Floor Statements

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

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

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, there is no more important congressional responsibility than providing for our Nation's defense. There will always be those who wish our Nation harm, and our Nation must always be prepared to defend itself. More than that, our Nation needs to be ready to defend itself because being prepared for war is a strong deterrent to conflict in the first place.

As I have said before in this Chamber, it is not our strength that tempts our adversaries but our weakness. Maintaining our strength will ensure that bad actors, whether they are terrorist groups or major powers, think twice before attacking our Nation. In the words of Ronald Reagan, ``well, to those who think strength provokes conflict, Will Rogers had his own answer.'' He said of the world heavyweight champion of his day: ``I've never seen anyone insult Jack Dempsey.''

This week we are considering the National Defense Authorization Act, the annual legislation to authorize funding for our military and our Nation's defense. Like last year's NDAA, this bill focuses on rebuilding our military and ensuring we are prepared to meet 21st century threats.

While many take it for granted that we have the strongest military in the world, the truth is that in recent years our military advantage has eroded. Budgetary impasses combined with increased operational demands left our military undermanned, underequipped, and ill-prepared for the conflicts of the 21st century. Meanwhile, other major powers have made investing in their militaries a priority, set on diminishing U.S. influence.

In November 2018, the bipartisan National Defense Strategy Commission released a report warning that our readiness had eroded to the point where we might struggle to win a war against a major power like Russia or China. The Commission noted that we would be especially vulnerable if we were ever called on to fight a war on two fronts. That is not a good position to be in, and restoring our readiness has to be our top priority.

We are once again in an era of great power competition, while at the same time we continue to face threats from terrorists and rogue nations. We have to be able to credibly deter--and, if necessary, counter--any threat.

This year's National Defense Authorization Act continues the reinvestment that we have made in our military. It invests in the planes, the combat vehicles, and ships of the future, including the Joint Strike Fighter and the future B-21 bomber, which will be based at Ellsworth Air Force Base in my home State of North Dakota. It authorizes funding for research and development and advanced technology. It authorizes funds to modernize our nuclear arsenal to maximize our deterrence capabilities. It also focuses on ensuring that we are equipped to meet new threats on new fronts, including in space and cyber domains.

It is important that we invest in these new areas of the battlefield to ensure that we are prepared to meet and defeat threats. And, of course, this legislation invests in our troops, the men and women who keep our Nation safe and free.

This year's National Defense Authorization Act will provide our troops with a well-deserved 3.1-percent pay increase, which is the largest increase in a decade. It also focuses on addressing the recent significant health and safety issues with private on-base housing. It contains measures to support military spouses seeking employment and increases access to childcare on military installations. It also allows parental leave to be taken in multiple increments, which is often a better fit for our military men and women.

I am pleased that once again the Senate has taken up the National Defense Authorization Act in a timely and bipartisan fashion. There are few bills more important than this one. I look forward to passing the National Defense Authorization Act later this week and ensuring that our military men and women have the tools they need to defend our country.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, later today we will hopefully be taking up legislation to address the humanitarian crisis along our southern border. This year, 2019, has seen an overwhelming flood of migrants. So far this fiscal year, roughly 600,000 individuals have been apprehended at our southern border--600,000. That is approximately 200,000 more people than were apprehended during fiscal year 2018, and we still have more than 3 months to go.

Agencies that deal with the situation on the border are stretched to the breaking point. Shelters are overloaded, and providing adequate medical care is becoming more and more difficult. The Department of Homeland Security has been forced to pull nearly 1,000 Border Patrol officers from other

areas to assist with the surge of migrants. The Department of Health and Human Services, which is tasked with caring for unaccompanied children who cross the border, will be out of money to care for these children by early July. That means that caregivers for these children would have to work without pay, and private organizations with Federal grants to care for these children would go without their funding.

The President sent over an emergency funding request to address this humanitarian crisis more than 7 weeks ago, and Republicans were ready to take it up immediately. But the Democrat-controlled House was not interested. Why? Because the President was the one doing the asking.

House Democrats' No. 1 priority is obstructing the President. It doesn't matter if he is asking for desperately needed funds to address a humanitarian crisis. Democrats aren't interested.

When it became clear the House was not serious about addressing this crisis, the Senate decided to move forward, and last week the Senate Appropriations Committee approved an overwhelmingly bipartisan measure to provide desperately needed resources for the southern border.

Now the House is seeking to take up a supplemental of its own. This should be good news, but, unfortunately, the House bill is just another exercise in partisanship. The House is attempting to take up a bill that the President won't sign, as House leaders have known from the beginning. While I suppose we should be glad the House is at least acknowledging the situation at the border now, passing partisan legislation that will go nowhere in the Senate or with the President is no help.

The Senate has come together and will pass a real bipartisan measure that the President is expected to sign. The House should drop the partisan posturing and obstruction and pass the Senate bill so that we can get these desperately needed funds to the southern border.

Agriculture

Mr. President, I have been to the floor several times in recent weeks to talk about the challenges facing our agriculture producers.

While the economy as a whole continues to thrive, our Nation's farmers and ranchers are struggling. Thanks to natural disasters, protracted trade disputes, and several years of low commodity prices, farmers and ranchers have had a tough few years.

As the senior Senator from South Dakota, I am privileged to represent thousands of farmers and ranchers here in the Senate, and addressing their needs and getting the ag economy going again are big priorities of mine. That is why I spend a lot of time talking to the Department of Agriculture about ways we can support the agriculture community, and I am very pleased that we have one big victory to celebrate this week-- the Department of Agriculture's adjustment of the haying and grazing date for cover crops planted on prevent plant acres.

Farmers and ranchers throughout the Midwest are currently facing the fallout from severe winter storms, heavy rainfall, bomb cyclones, and spring flooding. Planting is behind schedule, and some farmers' fields are so flooded that they won't be able to plant corn and soybeans at all this year. As a result, many farmers will be forced to plant quick- growing cover crops on their prevent plant acres for feed and grazing once their fields finally dry out and to protect the soil from erosion.

But before last week's Agriculture Department decision, farmers in Northern States like South Dakota faced a problem. The Department of Agriculture had set November 1 as the first date on which farmers could harvest cover crops planted on prevent plant acres for feed or use them for pasture without having their crop insurance indemnity reduced.

Farmers who hayed or grazed before this date faced a reduction in their prevent plant indemnity payments--those crop insurance payments designed to help them cover their income loss when fields can't be planted due to flooding or other issues.

November 1 is generally a pretty reasonable date for farmers in southern States. But for farmers in Northern States like South Dakota, November 1 is too late for harvesting, thanks to killing frost and the risk of late fall and early winter storms, and it is too late to maximize the use of cover crops for pasture, since a killing frost is liable to flatten cover crops before they are grazed.

I heard from a lot of farmers about this November 1 date and the dilemma they were facing about whether to plant cover crops that they might not be able to harvest or graze. So beginning in early May, my office approached the Department of Agriculture about changing the November 1 date.

I then led a bipartisan group of Senate Agriculture Committee members in sending a letter to the Department, making our case for farmers. Then, I followed the letter with a request for a face-to-face meeting with top Agriculture Department officials so that I could explain in person the challenges farmers were facing.

A week and a half ago, USDA Deputy Secretary Steve Censky and USDA Under Secretary Bill Northey came to my office. During our meeting, I emphasized that not only did the date need to be changed, but it needed to be changed now so farmers could make plans to seed cover crops. The decision about whether to plant a cover crop is a time-sensitive decision, and farmers were rapidly running out of time to make that call.

One week after our meeting, the Department of Agriculture announced that it would move up the November 1 date for this year by 2 months, to September 1--a significant amount of time that will enable a lot of South Dakota farmers to plant cover crops without worrying about whether they will be able to successfully harvest or graze them.

I met with South Dakota farmers in Aberdeen, SD, on Friday, and they were very happy about the Department of Agriculture's decision. Cover crops are a win-win. They are good for the environment because they prevent soil erosion, which can pollute streams and rivers and worsen flooding, and they are good for farmers because they improve soil health, protect soil from erosion, and can provide an important source of feed. That second benefit is particularly important for farmers right now.

Due to last year's severe and lengthy winter, feed supplies disappeared, leaving no reserves. Cornstalks, a source of grazing and bedding, will be in short supply this year, and so will the supply of alfalfa due to winterkill. Cover crops will be crucial to alleviating this feed shortage.

I am currently working with the Department of Agriculture to ensure that farmers have flexibility to use existing supplies of available seed for cover crops, and I will be encouraging the Agriculture Department to release Conservation Reserve Program acres for emergency haying and grazing this year to further address the feed shortage.

I am very pleased that the Department of Agriculture heard the concerns we were expressing and moved the November 1 haying and grazing date up to September 1 for this year.

South Dakota farmers and ranchers can rest assured that I will continue to share the challenges they are facing with the Agriculture Department, and I will continue to do everything I can here in Washington to support our Nation's farmers and ranchers and to get our agriculture economy back on its feet.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have 7 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 25, 2019, at 9:45 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 25, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 25, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Committee on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 25, 2019, at 2: 15 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 25, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed roundtable.

Subcommittee on Communication, Technology, Innovation, and The Internet

The Subcommittee on Communication, Technology, Innovation, and The Internet of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 25, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

Subcommittee on Transportation and Safety

The Subcommittee on Transportation and Safety of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 25, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

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

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

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

Madam President, we have begun consideration of this year's National Defense Authorization Act, which is annual legislation to authorize funding for our military and national defense.

Like last year's bill, this year's National Defense Authorization Act emphasizes military modernization and readiness and the need to ensure that we are prepared to counter threats from great powers like China and Russia, as well as terrorists and rogue states.

I am offering a handful of amendments to this legislation, including an amendment to address training opportunities for our Nation's military pilots and aircrews.

In my home State of South Dakota, we are privileged to play host to Ellsworth Air Force Base, home of two B-1 bomb squadrons of the 28th Bomb Wing, the airmen who are the backbone of operations, as well as the 89th Attack Squadron and its control stations for MQ-9 Reapers. It is also home to the Powder River Training Complex, training airspace for Ellsworth aircrews and crews from across the United States. In the very near future, Ellsworth will be the home of the forthcoming B-21 bomber.

When I was first elected to the Senate, Ellsworth's future was not looking bright. In fact, in 2005, just a few months into my first term, Ellsworth was targeted for closure by the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. Fortunately, thanks to the efforts of a lot of dedicated people, we managed to demonstrate to the Commission that Ellsworth was a vital national security asset and that closing the base and moving its fleet of B-1s would actually cost money.

Since then, strengthening Ellsworth has been a priority for me and for a lot of other people back home in South Dakota, and Ellsworth has been going from strength to strength.

One of my proudest achievements as a Senator was helping secure the expansion of the Powder River Training Complex, the training airspace over Ellsworth. The expansion quadrupled the size of the airspace. But prior to the expansion, the airspace was only large enough for one B-1 bomber to train at a time, which meant crews had to commute elsewhere to meet their training needs.

Today, the airspace is large enough to hold large-force training exercises, involving a variety of planes from other bases. In fact, the Powder River Training Complex is now the largest training airspace in the continental United States. In addition to the vast space it offers for training exercises, it also provides a valuable opportunity for pilots to train in conditions that resemble combat missions, such as low-altitude flying over mountainous terrain.

Since the Powder River Training Complex was expanded, Ellsworth has hosted a number of successful large-force exercises. This May, Ellsworth hosted its most recent Combat Raider large-force exercise, which featured B-1, B-2, and B-52 bombers, J-STAR and AWACS radar systems, F-16s, and KC-135 tankers. Notably, F-35s from Hill Air Force Base in Utah also participated, marking the first of what I think will be many training opportunities for the F-35 in the Powder River Training Complex.

These Combat Raider exercises highlight the potential of the PRTC for training our military aviators, and I want to make sure that we can meet these training needs as we look to bring the B-21 into the fleet. That is why I filed an amendment, Thune amendment No. 759, to require a strategic airspace review.

My amendment would require a report on how far our current national airspace system meets our national security requirements and how we might improve this system to meet current and future training needs.

The Air Force and the Federal Aviation Administration would be required to consult on this report to develop a full picture of the strategic value of our national airspace.

The report would also analyze whether the current airspace system gives the military sufficient access to the airspace it requires to meet its worldwide operational, training, and testing needs.

In particular, it seeks to determine whether current civil and military cooperation mechanisms are providing for the effective and efficient management of the national airspace system for military training. It also asks whether the current Department of Defense and FAA processes provide sufficient time to plan for large-force exercises.

For example, in the Powder River Training Complex, the Air Force needs to go through a lengthy process to secure altitude waivers from the FAA to fly higher on just a few days a year for just a few hours a day. We absolutely need to have appropriate procedures to ensure safety and coordination with commercial airlines, but the Air Force also needs enough lead time to schedule its aircraft and airmen traveling from other bases. We shouldn't be missing out on critical training opportunities because of a lengthy process that is ripe for expediting.

So my amendment would take a look at this process, including whether FAA air traffic control centers could temporarily or permanently realign their boundaries to streamline their role in military training.

For example, the Powder River Training Complex straddles the convergence of the Minneapolis, Denver, and Salt Lake City air traffic control centers, and coordinating with all three can be cumbersome. This report would explore whether we can make the process more efficient for both the FAA and the military.

It would also review whether the current airspace system is sufficient to prepare military aviators to meet high-end threats, including fifth-generation aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, and hypersonic weapons.

It is important that we ensure that our airmen can train in realistic conditions so they can deliver when America is counting on them the most. Just as in sports, you play like you practice--although we all know this isn't play, and the stakes for getting it right are very high.

That is why my amendment would investigate whether current civil and military cooperation mechanisms are sufficient for our military to replicate contested combat airspace, denied access airspace, and airspace without the use of GPS--the kinds of conditions aircrews would likely encounter if they got the call to fight tonight.

My amendment also takes a step back to look at the state of our national airspace system. It calls for an audit of special-use airspaces, military operations areas, commercial routes, and other routes, and it asks if parts of underutilized airspaces can be effectively returned to the national airspace to boost commercial route efficiencies in high-traffic areas in exchange for more generous military training flight permissions in low-traffic areas.

Comparatively, we don't get as much commercial airline traffic up in the Powder River Training Complex, creating a great opportunity for fifth-generation aircraft to really stretch their legs and meet their training needs.

I have talked a lot about our military's need to have the best training opportunities available. However, I want to clarify that this is not a one-sided amendment.

Our military goes to great lengths to respect commercial and general aviation needs, and that is reflected in my amendment. First and foremost, the FAA is consulted throughout the entire report process. Additionally, the bill reviews whether commercial and general aviation receive sufficient notice regarding exercises and special-use waivers, and, as I mentioned, it looks for ways to make Department of Defense and FAA interaction more efficient.

As a former chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee and a current member of the Commerce Subcommittee on Aviation and Space, I know that the management of the national airspace is complicated. My amendment simply seeks to gather information so that we can take a productive look at our national airspace and make sure our military aviators can get the most out of their training opportunities while respecting the needs of commercial and general aviation.

The Armed Services Committee chairman and ranking member, my colleagues, and staff members have a lot of amendments to consider. Hundreds of amendments have already been filed on the National Defense Authorization Act, and there are more to come. I would ask that my amendment No. 759 be considered for inclusion as we work together to restore and modernize our military and ensure our men and women in uniform have the tools they need to defend our country.

I thank my colleagues.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) would have voted ``yea.''

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

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

Mr. President, this week we will begin consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act, the annual legislation to authorize funding for our military and national defense. This year's legislation builds on last year's bill, with its emphasis on restoring military readiness and ensuring that we are prepared to meet threats from major powers like China and Russia.

Some may take it for granted that we have the strongest military in the world, but our military strength, built on the service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform, requires sustained investment. In recent years, budgetary impasses paired with increased operational demands have left our Armed Forces with manpower deficits and under-equipped for confronting the threats of the 21st century. Given the multitude of threats around the world, we cannot afford to become complacent or ease our preparedness. The truth is, the last time our military underwent a comprehensive modernization, Ronald Reagan was President.

In November 2018, the bipartisan National Defense Strategy Commission released a report warning that our readiness had eroded to the point where we might struggle to win a war against a major power like Russia or China. The Commission noted that we would be especially vulnerable if we were ever called on to fight a war on two fronts. Repairing this readiness deficit has to be one of Congress's most important priorities.

Last year's National Defense Authorization Act took major steps forward on modernization, making significant and targeted investments in the research, manpower, and materiel needed to equip our military to face 21st-century threats. We have made real

progress, but there is a lot more work to be done.

This year's National Defense Authorization Act focuses on building on the progress we have made. It invests in the planes, combat vehicles, and ships of the future, including the Joint Strike Fighter and the future B-21 bomber, which will be based at Ellsworth Air Force Base in my home State of South Dakota. It authorizes funding for research and development and advanced technology. It authorizes funds to modernize our nuclear arsenal to maximize our deterrence capabilities. It also focuses on ensuring that we are equipped to meet threats on new fronts, including in the space and cyber domains.

It is important that we invest in these new areas of the battlefield to ensure we are prepared to meet and defeat threats. We are once again in an era of great power competition, where states like China and Russia harbor imperial ambitions. The National Defense Authorization Act will help ensure that we have a credible deterrence and are equipped to meet threats from great powers as well as rogue states and terrorist organizations. This legislation will also invest in our relationships with key allies and security partners to help counter shared threats.

Importantly, this NDAA will help our military bases rebound from recent natural disasters.

Finally, of course, this legislation will invest in our most important resource--our troops and in their families.

This year's National Defense Authorization Act authorizes a 3.1- percent pay increase for our troops, the largest increase in a decade. They more than deserve it, and an increase is important for recruitment and retention in our All-Volunteer Force when the economy is as strong as it is.

The bill also focuses on addressing the recent significant health and safety issues faced by many families with private on-base housing, and it contains measures to support military spouses seeking employment and increased access to childcare on military installations.

It also allows parental leave to be taken in multiple increments, better adapting to the lives of our warfighters.

In his first annual address to Congress, George Washington noted: ``To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.''

There is no better way to preserve peace and protect our Nation than to ensure that the U.S. military is the best equipped, most capable fighting force in the world.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the National Defense Authorization Act and to give our military men and women the tools they need to defend the country.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, our economy is thriving. Republican economic policies, particularly the historic tax reform legislation that we passed at the end of 2017, have helped to produce economic growth, higher wages, and better opportunities for workers.

Unfortunately, our Nation's agriculture economy is trailing behind the economy as a whole. A combination of natural disasters, low commodity prices, and protracted trade disputes have left farmers and ranchers and rural businesses struggling. Although

2019 crop prices have improved, millions of acres of cropland will go unplanted and leave many farmers with no crops to market this year.

Farmers and ranchers have a tough job. Feeding our Nation and the world is tough, backbreaking work. Farmers and ranchers put in long days that start before the Sun rises and often end long after the Sun sets. Yet, no matter how hard they work, all of their labor can be undone by one devastating storm or flood. For most Americans, a bad storm might mean a wet or a delayed commute. For farmers and ranchers, it can literally mean the loss of substantial parts of their livelihoods.

I am proud to represent South Dakota's hard-working farmers and ranchers in the Senate, and addressing their needs is one of my biggest priorities here in Washington. Right now, I am working on several fronts to expand economic opportunity for farmers and ranchers and help them access the support they need.

I recently requested a meeting with the Department of Agriculture to discuss cover crop harvest flexibility on prevent plant acres, Market Facilitation Program payments, and Conservation Reserve Program signups. Last Thursday, the Deputy Agriculture Secretary--the second highest ranking official at the Department of Agriculture--and the USDA Under Secretary for Farm Production and Conservation came to my office to meet with me on these issues.

One important topic of discussion was of moving up the November 1 date for haying or grazing cover crops planted on prevented plant acres. South Dakota's farmers and ranchers are currently facing the fallout from severe winter storms, heavy rainfall, bomb cyclones, and spring flooding. Planting is behind schedule, and some farmers' fields are so flooded that they won't be able to plant at all this year. The situation is similar throughout the entire Midwest. As a result, many farmers are thinking about planting quick-growing cover crops on their prevent plant acres for feed and grazing, once their fields finally dry out, in order to protect the soil from erosion.

Yet there is a problem. Right now, the Department of Agriculture doesn't allow farmers to harvest or graze cover crops on prevent plant acres or to use them for pasture until November 1. Farmers who hay or graze before this date face a reduction in their prevent plant payments, which is crop insurance to help them cover their income losses when fields can't be planted due to flooding or other issues. November 1 is generally a pretty reasonable date for farmers in Southern States, but in Northern States like South Dakota, November 1 is too late for harvesting thanks to the risk of snow and other late fall or early winter storms.

It is also too late to maximize the use of cover crops for pasture since the ground can freeze before cover crops are fully grazed. Due to last year's severe and lengthy winter, feed supplies have disappeared and have left no reserves. Corn stalks, which are a source of grazing and bedding, will be in short supply this year, which will result in severe feed shortages and a need for additional roughage. That is why I have been pressing the Department of Agriculture to move this date up for farmers in the Northern States. Cover crops are a win-win situation and can reduce feed shortages for many livestock producers. They help the environment by preventing soil erosion, which can pollute streams and rivers and worsen flooding, and they benefit farmers by improving soil health, which improves future crop yields.

It is important that we don't discourage farmers from planting cover crops by insisting on the November 1 harvest date, and I emphasized that point to the Deputy Secretary and the Under Secretary. I know the Department of Agriculture is looking at this issue right now, and I will continue to encourage the Department to reach a decision that addresses the reality that is faced by northern farmers.

Another subject I raised at the meeting last week was of the Conservation Reserve Program signups. All farmers are familiar with the Conservation Reserve Program, or CRP, as we refer to it, which provides incentives for farmers to take environmentally sensitive land out of production for 10 to 15 years.

The Conservation Reserve Program helps the environment by improving soil health and water quality and by providing habitat for wildlife, including endangered and threatened species. It also helps farmers by reducing their crop insurance costs and providing them with an annual payment for the land they have taken out of production.

I have spent years pushing for an increase in the Conservation Reserve Program's acreage cap, and we finally got a substantial increase in last year's farm bill. Yet the Department of Agriculture needs to expedite both general and continuous CRP signups to allow farmers to take full advantage of the cap increase. Taking millions of acres of land out of crop production in the next year could have a big impact on the farm economy by driving up commodity prices, which will boost farms' incomes. In order for this to happen, we need to make sure that farmers can get their less productive land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program and out of crop production by next year. That is why I have been urging the Department of Agriculture to make sure farmers can sign up in a timely manner.

I also urged the Department to expedite signups for the Soil Health and Income Protection Program. I introduced the Soil Health and Income Protection Program, which became law as part of last year's farm bill, in order to address the concerns of farmers who were interested in the Conservation Reserve Program but didn't want to take portions of their land out of production for a decade or more. The Soil Health and Income Protection Program, or SHIPP, provides a new, short-term option for farmers that will allow them to take their worst performing cropland out of production for 3 to 5 years instead of the 10 to 15 years that is required by the CRP's rules. Like the CRP, it will protect our environment while it will improve the bottom line for farmers. The sooner we get this program implemented, the sooner farmers and the environment will see the benefits.

I have also been pressing the USDA to issue guidelines for the second round of Market Facilitation Program payments, and I emphasized this point again at last Thursday's meeting. While I know our farmers would rather receive a check from the marketplace than from the government, we have safety net programs in place to help in exactly the kinds of situations our farmers find themselves in today.

I continue to press the administration on when the government will wrap up negotiations on the various trade deals that are under consideration. I strongly support the administration's goal of strengthening market access for our Nation's farmers and ranchers, and we have made real progress in those negotiations. Now it is time to push for a conclusion to these deals.

In addition to increased market access, farmers and ranchers need certainty about what international markets will look like. I am also pushing for the congressional consideration of one already concluded trade agreement--the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement--in the near future. This agreement will preserve and expand farmers' and ranchers' market access to Canada and Mexico, and Congress should take it up and pass it as soon as possible.

To all of South Dakota's farmers and ranchers, I know you all have had a very tough few years. I am working hard here in Washington to do whatever I can to support you, and I will keep fighting every day to get our agriculture economy thriving again.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, last week I came to the floor to discuss the agriculture economy.

While the broader economy is thriving, our Nation's farmers and ranchers are struggling. A combination of low commodity prices, protracted trade disputes, natural disasters, and weather-related issues have meant a tough few years for farmers. Nationwide, net farm income is about half of what it was in 2013.

One of the biggest things we can do in Washington to help our Nation's farmers and ranchers is to negotiate favorable trade deals that expand existing and open new foreign markets for American agricultural products. That is why I have been pushing for a speedy conclusion to the various trade agreements that our country is currently negotiating.

I strongly support the effort the administration has been making to secure more favorable export markets for American products. We have made real progress in negotiations. Now we need to wrap up the various agreements we are discussing as soon as possible so that we can get farmers and ranchers certainty about what international markets are going to look like.

Of course, there is one agreement that has already been wrapped up-- the United States-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement. This is a hugely important agreement that will boost almost every sector of the American economy, from automotive manufacturing to digital services, to dairy farming. It will create 176,000 new jobs and increase wages for workers.

Passing this agreement is a big priority for the ag industry. Mexico and Canada are huge importers of American agricultural products. The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement will preserve and expand American farmers' access to these key markets.

More than 950 food and agriculture companies and groups sent a letter to Congress, urging its passage. In my home State of South Dakota, Mexico and Canada are the No. 1 and No. 2 customers for our agriculture exports. Maintaining and expanding South Dakota farmers' access to these markets are critical.

I am particularly pleased with the improvement that the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement makes for U.S. dairy producers. Dairy is an important and rapidly growing industry in South Dakota. If you drive the I-29 corridor north of Brookings, you can see firsthand the massive dairy expansion that we have experienced in South Dakota over the past few years.

The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement will preserve the U.S. dairy farmers' role as a key dairy supplier to Mexico, and it will substantially expand market access in Canada, where U.S. dairy sales have been restricted.

The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates the agreement will boost U.S. dairy exports by more than $277 million.

The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement also makes targeted improvements for U.S. poultry, egg, and wheat producers. Wheat is another important South Dakota product, and I look forward to the boost this agreement will give South Dakota wheat growers.

As I said earlier, one of the most important things we can do to help the struggling agriculture economy is to negotiate favorable trade agreements for U.S. producers and open new markets for American agricultural products. The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement is ready to go, and Republicans in Congress are ready to pass it. Now Speaker Pelosi needs to indicate her willingness to take up this agreement in the near future.

This agreement will provide certainty for American producers and expand market access for a vast array of American goods and services. It is a win for our economy and a win for American workers. We should pass this agreement as soon as possible.

I yield the floor.