John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, last week, we learned that global meat processing company JBS, one of the four meatpacking companies responsible for more than 80 percent of beef processing operations, had suffered a ransomeware attack. The attack temporarily shuttered the company's U.S. beef plants, threatening the beef supply and leaving ranchers wondering once again whether they would be able to sell their cattle. The JBS attack highlights two important issues. The first is cyber security. The rise of ransomeware attacks on critical industries and infrastructure represents a serious threat. Less than a month before the ransomeware attack on meatpacking, ransomeware criminals hacked the Colonial Pipeline, which supplies gasoline and jet fuel to the east coast. The Colonial attack caused fuel shortages and drove up gas prices, with many consumers facing gas station lines that hearkened back to the oil crisis of the 1970s. In today's society, where almost everything we do has a cyber component, ransomeware and other malicious cyber attacks carry the potential to seriously disrupt our way of life. Cyber security needs to be one of our top priorities. Private companies need to invest in cyber security, to keep their systems and customer data secure, and the Federal Government has to invest in it as a matter of national security. We can't afford to let hostile individuals or hostile governments hack key government databases or functions. I was proud to be a lead sponsor of the HACKED Act, which became law as part of the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act. This legislation focuses on enhancing both public and private cyber security development. It bolsters science education and cyber security programs at multiple government Agencies, and enhances partnerships between universities and employers on cyber security workforce needs. We need to continue to make cyber security training a priority. We also need to send a clear message to governments that harbor cyber attackers. It is obvious that Russia remains a haven for cyber criminals. Both the Colonial Pipeline and JBS attacks were the work of Russia-linked hackers, and we need to make it clear to Russia and other countries that we have no tolerance for the harboring of cyber criminals.

Mr. THUNE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, let me begin by saying that I am grateful to Senators Klobuchar, Blunt, Peters, and Portman and the two Senate committees that they lead for their bipartisan investigation into the events of January 6, and for producing a detailed report in a short amount of time. The report makes clear that there is more work ahead for the committees. More importantly, it also highlights the immense bravery of the men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police who defended the Capitol Complex on January 6. In the coming days, after a thorough review of the 100-page report, I will discuss its recommendations with my colleagues and work to institute reforms that will make a meaningful change to better protect the U.S. Capitol

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Thune). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr).

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, imagine a farmer in rural South Dakota who can no longer drive to get to town for appointments, prescriptions, or groceries--enter the automated vehicle. This technology has potential to keep people in their homes and communities longer. Moreover, AVs have potential to greatly increase roadway safety. Currently, there are an average of more than 35,000 traffic fatalities on our Nation's roadways each year, including pedestrian, motorcycle, and bicycle fatalities. Automated vehicles could dramatically-- dramatically--reduce that number. Distracted driving, driving while impaired--automated vehicles could eliminate those dangers. For automated vehicle technology to advance, it is imperative that the regulatory framework catch up with private-sector innovation. That is why I have pushed for the enactment of AV legislation over the years and why I had hoped--I had hoped--that we would be voting to add my automated vehicles amendment to the legislation before the Senate today. I have spent nearly 5 years--5 years--working in a bipartisan manner on a legislative framework to govern the testing and deployment of automated vehicles. The amendment I offered to the bill before us today is an amendment that I had hoped to be able to offer with bipartisan support. It would have paved the way for expanded testing and deployment of automated vehicles in the United States under the oversight of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. And let me emphasize that oversight point. My amendment would ensure that automated vehicles would not--not--touch pavement without the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's certification that they are at least as safe as a conventional vehicle. The data gathered from the vehicles deployed as a result of this amendment would be crucial to the development of future motor vehicle safety standards for AVs. Unfortunately, bipartisan agreement on my amendment collapsed when special interests expressed their opposition, despite major efforts to accommodate their concerns. And I am deeply disappointed that, once again, Democrats yielded to pressure from special interests against the best interests of our economy and the American people. Advancing AV technology is not just a vehicle safety issue. It is also an issue of U.S. leadership and global competitiveness. Investing in the production of AV technology here in the United States would not only strengthen the resilience of the auto industry but also the Nation's industrial base and our national security. The auto industry touches nearly every American State. For example, Horton in Britton, SD, manufactures engine cooling systems, providing steady, good paying jobs for that community and strengthening the local economy. The same story repeats itself countless times in communities all across the Nation. Providing millions of jobs and investing billions annually, the American auto industry is a critical component of the nation's economy. Right now, U.S. companies lead the world in AV technology, but other nations, like China, are seizing upon regulatory inaction and striving to take the lead. If we don't move forward with automated vehicle technology, we will soon see some other nation leading the AV revolution. The legislative package before us today is designed to bolster the global competitiveness of the United States. It is pretty difficult to understand why this reasonable and, I might add, no cost AV amendment that would lead to untold benefits for our Nation's transportation system, does not fit in. How can a bill making strong investments in artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and advanced manufacturing exclude a legislative framework for AVs? Are we really going to back down from leading the world in automated innovation and technology and cede the future of this industry to nations like China? Will we really ignore the enormous--enormous-- safety benefits of these vehicles just to suit Democrats' political convenience? More than a century ago, when the automobile was invented, there were plenty of skeptics, but America's automobile pioneers did not let that stop them. They seized the moment and pressed forward and ushered in a transportation revolution. We can do that again today or we can cede this moment to nations like China and let the American automobile industry fall permanently behind. That is the choice in front of us. I hope we will choose to seize this moment and pass the legislation we need to usher in another American transportation revolution. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt). (Mr. KING assumed the Chair.) (Mr. VAN HOLLEN assumed the Chair.)

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, from the beginning, the story of the U.S. auto industry has been one of ingenuity, of taking risks, and of pushing forward. At the dawn of the 20th century, most Americans could hardly comprehend the idea of the automobile. Yet, 20 years later, they had become nearly ubiquitous in American life, thanks to the insistence of entrepreneurs like Henry Ford on making the automobile affordable for the majority of Americans. The democratization of the automobile, rather than the invention of the automobile itself, is, in my opinion, one of most remarkable and uniquely American success stories. Automobiles allowed Americans to capitalize on the economic dynamism of the roaring twenties and helped Americans move and adapt during the Great Depression. They contributed greatly to the American industrial base and the know-how needed to fight and win the Second World War and help propel the United States to its current status as a preeminent global economic and military power. Visionary investments like the Interstate Highway System made cars a staple in American economic and cultural life. And cars certainly made it a lot easier to get to and from rural America. In a place like rural South Dakota, with limited public transportation, the automobile, often a pickup or an SUV, is typically the only way to get around. Today, the automobile industry stands on the brink of a new technological revolution, which promises to dramatically transform mobility once again. Over the past three decades, the internet has transformed our economy and our way of life, and the next generation of the internet, 5G, which is currently being deployed across the Nation, will enable a host of new innovations, including a revolution in vehicle technology: automated vehicles or what we call AVs. AVs will change the way that we move in numerous ways, making the transportation system safer, more efficient, and more accessible. Individuals whose mobility is currently limited, for example, Americans with disabilities, could gain new independence with the deployment of automated vehicles, allowing them to work or visit friends and family safely and easily. I am proud that my proposed AV amendment to the Endless Frontier Act was recently endorsed by the National Federation of the Blind, and I ask for unanimous consent that the letter of endorsement be inserted in the Record

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackbrun), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby).

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, before I give my remarks, I want to echo what has been said on the floor here by our two colleagues, the two Senators from the Commonwealth of Virginia, about Senator John Warner. I would just say, too, that when I first got to the Senate, my first 6 years in the Senate, I was a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. When I got here, Senator Warner was the chairman of that committee. And I had known him a little bit from a distance because I had worked as a staffer out here back in the 1980s, but I got the chance to know him in a very personal way as the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. And I have to just, again, associate myself with many of the comments that have already been made about him. He truly was a gentleman in the truest sense of the word--somebody who represents everything, I think, that is good about public life in politics and legislating and making public policy and cared profoundly and deeply for our men and women in uniform. As the chairman of the committee, that was his No. 1 priority. Of course, as has been mentioned, he was a marine and Secretary of the Navy and had just a deep, deep passion to make sure that the men and women who defend this country on a daily basis were respected and had the resources, the equipment, the training, and everything they needed to succeed in their jobs. So he truly was a--he couldn't have been a kinder person to me. As a rookie out here, I remember I was standing over there offering an amendment to the Defense authorization bill. I think it was my first, probably, amendment on the floor, and it was something that he, as the chairman, opposed. And he, I think, probably could have eviscerated me if he had wanted to, but he had that, as has been mentioned--he had that demeanor and disposition, somebody described it as a twinkle in his eye. He truly had that. And he really was out of central casting. If anybody wanted to cast somebody, he certainly could have had a career in Hollywood because he looked the part. But it was more than just looking the part. He lived it. He was truly not only a gentleman but a great Senator for the Commonwealth of Virginia and a great patriot to this country, who got up every day and thought of ways that he could make our country stronger and better. So my thoughts and prayers are with his wife Jeanne and all of his family today Agriculture Mr. President, the last several years have been difficult ones for cattle producers in my home State of South Dakota and around the country. A 2019 fire, and later COVID, caused reductions in meatpacking capacity, which left cattle producers with cattle to sell and no place to sell them. And even now, with our country well on its way to full reopening, meatpackers are still not back at full capacity--at least in part, it seems, because of the enhanced unemployment benefits the Biden administration is providing are not encouraging workers to come back to work. Throughout these challenges, ranchers have struggled, but meatpackers--meatpackers have seen continued substantial profit margins. While certainly market forces can see the price for cattle fluctuate, the gap between meatpacker profits and rancher profits raises some questions, most especially because more than 80 percent of the meatpacking market in this country is concentrated in the hands of just four companies. That level of concentration creates the opportunity for market manipulation. The gulf between rancher and meatpacker profits and the significant power these companies have over the beef industry has raised concerns that we are looking at something more than just an issue of supply and demand. That is why I wrote to the Department of Justice at the beginning of the pandemic urging the Department to begin an investigation into the meatpacking industry to make sure that there was no market manipulation going on. The Department of Justice responded by directing the Justice Department's Antitrust Division to initiate an investigation. Well, that was a year ago, and since then, we have heard nothing. No results from the investigation have been released, and it is not clear whether the investigation is still ongoing. So, last week, I led several of my Senate and House colleagues, along with South Dakota Representative Dusty Johnson, in a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland urging the Department of Justice to continue investigating the beef sector to determine if improper and anticompetitive activity has occurred. It is essential that we hold the highly concentrated meatpacker industry accountable to consumers and producers who depend upon it. I will continue to press the Department of Justice to thoroughly investigate this situation. Another important thing that we can do to help ranchers start to see better prices for their cattle is to encourage competition in the meatpacking industry. As I said, more than 80 percent of the meatpacking industry in this country is controlled by just four companies. Encouraging more companies to get into this marketplace and encouraging small meatpackers to expand will dilute the power of these four companies and create more competition for ranchers' cattle, which will lead to higher prices for ranchers when they bring their cattle to market. That is why I introduced the Strengthening Local Processing Act in February with Senator Merkley. Our legislation would help strengthen and diversify national meat-processing capacity by providing new resources for smaller, more local meat-processing operations. Encouraging new meatpackers to enter the market and smaller meatpackers to expand their operations will provide livestock producers with more marketing options and thus increase competition for their cattle. Plus, spreading out and expanding our Nation's meat-processing capacity over more plants will make our Nation's meat supply less vulnerable to interruption in situations like the coronavirus pandemic or natural disaster. During the pandemic, outbreaks of COVID at meatpacking plants seriously compromised supply, as empty grocery store meat sections attested. Had meatpacking capacity been less concentrated, it is likely that we would not have seen such significant shortages. Last month, I requested that the Senate Agriculture Committee hold a hearing to consider the challenges facing the livestock industry, as well as the bills that have been introduced this year to try to improve the situation. I recognize that there are contrasting views among cattle producers on the best path forward to improve the cattle market, but I am hopeful that a hearing would help lead to the passage of legislation that would improve the outlook for cattle producers. I also recently introduced, along with Senator Tester, an amendment to the legislation the Senate is considering today that would require the U.S. Trade Representative and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to review the 2015 World Trade Organization ruling that led to the repeal of mandatory country-of-origin labeling, or COOL, and identify how it affected U.S. consumers, producers, and the supply chain. If the review finds negative impacts, the amendment would require the administration to submit to Congress legislative or administrative actions to address the impacts. I am a longtime supporter of country- of-origin labeling, and I have been raising the importance of this issue with the new Biden administration. I will continue working on a path forward for country-of-origin labeling. There is strong demand for U.S. born and raised beef, and consumers want to know where their food is coming from. The least we can do for our ranchers and the consumers who depend on their products is to provide them with the benefit and certainty of seeing ``Made in the USA'' labels on grocery store shelves in South Dakota and around the country. I think I speak for a lot of Americans when I say there are few things I enjoy more than a mouthwatering burger or a really good steak. And there are a lot of men and women out there in South Dakota and across the country doing the demanding work of raising cattle so that the rest of us can enjoy our burgers and steaks and roasts. I am very proud to represent South Dakota ranchers here in the Senate, and I will continue to make it a priority to support cattle producers and make sure that they have fair and transparent markets for the commodities that they produce. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, H.R. 1, the Democrats' supposed election integrity bill, is filled with bad ideas: making the Federal Election Commission into a partisan body; effectively banning voter ID and gutting other safeguards against voter fraud; providing for taxpayer funding of political campaigns. Nowhere is that more true than when it comes to the bill's truly terrible provisions on the IRS. Everyone remembers the IRS scandal during the Obama administration. Around 2013, it emerged that the Obama IRS had been unfairly singling out conservative organizations applying for tax-exempt status, slow- walking their applications and subjecting them to burdensome extra scrutiny. This had been going on for more than 2 years, and top IRS officials compounded the Agency's misdeeds by providing misleading information to Congress. Well, Americans should brace themselves, because if H.R. 1 is ever enacted, it would allow for the same kind of targeting that went on under the Obama administration, if not worse. To start with, H.R. 1 repeals a Treasury Department rule finalized last year that was designed to help prevent the kind of abuse that went on under the Obama IRS. Under the rule, many tax-exempt organizations are no longer required to turn over to the IRS the names and addresses of individuals who have made substantial donations. This is not information the IRS needs to know for tax purposes, and there is no reason the Agency should have information beyond what it needs to do its job. I am proud to be a cosponsor of Leader McConnell and Senator Braun's bill which would permanently codify the Treasury rule and its protections against unnecessary disclosure. Providing the IRS with additional extraneous information opens up opportunities for the kind of abuses we saw during the Obama administration. But stopping IRS abuse doesn't seem to be a big priority for the Democrat Party. Indeed, there is reason to believe at least some Democrats would like the IRS to take a more aggressive role in Americans' lives. And so H.R. 1 explicitly repeals the Treasury Department rule, but that is not all. As if Democrats were determined to prove that they intend to weaponize the IRS, H.R. 1 and S. 1, which is the Senate version of the House bill, would allow the IRS to consider organizations' views when deciding whether or not to grant them tax-exempt status. Let me repeat that. H.R. 1 and S. 1 would allow the IRS to consider an organization's views when deciding whether or not to grant that organization tax- exempt status. It is difficult to think of a more outrageous and dangerous provision. This rule would allow any administration of either party to use the IRS to censor and suppress groups whose ideas the party in power opposes. If the administration in power doesn't like the positions that your organization champions, say goodbye to your hopes for tax-exempt status. The Obama IRS scandals could look tame compared to the kind of political weaponization of the IRS that could occur under H.R. 1. This provision could have real political implications. Selectively granting tax-exempt status could be a means of weakening political opposition. A group that can't get tax-exempt status may be a group that never gets off the ground for financial reasons and, thus, a group that never becomes a significant voice in opposition to policies of the reigning party. Do you think this is a worst case scenario? Well, let's remember that something like this already happened under the Obama administration. The IRS was weaponized once, and it can be weaponized again, especially if Democrats succeed in their efforts to eliminate safeguards against such abuse. And, of course, if the President has his way, the IRS may soon be swimming in money that would substantially increase its reach. President Biden wants to provide the IRS with--get this--an additional $80 billion over 10 years. That would give the IRS a larger budget than the Department of Labor, the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other significant government Agencies. It would allow the IRS to hire nearly 87,000 new employees--87,000. All told, the Biden plan would double the number of IRS employees over the next decade. Now, the reason President Biden gives for this massive increase in IRS funding is increased enforcement efforts in order to close the tax gap--that gap that exists between taxes owed and what Americans end up actually paying. But there is little reason to believe that the IRS will come anywhere close to recovering the amount of money the President claims it can recover, even with a massive infusion of cash. And there is reason to be seriously concerned about what that massive infusion of cash, plus new reporting requirements on Americans' bank and Venmo accounts, could mean for IRS intrusion into Americans' lives. President Biden, of course, also claims that any increased enforcement will be targeted against wealthy Americans. In what is becoming a typical Democrat class-warfare rhetoric, the President states that ordinary Americans pay their taxes while some wealthy Americans dodge them. Of course, according to the IRS, our Nation has a relatively high and stable voluntary tax compliance rate, and tax compliance levels remain largely unchanged since at least the 1980s. And, in fact, failure to pay tax owed occurs among all kinds of taxpayers in every place along the income spectrum. But the White House isn't letting those facts interfere with its class-warfare rhetoric. What is more, what guarantees will we have other than Democrats' say- so at this point that this infusion of money will be restricted to combating tax evasion? As far as I can tell, there is nothing to prevent the new agents the IRS will hire from being retasked at some point to other priorities, like investigating the views of conservative organizations before deciding whether or not to grant them tax-exempt status. Closing the tax gap is a serious goal that deserves serious discussion, and it is possible that a targeted IRS funding increase for that purpose would be worth considering. But $80 billion is a ridiculous number. In the words of one of President Obama's IRS chiefs: ``I'm not sure you'd be able to efficiently use that much money.'' And any plus-up in funding for the IRS should be accompanied by serious reforms, as well as many protections--not fewer protections-- against IRS politicization. While the Obama IRS scandal represents one of the more egregious abuses of the Agency's power, the IRS is well known for serial mismanagement, like Americans' inability to actually get through to the IRS with their questions The Washington Post reported in April that if you were calling the IRS this tax season, you had a 1-in-50--1-in-50--chance of actually getting to speak to a human being. In May, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration released a report on the 2021 filing season, which noted the IRS struggled to get new hires squared away on the job partially because it is--and here, I am going to have to quote from this report--``difficult to find working copiers . . . to be able to prepare training packages for new hires.'' That is right. And I wish those were the only Agency printer or copier problems, but they are not. Let me quote from the inspector general's report again. Audit teams continue to perform onsite walkthroughs at the Ogden, Utah, and Kansas City, Missouri, Tax Processing Centers to meet with staff to discuss challenges they are facing as it relates to addressing the ongoing backlogs of inventory. A major concern that surfaced during these walkthroughs was a lack of working printers and copiers. IRS management estimated that, as of March 30, 2021, 69 [or] (42 percent) of 164 devices used by the Submission Processing functions are unusable and others are broken but still functioning. IRS employees stated that the only reason they could not use many of these devices is because they are out of ink or because the waste cartridge container is full. That is from the inspector general's report. I wish this were a joke, but that is straight out of the IG's report. Hearing that, you might think that we don't need to worry about the weaponization of the IRS because the Agency isn't capable of work that sophisticated. But, as we know, that isn't true. The IRS was successfully weaponized for political purposes during the Obama administration, and the same thing could happen again, especially if Democrats succeed in removing protections against IRS abuse. As our Nation's revenue-collecting Agency, the IRS is an Agency with immense power, and it is not a voluntary government program. Americans don't get to choose whether or not they interact with the IRS. For that reason, it is vital that there be as many safeguards in place as possible to prevent the IRS from abusing its power or being used for political purposes. We have seen plenty of evidence that the IRS often doesn't use the money or resources that it currently has in a responsible way. And any increase in money for the IRS--which it certainly should not be anywhere close to $80 billion--should be matched with significant reforms and increased accountability. And H.R. 1, with its multitude of unwise and unconstitutional provisions even beyond the alarming provisions I have discussed today, must be stopped. Otherwise, the Biden legacy may be the weaponization of the IRS. I yield the floor.