Floor Statements

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Madam President, I ask unamimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unamimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, before I begin, I just want to say that along with all of my colleagues, my thoughts and prayers are with Leader McConnell this morning, with his family, with his team.

Along with our colleagues, I look forward to his speedy return to the U.S. Senate.

Mr. President, later today, the President of the United States will release his budget. We haven't seen the details of it yet so I am not prepared. I will have more to say about that next week when I have an opportunity to drill down.

But I think what we do know about it--and I can predict this because it is pretty easy to predict that the President's budget will include a lot more spending, a lot more taxing and that after the last 2 years here where, through a budget reconciliation process, the President and the Democrats here in Congress passed almost another $3 trillion in spending and taxing and debt outside of the normal appropriations process at a time when revenue--last year's revenue--was at a 20-year high. In fact, the revenue coming to the Federal Government in the last fiscal year, as a percentage of our entire economy, was higher than it has been with three exceptions in history. One was in the late nineties at the end of the dot-com bubble and two times in World War II.

It is a record level of revenue as a percentage of GDP, and yet the President in his budget is going to propose a whole lot more spending and a whole lot more taxing and a whole lot more government--expanding, growing government.

That is what we expect his budget to do, and like I said, I will have more to say about that next week.

(The remarks of Mr. Thune pertaining to the introduction of S. 734 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be permitted to speak prior to the scheduled rollcall vote: Senator Lee for up to 5 minutes, Senator Cornyn for up to 15 minutes, and Senator Wyden for up to 5 minutes.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell) and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch).

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

Madam President, agriculture may well be among the world's oldest ways of life, but it has never been stagnant. Farmers and ranchers have always looked for new and better ways to increase crop yields, conserve resources, and keep their land and livestock healthy and productive. Today's agricultural producers explore new farming practices, grow more resilient crops, and adopt new technologies to produce more and to use less. And the resilience of our food supply and America's ability to feed our country and the world are in no small measure thanks to these farmer-driven advances.

As I said, farmers and ranchers are always looking for ways to improve their operations, but they can face challenges when they are looking for reliable data. While the U.S. Department of Agriculture collects a lot of data, little has been done to analyze and organize it so it is useful for farmers.

Right now, many producers have to rely on anecdotal information to determine the value of things, like conservation and other production practices, and decide what to adopt on their farms and ranches. Better data would make it easier for farmers to decide what practices are the best option for them.

A recent study of Department of Agriculture data from farms in several States confirmed anecdotal reports about certain conservation practices. It demonstrated that farmers who use these practices were more likely to be able to plant during an exceptionally wet spring. That is the kind of information farmers need to make informed decisions about their operations. We need to see more of this kind of analysis.

That is why, earlier this year, I introduced my bipartisan Agriculture Innovation Act with Senator Klobuchar. Our bill would make it easier for producers to use USDA data to assess the impact of various conservation and production practices so that producers can choose the right practices for their farm and ranch operations. I will work to get the Agriculture Innovation Act included in this year's farm bill.

While the macrolevel data that USDA collects can provide valuable information, farmers are already beginning to look to the next frontier, collecting real-time microlevel data from their own fields.

Imagine what a farmer could do with real-time information about soil quality, water uptake, and plant health. Imagine quickly knowing whether you need more nitrogen or less water in a section of your field. Imagine having real-time data about your land or livestock at your fingertips. This is the promise of precision agriculture: harnessing the power of technology to help producers manage their operations with real-time data.

GPS can allow farmers to identify field characteristics, map out irrigation, and optimize crop production on their fields. Soil monitors can allow farmers to react to conditions as they change and apply fertilizers more precisely. And remote monitoring can help farmers keep tabs on everything from resource usage to livestock health and feed consumption.

This precision agriculture represents a significant leap forward in farmers' long advance toward producing more and using less. It presents an opportunity to increase profitability by cutting down on inputs, the prices of which have spiked amid our inflation crisis. And it is a step toward broader use of conservation practices that will keep farm land in productive use for years to come.

But for Americans to reap all of the benefits of precision agriculture, more work needs to be done.

Today, I am introducing the bipartisan Promoting Precision Agriculture Act with Senator Warnock to help facilitate widespread adoption of precision technology. My bill would establish a partnership between government and the private sector to develop voluntary interconnectivity standards and prioritize cyber security for precision agriculture technologies. These standards will help enhance agriculture update and ensure reliability, usability, and security for producers and their data. It is an important element of ensuring these new technologies deliver the advances they promise and of making sure farmers and ranchers can trust that they are worthwhile investments.

But as farmers look to precision agriculture future, the one thing that could still hold them back is the continued digital divide. Without a reliable internet connection, precision agriculture just doesn't work. Next-generation precision ag technologies will need stronger connectivity.

Connecting unserved areas to reliable broadband has long been a priority of mine, and we made a good deal of progress through Federal investments and policies like my MOBILE NOW Act that removed regulatory barriers to broadband expansion.

But we still have a lot of work to do.

This year, I reintroduced my Rural Internet Improvement Act to streamline USDA's broadband authorities and ensure broadband funding goes to areas where at least 90 percent of households lack broadband access.

We also need to ensure broadband investments we have already made are actually going to their intended goal, and that is expanding broadband access to areas that are currently lacking it.

In the last 3 years, the Federal Government has allocated $79 billion to broadband programs. But all the money in the world is useless if it is not being spent properly, which is why I launched a broadband oversight initiative in December to ensure this funding is going toward delivering broadband to the Americans who need it most.

It has been clear for a long time how critical an internet connection is to the future of everything from education and healthcare to business and everyday life. Connectivity has the potential to truly revolutionize how we grow food in America.

I am proud that South Dakota has been a leader in precision agriculture. South Dakota State University was the first in the country to offer a 4-year precision agriculture degree. In 2021, the university opened the Raven Precision Agriculture Center where the next generation of farmers will work to advance the next generation of farming.

Since opening its precision ag center, SDSU has also launched a precision ag and cyber program with Dakota State University, a leading cyber security institution.

As I have said numerous times, agriculture is the lifeblood of South Dakota. And anything we can do to make agriculture more efficient and more productive is not only good for our Nation's food supply, it is good for South Dakota farmers and their families.

Precision agriculture is one of those things. It has the potential to deliver the same kind of advance that crop rotation, the Farmer's Almanac, and crop engineering delivered for farming. It can make farming more efficient, more cost-effective, and environmentally friendly than it already is. And it can help our farms produce more food for more people with fewer resources and on less land.

I will be working hard to ensure South Dakota farmers and ranchers and farmers and ranchers around the country have the resources they need to innovate and that this year's farm bill advances the next generation of farming.

A farmer is a lot of things: a scientist and a laborer, an innovator and accountant, an engineer and a conservationist. I am proud to serve the extraordinary men and women who keep our rich agricultural heritage alive and thriving. And I will continue working to help them as they move it into the future.

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

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

Madam President, agriculture may well be among the world's oldest ways of life, but it has never been stagnant. Farmers and ranchers have always looked for new and better ways to increase crop yields, conserve resources, and keep their land and livestock healthy and productive. Today's agricultural producers explore new farming practices, grow more resilient crops, and adopt new technologies to produce more and to use less. And the resilience of our food supply and America's ability to feed our country and the world are in no small measure thanks to these farmer-driven advances.

As I said, farmers and ranchers are always looking for ways to improve their operations, but they can face challenges when they are looking for reliable data. While the U.S. Department of Agriculture collects a lot of data, little has been done to analyze and organize it so it is useful for farmers.

Right now, many producers have to rely on anecdotal information to determine the value of things, like conservation and other production practices, and decide what to adopt on their farms and ranches. Better data would make it easier for farmers to decide what practices are the best option for them.

A recent study of Department of Agriculture data from farms in several States confirmed anecdotal reports about certain conservation practices. It demonstrated that farmers who use these practices were more likely to be able to plant during an exceptionally wet spring. That is the kind of information farmers need to make informed decisions about their operations. We need to see more of this kind of analysis.

That is why, earlier this year, I introduced my bipartisan Agriculture Innovation Act with Senator Klobuchar. Our bill would make it easier for producers to use USDA data to assess the impact of various conservation and production practices so that producers can choose the right practices for their farm and ranch operations. I will work to get the Agriculture Innovation Act included in this year's farm bill.

While the macrolevel data that USDA collects can provide valuable information, farmers are already beginning to look to the next frontier, collecting real-time microlevel data from their own fields.

Imagine what a farmer could do with real-time information about soil quality, water uptake, and plant health. Imagine quickly knowing whether you need more nitrogen or less water in a section of your field. Imagine having real-time data about your land or livestock at your fingertips. This is the promise of precision agriculture: harnessing the power of technology to help producers manage their operations with real-time data.

GPS can allow farmers to identify field characteristics, map out irrigation, and optimize crop production on their fields. Soil monitors can allow farmers to react to conditions as they change and apply fertilizers more precisely. And remote monitoring can help farmers keep tabs on everything from resource usage to livestock health and feed consumption.

This precision agriculture represents a significant leap forward in farmers' long advance toward producing more and using less. It presents an opportunity to increase profitability by cutting down on inputs, the prices of which have spiked amid our inflation crisis. And it is a step toward broader use of conservation practices that will keep farm land in productive use for years to come.

But for Americans to reap all of the benefits of precision agriculture, more work needs to be done.

Today, I am introducing the bipartisan Promoting Precision Agriculture Act with Senator Warnock to help facilitate widespread adoption of precision technology. My bill would establish a partnership between government and the private sector to develop voluntary interconnectivity standards and prioritize cyber security for precision agriculture technologies. These standards will help enhance agriculture update and ensure reliability, usability, and security for producers and their data. It is an important element of ensuring these new technologies deliver the advances they promise and of making sure farmers and ranchers can trust that they are worthwhile investments.

But as farmers look to precision agriculture future, the one thing that could still hold them back is the continued digital divide. Without a reliable internet connection, precision agriculture just doesn't work. Next-generation precision ag technologies will need stronger connectivity.

Connecting unserved areas to reliable broadband has long been a priority of mine, and we made a good deal of progress through Federal investments and policies like my MOBILE NOW Act that removed regulatory barriers to broadband expansion.

But we still have a lot of work to do.

This year, I reintroduced my Rural Internet Improvement Act to streamline USDA's broadband authorities and ensure broadband funding goes to areas where at least 90 percent of households lack broadband access.

We also need to ensure broadband investments we have already made are actually going to their intended goal, and that is expanding broadband access to areas that are currently lacking it.

In the last 3 years, the Federal Government has allocated $79 billion to broadband programs. But all the money in the world is useless if it is not being spent properly, which is why I launched a broadband oversight initiative in December to ensure this funding is going toward delivering broadband to the Americans who need it most.

It has been clear for a long time how critical an internet connection is to the future of everything from education and healthcare to business and everyday life. Connectivity has the potential to truly revolutionize how we grow food in America.

I am proud that South Dakota has been a leader in precision agriculture. South Dakota State University was the first in the country to offer a 4-year precision agriculture degree. In 2021, the university opened the Raven Precision Agriculture Center where the next generation of farmers will work to advance the next generation of farming.

Since opening its precision ag center, SDSU has also launched a precision ag and cyber program with Dakota State University, a leading cyber security institution.

As I have said numerous times, agriculture is the lifeblood of South Dakota. And anything we can do to make agriculture more efficient and more productive is not only good for our Nation's food supply, it is good for South Dakota farmers and their families.

Precision agriculture is one of those things. It has the potential to deliver the same kind of advance that crop rotation, the Farmer's Almanac, and crop engineering delivered for farming. It can make farming more efficient, more cost-effective, and environmentally friendly than it already is. And it can help our farms produce more food for more people with fewer resources and on less land.

I will be working hard to ensure South Dakota farmers and ranchers and farmers and ranchers around the country have the resources they need to innovate and that this year's farm bill advances the next generation of farming.

A farmer is a lot of things: a scientist and a laborer, an innovator and accountant, an engineer and a conservationist. I am proud to serve the extraordinary men and women who keep our rich agricultural heritage alive and thriving. And I will continue working to help them as they move it into the future.

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

Madam President, I, too, want to acknowledge the great work of the Senator from Tennessee, Senator Hagerty, on this matter on which we will be voting later this afternoon. It has to do with the issue of DC crime.

I think he has touched a nerve in a way that I think is going to lead to a very big bipartisan outcome on this because it is a recognition that the issue he addresses with this resolution is one that the American people, I think, feel deeply about; one that is affecting our cities, both large and small, across this country; and one on which I think this United States Senate needs to be heard.

The last weekend in February, eight men were fatally shot in Washington, DC--eight men in a single weekend. It was a tragic illustration of the current crime situation in our Nation's Capital. Homicides in Washington, DC, which had already reached disturbing heights in 2021 and 2022, are up 33 percent so far this year compared to this point a year ago. We are just 67 days into 2023, but so far this year, there have been 101 carjackings--that is a motor vehicle theft where the victim is actually present--66 percent of those involving guns. There have been a staggering 1,258 motor vehicle thefts to date this year--1,258. That is an average of roughly 19 motor vehicle thefts every single day--19 thefts every day.

In the face of the crime surge DC has been experiencing for a while now, the DC City Council recently decided to pass legislation weakening penalties for a number of crimes. The bill the council passed late last year would reduce the maximum penalty for crimes like carjacking, robbery, and firearm offenses; remove mandatory minimum sentences for all crimes except first-degree murder; clog up the court system by substantially expanding access to trial by jury to individuals charged with misdemeanors; and more.

Later today, we will be taking up legislation here in the U.S. Senate to block the bill. Congress, of course, has the legal authority to block DC ordinances thanks to Federal legislation rooted in the Constitution which gives Congress legislative jurisdiction over the seat of the U.S. Government--namely, Washington, DC.

It looks like today's vote will receive strong support from both parties. That certainly was not looking like it would have been the case a week ago. Last month, the Biden administration issued a statement opposing the move to block DC's crime bill. When the House took up the measure, 82 percent of House Democrats voted against blocking the DC bill. But last week, the President changed his tune. He announced that he would not veto the attempt to block the DC bill. Since then, Senate Democrats have been lining up to announce they will vote to block DC's measure.

I am pleased Democrats have recognized that weakening criminal penalties is not the way to address DC's crime surge. Blocking DC's crime bill will be a victory for common sense and for the people of DC, who deserve a safe city in which to live.

While I am pleased at the expected outcome of today's vote, I remain deeply concerned about how we got here in the first place. How have we gotten to the point where some people think that an appropriate response to a surge in crime is to weaken criminal penalties, to a point where ideology has overtaken common sense, to the detriment of public safety? Part of the answer lies in the deeply troubling surge in anti-law enforcement rhetoric over the past few years and the accommodation of it by members of the Democratic Party.

There has been talk of defunding our most essential public servants-- the police; characterization of our justice system as fundamentally unjust; an attitude that the answer to crime is not to try to stop it from taking place but to stop punishing criminals. The Democratic Party has been deeply complicit in this. One leading Democrat Senator and Democrat Presidential candidate had this to say a few years ago:

Let's just start with the hard truth about our criminal

justice system. It's racist. It is. And when I say our

system, I mean all the way. I mean front to back.

That from a leading Democrat Senator and Democrat Presidential candidate.

She is not the only prominent Democrat who has spoken that way. Many other Democrats, of course, have not been that explicit, but they have tried to have it both ways--attempting to say they support the police on one hand, while also accommodating the radical elements of their party who want to tear down our justice system and demonize not just a few bad police officers but a whole community of public servants who put their lives on the line for us every single day.

President Biden is a striking example of this. As his about-face on the DC crime bill makes clear, he is eager to portray himself as a supporter of law and order, especially, I assume, given that polling has made it clear Americans are deeply concerned about crime. But at the same time that he is trying to portray himself as anti-crime, he is nominating individuals to serve in his administration who have engaged in anti-police rhetoric.

The President can't have it both ways, and his attempt and Democrats' attempt to do so has helped a troubling anti-law enforcement, anti- justice system narrative to gain hold in our communities.

One thing I always think about when I hear anti-law enforcement rhetoric is how little attention is paid to the victim. People speak negatively about criminal penalties or overpolicing, but they don't talk about the victims of violent crimes and what it is like to live in a place where you literally fear for your safety.

As DC's Mayor recently said:

We have to think about victims of crime as much as we think

about perpetrators.

I would argue, more than we think about perpetrators.

But, too often, the focus of discussions is almost entirely on perpetrators, with little attention paid to the victims of crime or the consequences of tolerating criminal activity.

As the DC police chief recently said of DC's bill:

Where's the victim in all of this? Who does this actually

help? Is the victim being helped or is it the person who

victimizes? I don't think victims win in that space. And

again, that is a nonstarter for me.

That from the DC police chief, speaking of the very bill we are going to block today.

Bills like the DC City Council's bill should be a nonstarter for everyone. Democratic politicians need to stop accommodating the common ideology that thinks reducing criminal penalties is an appropriate response to crime.

I am thankful, as I said, for the Senator from Tennessee's leadership and that later today we are going to vote to block legislation that would endanger DC residents and visitors to our Nation's Capital. I hope--I sincerely hope--this bill will mark a return to common sense as we work to battle crime in DC and around the country.

I yield the floor.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch).

Mr. President, at the end of last week, I joined several of my Republican colleagues to travel down to our southern border. It was my second visit to the border during the Biden administration--my third overall. My first during the Biden administration was almost exactly 2 years ago, after border numbers started to soar in the wake of the President taking office.

I would have to say unfortunately little has changed since my list visit. Thanks to the fact that President Biden spent the first 2 years of his Presidency refusing to even acknowledge this crisis, much less actually address it, we are still facing a disastrous situation at our southern border.

I talked to Border Patrol agents who have spent 2 years dealing with recordbreaking numbers of illegal immigrants and are still looking for support from the Biden administration that never seems to come. Again and again, Border Patrol agents told me that not only do they not feel supported by the Biden administration, but they feel like the Biden administration has actually impeded their ability to do their jobs. ``Just let us enforce the law,'' one agent told me. It is something that was echoed by other law enforcement officers that we spoke to. To give you just

one example, we heard from the individual in charge of the border for the State of Texas, who told us that they have a number of panels for the congressionally mandated border wall that are ready to go into the ground. The State of Texas and law enforcement personnel would like to install these panels to help them stem the flood of illegal immigration--at their own expense, an expense of the State of Texas. But the Biden administration has, so far, refused to grant the permissions needed to do that. I can only imagine how much harder the jobs will get when the Biden administration ends title 42 border policies, coming up on May 11.

I was also stunned to learn that President Biden's supposed border czar, Vice President Harris, has never spoken to the border czar for the State of Texas or to the leadership of the Border Patrol down there. That is right. The person who is supposedly in charge of addressing the chaos at our southern border has never spoken to the individual in charge of border issues for the State that makes up the greatest portion of our southern border or to the Border Patrol leadership in the State.

Mr. President, from his campaign on, President Biden was fixated on distancing himself from the immigration policies of his predecessor and satisfying the open borders caucus that makes up a huge part of today's Democratic Party, so much so that, in his first week in office or so, he repealed somewhere on the order of 94--94--executive policies of the previous administration with respect to the border. The moment he took office, he set about dismantling those policies of the previous administration without apparently taking even a minute to think about what effect his actions would have.

Well, we know now what effect they had. President Biden's actions declared to the world that the United States' borders were effectively open, and we have seen 2 years of recordbreaking illegal immigration as a result.

In January, President Biden finally--and I say ``finally''--began to take some steps to address the crisis at our southern border, including reestablishing versions of some of the border security policies he did away with on taking office. Predictably, even the mild steps he has taken have garnered criticism from open borders Democrats who, apparently, think that border security and border enforcement are somehow uncompassionate.

Well, Mr. President, do you know what is uncompassionate? The kind of lax border policies we have had over the past 2 years that have encouraged individuals to attempt to illegally cross our border; that have encouraged individuals to pay huge sums to dangerous individuals, to cartels, and smugglers for illegal passage; that have exposed unaccompanied children to the hazards of extreme weather and criminal activity or exploitation by sponsors once they arrive in this country.

At least 853 people died attempting to cross our southern border illegally in fiscal year 2022--the highest number ever recorded. That is a lot of lives lost. There is nothing compassionate about the policies that encourage them to attempt the crossing.

I think many people think of those attempting to illegally cross our border as economically disadvantaged individuals from Mexico or Central America. But the truth is that U.S. Customs and Border Protection apprehends individuals at our southern border from all over the world, some from hostile countries. One law enforcement official I spoke with said that the number of Chinese nationals attempting to cross illegally in the Rio Grand Valley Sector has increased by 488 percent year over year--488 percent. Now, I have no doubt that some of those were individuals merely hoping to relocate from communist China to a land of freedom. But it is equally possible that some were hostile agents of the Chinese Government, and that is a serious security concern.

In fiscal year 2022, Customs and Border Protection apprehended 98 individuals on the terrorist watch list attempting to cross our southern border. That is an average of one approximately every 3 or 4 days. And that is just the individuals Customs and Border Protection managed to apprehend. There have been at least 1.2 million known ``got- aways,'' which are individuals the Border Patrol saw but was unable to apprehend, since President Biden took over. Now, that is in addition to the almost 4.7 million--4.7 million--people whom they actually did apprehend trying to come across our southern border since President Biden took office.

It is more than possible that terrorists or agents of hostile powers have been able to make their way into our country undetected while our Border Patrol agents have been struggling to deal with the recordbreaking number of individuals coming across the border illegally. The chaos that we have been experiencing at our southern border is an invitation to dangerous individuals, from terrorists to drug cartels.

Our Nation is currently in the midst of a fentanyl crisis, which is largely being fueled by fentanyl trafficked across our southern border. And I would be very surprised if the flow of fentanyl into this country isn't being facilitated by the chaos at our border.

Our current fentanyl crisis is also a good reminder that illegal activity at our southern border affects every State in our country. I have talked to sheriffs in South Dakota--about as far from our southern border as you can get--who are dealing with fentanyl that has been trafficked across the border from Mexico. Last year, Minnehaha County Sheriff Mike Milstead estimated that 90 percent--90 percent--of fentanyl and methamphetamine in our State--the State of South Dakota-- comes through Mexico and across our southern border--90 percent.

Every State is a border State, and recordbreaking floods of illegal immigration at our southern border aren't just a problem for actual border States, like Texas and Arizona. They are a problem for every State in our country.

For 2 years, the Biden administration has been missing in action at our southern border. While I am glad that President Biden is finally, at least halfheartedly, acknowledging that we are facing a border crisis, I want to see him follow through on actually enforcing our laws and doing what the Border Patrol agents are simply asking: Enforce our laws.

He has all the authority he needs to secure or border, and he owes the American people nothing less.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso).