Floor Statements

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

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis) and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

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Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, 2023 will be a big year on the agriculture front as we work to draft the next farm bill.

Farm bills are always a major priority for me given the essential place agriculture holds in South Dakota, and I have been gearing up now for the 2023 farm bill since last year when I began holding a series of roundtables with agriculture producers to hear firsthand what farmers' and ranchers' priorities are right now and what they need from the 2023 farm bill.

I introduced multiple bills last Congress that I hope to get included in this year's legislation, including bills to strengthen and improve the Conservation Reserve Program, and address the needs of South Dakota livestock producers--and of producers around the country.

Livestock production has long been an integral part of South Dakota's agriculture heritage, including cattle ranching in our West River communities; and one of my priorities for this year's farm bill is to address some of the challenges facing South Dakota's livestock producers in getting their products to Americans' tables.

The last few years have revealed vulnerabilities in our food supply chain that have had an outsized impact on livestock producers. Early in the pandemic, some meat processing plants were temporarily closed, and these closures led to bottlenecks in processing and delays to process livestock. The results were supply shortages and empty cases at the grocery stores--shortages that weren't caused by a shortage of livestock but by a lack of processing capacity to get meat ready for sale.

Between processing bottlenecks and meatpacker concentration, it has become clear that livestock producers need more processing options. One way we can reduce producers' dependence on the big packers is to expand smaller meatpackers' processing capacity. That is why I am currently working to reintroduce my Strengthening Local Processing Act.

My bill would help small processors invest in the infrastructure necessary to expand their capacity as well as direct Federal dollars to education and training programs that will bolster the industry's workforce and build the next generation of meat processors and butchers.

My bill would also allow more State-inspected meat products to be sold across State lines, which would open up new markets for small meat processors and the farmers and ranchers who supply them.

If there is one thing that can be said for sure about South Dakotans, it is that we take our beef seriously. With almost 14,000 beef operations and 3.8 million head of cattle in our State, it is safe to say cattle production is alive and well in South Dakota and helping to fill dinner plates all across America.

And something I consistently hear from folks around the State is that we need to reform our beef labeling system. South Dakotans, like many Americans, simply want to know where their food--and their beef, in particular--is coming from. And that can be pretty hard to do under our current system. Under our current system, beef that is neither born nor raised in the United States but is simply finished here can be labeled ``Product of the U.S.A.,'' even if the only American thing about the beef is the plastic it is wrapped in--if that.

This is unfair to American cattle producers, and it is misleading to consumers. Congress has repeatedly tried to address this issue in the past. The 2002 and 2008 farm bills included mandatory country-of-origin labeling for beef, but the World Trade Organization ruled against the United States, and Congress ultimately repealed this requirement, which I opposed.

But that doesn't mean we should give up on transparency and labeling. That is why this week I reintroduced my bipartisan American Beef Labeling Act to require the U.S. Trade Representative to develop a World Trade Organization-compliant means of reinstating mandatory country-of-origin labeling for beef.

When you see a label on your beef, you should be able to trust that it means what it says. And I plan to get my American Beef Labeling Act included in the 2023 farm bill so that consumers can be confident that any beef labeled ``Product of the U.S.A.'' really came from American cattle producers.

Whether it is a farm bill year or not, South Dakota farmers and ranchers are always at the top of my mind here in the Senate. As a longtime Member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I am fortunate to have a platform that

allows me to address the needs of South Dakota ag producers. And I am looking forward to working with my colleagues on the Ag Committee and in the Senate as a whole to deliver a farm bill that addresses the challenges facing South Dakota farmers and ranchers and farmers and ranchers around the country.

Agriculture is a tough industry. It is backbreaking work in all weather, living with the constant risk that a storm or a drought or an early freeze can wipe out herds or crops--sometimes in an instant. Then add market fluctuations, processing, transportation challenges, and our current inflation crisis--it is not an easy life.

But despite its many challenges, it is a proud tradition. And through it all, our Nation's farmers and ranchers persevere. I am proud to represent South Dakota's farmers and ranchers here in the U.S. Senate. I will do everything I can to ensure that this year's farm bill meets their needs and does everything it can to make their life a little easier so that they can continue to feed our Nation and the world.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance) would have voted ``yea.''

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

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

Mr. President, the new Congress is a chance for a fresh start, and we need a fresh start. We cannot afford a repeat of the past 2 years.

Despite the fact that Democrats controlled Congress by the slimmest of margins in the last Congress, Democrats acted as if they had a mandate for radical, far-left change.

Democrats shoved through multiple partisan spending sprees, including the so-called American Rescue Plan Act which kicked off our current inflation crisis. And what they got through was mild compared to what they wanted to push through--from a Federal takeover of elections to some of the most extreme abortion legislation in the world. Fortunately, some of the Democrats' most radical proposals didn't ultimately make it through Congress, but not for a lack of trying on Democrats' part.

Despite the fact that they had nothing more than a technical majority, Democrats did their best to eliminate a voice for the minority party in the Senate by attacking the Senate filibuster rule. Some contemplated packing the Supreme Court to secure judicial support for Democrat policy priorities. And Democrats' rhetoric was often as extreme and divisive as their policies, with the standout example being an address the President gave a year ago this month in which he suggested that half the country was racist.

Mr. President, we have had another election, and the American people rejected one-party rule by electing a Republican House of Representatives. They have created a situation in which both parties will have to work together to get anything done.

I hope this will mark a new less partisan moment here in Congress. I hope we can move on from the past 2 years and start afresh to work together to address the challenges facing our country, because there is a lot that we can do together.

Despite the partisanship of the Democrat agenda over the last 2 years, there were still moments that reminded us that there are many areas where we can agree or are close enough to work together.

I introduced a number of bipartisan bills in the last Congress, and I am looking forward to working with colleagues of both parties on a number of issues in the new Congress.

One major piece of legislation we take up every few years is the farm bill, which has a strong bipartisan history. During my time in the Senate, I have introduced farm bill legislation with both Democratic and Republican

colleagues, and I think that working together, we can produce a bill this year that will meet the needs of our Nation's farmers and ranchers and strengthen U.S. agriculture production.

Another obvious area for bipartisan cooperation is the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization that is coming due this year, and none too soon, as recent air travel fiascos have made clear. Our last FAA reauthorization bill was a strongly bipartisan piece of legislation, and this year's bill should be the same.

Another area where I think there is a lot of room for bipartisan cooperation is promoting transparency and accountability in Big Tech.

President Biden recently published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal calling for, among other things, section 230 reform. I already have bipartisan legislation with Senator Schatz to reform section 230 and increase transparency and due process for users around content moderation actions taken by Big Tech platforms, and I will work to advance that legislation in this Congress.

I also think there is a lot we can do on a bipartisan basis to advance trade agreements to expand markets for American products and services around the world. The Biden administration has been slow to take action on trade, and I think there is a real interest from Members of Congress of both parties to accelerate our trade efforts and create new market access opportunities for American workers and producers.

I would also like to think we can agree on the need to conduct serious oversight of government spending to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being used efficiently and effectively. Democrats forced through trillions of dollars in new spending during the last Congress, and conducting oversight of how that money is being spent is nothing less than our responsibility as Members of Congress. I am thinking in particular of the massive funding infusion--$80 billion the Democrats handed to the IRS. Especially given the IRS' shaky record when it comes to handling taxpayer data, I would hope we can agree that rigorous oversight of the IRS is required.

I also hope that my Democrat colleagues will be open to working to extend tax relief for American businesses and American families. Americans and small businesses are going to face serious tax hikes if the tax relief from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act isn't extended or made permanent. I would like to think that Members of both parties could work together to extend this tax relief and the benefits it provides for Americans.

Another thing that I am hoping will happen in this Congress is a return to regular order when it comes to appropriations bills and other legislation. Omnibus appropriations bills are not an ideal way to fund the government, to put it mildly. They are an invitation for waste and all the other problems that come with hastily thrown together legislation, and we need to do everything we can to make sure individual appropriations bills go through the committee process and are individually debated on the floor.

I am very encouraged that the incoming Democrat chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee has joined Senator Collins, who will be the top-ranking Republican on the committee, to announce her desire to pass appropriations bills through regular order. I really hope that that will be a bipartisan priority this year.

For similar reasons, we need to put a greater emphasis on making sure nonappropriations bills--especially the biggest bills that we consider--go through regular order in committee, where they could be publicly debated and amended and receive input from all committee members.

I hope that we can move forward a more collaborative and transparent process, which is the kind of process that best serves the American people.

Getting anything done in divided government requires a genuine attitude of compromise, with both sides conceding things, rather than the ``my way or the highway'' approach that we have seen from Democrats over the past 2 years. But if we can get there, then I think we can achieve a lot together in this new Congress.

I am eager to work with my colleagues from both parties to address the challenges facing our country. And for the good of the American people, I hope we will build a record of bipartisan accomplishment over the next 2 years.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. President, on Friday, as they have done for decades, Americans from around the country--many of them young people--took to the streets of Washington, DC, to march for life. This year, of course, was a little different because for the first time since the march began nearly 50 years ago, pro-lifers marched in a post-Roe America.

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and recognized that the Constitution does not contain a right to abortion, that our founding document does not confer a right to deprive one group of citizens of their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness simply because they are small and defenseless. The Supreme Court's decision marked the righting of a constitutional wrong, and it opened up the chance to right a great moral wrong: the legalized killing of unborn Americans.

The Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade does not, of course, make abortion illegal, but it does allow State governments and the Federal Government to finally begin to establish meaningful protections for unborn children.

The Dobbs decision marked a major victory for the pro-life movement and for the babies whose lives are in jeopardy from abortion, but the Dobbs decision does not mark an end to the pro-life movement or the March for Life but a new beginning.

The legal fight turns from the courts to Congress and State legislatures--in other words, to the democratic process, where this issue belongs and has always belonged--and the work to change hearts and minds to support moms and babies continues.

The Dobbs decision may have opened the door to meaningful legal protections for unborn Americans, but abortion extremists, who unfortunately count the majority of the Democratic Party among their ranks, are doing everything they can to stand in the way

of these protections. To give just one example of how far the abortion- on-demand caucus has taken things, 2 weeks ago, the House of Representatives took up legislation to ensure that babies who survive abortions and are born alive are guaranteed medical care. Almost every single Democrat in the House of Representatives voted against the legislation. That is 210 men and women who apparently think that living babies who have already been born--already been born--can legitimately be left to die or, I suppose, be killed outright by the abortionist. That is a horrifying position.

There is much work to be done to get to a day when a country that is supposed to be dedicated to the protection of life and liberty actually guarantees the right to life of all Americans, including the most vulnerable and most innocent Americans--our unborn children.

So the March for Life today is more important than ever. The march, of course, is just one small facet of the pro-life movement, which works every day in every State around the country to help provide help and hope to moms in need, but it is nevertheless a vitally important facet because the March for Life provides a public witness to the humanity of the unborn child and to the great injustice that is happening behind closed doors. Abortion happens away from public view, so it can be all too easy to forget that every year in this country, hundreds of thousands of babies are being killed by abortion.

The Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion research organization, reported that there were more than 900,000 abortions in 2020--900,000. To put that number in perspective, 900,000 is roughly equivalent to the entire population of the State of South Dakota--the entire population of South Dakota. That is a lot of lives lost, a lot of love lost. Our society is a poorer place without those babies, and the March for Life reminds us of that. It reminds us that every day, thousands of babies lose their lives to abortion. It reminds us of our responsibility to confront this injustice and to work for a day when every child enjoys the right to life and the full protection of the laws.

I am profoundly grateful for all those who spent last Friday marching for life, and for all the men and women and young people in the pro- life movement who work every day around this country to help mothers and their babies and secure legal protections for unborn Americans. I know there are many days when it feels like an uphill battle, but you are all on the right side of history. And I am confident that in the end, life will prevail.

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says:

See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I

tell you that their angels in Heaven always see the face of

my Father.

And, again:

Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them,

for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.

There is no greater work than standing up for these defenseless little ones. I pray that God will bless the efforts of all those marching for life and one day soon, every child, born and unborn, will enjoy the full protection of our laws.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch).

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