Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, like all of us here on Capitol Hill, I am still reeling from the attack on our colleagues this morning. My thoughts and prayers are with everyone who was injured, and with their families.

My friend and colleague Steve Scalise remains in critical condition right now, and I am praying for a full and swift recovery.

I am grateful to hear that the young congressional staffer who was shot--a legislative correspondent for Representative Roger Williams--is expected to make a complete recovery.

Legislative correspondents and the other young staffers who work in our offices don't get a lot of media attention, but not one of us could do our jobs serving our constituents without them. We are grateful for their work and dedication.

In the Gospel of John, Jesus says: ``Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.''

Most of us have never been in a situation where we have a need to consider such a great sacrifice. But, every day, the men and women of the United States Capitol Police, and every police force in this country, get up and go about their jobs, knowing that they may have to lay down their lives, and they do so willingly. When others run from danger, they run into it. When bullets fly, they advance.

Today, violence threatened, and officers of the Capitol Police stepped up to meet it. Had it not been for the efforts of the heroic officers who were on site, today's attack could have been much, much worse. As it is, their actions have brought many safely home to their families tonight.

Events like today remind us that there is evil in the world, but they also remind us that there is good. Around every act of evil and violence, 100 acts of good spring up. The officers who risked their lives to defend those at the scene, the colleagues who hurried to provide medical care to Steve Scalise, the Alexandria police officers who came running to help, the Democratic congressional baseball team who united in prayer for their colleagues, the injured officer who went to check on the Member he was protecting before he thought of seeking treatment for himself--these are the things that endure.

Good endures. Sacrifice endures. Heroism endures. Long after the names of evildoers are forgotten, these things remain.

Again, my thoughts and prayers are with the injured and with their families. And, as always, my gratitude is with the Capitol police officers who defend us every single day.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, everyone remembers President Obama's famous--or perhaps infamous--promise that he would sign a healthcare bill that would ``cut the cost of a typical family's premiums by up to $2,500 per year.'' Well, as everyone knows, that didn't happen. Between 2009 and 2016, the average family with employer-sponsored health insurance saw its premiums rise by $4,767. That is just the beginning.

Two weeks ago, the Department of Health and Human Services released a report comparing the average individual market insurance premium in 2013--the year when most of ObamaCare's regulations and mandates were implemented--with the average individual market exchange premium in 2017 in the 39 States that used healthcare.gov--so 2013 to 2017 individual market premiums. Here is what they found. Between 2013 and 2017, the average individual market monthly premium in the healthcare.gov States increased by 105 percent. In other words, on average, individual market premiums more than doubled in just 5 years.

In my home State of South Dakota, premiums increased by 124 percent or $3,588 over 5 years. As I said, that is according to HHS reporting on the premiums in the individual market exchanges over the course of the past 5 years. So $3,588 in South Dakota is money that South Dakota families had to take from other priorities, like saving for retirement or investing in their children's education.

Three States saw their premiums triple over those 5 years. The average monthly premium in Alaska went from $344 to $1,041. That is an increase of $697 per month or more than $8,300 a year. Think about that. Over the past 5 years, the average individual market yearly premium has increased by $4,800 in Arizona, by $3,648 in Louisiana, by $5,064 in North Carolina, by $4,488 in Tennessee, and by $5,292 in West Virginia. Those kinds of premium increases are just not sustainable.

Some people, of course, received tax credits to help offset their premium payments, but many others are left to face these massive premium hikes by themselves. And most people do not have the money to easily absorb a 105-percent premium increase or more in many States, as I pointed out, over 5 years.

Of course, premium increases show no signs of slowing down. Numbers for 2018 are emerging, and they are not looking good. Insurers on the New York exchange are requesting double-digit rate hikes. A Connecticut insurer requested an average rate hike of 33.8 percent. One Virginia insurer requested an average rate increase of 38 percent. Another has requested an average 45-percent rate hike. In Oregon, the average rate hike requested is 17.2 percent. Companies offering plans on the exchange here in Washington, DC, are requesting average rate hikes ranging from 13 percent to nearly 40 percent. In Maryland, average increases range from 18 percent to almost 59 percent. One insurer in Maryland has requested a rate increase of up to 150 percent--150 percent for just one year.

As if the premium hikes aren't bad enough, many Americans don't have a cheaper option to choose. In 2017, roughly one-third of U.S. counties have just one choice of insurer on their ObamaCare exchange--one choice in one-third of all the counties in America. So you pretty much have to take whatever rate they are going to quote you when that is the only option in town. Talk about a lack of competition.

Several States, including Alabama, Oklahoma, Alaska, and Wyoming, have just one choice of insurer for the entire State. The entire State--in those States that I just mentioned--has one choice of insurer. Things are only getting worse.

In 2018, a number of counties may lack any ObamaCare insurer at all. On Friday, the Omaha World-Herald announced that 100,000 Nebraskans could end up with zero options for individual market coverage in 2018. Iowa is facing a similar situation. In April, Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield announced that it will withdraw from the individual market in Iowa in 2018. Days later, Aetna announced that it would pull out of the Iowa exchange. In the wake of these announcements, Medica, the last ObamaCare insurer for most of Iowa, announced that it will likely leave the State in 2018. That would leave 94 of the 99 Iowa counties with no ObamaCare insurer next year.

Republicans in the Senate are currently working on legislation to repeal and replace ObamaCare. Why? Because, as I just pointed out, ObamaCare is broken. This law is not working. This law has never worked. It shows absolutely no sign that it is going to work in the future, particularly if those premium increases are any indication. From first to last, this law has been a disaster--high premium costs, high deductibles, customers losing health plans, customers losing doctors, fewer choices, failed co-ops, unraveling exchanges. I could go on and on because the list of the failures goes on and on.

Given all of this, it is hard to believe the Democrats are still defending this disastrous law. I sometimes wonder just what it will take for my Democrat colleagues in the Senate to accept the staggering amount of evidence that says this law has failed. Do premiums have to triple? Do they have to quadruple? Does every American on the exchanges have to be reduced to just one choice of insurer or be without an insurer at all?

ObamaCare was going to reduce premiums. It didn't. People were going to be able to keep their healthcare plans. They regularly found out that they couldn't. Buying insurance was going to be like shopping for a TV on Amazon--well, maybe if Amazon had only one brand of television.

The responsible thing to do when a government program has turned out to be a disaster is to repeal it. That is what Republicans are working to do with ObamaCare. We are working to repeal this law and replace it with real healthcare reform. My colleagues in the House have made a good start. We are working to build on their bill in the U.S. Senate. Chairmen Alexander, Enzi, and Hatch have been leading the charge on this. I am grateful to them and their staffs for all of their hard work.

Republicans are committed to restoring the millions of Americans trapped on the ObamaCare exchanges and lifting the burdens this law has foisted onto taxpayers. We are committed to addressing ObamaCare's skyrocketing premium increases. We are committed to preserving access to care for Americans with preexisting conditions. We are committed to making Medicaid more sustainable by giving States greater flexibility while insuring that those who rely on this program don't have the rug pulled out from under them. We need to make healthcare more affordable, more personal, more flexible, and less bureaucratic.

It would be wonderful if at least some Democrats would join us in this effort and stop prioritizing partisanship over the needs of the American people. Republicans know that the American people are suffering under ObamaCare, and we are committed to bringing them relief. They are ready for healthcare reform that actually works, and that is what Republicans intend to deliver.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, today I would like to recognize the 100th birthday of the Air Force's 34th and 37th Bomb Squadrons.

Two of the oldest active squadrons in the U.S. Air Force, the 34th and 37th Bomb Squadrons first served our Nation during ``the war to end all wars.'' Too soon after the conclusion of their service in World War I, however, our country needed them once again. During World War II, when our allies in Europe and in the Pacific called for help, the brave airmen of these units answered the call. They served with distinction during the historic Doolittle Raid, a daring mission that tested the limits of the B-25 bombers that had been selected to strike a blow to the heart of the Japanese empire. While their bombers delivered payloads, their courage delivered hope to a world that longed for peace.

The 34th and 37th Bomb Squadrons went on to fly numerous interdiction and support missions during the Korean war, deployed during Operation Desert Storm, and fought in Kosovo and Serbia. When terrorists attacked our homeland in 2001, both squadrons took action in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. In 2011, the 34th and 37th joined forces to launch the first ever B-1 combat mission launched from the continental United States, flying from Ellsworth Air Force base in South Dakota to hit enemy targets in Libya during Operation Odyssey Dawn. During their 100 years of service, the airmen of the 34th and 37th Bomb Squadrons have assisted allies around the globe and represented the very best of who we are as a nation. I have full faith they will continue their distinguished service in defense of our country, our allies, and our freedoms.

So many times throughout the history of our republic, we have called upon ordinary men and women to become extraordinary heroes. Today we honor the legacy of the heroes of the 34th and 37th Bomb Squadrons, and I thank you for joining me in wishing them the best as they celebrate a century of service.

Mr. President, today I recognize Claire Alison, 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.

Claire is a graduate of El Camino Real Charter High School in Los Angeles, CA. Currently, she is attending California State University, Northridge, where she is majoring in history. Claire is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of her experience.

I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Claire Alison for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Joseph Schartz, 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.

Joseph is a graduate of South Dakota State University in Brookings, SD, having earned a degree in journalism. Currently, he is attending the Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy, where he is pursuing his master's in public policy. Joseph is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of his experience.

I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Joseph Schartz for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

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

Mr. President, if there is one thing that has become clear, it is that the ObamaCare status quo is not sustainable.

Prices continue to soar while choices are rapidly dwindling. Between 2016 and 2017, the average premium for a midlevel ObamaCare plan on the Federal exchange went up 25 percent--25 percent for just 1 year. Let's remember that this is on top of years--year after year--of premium increases under ObamaCare.

How many families can easily absorb a 25-percent premium increase? I would submit that not many. Again, that is just for 1 year. ObamaCare rate hikes aren't going anywhere. Numbers for next year are starting to emerge, and they are not looking good. Connecticut's ObamaCare insurers are requesting average premium increases in the double digits. One Connecticut insurer has requested an average rate hike of 33.8 percent--33.8 percent. In Virginia, one insurer has requested an average rate increase of 38 percent. Another has requested an average 45-percent rate hike. In Maryland, average increases range anywhere from 18 percent to almost 59 percent. One insurer has requested a staggering 150-percent rate increase--150 percent.

Obviously, these kinds of price increases are unaffordable for most families, but ObamaCare isn't leaving them any options. Along with soaring prices, choices on the exchanges are rapidly dwindling. Roughly one-third of U.S. counties have just one choice of health insurer on their exchange for 2017. Several States--including Alabama, Oklahoma, Alaska, and Wyoming--have just one choice of insurer for their entire State, and things are only getting worse.

In 2018, a number of counties may lack an ObamaCare insurer at all. In February, health insurer Humana announced its decision to completely withdraw from the ObamaCare exchanges for 2018, and 2 weeks ago, Aetna, which had already sharply reduced its participation in the exchanges for 2017, announced its decision to fully exit and completely get out of the market in 2018. That leaves the Nebraska and Delaware ObamaCare exchanges with just one insurer for 2018.

UnitedHealthcare is leaving Virginia, and Wellmark Blue Cross Blue Shield is withdrawing from Iowa. In the wake of Aetna and Wellmark's decision, Medica, the last ObamaCare insurer for most of Iowa, announced it will likely leave the State in 2018. That would leave 94 out of 99 counties in Iowa with no ObamaCare insurer next year--all but five counties in the State of Iowa with no ObamaCare insurer. Iowa families with ObamaCare subsidies would have no place to spend them. As my colleague Senator Alexander likes to point out, that is like having a bus ticket in a town where there are no buses running.

Dwindling healthcare choices aren't limited to the ObamaCare exchanges, either. Aetna is not only withdrawing from the exchanges. It is also withdrawing from the non-ObamaCare individual health insurance markets in several States. More than one insurance CEO has suggested that ObamaCare is in a death spiral, and I would have to say it is pretty hard to disagree. Combine soaring premiums with a steady insurer exodus, and sooner or later you get a partial or complete exchange collapse.

Then there are the other ObamaCare problems--like deductibles which are sometimes so high people can't afford to actually use their healthcare plans; or, narrow plan networks with few provider choices.

ObamaCare may have been well-intentioned, but good intentions don't make up for a lack of good policy--and ObamaCare was not good policy. ObamaCare took a healthcare system with problems and it made things worse. It is time to repeal this fatally flawed law and replace it with real healthcare reform.

Three weeks ago, the House of Representatives passed an ObamaCare repeal and replacement bill. The House's legislation repeals ObamaCare's tax increases, penalties, and mandates, and starts the process of restoring control of healthcare to States and individuals. My colleagues in the House have made a good start, and I am looking forward to building on their bill here in the United States Senate. We have a lot of Members with good healthcare ideas, and we are going to work hard to produce a bill that will start the process of giving the American people real healthcare reform.

ObamaCare is failing, and it is failing rapidly. Our Democrat colleagues need to stop pretending this law is ever going to do what it was supposed to do and come to the table to work with us on real healthcare reform. There is no question our healthcare system has problems, but ObamaCare is not, and it never has been, the solution.

Real reform is possible, though, and that is what we are focused on now here in the United States Senate--the kind of reform that will actually drive down prices, that will put patients and their doctors-- not the government--in charge of healthcare decisions, that will empower States to embrace the solutions that are right for the citizens in their States and will give Americans more choices and real healthcare freedom.

That is the kind of healthcare reform Republicans are committed to delivering for the American people.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the internet worked great in 2014 when there were no Federal net neutrality rules. Truth be told, even after the Obama-era Federal Communications Commission applied depression-era phone monopoly regulations to broadband in 2015, most Americans saw little or no difference in their internet experience. The internet still creates jobs, expands educational opportunities, keeps us in touch with loved ones, and, as a bonus, it is often entertaining.

This internet that we know and love isn't going to fall apart anytime soon, no matter what the FCC decides. But there are important policy questions that need to be answered about how the internet will grow and develop into the future. Let's put the apocalyptic rhetoric and fearmongering aside.

The internet doesn't belong just to Republicans, Democrats, big Silicon Valley tech companies, internet service providers, small Silicon Prairie startups, or the Federal Government. It belongs to everyone. It is global. It is best when it is free and open.

Today, as the FCC reconsiders the flawed broadband regulations it issued only 2 years ago, Congress should look back at the path that we could have taken but didn't. In November of 2014, I offered former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to come together to craft a permanent legislative solution banning controversial practices known as blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization of internet traffic. With colleagues in the House of Representatives, I even put forward a draft bill doing exactly that. It wasn't a final offer but, rather, an outreach to get the conversation started. I thought the time and opportunity to protect the open internet on a bipartisan basis had arrived. Through bipartisan legislation, I believed Congress should put into statute widely accepted principles of network management, commonly referred to as ``net neutrality.''

Our idea for legislation was straightforward: Combine protections ensuring that owners of broadband infrastructure can't use their role to manipulate the user experience with those guaranteeing a continuation of the light-touch regulatory policies that helped the internet thrive for two decades.

But Chairman Wheeler rejected our idea for bipartisan legislation. Instead, he and his staff lobbied to block such discussions from even happening in Congress. He then, with only partisan support, issued an order that gave the FCC authority to regulate the internet under old laws designed for phone monopolies and eliminated all the authority the Federal Trade Commission had to police broadband providers.

I represent South Dakota, a rural State that is home to small but still very innovative technology businesses. In other parts of the State, communities lack access to high-speed broadband. In the debate over the FCC regulating broadband with rules designed for phone monopolies, there were many concerns that Chairman Wheeler's approach would create uncertainty that chills investment.

``Chilling investment'' is a term that one often hears among the business community. To me, what it really means is that many Americans in rural communities will have to wait longer before they have an opportunity to select high-speed internet service. Today there are 34 million Americans who lack access to broadband services at home.

As innovation on the internet thrives, demand for data rises, and the stock market hits all-time highs, one would have suspected that broadband investment would continue growing as it had for two decades. But according to one analysis, annual investment actually went down 5.5 percent in 2016 compared to 2014. This is a troubling sign that private investment may have second thoughts about the ability to turn capital expenditures into future profits under an excessive regulatory regime.

Chairman Wheeler assured the public that his FCC would not use new authority over the internet to aggressively restrict many regular online practices, but he could not offer assurances that, as years pass and administrations change, such regulatory restraint would remain. His order gives wide legal latitude for any future FCC

not bound by his commitments to touch any and every corner of the internet. After all, unless grounded in legislation, partisan policy changes through administrative action can be fleeting.

Today's action at the FCC aptly underscores the concern that the FCC's partisan approach to internet policy in 2015 did not put the internet on a solid foundation. I know there are many upset about what the FCC is doing. I felt much the same way 2 years ago when the FCC voted to proceed after my bipartisan outreach had been rejected.

We should not, however, view the FCC's action today as a final outcome. While I commend Chairman Ajit Pai and Commissioner Michael O'Rielly for taking this necessary step, I fully recognize that today's action alone does not create ideal certainty for the internet. There is more work yet to do.

In politics, it is rare to get a second chance at bipartisan compromise, yet right now we have an opportunity to accomplish what eluded us 2 years ago--clear and certain rules in statute to protect the open internet. We have another chance to sit down, to discuss every stakeholder's concerns, and to work toward the common goal of protecting the internet.

While the FCC's 2015 order may soon be consigned to the dustbin of history, the last few months have shown that political winds can and often do shift suddenly.

To my colleagues in both the majority and minority: The only way to truly provide legal and political certainty for open internet protections is for Congress to pass bipartisan legislation. We need a statute offering clear and enduring rules that balance innovation and investment throughout the entire internet ecosystem.

In crafting rules, we need to listen to the concerns of all Americans who support an open internet but who may have differing opinions about the greatest threats to online freedom. For some Americans, the greatest concern is meddling by internet service providers, and for others it is unelected bureaucrats attempting to overprotect Americans from products and services that they actually like.

Online innovation is a virtuous circle. Online companies need robust and widely available broadband networks to reach their customers, and ISPs need the online experience to be compelling enough to drive subscriber demand.

We need to work together collaboratively to find the right policies for the internet. I firmly believe we can find common ground to protect the internet, so long as we don't fixate on the misguided notion that monopoly regulation is the only way to preserve it. While some may wish to wait until the activities at the FCC and in the courts have completely run their course, my preference would be to begin bipartisan work on such legislation without any further delay. Innovation and job creation should no longer take a backseat to partisan point scoring.

It is time for Congress to finally settle this matter. I am happy to meet at any time with any of my colleagues who are serious about discussing a path forward. I would also welcome discussing any new open internet proposals from my colleagues that balance the need for both innovation and investment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, there is no doubt that the last 8 years were not good ones for the American economy. Yearly economic growth under the Obama administration averaged just under 1.5 percent. That is less than half the growth needed for a healthy economy. That kind of weak growth has consequences: fewer jobs, fewer opportunities, and lower wages.

Wage growth was almost nonexistent during the Obama administration, and new jobs and opportunities were few and far between. There have been a few encouraging signs since the election. Both wage and job growth have shown some improvement, but we are still a long way from getting our economy back to full health. The GDP report for the first quarter of this year underscored the need to implement the kind of progrowth policies that were lacking during the Obama years.

One major way to spur economic growth and improve the health of our economy is to reform our Nation's Tax Code. Our current Tax Code is strangling businesses, both large and small. Our Nation has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, putting American businesses at a competitive disadvantage in the global economy.

Small businesses and family farms face high tax rates, at times exceeding those paid by large corporations. These tax policies have consequences. A small company that owes a large tax bill to the Federal Government is unlikely to be able to come up with the capital necessary to expand the business or hire new workers.

When American businesses are taxed at a far higher rate than their foreign counterparts, it is likely to be the foreign rather than the American company that expands and thrives. Tax reform needs to address these obstacles to growth. Later this year, the Senate plans to consider a major tax reform package. Two of the most powerful tax- related things we can do to increase economic growth are lowering business tax rates and allowing business to recover their investments in inventory, machinery, and the like faster.

The Senate tax bill will do both. Today, I am introducing legislation that I hope will be a part of the final tax reform package in the Senate. My bill--I am calling it the Investment in New Ventures and Economic Success Today Act, or the INVEST Act for short--focuses on helping small- and medium-sized businesses by allowing them to recover their costs faster.

Earlier this year, the Economic Innovation Group released a report on economic dynamism. Economic dynamism, as the Economic Innovation Group defines it, refers to the rate at which new businesses are born and die. In a dynamic economy, the rate of new business creation is high and significantly outstrips the rate of business deaths, but that hasn't been the case in the United States lately.

New business creation has significantly dropped over the past several years. Between 2009 and 2011, business deaths outstripped business births. While the numbers have since improved slightly, the recovery has been poor and far from historical norms.

The Economic Innovation Group notes that 2012, the economy's best year for business creation since the recession, ``fell far short of its worst year prior to 2008.'' Well, this is deeply concerning because new businesses have historically been responsible for a substantial part of the job creation in this country, not to mention a key source of innovation.

When new businesses are not being created at a strong rate, workers face a whole host of problems. A less dynamic economy--the Economic Innovation Group notes--``is one likely to feature fewer jobs, lower labor force participation, slack wage growth, and rising inequality, exactly what we see today.''

Again, that is from the Economic Innovation Group.

Well, starting a new business always has a substantial element of risk. We don't need to make it harder by throwing up tax and regulatory obstacles. If we want to see our economy thriving again, we need to be encouraging the creation of new businesses, but our Tax Code, too often, does the opposite.

My bill, the INVEST Act, would encourage new business creation by allowing new enterprises to deduct a substantial part of their startup costs within the first year. Under current law, new businesses are only able to deduct $5,000 of their startup costs within their first year. Any startup expenses above that amount can be deducted, but that deduction is stretched out over a 15-year period. That is a long time.

The faster a new business can recover its startup costs, the faster it can establish itself on a secure footing. Entrepreneurs are far more likely to take the risk of starting a new venture if they know they will be able to recover their startup costs quickly. My bill would substantially increase the amount of a business's startup costs that can be deducted in the first year from $5,000 to $50,000.

Plus, any additional startup costs can be deducted over a 10-year period instead of the current 15. This will go a long way toward encouraging new business creation and the economic dynamism that comes along with it.

The second part of my bill focuses on increasing cashflow for businesses, farms and ranches, and particularly those that operate as corporations and partnerships, by allowing them to use the so-called cash method of accounting. Under current law, these businesses, farms, and ranches are generally forced to use what is called accrual accounting. Basically, what that means is, a business has to pay tax on income before it receives the cash, and it cannot deduct all of its expenses when it pays the invoice.

For a company with inventory, this means it has to deduct the investments it makes over an extended period of time. A small business might have to spend the majority of its available cash on inventory but be unable to fully deduct that expense until all of that inventory is sold.

In the case of some businesses, it might be well beyond the current tax year before that substantial investment can be fully deducted. That can leave a business increasingly cash poor. Cash poor businesses don't expand. They don't hire new workers. They don't increase wages.

Well, the INVEST Act would allow businesses to deduct investments and inventory up front, leaving them with more cash on hand to put back into their operations. It would also reduce the need for businesses to hire armies of lawyers and accountants to ensure that they have properly adhered to complex accounting rules.

Finally, the INVEST Act would substantially reform the depreciation and expensing rules. Traditionally, farms and businesses have been forced to deduct expenses like machinery, property, or agricultural equipment over an extended period--anywhere from 5 to 10 years or as many as 39 years for commercial buildings. That could leave a farm or a business with its cash tied up for years in all the property it takes to run the enterprise. Of course, that means a farm, LLC, or S corporation can spend years without being able to increase its investment in a business or to hire new workers.

My bill would permanently allow all businesses to deduct 50 percent of their investment in equipment, vehicles, machinery, and certain other kinds of property during the year in which they are purchased. It would also help small and medium-sized farms and businesses to recover an even greater portion of their capital investments by allowing them to deduct at least $2 million of new investments in business property.

My bill expands current law so additional building improvements-- things like roofs, heating, and air conditioning units would qualify for immediate expensing. Farmers and ranchers who may reach the limit on full expensing are not forgotten either. The bill substantially increases the rate at which they can deduct the costs of tractors, combines, and other machinery.

Finally, for those farms and businesses that rely on cars, light trucks, and vans, this bill would substantially increase the amount of their vehicle investment that can be deducted when the business determines its taxable income each year. Currently, a light truck used on a farm or ranch could cost upwards of $30,000. Yet a farmer is only allowed to deduct $19,000 of that cost over the required recovery period for a business vehicle. My bill would substantially increase that limit to bring it more in line with the real-world costs of business vehicles.

These changes to expensing rules all have one goal: putting more money back in the hands of business owners--particularly, small business owners, farmers, and ranchers. Forcing business owners, farmers, and ranchers to lock up their capital for 5, 10, or nearly 40 years discourages growth and job creation. Under my bill, businesses, farms, and ranches would be able to redeploy that hard-to-raise capital back into business expansion, increase in wages, new jobs, and even new ventures.

The Congressional Budget Office predicts that the economy will grow at a rate of just 1.9 percent over the next 30 years. That is a full percentage point lower than the average growth rate over the past 50 years, which was over 3 percent, or between 3.2 and 3.5. That will mean decades of fewer jobs and opportunities, low wage growth, and a reduced standard of living. We don't want to resign ourselves to that, and we don't have to. If we eliminate the antigrowth features of our Tax Code, if we lift the regulatory burdens facing American businesses and free up businesses to grow and create jobs, we can achieve a future of strong economic growth--the kind of strong growth that will fuel employment and wage growth, along with greater opportunities for American workers.

I hope the INVEST Act will help us develop the kind of tax reform legislation that will help us restore strong, sustainable economic growth, and I am looking forward to working with Chairman Hatch and all of my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee to put together the final bill and to get it to the President.

It is time that we give the American people a tax code that actually works for them.

Mr. President, there is no doubt that the last 8 years were not good ones for the American economy. Yearly economic growth under the Obama administration averaged just under 1.5 percent. That is less than half the growth needed for a healthy economy. That kind of weak growth has consequences: fewer jobs, fewer opportunities, and lower wages.

Wage growth was almost nonexistent during the Obama administration, and new jobs and opportunities were few and far between. There have been a few encouraging signs since the election. Both wage and job growth have shown some improvement, but we are still a long way from getting our economy back to full health. The GDP report for the first quarter of this year underscored the need to implement the kind of progrowth policies that were lacking during the Obama years.

One major way to spur economic growth and improve the health of our economy is to reform our Nation's Tax Code. Our current Tax Code is strangling businesses, both large and small. Our Nation has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, putting American businesses at a competitive disadvantage in the global economy.

Small businesses and family farms face high tax rates, at times exceeding those paid by large corporations. These tax policies have consequences. A small company that owes a large tax bill to the Federal Government is unlikely to be able to come up with the capital necessary to expand the business or hire new workers.

When American businesses are taxed at a far higher rate than their foreign counterparts, it is likely to be the foreign rather than the American company that expands and thrives. Tax reform needs to address these obstacles to growth. Later this year, the Senate plans to consider a major tax reform package. Two of the most powerful tax- related things we can do to increase economic growth are lowering business tax rates and allowing business to recover their investments in inventory, machinery, and the like faster.

The Senate tax bill will do both. Today, I am introducing legislation that I hope will be a part of the final tax reform package in the Senate. My bill--I am calling it the Investment in New Ventures and Economic Success Today Act, or the INVEST Act for short--focuses on helping small- and medium-sized businesses by allowing them to recover their costs faster.

Earlier this year, the Economic Innovation Group released a report on economic dynamism. Economic dynamism, as the Economic Innovation Group defines it, refers to the rate at which new businesses are born and die. In a dynamic economy, the rate of new business creation is high and significantly outstrips the rate of business deaths, but that hasn't been the case in the United States lately.

New business creation has significantly dropped over the past several years. Between 2009 and 2011, business deaths outstripped business births. While the numbers have since improved slightly, the recovery has been poor and far from historical norms.

The Economic Innovation Group notes that 2012, the economy's best year for business creation since the recession, ``fell far short of its worst year prior to 2008.'' Well, this is deeply concerning because new businesses have historically been responsible for a substantial part of the job creation in this country, not to mention a key source of innovation.

When new businesses are not being created at a strong rate, workers face a whole host of problems. A less dynamic economy--the Economic Innovation Group notes--``is one likely to feature fewer jobs, lower labor force participation, slack wage growth, and rising inequality, exactly what we see today.''

Again, that is from the Economic Innovation Group.

Well, starting a new business always has a substantial element of risk. We don't need to make it harder by throwing up tax and regulatory obstacles. If we want to see our economy thriving again, we need to be encouraging the creation of new businesses, but our Tax Code, too often, does the opposite.

My bill, the INVEST Act, would encourage new business creation by allowing new enterprises to deduct a substantial part of their startup costs within the first year. Under current law, new businesses are only able to deduct $5,000 of their startup costs within their first year. Any startup expenses above that amount can be deducted, but that deduction is stretched out over a 15-year period. That is a long time.

The faster a new business can recover its startup costs, the faster it can establish itself on a secure footing. Entrepreneurs are far more likely to take the risk of starting a new venture if they know they will be able to recover their startup costs quickly. My bill would substantially increase the amount of a business's startup costs that can be deducted in the first year from $5,000 to $50,000.

Plus, any additional startup costs can be deducted over a 10-year period instead of the current 15. This will go a long way toward encouraging new business creation and the economic dynamism that comes along with it.

The second part of my bill focuses on increasing cashflow for businesses, farms and ranches, and particularly those that operate as corporations and partnerships, by allowing them to use the so-called cash method of accounting. Under current law, these businesses, farms, and ranches are generally forced to use what is called accrual accounting. Basically, what that means is, a business has to pay tax on income before it receives the cash, and it cannot deduct all of its expenses when it pays the invoice.

For a company with inventory, this means it has to deduct the investments it makes over an extended period of time. A small business might have to spend the majority of its available cash on inventory but be unable to fully deduct that expense until all of that inventory is sold.

In the case of some businesses, it might be well beyond the current tax year before that substantial investment can be fully deducted. That can leave a business increasingly cash poor. Cash poor businesses don't expand. They don't hire new workers. They don't increase wages.

Well, the INVEST Act would allow businesses to deduct investments and inventory up front, leaving them with more cash on hand to put back into their operations. It would also reduce the need for businesses to hire armies of lawyers and accountants to ensure that they have properly adhered to complex accounting rules.

Finally, the INVEST Act would substantially reform the depreciation and expensing rules. Traditionally, farms and businesses have been forced to deduct expenses like machinery, property, or agricultural equipment over an extended period--anywhere from 5 to 10 years or as many as 39 years for commercial buildings. That could leave a farm or a business with its cash tied up for years in all the property it takes to run the enterprise. Of course, that means a farm, LLC, or S corporation can spend years without being able to increase its investment in a business or to hire new workers.

My bill would permanently allow all businesses to deduct 50 percent of their investment in equipment, vehicles, machinery, and certain other kinds of property during the year in which they are purchased. It would also help small and medium-sized farms and businesses to recover an even greater portion of their capital investments by allowing them to deduct at least $2 million of new investments in business property.

My bill expands current law so additional building improvements-- things like roofs, heating, and air conditioning units would qualify for immediate expensing. Farmers and ranchers who may reach the limit on full expensing are not forgotten either. The bill substantially increases the rate at which they can deduct the costs of tractors, combines, and other machinery.

Finally, for those farms and businesses that rely on cars, light trucks, and vans, this bill would substantially increase the amount of their vehicle investment that can be deducted when the business determines its taxable income each year. Currently, a light truck used on a farm or ranch could cost upwards of $30,000. Yet a farmer is only allowed to deduct $19,000 of that cost over the required recovery period for a business vehicle. My bill would substantially increase that limit to bring it more in line with the real-world costs of business vehicles.

These changes to expensing rules all have one goal: putting more money back in the hands of business owners--particularly, small business owners, farmers, and ranchers. Forcing business owners, farmers, and ranchers to lock up their capital for 5, 10, or nearly 40 years discourages growth and job creation. Under my bill, businesses, farms, and ranches would be able to redeploy that hard-to-raise capital back into business expansion, increase in wages, new jobs, and even new ventures.

The Congressional Budget Office predicts that the economy will grow at a rate of just 1.9 percent over the next 30 years. That is a full percentage point lower than the average growth rate over the past 50 years, which was over 3 percent, or between 3.2 and 3.5. That will mean decades of fewer jobs and opportunities, low wage growth, and a reduced standard of living. We don't want to resign ourselves to that, and we don't have to. If we eliminate the antigrowth features of our Tax Code, if we lift the regulatory burdens facing American businesses and free up businesses to grow and create jobs, we can achieve a future of strong economic growth--the kind of strong growth that will fuel employment and wage growth, along with greater opportunities for American workers.

I hope the INVEST Act will help us develop the kind of tax reform legislation that will help us restore strong, sustainable economic growth, and I am looking forward to working with Chairman Hatch and all of my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee to put together the final bill and to get it to the President.

It is time that we give the American people a tax code that actually works for them.

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

Mr. President, I rise to voice my strong support for the nomination of Jeff Rosen to be the next Deputy Secretary of Transportation.

Mr. Rosen has had a long and distinguished career in transportation policy and public service. He is currently a partner at the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis, where he has worked on a range of regulatory and litigation matters for more than 30 years. Prior to starting his career at the firm, he obtained his bachelor's degree in economics at Northwestern University and his law degree from Harvard Law School.

Mr. Rosen's private sector experience has been punctuated by significant leadership positions in the public sector. Mr. Rosen served as the General Counsel of the Department of Transportation from 2003 to 2006 after winning Senate confirmation by a voice vote. He also served as the General Counsel and Senior Policy Adviser at the White House Office of Management and Budget from 2006 to 2009. Mr. Rosen's prior experience in government is a testament to his ability to lead, manage, and effectively operate within the Federal Government.

If confirmed as Deputy Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Rosen will be responsible for overseeing the daily operations of the Department. He will also oversee the DOT's 10 modal administrations and approximately 55,000 employees and will exercise stewardship for the Department's budget and its efforts to provide funding for State and local transportation projects.

Mr. Rosen's fundamental responsibility will be to ensure that the DOT's crucial mission--the safe and efficient movement of goods and people across our Nation and the world--is achieved while fostering innovation and maintaining the reliability of our infrastructure.

As I mentioned, Mr. Rosen brings valuable experience to this position. As the DOT's General Counsel during the George W. Bush administration, Mr. Rosen had responsibility for the DOT's regulatory programs, enforcement, litigation activities, legal issues relating to international transportation activities, and legislative proposals. He acted as counsel to Secretary Norman Mineta. Later, as General Counsel and Senior Policy Adviser at the OMB, Mr. Rosen served as the Bush administration's top lawyer for regulations, fiscal issues, and executive orders.

Of note, during the past 2 years, Mr. Rosen has served as chair of the American Bar Association's Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice, where he has been praised for revitalizing the section with more debate and programs while seeking consensus on recommended changes to the Administrative Procedure Act. His thoughtful leadership will be valuable as the Department of Transportation looks toward a pro-growth agenda in the transportation sector.

On March 29, 2017, I held a hearing in the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee to consider his nomination. I was impressed, as were my colleagues on the committee, with Mr. Rosen's credentials, experience, and depth of knowledge on transportation policy.

On April 5, 2017, the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee acted by a rollcall vote to favorably report his nomination to the floor. While it is my hope that the Senate will confirm this exceptionally well-qualified nominee today, it is my understanding that some of my Democrat colleagues will oppose him. It is my understanding that their decision is, in large part, because Mr. Rosen refused to publicly oppose President Trump's proposed budget at his confirmation hearing last month. I think this is an unfair basis for opposing such a well-qualified nominee.

I believe Mr. Rosen's extensive and distinguished career in transportation policy and prior public service will be an asset in addressing the infrastructure challenges our Nation faces.

I look forward to confirming Mr. Rosen's nomination, and I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I recognize the hard work of my Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee law clerk Mike Munoz. Mike hails from Avon, CT, and will soon graduate from Georgetown University Law Center. As a law clerk on the Commerce Committee, Mike assisted the Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance, and Data Security Subcommittee. He is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of his clerkship. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Mike for all of the fine work he did for the committee and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, I am honored to speak tonight after casting my vote to confirm Dr. Heather Wilson as Secretary of the Air Force. I have known Heather for nearly 20 years and submit that President Trump could not have selected a more qualified candidate to lead the Air Force in these demanding times. I am pleased that the Senate was finally able to confirm her nomination, and I wish her great success.

As an Air Force veteran, former Member of Congress, and most recently the leader of one of the top science and engineering schools, the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Dr. Wilson has repeatedly demonstrated leadership abilities that will serve her and the Air Force well in this next chapter.

Her commitment to duty links back to her time as a cadet at the Air Force Academy, where she was a distinguished graduate. In fact, she will be the Academy's first graduate in history to serve as a Secretary of the Air Force. Dr. Wilson went on to serve as an Air Force officer in Europe during the Cold War, where she was based in the United Kingdom and at the U.S. Mission to NATO in Brussels. Upon leaving the Air Force, she served on the National Security Council staff of President George H.W. Bush, working on NATO and conventional arms control.

At a time when America's partnerships are being challenged by threats around the world, I am confident that her experience will lend a steady hand to our military decisionmaking.

Dr. Wilson will also bring with her great experience honed in the Halls of Congress. At the start of her decades-long representation of New Mexico's First Congressional District, she quickly became one of the go-to Members on national security issues. Heather took on tough issues not unlike the ones she will surely face as Secretary of the Air Force. Whether on issues of strategic objectives and readiness or personnel matters, such as military sexual assault, she is prepared to have frank discussions on the issues and will contribute insightful proposals on how to best tackle the many challenges facing the Air Force. She understands not only the Air Force's key capabilities but the perilous outcomes we may face as a nation if we do not properly train and fund our military. She knows that rising to meet the challenges of the day must be done with an eye to the future so we may also deter and defeat the threats of tomorrow.

At a time when national security is of foremost concern, Dr. Wilson understands the Air Force's tremendous responsibility in keeping Americans safe and will be guided by the core values of the Force: integrity first, service before self, and excellence in all that the Air Force does.

I could not be happier for my friend, Dr. Heather Wilson, and wish her and her husband Jay the best of luck. South Dakota and the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology are losing an asset, but I am confident that the new era of excellence Heather helped usher in leaves the school well-positioned to remain a foremost engineering, science, and research institution. We are proud of Heather's continued success and trust she will represent us well as the 24th Secretary of the Air Force.

I would like to thank my colleague, Chairman McCain, for his work to advance Dr. Wilson's nomination through the Senate Armed Services Committee and for granting me the opportunity to introduce Dr. Wilson at her confirmation hearing. It was my honor to endorse her before the committee and to cast my vote in support of her nomination this evening. I am glad the Senate has advanced another of President Trump's nominees and wish Dr. Wilson, our next Secretary of the Air Force, continued wisdom and success as she continues her outstanding leadership in service to our country.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it has been said that nothing is certain but death and taxes. To that, nowadays, we might add bad news about ObamaCare because if there is one thing we can count on, it is bad news about this fatally flawed law--high premium costs, huge deductibles, customers losing health plans, customers losing doctors, fewer choices, failed co-ops, unraveling exchanges, and I could go on.

There is no question that our healthcare system had problems before ObamaCare was passed. Clearly reforms were needed. But as the past 7 years have made clear, ObamaCare was not the answer, and this law is rapidly collapsing under its own weight.

Here is a sampling of recent ObamaCare headlines.

This is from Bloomberg: ``Thousands of ObamaCare Customers Left Without Options as Insurers Bolt.''

This is from CNBC: ``Aetna will exit ObamaCare markets in Virginia in 2018, citing expected losses on individual plans this year.''

From the Arizona Republic: ``Consumers seek relief as `ObamaCare' rates rise.''

From USA TODAY: ``Iowa may be without individual health plans if insurer pulls out.''

In February of this year, Mark Bertolini, the CEO of health insurance company Aetna, asserted that ObamaCare is in a death spiral. There is good reason to think he is right in that significant losses are driving health insurers out of the exchanges. Last year, Aetna announced that it would withdraw from 11 of the 15 States in which it offered exchange plans, Humana said it would exit several exchanges, and mega-insurer UnitedHealthcare announced that it was pulling out of most of the 34 States in which it offered exchange plans.

Roughly one-third of U.S. counties have just one choice of health insurer on their exchanges for 2017, and the situation looks likely to get much worse next year. In February, health insurer Humana announced its decision to completely withdraw from the ObamaCare exchanges for 2018. Aetna is pulling out of two of the four States in which it will still offer plans in 2018, and it has indicated it may pull back even further. Wellmark is leaving Iowa. UnitedHealthcare is leaving Virginia. Other insurers are contemplating similar exits.

The New York Times reported in March that ``ObamaCare Choices Could Go from One to Zero in Some Areas.''

``Parts of the country,'' the Times notes, ``are in jeopardy of not having an insurer offering ObamaCare plans next year.'' The quote goes on: ``Many counties already have just one insurer offering health plans in the ObamaCare marketplaces, and some of those solo insurers are showing signs that they are eyeing the exits.'' That is from the New York Times.

What that means is that tens of thousands of Americans may have ObamaCare subsidies next year without insurance plans to spend them on. As my colleague Senator Alexander, who does so much good work on healthcare as the chairman of the HELP Committee, has said, it is like having a bus ticket in a town with no buses running.

While Americans' health insurance options dwindle, their premiums are rising. Midlevel ObamaCare plans saw an average 25 percent premium increase for 2017--a 25-percent increase for just 1 year, which is on top of years of premium increases under ObamaCare. And what are Americans with those plans paying for? The odds are good that they are paying for plans with limited choices of doctors and hospitals. A 2016 study of 18 States and Washington, DC, found that 75 percent of their exchange plans for 2017 would likely be health maintenance organizations or exclusive provider organizations--two types of plans that tend to offer narrow provider networks.

In his joint address to Congress at the end of February, the President said of ObamaCare: ``Action is not a choice--it is a necessity.'' He is exactly right. ObamaCare is collapsing, and the status quo is not sustainable. Unless we want millions of Americans to face healthcare disaster, we have to repeal and replace this law.

Last week, the House passed an ObamaCare repeal and replacement bill. This legislation repeals ObamaCare's tax increases, penalties, and mandates and starts the process of restoring control of healthcare to States and individuals.

The House has made a good start, and I am looking forward to getting to build on their bill here in the Senate. I want to make sure we amend the House tax credit to ensure that assistance is better targeted to those who need it the most. I am looking forward to working with my colleagues--Chairman Alexander, Chairman Hatch on the Finance Committee, Policy Committee Chairman Barrasso, and many others--to make sure we have a bill that will provide the American people with real relief.

ObamaCare was founded on the premise that government knows best when it comes to individuals' healthcare and that a one-size-fits-all solution is somehow the best solution, but we know now that is not the case. Individuals know best, and their doctors know best. Government does not know best. It is absurd to think that a massive Federal bureaucracy can hand down one comprehensive solution that will somehow meet the needs of hundreds of millions of individuals in this country. We need to move control from Washington and give it back to the States so they can embrace healthcare innovations and solutions that work for the individuals and the particular needs in their States.

Republicans are working to implement the kind of healthcare reform the American people are looking for--more affordable, more personal, more flexible, and less bureaucratic. Americans have had enough of ObamaCare's problems. They are ready for healthcare reform that actually works, and we are committed to giving it to them.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the past 8 years have been tough on Americans. Despite the fact that the recession officially ended in June of 2009, the economy never really rebounded. President Obama presided over the weakest economic recovery in 60 years. His Presidency was characterized by poor economic growth, a dearth of jobs and opportunities, and almost nonexistent wage increases.

In 2016, the economy grew at a dismal 1.6 percent, far below the level of growth displayed by a healthy economy. Typically 3 to 3\1/2\ percent is the average, going back to World War II. The GDP report for the first quarter of this year underscored the need to implement the kind of pro-growth policies that were lacking during the Obama years. Republicans in Congress and the White House have already acted to repeal a number of burdensome Obama regulations that were foisted onto the American people near the end of his Presidency. We plan to keep up our efforts.

Getting rid of unnecessary regulations will go a long way toward freeing up businesses to grow and create jobs and put more money in Americans pockets. Of course, repealing burdensome regulations is just one of the things we need to get our economy healthy again. Fixing our broken Tax Code is another. As a member of the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee, I will be introducing tax reform legislation in the near future, targeted primarily for Main Street businesses that pay taxes at the individual rate.

I am looking forward to working on comprehensive tax reform with Chairman Hatch and the rest of my colleagues on the Finance Committee as we move forward this year. It is critical that passthrough businesses, which are the main focus of my bill, are not left behind in this effort.

Today, I want to talk about spurring growth in a specific sector of our economy, one that is very important to my home state; that is, the agricultural sector. Like so many other Americans, farmers and ranchers in South Dakota and across the country have had a rough time of it over the past few years. Market prices for farm and ranch products have been on a steady decline since 2013, and net farm income has dropped substantially as a result of that. Worse, there is little expectation that prices will improve over the next few years, which means farmers' and ranchers' incomes are likely to continue to decrease.

Farmers are struggling to repay their debts. Between 2014 and 2016, the delinquency rates on farm non-real estate loans more than doubled. Delinquencies on farm real estate loans rose from $1.18 billion in 2014 to $1.66 billion in 2016. While these numbers are not all-time highs, the increases are disturbing and show no signs of reversing any time soon.

Farming and ranching are not just careers in South Dakota; they are a way of life, one that connects communities and families to the land and one generation to the next. Nearly 3,000 South Dakota farm families have been honored as operating century farms, meaning the same family has operated at least 80 acres of that farm for 100 years or more. But in today's weak agricultural economy, many families are afraid they will be the ones to lose the farm or ranch that has been in their family for generations. That would be a loss not just for them but for our country.

Few of us understand the sacrifices that go into this way of life. When we pick up a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread at the grocery store, we don't think of the farmer who rose long before the Sun and finished his day long after the Sun had set. Our country is made stronger by the hard work, fierce dedication, and unconquerable spirit of America's farmers.

We need to make a concerted effort to help farmers meet the challenges they are facing right now so that America can continue to help feed the world and Americans can continue to have access to the home-grown products they depend upon.

So how do we do that? One thing we can do that would immediately improve agricultural prices would be to quickly negotiate new bilateral trade agreements. Agriculture is heavily dependent upon trade, and in today's economic climate, we cannot afford to have our agricultural exports restricted by inadequate trade policies.

U.S. farmers have lost ground internationally. Our current share of the global grain market is just 30 percent, down from 65 percent in the mid-1970s. We need to take steps to level the playing field for American farmers and ranchers so they can be more competitive internationally. I have encouraged the President to start by negotiating a bilateral trade agreement with Japan.

Japan is one of our most important trading partners, but U.S. farmers too often face hefty tariffs on the products they sell in Japan. U.S. negotiators made important progress toward reducing these barriers during the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations.

We need to build on the work they did and negotiate a bilateral agreement with Japan as soon as possible. This would benefit a wide variety of American producers, including South Dakota beef producers who currently face a massive 38.5-percent tariff on the beef they sell in Japan.

Trade agreements would help tremendously, but there is more we need to do to ensure the long-term sustainability of production agriculture in the United States.

Every 5 years, Congress has the opportunity to reset Federal farm policy when it passes the farm bill. The current farm bill expires in 2018, and it is not too early to start the drafting process for the next bill.

I served on the Agriculture Committee in the House and now serve on the Senate Agriculture Committee under the strong leadership of my friend from Kansas, Chairmanship Pat Roberts. I will be working on my fourth farm bill, and I take this responsibility very seriously.

I spend a lot of time talking to farmers and ranchers while I am back home in South Dakota, and I have been developing legislation based on the feedback they give me about Federal programs. I have already introduced two key proposals that I hope will be part of the final farm bill that we pass next year, and I will be introducing several more farm bill legislative proposals this year.

All farmers are familiar with the Conservation Reserve Program, or CRP, which provides incentives for farmers to take environmentally sensitive land out of production for 10 to 15 years. But a lot of farmers have told me that they don't want to retire portions of their land for a decade or more. To address this, I am proposing a new program that would reduce operating costs by providing a modest rental payment and increasing crop insurance premium discounts.

The program I am proposing, the Soil Health and Income Protection Program, would provide a new, short-term option for farmers that would allow them to take their worst performing cropland out of production for 3 to 5 years, instead of the 10 to 15 years required by CRP rules. This program would result in improved soil health and reduced crop insurance costs, and it would provide beneficial areas for wildlife while also improving the bottom line for participating farms.

The other key proposal I have introduced would make a number of revisions and management improvements to the CRP program and other U.S. Department of Agriculture easement programs.

CRP plays a very significant role in South Dakota's economy, as it provides a major portion of the habitat for the Chinese ringneck pheasant, which brings more than $250 million each year to my State's rural areas, towns, and cities. Unfortunately, farmers have spent years frustrated by some of the ways the Department of Agriculture has managed this program.

We need to make sure that Federal farm programs don't discourage farmers and ranchers from participating, especially in times like these, when these programs are sorely needed to provide valuable safety net assistance and to help protect soil and water.

My conservation program legislation addresses major concerns that farmers have with CRP and other USDA conservation programs by allowing commonsense use and management of land enrolled in these programs, which improves these programs for farmers and at the same time saves taxpayers' money.

My legislation also expands the CRP acreage cap by 25 percent and uses historical acreage averages to make sure CRP will be available in States that have used it and that need it the most. Above all, the acres enrolled in CRP and other easement programs must be effectively used and managed to maximize their usefulness and effectiveness for land and water conservation and wildlife, and I will work to make that happen.

In addition, both of my legislative proposals contain provisions to provide additional support to young, beginning, and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, as well as to military veterans. We need to ensure that young and beginning farmers and ranchers and others have opportunities to succeed, especially now, when even seasoned farmers are struggling.

Along with trade agreements and the farm bill, there are other things we can do to help farmers and ranchers and small businesses. This year, we plan to take up major reform of our broken, bloated Tax Code. Making sure that we consider the needs of farmers and ranchers during this debate will be one of my priorities.

We can also help farmers and ranchers by removing burdensome government regulations that do little to help the environment but force farmers to spend untold hours and dollars on compliance.

One example of this kind of burdensome regulation is the so-called waters of the United States rule, something with which every farmer and rancher is familiar. This EPA regulation improperly used the Clean Water Act to justify expanding the EPA's regulatory authority to waters like small wetlands, creeks, stock ponds, and ditches. The rule specifically targeted the Prairie Pothole Region, which covers five States, including nearly all of eastern South Dakota. I am grateful that the President chose to protect farmers and ranchers by announcing a review of this rule in February of this year.

We could further support American farmers by removing yet another unnecessary regulatory hurdle, and that is the Reid vapor pressure regulation, which restricts the sale of E15 fuel during the summer driving season.

Providing a waiver for E15, as enjoyed by other fuels, is a bipartisan, no-cost way to roll back regulation and grant consumers real choice at the pumps, as well as to help our farmers.

Our Nation and the world depend on American farmers and ranchers. We need to make sure they can sustain their operations and continue to efficiently feed America and the world.

I look forward to continuing our work on tax, trade, regulatory, and farm bill policies that support farmers and ranchers in South Dakota and throughout our country.

When agriculture does well, I would argue, our national economy does well.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.