John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, it is good to see the Senate taking up a genuinely bipartisan bill this week. A group of Members from both parties have spent weeks developing this legislation, and we saw the result of their work in the bipartisan support for proceeding to this bill. Now, we need to let that bipartisan process continue. We need to give Members who weren't a part of the bipartisan group a chance to weigh in, and that means making sure that we have a robust amendment process. I know the majority leader is eager to get through this legislation and on to the Democrats' next piece of what is partisan legislation, and that is a $3\1/2\ trillion tax-and-spending spree, but that is not a good reason for rushing this infrastructure bill through the Senate. This is an enormous bill. It is more than 2,700 pages long, and the legislative text was just released last night. To start with, Members need time to digest this legislation, and then Members need the opportunity to offer amendments. The bill before us today is a genuinely bipartisan bill, and I am very grateful for the tireless efforts of the Members who put in so many long days and nights--and weekends, I might add--to get us to this point. Like a lot of our colleagues, I spent the weekend here in Washington as the bipartisan group worked through many final drafting issues, and I appreciate the fact that the members of the group took the time to get the bill as right as possible before introducing it. But this legislation was still put together by only a handful of Senators. And unlike traditional highway bills, there are major pieces of this legislation that haven't been through the rigor of a committee process. So all Members deserve the chance to weigh in. A number of Senators have raised legitimate concerns about this legislation, such as whether the proposed pay-fors are sufficient to keep this legislation from driving up our debt, and they deserve to have the chance to air those concerns and offer possible solutions. Infrastructure legislation is some of the most essential legislation that we consider. Commerce in this country depends on the strength of our infrastructure, from up-to-date electric grids to well-maintained airports and train tracks, ports and waterways, and roads and bridges. We need to get this legislation right, and that means giving Members ample time to examine the details of the bill, and it means giving Members the chance to address any problems in the bill through a meaningful amendment process. We shouldn't sacrifice adequate time on this bill merely because the Democratic leader would like to spend next week jamming a 100-percent partisan piece of legislation through the U.S. Senate. Let's honor the bipartisan process that has gotten us this far by finishing this infrastructure bill with a robust, bipartisan amendment process. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).

Mr. THUNE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Blackburn), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: The Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, the Biden border crisis continues unabated. Far from being the seasonal surge the President claimed months ago, the numbers at the border keep growing. Last month, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered more than 188,000 individuals attempting to cross our southern border. That is not only the highest number seen so far this year; that is the highest monthly number in 21 years--21 years. In all, Customs and Border Protection has had more than 1.1 million encounters along our southern border so far in fiscal year 2021, and we still have 3 months to go. In fiscal year 2019, by comparison, the year before COVID, total--total--encounters for the entire fiscal year were under 980,000 individuals. We have a border crisis--a crisis that President Biden seems unable or unwilling to address. And as massive as those numbers I have mentioned are, they don't take into account those individuals who are sneaking across the border without being apprehended. Some of them are, no doubt, individuals who are looking for a better life. Others are almost undoubtedly criminals, engaged in the kind of illicit activities that we have to combat along our southern border--human trafficking, drug smuggling, and others. In June, Customs and Border Protection seized more than 1,000 pounds of fentanyl along our southern border, an incredibly dangerous drug that some have pushed to classify as a weapon of mass destruction. That is more fentanyl than was seized in that area in the previous three Junes combined. What has the Biden administration been doing to deal with the crisis along our border? Well, not much. There has been no move to reinstate the national emergency designation for our southern border that President Biden canceled after he took office. There is no meaningful plan for stopping the flood of illegal immigration and enhancing security along our southern border. There is no move to reinstate funding for the congressionally mandated border wall that President Biden canceled. In fact, the President is apparently contemplating ending title 42, which has allowed the government to immediately remove apprehended individuals in order to help manage the COVID crisis. That is right. At the same time the CDC is expanding its masking guidance for Americans, the administration is contemplating ending a measure to help stop COVID-infected individuals from entering the United States. And I haven't even mentioned the fact that apparently the administration has released tens of thousands of individuals into the United States without court dates, many of whom have failed to show up at Immigration and Customs Enforcement offices as directed. The border situation is out of control, and President Biden bears a big part of the blame. Immigration has helped build this country, and I strongly support making sure that the United States continues to offer a chance for individuals the world over to achieve their dream of a better life. I also support temporary worker programs, like the H-2B visa program, that allow individuals from other countries to come here for a limited time period to work and for the economic opportunity and then return to their home countries. I also support a solution that would allow Dreamers to stay in the United States if--if--such a solution is developed in the context of immigration reform and enhanced border security. But we cannot have endless floods of illegal immigration. No country can. It is a humanitarian nightmare and a serious security risk. Immigration has to have limits, and, most of all, it has to be legal. We need to protect and encourage legal immigration, while cracking down on illegal immigration. Unfortunately, Democrats are going in the opposite direction. The word is that Democrats would like to include amnesty in the budget- busting, tax-and-spending spree that they are pushing to vote on later this year. That is right. With a serious humanitarian and security crisis along our southern border, Democrats want to include amnesty in their spending plan. Now, I can only imagine that this will encourage thousands more to make the dangerous trek to and across our southern border, not to mention how such a policy would undermine respect for the rule of law. I wish I could say that I see some light at the end of the tunnel when it comes to the border, but if the Biden administration continues along its current path, I fully expect this security and humanitarian crisis to continue. I can only hope that President Biden will recognize the problems his policies, or lack thereof, are causing, before too many more individuals suffer the consequences. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, not content with their $1.9 trillion so- called COVID relief bill--paid for entirely with money borrowed from younger generations of Americans and our children and grandchildren-- Democrats are readying another partisan spending spree. Democrats are preparing to consider a $3.5 trillion tax-and-spending package, this one at least partially paid for by massive tax hikes--tax hikes on small businesses, tax hikes on large businesses, tax hikes on investment, tax hikes on well-off Americans, and tax hikes on the middle class. That is right, tax hikes on the middle class. Now, President Biden is fond of repeating that he won't raise taxes on anyone making under $400,000 a year, but the new death tax he is proposing will definitely hit some middle-class Americans. Let's talk about that new tax. President Biden and congressional Democrats are proposing to eliminate a part of the Tax Code known as ``step-up in basis'' or referred to often as ``stepped-up basis.'' Under our current Tax Code, when you inherit something from an estate, whether that is stocks or a house, the value of that item is stepped up from its original value to its current market value when you receive it. This prevents you from having to pay capital gains taxes on the amount that your parents' house increased in value when it was owned by your parents. Let's say you inherit a house that your parents bought for $100,000, but it is now worth $500,000. Under current law, when you inherit that house, you are not liable for taxes on the increase in value from the time your parents bought it. The house is transferred to you at its current market value of $500,000. So if you sell the house right when you inherit it, you will receive the full value of the house instead of having to pay taxes on the amount that the house increased in value while your parents owned it. If you sell that house 2 years later for $650,000, you are only required to pay taxes on the $150,000 in value it gained while it was in your possession. Under the Democrats' proposal, however, capital gains taxes would automatically be triggered upon death if the increase in value of an individual's estate has exceeded a certain amount. So, if your parents' house or the family farm or other assets have increased in value more than Democrats deem desirable, you would now owe capital gains taxes on the amount of that increase immediately after your parents' death minus the amount Democrats choose to exempt. There are plenty of middle-class Americans around this country who would be paying this tax. You wouldn't be protected just because you make under $400,000 a year. Now, the President has tried to get around this by arguing that Democrats would be taxing dead individuals, not living ones. So if your parents die and pass on their estate, the argument suggests the tax that you have to send to the Federal Government isn't a tax on you but on your parents. Well, who does he think he is fooling? Who is going to experience the loss of that money--you or your parents? Who is going to be writing the check to the Federal Government? You will. Let's imagine that a woman's parents die and leave her their estate, and 2 weeks later, a thief comes in and steals part of that inheritance. Who are people going to think was robbed--the daughter or her deceased parents? I think all of us would recognize that it was the daughter who was robbed. The same thing applies to Democrats' proposed new death tax. It is not dead Americans who would be writing checks to the Federal Government. Sure, the tax is owed by the decedent or transferor, but for all practical purposes, the costs would be borne by their descendants. The truth is, even if we accept the argument that Democrats' new death tax is a tax on deceased Americans and not their descendants, this tax would still hit some middle-class Americans. After all, it is perfectly possible to work hard your whole life and invest wisely and see your estate appreciate in value by more than $1.25 million--the proposed individual exemption level--over the course of your life without ever exiting the middle class. We are not talking about confining this taxation to individuals with a yearly income of $1.25 million; we are talking about the increase in value on an estate over a person's lifetime. There is no question that this tax would fall on the estates of some thoroughly middle-class Americans. The problems with this new death tax aren't limited to the fact that it breaks President Biden's pledge not to raise taxes on individuals making under $400,000 a year. There are a lot of additional problems, starting with the administration and compliance costs of this tax. Congress actually passed a similar proposal in the 1970s but repealed it before it went into effect because it was so complicated and unworkable. That is right. Congress repealed the proposal before it was even implemented because it was clear that collecting this tax was going to be too complicated. Forty-odd years later, collecting this tax would still be an enormously complicated matter. It would put incredible new recordkeeping requirements on a lot of American families, and it would strain the capabilities of the IRS, although those 87,000 new IRS employees President Biden wants to add to the Agency would certainly increase the available manpower to levy new tax hikes. Plus, I can only imagine the litigation that would arise over the valuation of assets. What happens if the IRS disagrees with the estimate of the value of your family farm or business? Do you have to take the IRS to court? Will the IRS take you to court? In addition, there is a very real danger that Americans would be paying taxes on nonexistent gains, in part due to inflation and the natural expansion of the economy. Recent economic reports are raising concerns that, with the administration's robust new entitlement spending, Americans could be shouldering the burdens of significant inflation now and long into the future. But Democrats' new death tax would not account for inflation on an asset, like a family-owned farm or business, which means Americans could be paying a lot of money in taxes on nonexistent gains. Finally, I want to talk about the threat this tax poses to family farms and businesses. Now, Democrats claim that they will defer this tax for family farms and businesses as long as a member of the family inherits and then runs the farm or business, but it is completely unclear what this will look like in practice. Will ``family members'' refer only to sons and daughters? What if a stepson wants to take over the farm, or a niece? Will the inheritors still be subject to the tax then, which could result in their having to sell that farm the niece wants to run? What happens if two or more of the children want to run the farm? There are a lot of unanswered questions. Of course, it is important to remember that Democrats will only be deferring the tax. So if the time ever comes when the family wants to sell the farm--maybe it is getting hard to run and a neighboring family is willing to buy it--the family would have to pay those taxes that were deferred when their mom or dad died. If that family farm has been handed down through a few generations already, it is completely possible that paying those taxes would consume a big part of that legacy. There is a reason 13 House Democrats sent a letter to House Democratic leaders expressing their concern about the proposed step-up in basis repeal. It is because this tax would pose a real threat to the continued existence of family farms and businesses. It is the same reason that those in agriculture and small business communities oppose this new death tax. I was proud to lead all 50 Senate Republicans in a letter last week, urging President Biden to drop this misguided proposal, and I will continue to do everything I can to protect family farms and businesses from this new tax. There should be a limit on how many times the Federal Government can tax you. Americans' bank accounts should not be regarded as a bottomless barrel of money to pay for Democrats' preferred government programs, because that is exactly what is happening here. Democrats want to massively and permanently expand government, and they are looking to Americans and American businesses to pay for their social experiments. They apparently haven't spent much time considering how our economy or American families would suffer as a result of their tax- and-spending spree. Middle-class Americans should not have to see their inheritances shrink to pay for Democrats' spending, and family farms and businesses that already face challenges from our current death tax should not have to be worrying that a new death tax will spell the end of their hard- earned legacies. I hope the Democrats will think twice before moving forward with this new tax increase on Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, before I begin, I want to join with my colleagues from Wyoming and my other colleagues here in the Senate and express my sorrow at the news received this morning that our former colleague Senator Mike Enzi had passed away. Mike was a cherished colleague and one of the finest human beings you will ever meet. A former Budget Committee chairman, he was, in many ways, the conscience of the Senate on spending issues, always reminding Members that Federal dollars are not unlimited and that every dollar we add to the debt is a burden we are placing on our children and grandchildren. One of my favorite memories of Mike happened a few years ago when he was a neighbor next door in the State of Wyoming. He was someone, as I said, for whom I had tremendous respect. He was always a gentleman. He had something that, I think, in politics is really rare, and that is, he would deal with big policy issues here in Washington, DC, but he always retained his common touch. He had a terrific way of connecting with people on a very personal level. I remember I was experiencing heel pain from overrunning, which, it turns out, was plantar fasciitis, and I happened to mention it to Mike, who at one time was a shoe salesman and a shoe store owner. Well, it isn't more than a day later or so when he comes up to me and he has a solution. He had some heel inserts for my shoes, which turned out to be just exactly one of the solutions that I needed to deal with that. That was very typical of Senator Enzi. He was thoughtful. He was practical, incredibly hard-working, and very, very smart and very, very principled. To his family--to his wife Diana, his wife of more than 50 years, and to his children and grandchildren--I want to say how much we will deeply miss him and how much we are sending our thoughts and prayers to them during this very, very difficult time.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, there is still a lot of reason to be concerned. The Department's reversal was cloaked in bureaucratic language, leaving room for a future flip-flop by the administration. Too many schools around the country are already considering or adopting outlandish proposals informed by critical race theory, from a math course that suggests that focusing on the right answer in math is grounded in racism to materials implying that the nuclear family is somehow inherently racist. This is a grave disservice to students of all races, and we need to make sure that Federal education dollars are going to genuine history and civics education and not radical propaganda. We owe all American students better than historically inaccurate history lessons. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

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

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 Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

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. Mr. President, today I recognize Tanner Hauck, 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 over the past several weeks. Tanner is a graduate of Lincoln High School in Sioux Falls, SD. Currently, he is attending Arizona State University in Tempe, AZ, where he is pursuing degrees in finance and business entrepreneurship. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Tanner for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Kylee Van Egdom, an intern in my Aberdeen, SD, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks. Kylee is a graduate of Sioux Falls Christian High School in Sioux Falls, SD. Currently, she is attending Northern State University in Aberdeen, SD, where she is majoring in government. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Kylee for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.