a hard look at spending and to ensure that funds are being allocated responsibly. Republicans are determined to change that. We started the appropriations process by passing a balanced budget resolution for the first time in over 10 years. This week, we continue the process with the National Defense Authorization Act, which authorizes funding for our Nation's defense and our men and women in uniform. This authorization bill is the first step in the appropriations process for defense funding under what we call regular order. This legislation accomplishes a number of important things. It authorizes funding for our military at the President's requested level of $612 billion. It also eliminates waste and inefficiencies. Specifically, the bill targets $10 billion in wasteful and unnecessary spending and redirects those funds to military priorities such as funding for aircraft and weapons systems and modernization of Navy vessels. The bill also focuses heavily on reform. The military's current process for acquiring new equipment and technologies is inefficient and bureaucratic. It wastes our Nation's resources and, even more importantly, it reduces our military readiness by delaying the acquisition of essential weapons, equipment, and technology. The National Defense Authorization Act introduces broad reforms to modernize and streamline the acquisitions process, which will significantly improve the military's ability to access technology and equipment when it needs it. The act also implements a number of reforms to the Pentagon's administrative functions. Over the past few years, Army Headquarters staff has increased while combat personnel have been cut. Army Headquarters staff increased 60 percent over the past decade, yet the Army is currently cutting brigade combat teams. From 2001 to 2012, the Department of Defense's civilian workforce grew at five times the rate of Active-Duty military. Prioritizing bureaucracy at the expense of our preparedness and our Active-Duty military is not an acceptable use of resources. The Defense authorization bill that we are considering changes the emphasis at the Department of Defense from administration to operations, which will help ensure that our military personnel receive the training they need and that our military is ready to meet any threats that arise. Finally, this bill overhauls our military retirement system. The current military retirement system limits retirement benefits to soldiers who served for 20 years or more, which eliminates 83 percent of those who have served, including many veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The National Defense Authorization Act replaces this system with a modern retirement system that would extend retirement benefits to 75 percent of our servicemembers. The bill before us today is a strong bill. It is the product of bipartisan efforts. It authorizes funding for our troops at the level requested by the President and provides key reforms that will strengthen our Nation's defense and improve training benefits and quality of life for our servicemembers. Supporting this legislation should be a no-brainer. Incredibly, however, the President has threatened to veto this important legislation. His reason is that the President does not want our military to receive the increased levels of funding proscribed in this bill unless the President's nondefense funding priorities receive an increased level of funding. That is right. Apparently, President Obama is willing to hold up funding for our Nation's military until Congress provides more funding for agencies such as the IRS and the EPA. Well, the President can certainly make his case to Congress when it comes to funding government agencies. Holding troop funding hostage for political purposes is reckless and irresponsible. If that were not enough, the White House is busy lobbying Senate Democrats to abandon bipartisan efforts that went into this bill and back up a Presidential veto. The National Defense Authorization Act plays a key role in keeping our Nation safe. The President's attempt to hijack this bill for his political purposes is wrong. I very much hope that he will consider the implications of what he is doing and rethink that threat.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the President's misguided plan to reduce carbon emissions from existing powerplants, specifically the impact it is going to have on my home State, South Dakota. Over the last year, EPA has claimed its rule will grant States flexibility to meet burdensome emission reduction targets. However, there is really only one way for South Dakota to meet its staggering target of a 35-percent reduction; that is, by effectively shutting down Big Stone Plant, our only baseload coal-fired plant, which will soon be among the cleanest in the country. The plant, which provides affordable power to thousands in South Dakota and neighboring States, is nearing completion of a $384 million environmental upgrade project to meet the EPA's regional haze and Utility MACT regulations. So as you can see, highlighted on this poster by a Watertown public opinion op-ed headline, the clean powerplant would threaten this significant investment. The EPA has required this nearly $400 million upgrade--which is more than the original cost, the entire original cost of the plant itself-- and is now turning around and saying: That is not enough. We want it shut down. Let me repeat that. The EPA has required a $384 million environmental upgrade to make the plant among the cleanest in the country and now wants to put all that to waste. This isn't right, and this will stick South Dakotans with holding the bill. When the Obama EPA pushes new regulations to attack affordable and reliable coal generation, it is low-income families who take the biggest hit. South Dakotans have already seen their electricity rates increased to pay for that $384 million add-on, but the Clean Power Plan will limit the ability for this investment to be recouped, and now they will be charged even more. This is because the Clean Power Plan would require Big Stone Plant to run less, even on a limited or seasonal basis, not at the high capacity for which it was designed and is most efficient. At the same time, the Clean Power Plan would require the plan to run more efficiently to meet strict emission requirements. So, again, we have had this nearly $400 million investment to make the plant cleaner and more efficient in order to satisfy the EPA, and now the Obama EPA wants to shut it down. The Obama EPA should not push regulations that result in higher utility costs for consumers, less grid reliability, and fewer jobs. Affordable and reliable energy helps grow the economy and helps low- and middle-income families make ends meet. Unfortunately, the EPA's rule will only increase electrical rates and hurt those who can afford it the least by forcing our most affordable energy sources offline. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this burdensome rule and to prevent the serious economic burden it will impose on middle-income families in this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health Policy be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 4, 2015, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Security Assistance in Africa.''

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 4, 2015, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight of the Export-Import Bank of the United States.''

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 4, 2015, at 1:15 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Examining Practical Solutions to Improve the Federal Regulatory Process.''

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights, and Federal Courts be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 4, 2015, at 2 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Rewriting the Law: Examining the Process That Led to the ObamaCare Subsidy Rule.''

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 4, 2015, at 10:15 a.m., in room S-240 of the Capitol Building.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 4, 2015, at 10:15 a.m., in room S-216 of the Capitol Building.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 4, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 4, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I hope our colleagues in the Senate and the American people are listening to this discussion because there isn't anything that is more important than defending our country. The debate we are having in the Senate today is really about the tools our intelligence community uses to prevent terrorist attacks. As we look at and discuss the legislation in front of us, I think it is very important that we not forget we are living in dangerous times. This is the most dangerous time, literally, since 9/11 in terms of the terrorist activity that is out there. As the Senator from North Carolina pointed out, we have a big bull's-eye. The United States and people in this country, the things we believe in--the terrorists would love nothing more than to be able to take out and destroy, through some terrorist act, Americans and American interests. So I think it is very critical. The Senator from North Carolina did a great job. I know the Senator from Indiana is going to speak here on the subject in a few minutes. But I hope everyone listens carefully because we are on the cusp of doing something that does weaken the very tools that have been used, the very capabilities that have been used to prevent those terrorist attacks. The ironic thing about it, as you frame this up, you look at the threats that are out there, the dangerous times in which we live, and the success of these programs and how effective they have been in the past at preventing a terrorist attack, and what is being talked about are potential abuses, hypothetical examples of how these programs could be abused, but they haven't been. The fact is, they haven't been. We have a long period of time now in which to examine the effectiveness of these tools relative to the arguments that are being made about their abuse. They just don't exist. There isn't a documented case, in the time these tools have been in existence, of anybody's privacy being breached. So it is very important that we look at these issues in light of what we are up against and what our No. 1 responsibility is; that is, defending Americans and Americans' interests. And this discussion is critical to that. The Economy Mr. President, I wish to speak on another subject this morning, and that has to do with the headline of the New York Times from Friday morning of last week, which I thought was pretty grim, and that is ``U.S. Economy Contracted 0.7% in First Quarter.'' Let me repeat that. Not only did our economy fail to grow in the first quarter of 2015, it actually shrank. That is pretty discouraging news for millions of Americans still struggling in the Obama economy, and the Obama administration didn't offer them any consolation. Too often the administration has met stories of economic woe with excuses: uncertainty in the eurozone, not enough foreign demand, the Japanese tsunami, too much snow, too many congressional Republicans, and of course the Obama administration's favorite excuse, the Bush administration. This time, among other things, the administration is blaming the measurements themselves. The administration claims the Bureau of Economic Analysis is not accurately measuring economic growth from quarter to quarter. Now, of course, the Department of Commerce should always be looking for ways to modernize our measurements and adjust for seasonal changes, but no arithmetical sleight of hand can disguise the fact that our underlying economy is so weak that isolated events can shut down economic growth altogether and actually push our economy into the red. Economic growth has averaged an abysmal 2.2 percent under this administration since the end of the recession. That is one of the weakest economic recoveries in the past 70 years. If the Obama recovery had met the average economic growth experienced in all post-World War II recoveries, our economy would be $1.9 trillion larger than it is today. If you look at the President's record, it is easy to see why our economy is still sputtering along: a failed $1 trillion stimulus, $1.6 trillion in new taxes, the President's health care law, which raised premiums for families and increased costs for small businesses, 2,222 new regulations costing more than $653 billion in new compliance costs, a Federal debt that has doubled on the President's watch, a financial reform bill that has overreached and is stifling community banks and lending across the country, and a runaway EPA that wants to increase electricity rates on families who are already struggling with stagnant wages and now--now--wants to regulate ditches and ponds in farm fields across the country. All of this has led some economists to wonder if 2 percent growth is the new normal. If it is, it is very bad news for American families who will face a future that is less prosperous with less economic opportunity and mobility. During the entire postwar period, from 1947 to 2013, our Nation averaged 3.3 percent growth. At that pace, the standard of living in America almost doubles every 30 years. Incomes rise, financial security increases, and more people are able to afford homes, take vacations, and save for higher education. At the pace of growth we have seen since 2007, on the other hand, it will take closer to 99 years for the standard of living to double. Unfortunately, our recent weak economic growth shows every sign of continuing. The Congressional Budget Office projects our economy will grow at an average pace of 2.5 percent through 2018 and just 2.2 percent from 2020 through 2025. That is not good news for American families. For generations, individuals have clung to the promise America has always held out: If you work hard, you could build a better life for yourself and an even better one for your children. But after years of economic stagnation, that promise is now in jeopardy. A survey released last September reported that nearly half of Americans over 18 believe their children will be worse off financially than they are. A similar percentage of Americans no longer believe if you work hard you will get ahead. Their disillusionment is not surprising. The weak economic growth we have experienced over the past several years has left families struggling to make ends meet. Americans are struggling to make health care costs and to make mortgage payments. They are no longer sure they can put their children through college and retire comfortably. Some have even lost their homes. Good-paying jobs are few and far between. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that for the time since the government began tracking the number, more businesses are closing each year than are being opened. Think about that. More businesses are closing. There are more business deaths than there are business births in this country today. Millions of Americans are unemployed, and millions more are being forced to work part time because they can't find full-time work. Forty percent of unemployed Americans have become so disillusioned with the lack of opportunity, they have given up entirely looking for work--40 percent. That is a staggering number. If the unemployment rate were changed to reflect the number of unemployed who have given up looking for work, our current unemployment rate would be well over 9 percent. The good news is that things don't have to stay that way. We can enact progrowth policies that will return our economy to a more prosperous path in the 21st century. According to former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the differences between 2.5 percent growth and 3.5 percent growth would have a major impact on the quality of life for low- and middle-income families. If our economy grows at a rate that is just 1 percentage point faster than what is projected, we will have 2\1/2\ million more jobs and average incomes will be $9,000 higher. Average incomes would be $9,000 higher if we grow just 1 percentage point faster than what is projected. For a lot of Americans, that is the difference between owning your home and renting one. It is the difference between being able to send your kids to college or forcing them to go deeply into debt to pay for their education. It is the difference between a secure retirement and being forced to work well into old age. Additionally, the CBO estimates that for every additional one-tenth percent increase in economic growth, it reduces our deficits by $300 billion over the next 10 years. That means an additional percentage point in economic growth will reduce our deficits by $3 trillion over the next 10 years, and that in turn--reducing deficits--would further enhance economic growth. Senate Republicans have laid out a number of policies to help grow the economy and open up opportunities for low- and middle-income Americans. We proposed energy policies that will expand domestic energy development which will help drive down energy prices. We are advancing trade policies that will help create more opportunities for American workers here at home by increasing the market for U.S. goods and services abroad. We have proposed tax reform that will simplify our outdated Tax Code and make our businesses more competitive, which will open up new jobs and opportunities for American workers. We have laid out entitlement reforms that will keep our promises to our seniors while protecting our economy by reducing our long-term deficits. We are pushing for regulatory reforms that will rein in the out-of-control government bureaucracies that are stifling economic growth. Years and years of government overspending, burdensome taxation, massive government programs--many of which don't work--and excessive regulation have taken their toll on our economy, but we can still undo that damage. For generations, America has held out the promise of hope and opportunity, and Republicans are committed to ensuring it does so again. We invite our colleagues to join us because we can have a better, brighter, and more prosperous future for future generations of Americans by changing directions, changing the policies, doing away with the regulations, the overreaching government that has made it so difficult for so many Americans to get ahead. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I, too, wish to congratulate my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Rounds, because he has already been a great leader on this subject. As a successful two-term Governor, a leader in our State legislature, he was a practical, commonsense, down-to-earth Governor who just liked to get things done. I think coming here to Washington, DC, and finding the massive bureaucracy--in some cases, dysfunction--that surrounds this city, there can be a lot of disillusionment at times for people across the country. I think the new Senator from South Dakota is going to be a great voice, a clear voice on solutions for how to break through that. He will be a great partner and someone I look forward to continuing to work with. We worked together a lot during his time as Governor and while in the State legislature, but I am delighted he is here in the Senate, where he can take his skills and experience and the passion he has to bring about positive change for our country and put it to work on behalf of the people of South Dakota and the people of our country. I look forward to working with him on the very issue he talked about today because there is probably nothing right now that has a greater economic impact and creates more economic harm for the people we represent in South Dakota than regulatory overreach. This is evidenced on an almost daily basis as new regulations emanate from various agencies around this town that make it more difficult and more expensive for people to create jobs, more difficult for farmers and ranchers and small business people to do the things they do best, and just create a higher burden, a higher level of harm for people across the State because everything that comes out of Washington, DC, that drives up the cost of doing business in this country gets passed on to consumers in our State and all across the country. I congratulate the Senator from South Dakota on his remarks and am grateful for his great service to our State in so many ways already and now adding to that here as a Member of the Senate, where we have big problems, big challenges, but he meets that with not only big enthusiasm but big experience when it comes to knocking down these barriers and making it more possible for people in this country to live more prosperous lives, safer lives, and hopefully more fulfilled lives when they can get government out of the way and allow their greatest aspirations to surface. So I hope we have the opportunity to deal with a lot of those issues and do it in a way that creates greater prosperity for people across South Dakota and across this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to the evolving situation in the Middle East. I have grave concerns, as do a majority of Americans, with the President's handling of the current situation in that region of the world. Under this President's watch, the world has become increasingly unsafe. Under this President's watch, despots have dug in, and the most horrific terrorist organization we have ever seen has risen to power and thrives. This week the reality of this failure was brought to the forefront of the world's attention. The fall of Ramadi marks the capture of another major city. We lost more than 1,300 U.S. soldiers in Anbar Province. Thousands more were wounded. We fought across every foot of Al Anbar and now a handful of ISIS fighters have seized its Provincial capital. For those in Ramadi, this was not just a setback; this cost them everything. Hundreds have already been executed at the hands of ISIS. But the White House does not see it that way. The White House has tried to spin a different narrative, downplaying the significance of this defeat. When this narrative is challenged, the White House doubles down. The White House Press Secretary said: ``Are we going to light our hair on fire every time that there is a setback in the campaign against ISIL?'' Such comments are dumbfounding and disturbing. The Obama administration is not only demonstrating a complete lack of situational awareness but a total disconnect with how this conflict is being viewed by the rest of the world. In fact, this week, President Obama chose to lecture the graduating class of the Coast Guard Academy about climate change while Ramadi burned. To ISIS combatants in Syria and Iraq, the fall of Ramadi was a definitive victory. Even if it hands Ramadi back tomorrow, ISIS has shown it still has the capability to make major advances. To those living in Ramadi, ISIS has already won. Regardless of what happens next, for many of those people, their lives have been destroyed. To potential recruits around the world, ISIS just won again, despite U.S. air strikes and 3,000 trainers for the Iraqi Army. However, according to Secretary of State John Kerry, the fall of Ramadi was only ISIS taking advantage of ``a target of opportunity.'' Does the Obama administration not understand how terrorist organizations operate? ISIS is not going to line up and go toe-to-toe with the United States. It is going to seek out targets of opportunity wherever it can and avoid conflict where it knows it will lose. That is how it operates. That is how it has been operating since the beginning of this conflict, all the way back to January of 2014, when President Obama referred to ISIS as the junior varsity of terrorist organizations. Ramadi can be retaken. America can defeat ISIS. But we cannot beat ISIS with half measures while consistently underestimating its capabilities. This terrorist organization must be stomped out. It must be defeated. In Syria, ISIS is now in control of Palmyra, an ancient site with irreplaceable monuments that may soon be destroyed. Called the ``Venice of the Sands,'' this may be yet another historical scar left by ISIS that will never heal. President Obama often speaks of regional powers needing to step up and take the lead. Well, let's just be honest here for a moment. The United States has the most powerful military in the history of the world. If our President does not show a little leadership, no one else is going to step up and lead. If we are not going to utilize our overwhelming technological superiority to fight this enemy, at the very least--at the very least-- embedding spotters with Iraqi forces to make air strikes more effective, why would others want to contribute their far more limited resources? We need our President to show absolute conviction that defeating ISIS is his No. 1 priority, not trying to reach a mediocre compromise on an Iranian nuclear deal, not having Secretary Kerry fly to Sochi to shake hands with Putin while he still occupies the territory of other countries, and not having a summit at Camp David to lecture our allies on what America thinks is in their best interests. There is a terror organization killing people, as we speak, in a country that we fought to liberate from a brutal dictator. We had won in Iraq. We had defeated this insurgency until it was determined, for political reasons, that we should pack up and go home. The President claims he does not want to get into another prolonged war. Well, unfortunately, that is exactly what he is doing. There is no way to defeat ISIS with half measures. There is no way to negotiate with ISIS. Unless ISIS is defeated, it will grow and spread like a cancer. This President, throughout his administration, has shown himself to be crippled by indecision. Against ISIS, we need decisive action. We need it now. Honoring American Fighter Aces Mr. President, I also want to speak today to recognize the tremendous and selfless service of America's veterans. This week Congress honored American Fighter Aces, the 1,447 military pilots who have earned the special distinction of destroying five or more hostile aircraft in air- to-air combat, by awarding them the Congressional Gold Medal. Of these distinguished aviators, 10 hailed from South Dakota. While they are no longer with us today, their heroism and valor have not only built the foundation of the modern air superiority that our Armed Forces employ today but have shaped who we are as South Dakotans and Americans. Becoming an ace was no easy feat. In World War I, the pioneers of dogfighting faced perilous situations in wood and canvas biplanes that had limited ranges and could barely top 100 miles an hour. Still, these innovators refined the still-adolescent technology of flight and forever changed the nature of modern war. Decades later, American pilots proved invaluable in turning the tide of World War II. Fighters flew attack and bomber escort sorties over Europe and attack and fleet protection missions in the Pacific. Just 2 weeks ago, when America and the world celebrated the 70th anniversary of V-E Day, 56 World War II-era aircraft in various formations flew over the National World War II Memorial, the National Mall, and the U.S. Capitol in an impressive display of the air power that helped secure victory for the allies. The aerial parade included an F6F Hellcat, which one of my heroes, my dad Harold, flew off the USS Intrepid in the Pacific theater. While my dad was one aerial victory short of achieving ace, his squadron mate and fellow South Dakotan, the late CAPT Cecil Harris, racked up 24 victories. Harris, a farm boy from Cresbard, SD, ended the war as the second- highest Navy ace. South Dakota also produced the second-highest ace in the Marine Corps during World War II, Medal of Honor recipient Joe Foss. Foss earned the title of ``ace'' in just 1 week in 1942 on his way to a total of 26 air victories. Foss's service and leadership continued after the war. He helped organize the South Dakota Air Guard unit. He was recalled to duty in the Korean war. He went on to serve two terms as South Dakota's Governor and even as the first commissioner of the American Football League. Our airport in Sioux Falls, Foss's hometown, is home to the South Dakota Air National Guard 114th Fighter Wing and is appropriately named Joe Foss Field. South Dakota is also proud and grateful for the service of our other eight aces: Clarence Johnson, from Aberdeen, who was killed in action over Holland in 1944; Robert Graham from Beresford; Robert Buttke from Lemmon; LeRoy Grosshuesch from Menno; Leslie Clark, from Mitchell; Arthur Johnson, Jr., from New Effington; Gene Markham from Turton; and Robert ``Duke'' Hedman, from Webster, who achieved ace in a single day over Burma on Christmas Day in 1941. When you come from rural America, it can be hard sometimes to see how one might fit into the larger scheme of global events, let alone the defining moments in our history. Yet when the world erupted in chaos over the Second World War, these were 10 South Dakotans in the thick of it. These are but 10 heroic examples of the dedicated selflessness South Dakotans have shown in conflicts past and present. South Dakotans have always punched above their weight when it comes to military service. As the age of jets arrived and the capabilities of aerial firepower and defense systems have increased, the title of ``ace'' became even more elusive. Still, on Wednesday, we celebrated the 40 American aces from the Korean war, as well as two pilots and three weapons systems officers from the Vietnam war. The maturation of our air combat capabilities, from the origins of aerial combat in biplanes to the sophisticated airframes and advanced weapons systems on which we rely today, rest heavily on the courage of American fighter aces. These aviators represent the best of our American Armed Forces and helped shape history with their courage. As we reflect on the gallant service of America's fighter aces, may we also remember all those who answered the call to serve, all those who supported the effort on the homefront, and those to whom, I should say, we are forever indebted--those who made the ultimate sacrifice. This Memorial Day, as a free and grateful nation, may we remember those who have fought and died for this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Colonel Kevin Kennedy, commander of the 28th Bomb Wing, Ellsworth Air Force Base, near Rapid City, SD. Colonel Kennedy has been the commander at Ellsworth for the past 2 years, and has served in his position admirably. Colonel Kennedy began his career at the Air Force Academy in Colorado. He is a B-1 pilot who went on to serve at Ellsworth on multiple occasions, including as deputy commander of the 28th Operations Group as recently as 2010. During his career he also served as the vice commander of the 379th Air Expeditionary Wing in South West Asia and as the director of the Air Force Strategic Study Group at the Pentagon here in DC. When he came back to Ellsworth 2 years ago as base commander, my office was working with the Air Force on a 9-year project to expand the Powder River Training Complex, which is the primary training airspace for the B-1 bombers based at Ellsworth, as well as the B-52 bombers based in Minot Air Force Base, ND. When Colonel Kennedy arrived at Ellsworth as base commander, he made the completion of the Powder River Training Complex one of his top priorities, and he assured me that this airspace expansion would be completed under his watch. This was not a pledge he took lightly. Be it emphasizing the need for this airspace within the Air Force hierarchy or driving out to Montana to meet with Native American tribal leaders, Colonel Kennedy was willing to go the extra mile to bring this airspace home. As a result of his efforts, in January of this year the Air Force signed the Record of Decision for the Powder River Training Complex expansion, which was approved by the FAA a few months later. Once this airspace is charted and operational, Ellsworth Air Force Base will save up to $23 million a year by being able to train closer to home. In addition, other aircraft from around the Nation can come to South Dakota to utilize this training space, improving overall readiness. The expanded Powder River Training Complex is a national treasure. I want to thank Colonel Kennedy for his commitment to this project and for his service to our Nation. He really is a shining example of the dedication and leadership that makes America's Air Force the greatest in the world.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, this week we are considering legislation that could have real importance for our country over the next several years on the economic front and also on the national security front. That legislation is trade promotion authority. Trade promotion authority helps the United States negotiate strong trade deals that benefit American farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers and expand opportunities for American workers. Under TPA, Congress sets guidelines for trade negotiations and outlines the priorities the administration must follow. In return, Congress promises a simple up- or-down vote on the resulting trade agreement, instead of a long amendment process that could leave the final deal looking nothing like what was originally negotiated. The promise of that up-or-down vote sends a powerful message to our negotiating partners that Congress and U.S. trade negotiators are on the same page, which gives other countries the confidence they need to put their best offers on the table. That, in turn, allows the United States to secure trade deals that are favorable to U.S. workers and to businesses and to open new markets to products that are marked ``Made in the U.S.A.'' Almost every one of the 14 trade agreements to which the United States is a party was negotiated using trade promotion authority. Currently, the administration is negotiating two major trade agreements that have the potential to vastly expand the market for American goods and services in the EU and in the Pacific. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is being negotiated with a number of Asia-Pacific nations, including Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, and Vietnam. If this agreement is done right, it will benefit a number of industries, including an industry that is very important to my State; that is, agriculture. Currently, American agricultural products face heavy tariffs in many Trans-Pacific Partnership countries. Poultry tariffs, for example, in TPP countries go up to a staggering 240 percent. That is a tremendous obstacle for American producers. Reducing the barriers that American agricultural products face in these countries would have enormous benefits for American farmers and ranchers in my home State of South Dakota and across the country. In fact, one pork producer in my State contacted me to tell me that a successful TPP deal could increase U.S. pork exports to just one of the Trans-Pacific Partnership countries by hundreds of millions of dollars. I know that is important in my State, important in the Presiding Officer's State, and important in every agricultural State across this Nation. That is why former Agriculture Secretaries from both parties, representing every administration going back to President Carter, issued a joint letter in February emphasizing the importance of trade to farmers and ranchers and urging passage of trade promotion authority. They wrote in that letter: Access to export markets is vital for increasing sales and supporting farm income at home. Opening markets helps farm families and their communities prosper. It is not every day that you see former members of both Democratic and Republican administrations coming together to advocate a particular policy. I would say that this is the free and fair trade for a healthy economy that describes precisely what it is that we are talking about. We are talking about more exports for American agricultural products, manufactured goods, digital goods--you name it, across the board. What that means is more jobs and higher take-home pay for American workers. The bipartisan agreement isn't limited to former Agriculture Secretaries who have come out in support of it. Ten former Treasury Secretaries--again, representing administrations of both political parties--came together to draft their own letter, stressing the importance of trade promotion authority and securing favorable agreements for our country. They said: Our support for open trade agreements is based on a simple premise. Expanding the size of the market where American goods and services can compete on a level playing field is good for American workers and their families. Expanded international trade means more American jobs and higher American incomes. It means greater access for American businesses to markets and consumers around the world, and it means lower prices for American families here at home. That is from former Treasury Secretaries of this country representing both political parties. Still another bipartisan group of former administration officials came together this month to urge support for trade promotion authority. This time it was seven former Secretaries of Defense, as well as a number of retired military leaders. Their letter emphasizes another important aspect of trade that often gets overlooked in these discussions, and that is its national security implications. Discussions of the benefits of trade tend to focus on the economic benefits, of which there are many. So it is with good reason that we talk about the economy, jobs, and higher wages. But the new trade agreements have the potential to result not only in economic gains for American farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers but in national security gains for our country. When we make trade deals with other countries, we are not just opening new markets for our goods. We are also developing and cementing alliances. Trade agreements build bonds. They build bonds of friendship with other nations that extend not only to cooperation on economic issues but to cooperation on security issues as well. Two major trade agreements the United States is currently considering, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, have the potential to provide significant strategic benefits for our country. These agreements--these are the Defense Secretaries writing--``would reinforce important relationships with important allies and partners in critical regions of the world. By binding us closer together with Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Australia, among others, TPP would strengthen existing and emerging security relationships in the Asia- Pacific. . . . In Europe, TTIP would reinvigorate the transatlantic partnership and send an equally strong signal about the commitment of the United States to our European allies.'' That is again from the letter coming from seven former Defense Secretaries representing administrations of both political parties. The Secretaries go on to note: The successful conclusion of TPP and TTIP would also draw in other nations and encourage them to undertake political and economic reforms. The result will be deeper regional economic integration, increased political cooperation, and ultimately greater stability in the two regions of the world that will have the greatest long-term impact on U.S. prosperity and security. In other words, these agreements will not only provide our Nation with significant economic benefits, they will also make a crucial contribution to our national security. The Defense Secretaries and military leaders also highlight another key point. Just because the United States isn't negotiating trade agreements doesn't mean other countries won't be. The fact that the United States hasn't signed a single trade agreement over the past 5 years hasn't prevented other countries from signing numerous trade agreements over the same period. In fact, there are more than 260 trade agreements in effect around the globe today, but the United States is only a party to 14 of those. If America fails to lead on trade, other nations, such as China, are going to step in to fill the void. And these nations will not have the best interests of American workers and American families in mind. Free and fair trade agreements are essential for growing our economy and ensuring that products marked ``Made in the U.S.A.'' can compete on a level playing field around the globe. They are also an essential tool for strengthening our relationship with our allies, which is of particular concern now with so many areas of instability around the globe. Trade promotion authority provides the best way of securing these agreements. The bipartisan legislation that we are considering this week reauthorizes trade promotion authority and includes a number of valuable updates, such as provisions to strengthen the transparency of the negotiating process and to ensure that the American people stay informed. It also contains provisions that I have pushed forward to require negotiators to ensure that trade agreements promote digital trade as well as trade in physical goods and services. Given the increasing importance of digitally enabled commerce in the 21st century economy, it is essential that our trade agreements include new rules that keep digital trade free from unnecessary government interference. I have previously introduced legislation to help ensure that the free flow of digital goods and services is protected, and I am pleased that the bipartisan deal that was reached includes many of the very measures I have advocated. Democrats and Republicans in the Senate have repeatedly come together this year to pass legislation to address challenges that are facing our country. I hope we will see the same type of bipartisanship on this bill. This legislation will benefit American farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers. It will help to open new markets for American workers, and it will benefit American families. And it will help make our country more secure. The President supports this legislation. A number of Senate Democrats are working with Republicans to get this done. I hope that the rest of the Democrats in the Senate will join us to pass this important bill for American workers and businesses and make trade promotion authority legislation our next bipartisan achievement for the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I recognize Jesse Nelson, an intern in my Washington, DC office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Jesse is a graduate of Milbank High School in Milbank, SD. Currently, Jesse is attending Augustana College, where he is majoring in government and international affairs. Jesse is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of his experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Jesse Nelson for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I recognize John Weber, an intern in my Sioux Falls office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. John is a graduate of Highland Park Senior High School in Saint Paul, MN. John is also a recent graduate of South Dakota State University, where he majored in animal science. John is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of his experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to John Weber for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I recognize Alexandra Stanley, an intern in my Washington, DC office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Alexandra is a graduate of Washington High School in Sioux Falls, SD. Alexandra is a recent graduate of the University of Arizona, where she majored in English. Alexandra is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of her experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Alexandra Stanley for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I recognize Jon Gednalske, an intern in my Washington, DC office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Jon is a graduate of Lincoln High School in Sioux Falls, SD. Currently, Jon is attending Luther College, where he is majoring in political science. Jon is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of his experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Jon Gednalske for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I recognize Cassandra Kranz, an intern in my Sioux Falls office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Cassandra is a graduate of Watertown High School in Watertown, SD. Currently, Cassandra is attending Augustana College, where she is majoring in accounting, business administration, and government. Cassandra is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of her experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Cassandra Kranz for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.