on the communities in question. i would argue this political dilemma has been on full display over the last few weeks despite a biden administration setting ambitious climate targets labeling carbon emissions as an accidental threat that will disproportionately hurt low income and minority americans. knowing this will bring down the high gas prices. currently hurting low income families. mr. hollie, i don't wantin to spend a ton of time on california. i've lived there before. it's a beautiful state but it's run horribly, in my view. ohio is run much better which is why i i live there. but in any event after california and limited their cap-and-trade policy, researchers found it did not deliver local emission reductions -- >> we will have to leave this here as the u.s. senate is about to gavel in. it's part of a long-term commitment to bring you live gavel to gavel coverage of congress.

the senate will continue work on biden administration nominations with the boat started at 11:30 a.m. eastern. senators will take up an infrastructure built with the vote expected at about 3 p.m. eastern. and now live to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty god, who remains the same when all else fades. thank you for loving and using us for your glory. guide our senators in the

footsteps of those who were willing to risk all for freedom, who carved tunnels of hope through mountains of despair. lord, uphold our nation with your wisdom and might, enabling it to continue to be a city of refuge for those whose hearts yearn for freedom. keep us all from untimely and self-made cares, as we continue to fix our eyes on you, the author and finisher of our faith. we pray in your great name. amen.

the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., july 21, 2021. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable ben ray lujan, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of state, bonnie d. jenkins of new york to be under secretary for arms control and international security.

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: first, before i get into the substance of my remarks, i just heard leader mcconnell's statements on debt ceiling. the leader's statements on debt ceiling are shameless, cynical, and totally political. this debt is trump debt. it's covid debt. democrats joined three times during the trump administration to do the responsible thing. and the bottom line is is that leader mcconnell should not be

playing political games with the full faith and credit of the united states. americans pay their debts. now, let's get into what's happening here in the senate this afternoon. the senate will hold a procedural vote to get the legislative process started on a bipartisan infrastructure bill. i have been very clear about what this vote is. this vote is only the first step in the legislative process on the senate floor. it is merely a vote about whether the senate is ready to begin debating a bipartisan infrastructure bill. i have also been very clear about what this vote is not. this vote is not a deadline to have every final detail worked out. it is not an attempt to jam anyone. if senators agree to adopt the motion to proceed, the bipartisan group of senators will have many opportunities to make their agreement the base of the bill, even if they need a

few more days to finalize the language. my colleagues are well aware that we often agree to move forward with debates on issues before we have final text of the bill in hand. we have done it twice this year already. the anti-asian hate crimes bill and the u.s. innovation and competition act. both times, the senate produced successful bipartisan legislation. there's no reason we can't repeat that process here on infrastructure. we are now in the fourth week of negotiations since the bipartisan group of senators reached an agreement with the white house on an infrastructure framework. four weeks. according to the negotiators, spurred on by this vote this afternoon, they are close to finalizing their product. even republicans have agreed that the deadline has moved them far more quickly.

given the process of the bipartisan negotiations, i believe senators should feel comfortable voting to move forward today. i know that since the vote was announced -- or i know that since i set a date for the vote and announced it, my colleagues on both sides have worked very hard on finishing this legislation. i'm grateful for their work. we all want the same thing, to pass a bipartisan infrastructure bill. but in order to finish the bill, we first need to start. so i hope my republican colleagues will join democrats this afternoon in voting to move forward on an infrastructure package. as majority leader, i have every intention of passing both major infrastructure packages -- the bipartisan infrastructure framework and a budget resolution with reconciliation instructions before we leave for the august recess. that's the schedule i laid out at the end of june, and that's the schedule i intend to stick

to. now, if senators had any doubt about the impact of this important work, they should be assured by a new report this morning by the chief economist at moody's mark zandi, having analyzed both the bipartisan bill and the agreement by senate democrats on the budget committee, mark zandi concludes that the twin legislative packages will provide a massive boost to the economy and that both, both are essential. specifically, his report says that the two bills are, quote, designed to lift the economy's longer term growth potentials and ease, ease inflation pressures. again, despite the sometimes hysterical warnings about inflation from republicans, the chief economist at moody's concludes that those concerns are, quote, misplaced, quote, overdone, and that our two infrastructure bills are designed to ease -- his words -- inflation pressures.

the report goes on to say that our investments in infrastructure and social programs will, quote, lift productivity and labor force growth and direct the benefits of the stronger growth to lower income americans and address the long-running skewing of the income and wealth distribution. in other words, it will help strengthen the middle class and those trying to get there and not have all the income -- so much of the income disproportionately flow to the top 1% and 10%. i hope my colleagues are listening to those benefits. long-term economic growth, easing inflation pressures, lifting productivity, strengthening the labor force, reducing income inequality. that's what one of the nation's leading economists predicts our two infrastructure bills will achieve. the report by moody's should light a fire under all of us. i will be sending the full report to the senate democratic conference, and i commend it to my republican colleagues to read

as well. it's been decades since this chamber has made significant stand-alone investment in our nation's infrastructure. we're the largest economy in the world, but our infrastructure ranks 13th. you would find better infrastructure in the united arab emirates than the united states. meanwhile, middle class and working americans have watched the american dream fall out of reach. as globalization, technology, and vicious inequalities of income have sapped much of america's fundamental promise of economic opportunity, we must restore that promise, that hope, that american dream. if we want americans to prosper in the 21st century, if we want to restore that fundamental promise, we need to invest in our infrastructure, create jobs, support families, strengthen the backbone of the middle class, help underserved communities, and rekindle the sunny optimism that's been a hallmark of the american spirit for more than

two centuries. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the minority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask that

further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell:-to-do the democratic leader appears to be intent on calling a vote he knows will fail. for several weeks now, republicans and democratic senators have been working together trying to assemble a bipartisan package for our nation's infrastructure. it's an important and a complex subject. they're talking about big projects and big sums of money. they're still talking, still working, still negotiating in good faith across the aisle. but these discussions have yet to conclude. there's no outcome yet, no bipartisan agreement, no text, nothing for the congressional budget office to evaluate, and certainly nothing on which to

vote, not yet. so obviously, if the democratic leader tries to force a cloture vote on a bill that does not exist, it will fail. around here, we typically write the bills before we vote on them. that's the custom. of course here in the senate, a failed cloture vote does not mean no forever. in the middle of the early covid crisis back in march of 2020 with americans under stay-home orders and financial markets plummeting, senate democrats withheld cloture from the cares act multiple times so they could continue haggling behind the scenes. now, this was during a real emergency. every day, every hour was crucial. but senate democrats blocked cloture multiple times until various details were fine-tuned

to their liking. this is what the democratic leader said while his side tanked those cloture votes last march -- march of 2020. the majority leader was well aware of how this vote would go before it happened. but he close to move forward with it anyway, even though negotiations are continuing. so who's playing games? that was the democratic leader in march of 2020, in the middle of a national emergency. that, of course, was a fast-moving global crisis, with bipartisan text already in hand -- there was a bill. yet senate democrats insisted on taking their time, in the middle of this national 100-year pandemic. now we're talking about long-term infrastructure investments that will pay out

over many years, but he wants to vote before any agreement even exists? so this stunt is set to fail. the democratic leader will be free to change his vote and move to reconsider whenever a bipartisan product actually exists. now, on another matter, president biden campaigned on a pledge not to raise income taxes on the vast majority of americans, but the latest reckless taxing-and-spending spree the democrats are cooking up would crush our country with an historic set of sweeping tax hikes. here's one of the targets in the crosshairs -- family farms. it appears our colleagues' plan will eliminate tax rules that allow family property to be passed down to the next generation without facing a new,

devastating tax burden. without the fix in question, the so-called stepped-up basis for capital gains taxes, scores of family businesses across america will feel a massive squeeze. in states like mine, family farms drive the rural economy. as i've heard, it is operations like theirs that are especially at risk. one kentucky farmer said his family has worked the same land for 150 years. he had hoped -- hoped -- to one day pass his property along to his children, just like it was passed along to him. but after generations spent improving and investing in the same farm, he's worried it could all be gone in the blink of an eye. another kentuckian described how

her family, like many farmers, is asset-rich but cash poor. if the stepped-up basis is eliminated, her family could lose the home, machines, and fields that have been her family's life's work. what democrats are trying to do would penalize farms for wanting to continue a tradition which we all depend on. if the stepped-up basis is eliminated, generations of accumulated work would be ripped -- literally ripped -- from the hands of america's farm families. family farming in the commonwealth isn't just a way of life, it's actually considered a birthright. but if democrats voice this bill on america, a lot of this heritage could be literally ripped out of families' hands and put on the auction block.

and who'll gobble it up by then? who'll buy this land? one recent report suggests that one of the biggest bidders for america's family farmland these days is actually the chinese. later today ranking member bozeman and some our colleagues on the agriculture committee will be coming to the floor to sound the alarm about the way the democrats' wreckless tax-and-spend spree could threaten america's family farms and rural america. this should not be a taxing event. the family farms deserve our support, not sabotage from washington. on one final matter, earlier this month, the f.b.i. uncovered a plot by iranian intelligence operatives to kidnap a journalist and vocal critic of the regime from her home in new

york, from her home in new york. let me say that again. iran tried to abduct a u.s. citizen right here -- right here on american soil. for years, massi alanijad has made a habit of getting under the mullah's skin. she's called out injustices in organized protests. the regime tried to lure ms. alanijad out of the u.s. to make her an easier target. that failed, so they tried to decide -- they decided to try something even more brazen. federal prosecutors have charged four iranians in a plot to kidnap her, but with the

exception of one accomplice, those responsible for this outrageous planned assault on a u.s. citizen, right here on u.s. soil, won't see the inside of a courtroom anytime soon. so without nonjudicial steps to impose consequences on the islamic republic, there will likely be no justice for ms. alanijad and her family. and why should tehran think twice about trying again? sadly, this has a familiar ring to it. flagrant disregard for international law is vern i not a new addition -- is certainly not a new addition to tehran's playbook. remember back in 2011 iranian intelligence was caught up in a plot to murder the ambassador to the united states by blowing up a restaurant right here in washington. one of the iranian officials indicted in that case is

actually still at-large. of course, extra judicial activities on american soil aren't the oil bits of iranian behavior that read like old news. ms. alinejad has been vocally reminding us that iranian's disgusting disregard for human rights is not unique to american soil. obviously it's mettle in iran itself -- it's felt in iran service and throughout the middle east. this weekend the skies were filled with reminders of iran's long-standing support for groups like hamas and hezbollah. groups testified to the strength of iran's proxies and just this year on president biden's watch we've seen a surge -- a surge -- in attacks on u.s. interests and facilities in iraq not seen since the height of our military

presence in that country. so history continues to repeat itself in tehran. and, unfortunately, the biden administration appears keen -- keen -- to follow a familiar playbook of its own. inexplicably, the white house response top the latest troublemaking by iran -- listen to this -- has been to railroad lifting sanctions -- has been to consider lifting sanctions and offering new concessions to produce a new nuclear deal. mr. president, iran just tried to kidnap an american -- right here in america. this is not the occasion to desperately reward bad behavior. it's time to work even more closely with our allies and partners in the regions to stare it down.

i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. thune: is the senate in a quorum call? i would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, last week i came down to the floor to discuss how the defund the police movement has contributed to the surging crime that we see around the country. as i noted, the democrat party bears a substantial degree of responsibility for the situation we find ourselves in. because this is a party that either actively contributed to defund the police rhetoric or implicitly endorsed it largely by staying silent. now, however, democrats have come to realize that attacking the police and the sharp spike in crime could hurt their electoral chances next year. so the president and other democrat leaders have all of a sudden announced their concern about rising crime rates.

as i said last week, they're still trying to have their cake and eat it, too. because missing from their messaging is any real condemnation of defund the police rhetoric and the toll it's taken on our cities and police departments. and their plans for confronting the surge in crime are long on punishing gun dealers and gun manufacturers and short on going after those actually committing crimes. it's typical of democrats for whom fighting crimes seem to involve controlling guns; specifically guns controlled by law-abiding gun owners, more than this involves controlling criminals. what democrats should be doing is training their attention on violent offenders, traffickers, and gangs and illegal straw purchases, not finding ways to saddle law-abiding gun owners with burdensome new regulations, because it is not law-abiding gun owners who are responsible for most of the gun crimes in this country.

the majority of gun crimes, mr. president, are committed by individuals who obtained their guns illegally -- illegally, which is why fighting these crimes should improve enforcement of our laws, not creating new laws that will only serve to further burden the constitutionally guaranteed second amendment rights of law-abiding individuals. fortunately, mr. president, as i said, democrats are following their usually playbook during this recent crime surge, which they seem to see as a convenient excuse for pushing their control gun priorities. the president recently delivered remarks on crime, and the first priority that he discussed at length was going after federally licensed firearm dealers. that's right. firearm dealers. mr. president, while we can all agree that firearms dealers who

violate the law should be punished, the rogue gun dealers that the president refers to are only responsible for a tiny fraction of the guns being used in crimes. going after gun dealers is one of your top priorities is not going to stem the illegal flow of weapons or their use in crimes. enforcement dollars and enforcement personnel are not endless, mr. president. you can waste a lot of money and a lot of man hours conducting checks of law abiding gun dealers while criminals continue to use their illegally obtained weapons unchecked. mr. president, nowhere are president biden's priorities more clear than in his choice of nominee to lead the a.t.f. which is the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives. david shipman would come to the a.t.f. directly from an organization where he has spent the past five years as a gun

control advocate. he's well known for his at times extreme views on gun control and restricting the second amendment, including his support for banning probably the most popular rifle in the united states. he supports a so-called assault weapons ban which usually refers to banning certain guns for their accessories and their appearance of lethality. but alarmingly, he could not give a clear representation of how he would define such a policy in his confirmation hearing. equally as troubling is mr. shipman's clear disdain for gun owners. he claimed that most individuals with conceal carry permits are either untrained or irresponsible. during the pandemic, he mocked law-abiding gun owners and condescendingly said that first time gun owners should put their guns away in their cabinets

behind the beef jerky, behind the beef jerky that they presumably have been saving for the apocalypse and only take out the weapons if, quote, the zombies start to appear. end quote. mr. president, i appreciate mr. chipman's long service as an a.t.f. special agent, but i have serious concerns that as the head of the a.t.f., he would spend more time going after law-abiding gun owners than actual criminals. the fact that he spent years as a gun control advocate gives us pretty strong indication of what his priorities are likely to be if he ends up heading this bureau. while mr. chipman couldn't make new gun laws as head of the a.t.f., wee certainly -- i should say he certainly could have a hand in writing a whole lot of new regulations. regulations that could end up substantially burdening americans' second amendment rights. a.t.f. has already gotten under way with the biden gun control

agenda with proposed rules against firearm parts, kits often used by hobbyists and widely used stabilizing braces often referred to as pistol braces first designed to help a disabled veteran safely fire a weapon. these regulations would turn millions of legal gun owners into potential criminals and david chipman would be in charge of seeing them through. moreover, his demeaning attitude toward gun owners should also disqualify him from the a.t.f. position. an individual who regards law-abiding gun-owning americans as a bunch of untrained and irresponsible doomsday preppers waiting for the zombie apocalypse has no business, no business leading a gun enforcement agency. mr. president, the president, the vice president, and mr. chipman may not like it but

the plain language of the bill of rights clearly guarantees the right of law-abiding americans to own firearms. that right like every other right guaranteed by our constitution must be respected and protected. and those who exercise their second amendment rights deserve to be respected as well. i do not believe we can rely on mr. chipman to respect our second amendment rights or the americans who exercise them. which is why i cannot vote to confirm him as director of the a.t.f. i encourage supporters of the second amendment on both sides of the aisle to oppose his nomination. law-abiding, gun-owning americans deserve better than mr. chipman to head the a.t.f. mr. president, i yield the floor.

mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. you know, this pandemic has made it clearer than ever that our economy is working great for those at the very top, but not for our workers. saturday actually marks the 12th anniversary of the last time that we raised our federal minimum wage. twelve years. that's unacceptable and our workers really deserve better. no one working 40 hours a week should be making wages so low their families are living in poverty and they can't even afford to pay for even their most basic needs. it's past time we finally give workers who are the backbone of our economy and have kept us going through this pandemic a hard-earned and much deserved raise. and another important step the

senate can take to build back an economy that's stronger and fairer and works for everyone is to ensure that agencies like the national labor relations board work effectively and protect workers' rights. jennifer abruzzo is the time of dedicated public servant who will make sure the nrlb is enforcing the law and protecting the rights of workers. and i urge all fl my colleagues to join me in voting to confirm her as general counsel of the nlrb. she has dedicated her career to upholding the law and protecting workers from unfair treatment. she's won victories against companies that attempted to undermine workers' right to organize and call for better wages and she has 23 years of experience at the nlrb including her time serving as acting general counsel, the role she is now nominated to fill. it's clear she has the right experience, qualifications, and values for the job, and we need

her to be able to get to work right away. because we have seen seven years of un-- we have seen years of unprecedented republican obstruction of the nlrb nominees. there's been an empty democratic seat on the nlrb for nearly three years. and there wasn't a single democrat on the board from late 2019 until mid-2020. that obstruction tipped the scales of justice in favor of big corporations and workers have suffered the consequences. when workers stand together to form a union, it is the nlrb that makes sure the election is fair. if a worker is fired or unfairly punished because they want to join or form a union, the nlrb is tasked with protecting the rights. if companies refuse to negotiate fairly with unions fighting for higher wages and better benefits or a secure retirement or safer

working conditions, it is the nlrb that protecting unions and union workers who have helped build our country's middle class. working families simply cannot afford an nlrb that fails to protect workers' rights when they are threatened. so we've got to confirm nominees like jennifer abruzzo who will protect workers' rights and make sure their voices are heard. if we're serious about building back a stronger, fairer economy, if we're serious about standing with working families, this ennui need to confirm jennifer abruzzo as general counsel of the nlrb and then get to work increasing our federal minimum wage. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the pr-- the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. i apologize.

mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i ask unanimous consent that the vote scheduled to occur at 11:30 begin immediately. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the clerk will report the nomi nomination. the clerk: nomination, national labor relations board, jennifer ann abruzzo of new york to be general counsel. the presiding officer: the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

eded vote:

vote: vote:

vote:

the vice president: on on this vote, the yeas are 50. the nays are 50. the senate being equally divided, the vice president votes in the affirmative and the nomination is confirmed. under the provisions -- the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately be notified of the senate's action. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of executive calendar number 142, bonnie d. jenkins of new york to be under secretary

of state for arms control and international security. signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of bonnie d. jenkins of new york to be under secretary of state for arms control and international security shall be brought to a close. the yeahs and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: anyone else wish to vote? if not, the yeas are 52, the nays are 48. the motion is agreed to.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i ask that the quorum call be lifted. but not if there isn't. you thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator may proceed. mr. blumenthal: there is a reason, mr. president, that the john lewis voting rights advancement act bears his name, and the reason is that john lewis was truly a civil rights hero, an icon, a trailblazer, a model, and a mentor to so many of us. not because of what he said, but because of what he did. in marching across the edmund

pettus bridge where he was beaten bloody in leading those civil rights activists, in fighting for equality and justice here in the halls of congress, he set a model of courageous public service that inspires us today. it has inspired voting rights since 1965, when those acts of courage led the congress to adopt that voting rights act of 1965. it was bipartisan then. it has been a bipartisan cause since then. in fact, most recently reauthorized in 2006 by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. there should be nothing partisan

about voting rights, which go to the core of our democracy. they are the lifeblood of our democracy, as we know better or as well as anyone in this chamber because we know that we act here with authority by the consent of the founders said. we govern by the consent of the people who elect us, hopefully fairly. and that is the reason that we need now that john lewis voting rights advancement act, because the united states supreme court in two decisions -- shelby county v. holder and brnovich v. democrat national committee --

has in effect eviscerated -- more bluntly, gutted -- two key sections, five and two, of thattest having rights act. and now we have -- of that voting rights act. and nod we have the opportunity -- in fact, we have the obstacles -- we have the obligation to make sure that the memory and cause of john lewis in advancing votes rights is upheld. we have that obligation not for ourselves but for the country, which is why john lewis fought so hard and so well. today state legislatures are taking advantage of the gaps and defects opened by those two supreme court decisions to attack america's right to vote. what we're seeing is the greatest assault on voting rights in the history of this

country, maybe with the exception of jim crow. now, i know some have called these laws a second jim crow. it may be the son of jim crow or the nephew or niece of jim crow. but the goal is the same -- suppression of voting rights, discriminating against individuals who have that right to vote. last week i chaired a hearing in the constitution committee on the impact of these two supreme court decisions on voting rights. and what we heard from the witnesses appearing there was nothing less than a call to action to protect our democracy and live up to america's founding ideal. we heard from men and women who have been litigating in the trenches on the front lines of

this battle to preserve voting rights about the impact of these two supreme court decisions, and the lower court decisions that have been in their wake. since shelby county in 2013, approximately 21,000 polling places nationwide serving the people of the united states on election day have been eliminated. millions of voters have been purged from the voting rolls. this year alone, 17 states have passed 28 laws to restrict voting rights. this assault on the right to vote, this effort to suppress men and women who by law should have that right, is purposeful,

relentless, and it is supported unfortunately by elected officials across the country. we've seen it in arizona and florida, texas, arizona. but many more state legislatures are moving in this direction, and the voting rights of this nation are at stake because what we're seeing is a deliberate and systematic attempt to make it harder and more difficult to register to vote and particularly for people of color to have this right. it is an attempt to subvert our democracy and attack the lifeblood of our nation. we know in theory that the founders intended that in fact our government, quote, derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.

but more than an exercise in theory, this effort is a direct, clear attempt to defend against the tsunami of voter suppression bills now crashing on our nation, and that is why the john lewis voting rights advancement act should be bipartisan. i have no illusions about it being so. but one way or the other, we ought to follow the advice of john lewis, who said, quote, the right to vote is precious, almost sacred. it is the most powerful, nonviolent tool or instrument we have in a democratic society, end quote. in memory of what he said but more in tribute to the ideals of

democracy that he advanced by his actions, we should stand up to this assault on our democracy and pass the john lewis voting rights advancement act. there is no time to waste. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. kennedy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana is recognized. mr. kennedy: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call. mr. kennedy: mr. president, this is -- the presiding officer: senator kennedy, we're in a quorum call. mr. kennedy: i apologize, mr. president. i ask, without objection, there be -- the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. kennedy: mr. president, this is one of those days that we often have -- at least for me -- that's both happy and sad. a couple weeks ago i was back home in louisiana. i was sitting at my dining room table minding my own business, drinking a cup of coffee, petting my two dogs. dogs are the best people. and i got a phone call from one mr. john r.stites, who is my deputy chief of staff for policy and my legislative director.

and i knew this phone call was coming someday. i knew it. i didn't know it was coming so soon, but i knew someday i'd get this call. and john said, senator, they made me an offer i can't refuse. i'm going to take it. i have to be honest, i thought to myself, damn! you know, stites is leaving. another part of me was saying, god, i'm so happy for him. i'm really pleased with his new position in the private sector. i wanted to suggest to him, if he needed any help picking out a new mercedes, i could come help him. new england gets it down to this color or that color -- if he

gets it down to this color or that color, he could just buy two. i've known some folks in public service -- you have, too, mr. president. i've known some people in business, to each his own, who are often afraid to hire people more capable than them. or smarter than them. and that's human nature, you know. i get it. i'll have a lot to answer for on judgment day, but doing that is not one of the things. i've always tried to hire people that were smarter than me or more capable than me and had talents that i don't have. but there's a price you pay when you do that. you're going to lose them at some point. because you can't keep a good person down. and that's john stites, so i knew this day was coming.

that's why it really is bittersweet. john is -- most of you know him. john is a graduate of s.m.u. i i'd like to say when we're joking around, i like to say that the closest john ever got to a 4.0 at s.m.u. was his blood alcohol level, but that's not accurate. john as we all know, he's whip smart. he finished s.m.u. in public policy. and business administration. i think he had a minor in cheerleaders but he never neglected his studies. he's a very smart guy. he's whip smart. don't let him try to kid you. brooks, his better half, who's here with us today. brooks? brooks is an accomplished

professional in her own right. and they are a team. i can assure you. when you work the hours that john works, you better do it as part of a team. they have two children. eleanor is their oldest. i'm told that eleanor's very first words were voter rama. she said vote-a-rama before she said mom or dad. that's an exage ration but -- exaggeration but probably not by much. they have a son john jr. whom they call jack. if i taught a class or if you taught a class, mr. president, and we told the truth about how a bill becomes a law, i think a lot of americans would be surprised. this is not mr. smith goes to washington. it's hard to pass a bill in the united states senate. it's supposed to be because

that's our job is to not act on the basis of feelings but to act on the basis of logic. it's a lot of work to get a bill passed. i'm -- i've been able to pass a couple. and i wouldn't have passed one single, solitary one of them without john stites. i made a list. i'm not going to read all of it. but stuff like the national flood insurance program extension act, the justice against corruption act, the rbrc advisers relief act, the holding foreign companies accountable act, the rebuilding small businesses after disasters act. this isn't all my doing. this has john stites' fingerprints all over it, every

one of these bills. john has a rare combination. he's going to do really well in the private sector. i've mentioned he's whip smart and he is. but it takes more than that to succeed around here. first you have to have a work ethic. you have to be willing to put in the hours. i can't tell you the number of times i looked around when i was working late, and i'd see stites there. i would say stites go home. brooks is going to change the locks on you. may already have. he was there constantly. i don't know when he found the time to father eleanor and jack. he was always in the office. so you've got to have a work ethic. but it's more than that. you've got to like people. you've got to understand people. and you've got to respect people. you've got to -- you've got to

learn which bridge to burn and which bridge to cross. you've got -- you've got to understand which -- when to go forward and say to hell with it, we're going full speed ahead and when to back off a little bit. it's a lot more art than science. and everybody in this chamber knows what i'm talking about. and that's -- that's -- that's not something you pick up in a week. when i asked john to be my legislative director before he became deputy chief of staff, he didn't have all this. he was green as a gourd. i was too. he learned it. he learned it on the job. boy, did he do an incredible job. there's one other quality you've got to have to succeed around this place aside from smarts, work ethic, respect for other people, integrity, all of which john stites has.

you've got to care. you really got to care. you can't fake it. you can't be motivated by moving up another rung on the ladder. some people get it. we're all human. but if that is your sole motivation, you're not growing to make it. people up on capitol hill are smart. they can smell it. so you can't be guided by ambition. you've got to be guided by knowledge, yes. wisdom, yes. but also empathy. john knows what he believes. he believes what he believes. and he's willing to fight for it. but he's also willing to listen to another point of view. and there were many times he'd come to my office and say, you

know, here's what's going on. look at it this way but you also saw -- listen to it from this perspective. he's also sneak i am. now, i don't mean -- sneaky. now, i don't mean that in a bad way. by sneaky, he's a great strategist in terms of he can figure out how to go from point a to point b, point c, do a half gainer, get to point d and circle back to point a. there are times john has come into our office and said how are -- here's how we're going to get this amendment done or this is how we're going to get this passed. i wish i could use examples but i'd tip my hand. he would lay out the plan. i would say john, this isn't college. you've been smoking dope around here? this isn't college. we can't do that. it will never ever work. it won't work. it usually did. but i would always say, heck,

let's try it. if you want to try it, i'm willing to try it. it's legal, it's honest. but it's just so -- such a long shot but it worked. and i was appreciative of that. that didn't just happen. that came from smarts, hard work, and caring. i guess i'll end, thank you, brooks, for sharing your time, sharing john with us. i know it wasn't easy for you. we're going -- i was going to say we're going to miss you but i expect you to come around and bring eleanor and shelly. they have a great job. shelly became our mass -- chilly became our mascot in the office. she's the best beggar you've ever seen. i'm going to miss him. but i'm going to thank john here today for giving so much. he could have made a lot more money in the time he has about

-- time he's been here, in the private sector because he's that talent. he is moving to the private sector. it's their gain, our loss. he's welcome back any time and thank you, john. thank you, thank you, thank you on behalf not just my behalf, on behalf of the people of louisiana and on behalf of the american people for giving so much to your country. god bless you. godspeed. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. boozman: america's family farmers and ranchers -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. boozman: i ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, you may proceed. mr. boozman: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, america's family farmers and ranchers have faced unprecedented challenges in recent years. they have been caught in the middle of trade wars, repeatedly lost harvests and livestock to one catastrophic natural disaster after another and faced a whole new set of unfair letted complications when covid-19 took hold. now a new threat to their future looms. the democrats' reckless tax and spend agenda for which family farmers and ranchers are being told to foot the bill. the democrats are proposing changes to capital gains tax

credits, steppedup basis, and the use of lag time exchanges that put the future of our family farms and ranches at risk. the next generation of family farmers will face devastating consequences if the democrats have their way. as their proposed changes put the future of nearly two million family-owned farm operations at risk. the president and his allies in congress will tell you that family farms and ranches will not be impacted by their proposed changes. in fact, they make a very specific claim that 98% of farms will not be impacted. yet, they have provided no evidence to support that claim. they have been asked to provide that directly by myself and a majority of the republicans side of the ag committee. we essentially asked usda to show its math. that request has gone unanswered. it is unlikely that we will ever

get a response, so we took it upon ourselves to find out if there was any legitimacy to their claim. we asked the highly respected team at the agriculture and food policy center, at texas a&m university to conduct a study on the legislation that mirrors tax increases president biden and congressional democrats have floated to pay for their massive human infrastructure plan. the results confirm exactly what we expected. these proposed changes are going to crush rural america. remember the administration's claim that 98% of family farms and ranches will be protected. well, afpc's research showed just the opposite when it comes to changes to stepped-up basis, which allows the tax basis of inherited asset to be stepped up at death to the fair market value as of the date of death.

if these changes were to be implemented, 92 of afpc's 94 represented farms would be impacted with an average additional tax liability of more than $720,000 per farm. that means 98% of family farms included in afpc study are hurt by these tax increases, not protected by them. and as you can see on this map, this chart, those changes hit rural america very, very hard. we're looking at over half a million dollars in additional tax liabilities per farm in the southwest and in the southeast, which includes my home state of arkansas. in fact, the average tax liability for the five arkansas farms represented in the study is over $800,000.

in the northeast and out west, these changes would result in over $700,000 in additional tax liabilities per farm. look at the midwest. it's over $1 million in additional tax liabilities per farm. these obligations will take literally years to pay off. again, that is just when you take into account changes to stepped-up basis, just that one particular part. add in the higher capital gains tax rates democrats have proposed and limitations to like-kind exchanges which allow taxpayer, including family farmers, to exchange property and defer the capital gains tax, then you can see why so many literally fear for their livelihood. farmers are land rich and cash poor. farm land is equivalent to a farmer's 401(k). instead of a traditional retirement account, farmers and

ranchers invest in cropland and pasture land, tirelessly work that land in order to create a more prosperous future for their loved ones. that lifetime of hard work, planning, and sacrifice will all be for naught if these changes are allowed to be implemented. on top of that, these tax code changes will drive the farmland market, lead to further consolidation in the agriculture sector, create barriers to entry for new or beginning farmers, and stunt reinvestment in rural communities. ultimately, agriculture as a whole and rural america will suffer. that is why my colleagues and i are down here today. if changes of these magnitude are implemented, the economic harm it will cause will have a lasting impact on rural america. these tax increases which again are only being proposed because the democrats are determined to force their reckless spending

agenda through congress, it certainly needs to be rejected. with that, i yield to senator grassley. mr. grassley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: to finance their big spending agenda, president trump and members of his party and congress have called for over $3 trillion new taxes. this group claims that these tax cuts are targeted solely to the very wealthy. however, deep down, embedded in their tax hike proposal is a direct attack on family farms and resulting ruination of rural communities. if democrats get their way,

family farms would be decimateed through the enactment of a second death tax that operates on top of the existing estate tax. this second death tax would subject the paper gains of business and investment assets to tax upon transfer to the next generation. at the same time, the current long-term capital gains rate would be nearly double. now as a result, decades of paper gains and farmland and other property could be subject to capital gains taxes at a rate as high as 43.4%. given inflation, as well as the escalating value of farmland over the past several days, some

iowa farms could easily generate half a million dollar tax bill or even more based upon land values alone and those land values have gone up as a result of inflation and nothing else. moreover, according to an analysis by kpmg, family farms captured both by this new death tax and the existing estate tax could see tax rates exceeding 66%. now, it's pretty simple. that is not taxation. that is confiscation. proponents claim this new tax, or you might say this new complications is needed to close a loophole that allows the

appreciation and value of property over one's lifetime to go untaxed. but death isn't a loophole, and it shouldn't be a taxable event. in fact, rather than solving a problem, this proposal would resurrect failed policies from a decade past. as part of the tax reform act of 1976, congress experimented with a similar attempt to subject paper gains and inherited assets to tax. this change was immediately met without cries for farmers, ranchers, small business owners, resulting in its repeal in a few years. in fact, it probably was so -- such a complicated process, it's probably impossible to

administer such a tax. at least that was the main point made in the late 1970's against that 1976 legislation. now, as problematic as this change was for farmers in 1976, what democrats have in store would actually be far worse. where in 1976, no tax was due until an asset was eventually sold by an heir, current proposals could result in a tax bill due in the year of that person's death. as it's often said and with a lot of truth to it, farmers are land rich and cash poor. this means it's unlikely for a december end ent's -- for a decedent's estate to have cash

on hand to satisfy a six-figure cash bill. now, as a result, all or portions of a family farm might have to be sold to satisfy an oversized tax bill. this would endanger the continuation of family farms from one generation to the next, and it would devastate rural communities along with it. because, you see, most people, if you invest in farmland, you don't invest today because you're going to sell it tomorrow. you invest it to work it, and you work it for a generation, and you pass it on to the next generation. now, we had one recent study found subjecting paper gains to a tax that death could cost as much as 80,000 jobs each year over the next decade. so i say to my democrat colleagues, pursue this policy

at your own peril. i assure you farmers, ranchers, and small business owners are paying close attention. if you aren't, you better. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: mr. president, thank you. i have the privilege ■of representing kansas in the united states senate and kansans and especially the opportunity and the privilege of representing farmers and ranchers, a huge component of our state's economy and a significant way that we live our lives. agriculture has molded the nature of our state generation to generation. in agriculture, farming and ranching is one of the few remaining professions where sons and daughters still can work alongside moms and dads. they can work alongside their

grandparents. i still remember a video that a farmer proudly showed me of he and three generations of his family, so four total. him and three other generations cutting wheat in kansas one july summer and how proud he was to look out and see that his son was in one combine, he was in another, his father in another, his grandfather in another. family farming and ranching is not just important for food production. we are productive in that family farm setting. it's not just important for food production for our country and for the rest of the world, but it also is important for us in preserving our values and principles which are passed down from generation to generation. the love of life, respect for others, the joy of earning a living, the idea that what you do every day has a consequence in feeding the world. those characteristics of kansas farmers need to be around for

the country, not only today but into the future. but unfortunately, the tax-and-spend spree, the democrats' tax proposal is a direct assault on multigenerational farms and ranches in kansas and across the country. these proposals threaten the ability of producers to be able to pass on their operations to that next generation. i've watched farmers talk to their kids about what the future lies for them. sometimes it is positive in the sense there is hope for a bright future. other times it is the difficult days in agriculture, it's the worry about whether or not the next generation can afford to be on that farm. for the past century, this thing called stepped-up basis, so the value for a piece of property for its inheritance tax purposes, is as valued as at the date of the death of the person, the farmer in this case, the rancher in this case, for this

past century, stepped-up basis has been a cornerstone of our tax code, and it has protected family farms and ranches in their plan to transition to the next generation. farms and ranchland have tripled in value since the late 1990's so somebody just now coming to the farm because of the death of a parent could be devastatedly impacted. for example, 02,000-acre farm purchased in the mid-1990's in kansas by a first-generation farmer, the typical farm in kansas, even with a modest capital gains exemption, the inheriting farmer, the son or daughter, could face a tax liability close to a fourth of the present-day value of the land to keep the farm in operation to satisfy the tax liability, the son or daughter inheriting the farm would be faced with the difficult decision of either to sell a significant portion of the land

that was farmed by their parents or take on even more debt in a business that's faced with increasingly tight margins. the damage would only get increasingly worse for family farms and ranches passed down through additional generations. if the proposed changes in stepped-up basis are implemented, the big farms will get bigger by purchasing land from the smaller operations unable to meet that tax liability. the consequences would certainly be felt by the small farmer and his or her family who are forced to sell the land, but also throughout the entire rural community in which the farms are built around. we need those family farmers on land in kansas producing food, fiber, and fuel for the well-being of our country and its economy. but we need them especially for the well-being of the community's future. in the absence of those farm farmers and their kids, the family ranchers and their

children, the ability to keep a grocery store, to have a farm store, to have an implement dealership, to support the local bank, to pay the taxes for the school, we lose those things when we lose family farmers. our farmers and ranchers should not be forced to shoulder the democratic spending spree to expand social programs. our tax code should work for american families, not against them, and especially for family farms and ranches that often lack the cash flow to make ends meet. i urge my colleagues, my democrat colleagues, to reject imposing taxes to changing the issue of stepped-up basis that's so valuable and viable for farmers and ranchers future, and it would endanger their ability to pass on land to the next generation of producers. it would be a bad thing for the farmers and ranchers, it would be a bad thing for the community in which they they have and a terrible thing for our nation. mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president, a lot of time when people come to washington, they come up with you policies and they have a theory of how those theories are supposed to work. they don't always know the unintended consequences of what the law will produce. mr. blunt: unintended consequences. i haven't been approved wrong very many times on that. the other unintended consequences are things nobody saw coming, things you didn't expect to see happen the way they did. smart people writing the laws may do all they can to anticipate everything they can, but there's always something never thought of, and so it's helpful to have information that tells us what the consequences are likely to be. the topic we're talking about here today is filled with intended consequences if you

look just beyond the comment you're making and the impact it's going to have. in this case, the proposed laws are a couple of side -- ideas my democratic colleagues have. the tax-and-spend plans include a lot of bad ideas but two of the ideas are particularly bad and will have particularly devastating impact. first is a proposal from senator sanders to raise the death tax on farmers and ranchers, to change the exemption, to do things that just simply raise that tax. the second would be to impose the double death tax by eliminating what senator moran was talking about the stepped-up basis and calculating how much families have to pay. the research tells us that we can -- what we can expect to happen if these two bills pass. research done at the texas a&m university looked at a representative group of 94 farms

in 30 states. you can look at this research. you can verify my facts. 94 farms, 30 states. they found that under current law, two of those 94 farms could expect to be hit by a big death tax when the farm goes from one generation to the next. but if the stepped-up basis tax hike was proposed by president biden and democrats in congress were enacted, the researchers found 92 of 94 farms would be hit hard. the average additional tax liability would be $726,000. 94 farms, 30 states. 92 farms affected. the average tax, $726,000. now, that's not the total taxes. that's just the additional taxes if these two bills pass. if these tax hikes favored by the other side were allowed to

pass, read have 92 -- we'd have 92 farms paying a higher tax bill. that average additional tax would add up to more than $1.5 million. many families would be forced to sell all or part of their farm, and these aren't families who are inheriting big stock portfolios or families who are inheriting multimillion-dollar beach houses. not families who focused on every way to cheat the tax law. they're not billionaires looking for every way you can use a loophole. these are farmers and ranchers who have put their life into the effort to make their farms work. and i'll point out also, mr. president, these same statistics would apply to many small businesses. give this same speech for small businesses with many of the same considerations. according to the missouri department of agriculture, our state has 95,000 farms.

they cover two-thirds of the state's total land acreage. the average missouri farm is 291 acres, and almost all of them are owned by families. and between the investment there and the efforts that have been made, those families can be devastated in what they have worked hard to put together. so for my friends on the other side of the aisle, i'd point out that unintended consequences are one thing, and unintended consequences often happen. but here we know what the consequences are. so if these bills pass, this is -- this is intended consequences to make a big difference for family farms, for ranches, and frankly for small businesses as well. i hope my colleagues will not go forward with these tax hikes on family farms. they -- we know what damage it will cause. it's easy to verify. don't make the family sell the

farm. don't make the small business sell the farm to a bigger business. don't make these mistakes that have clear and intended consequences if this is what the senate and the congress would do. and i would yield back. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: thank you, mr. president. i join today to join my good friend from arkansas, john boozman, the ranking member on our ag committee. he's organized this colloquy that we have to talk about how important it is that we support our farmers and ranchers. in my home state of north dakota right now, we have terrible drought. our farmers and ranchers are up against it. it is a tough time for our

farmers and ranchers, and we need to be out there doing everything we can to help them and support them. but instead, the biden administration is looking at, you know, tax increases. and that is going to be a big, big problem for them. and so we're here today to talk about that. our farmers and ranchers produce the highest-quality food in the world. and they continue to navigate volatile commodity prices, unpredictable weather, and drought across much of the west. and also the covid pandemic. so they've been dealing with all of these things. throughout these numerous challenges, our producers have continued to put food on the shelves at supermarkets and on the tables of families around the world. not just in this country but around the world. and in this country, every single american benefits every

single day from what our farmers and ranchers do, that's produce the highest-quality, lowest-cost food supply in the world. rather than help improve the economic outlook for our producers, the biden administration has put forward tax-and-spend proposals that would harm family farmers and ranchers and reduce our economic growth, all as we're working to recover from the covid-19 pandemic. the trillions that democrats in congress have already spent this year have led to a $2.2 trillion deficit through the first nine months of the fiscal year and we're on track to end the year with a deficit of nearly $3 trillion, the second-largest deficit since world war ii. with our national debt already at $28 trillion, we simply cannot afford to spend more. the american people are beginning to feel the impacts of those spending policies. the prices of consumer goods are

increasing at the fastest rate since 2008. just last week the department of labor released data showing that inflation has increased to 5.4%, the largest year-over-year gain since 2008. this includes farm country, where producers are facing increased costs for everything from fertilizer to fencing supplies to combines and tractors. as we watch inflation grow faster than american workers' paychecks, wiping out wage gains and leaving american families behind, the biden administration is planning an even large $.5 trillion -- an even larger $3.5 trillion tax-and-spend package. for example, the biden administration and democrats in congress have proposed to eliminate stepped-up basis, a tax provision that prevents family-owned farms and ranches

from being hit by a crippling tax bill when a family member passed away. under current law, when passing down a ranch or farm, the tax basis is stepped up, preventing a large tax bill on the next generation of farmers. in addition to increasing the tax bill on multigeneration farmers and ranchers, repealing stepped-up basis would add significant complexity to farmers and ranchers' tax-filing process. in fact, what a democrat congress previously tried to repeal stepped-up basis in the 1976 tax reform arctic, it was labeled by -- act, it was labeled by the unusual times as, quote, impossiblily unworkable." congress at the time must have agreed because the provision was never implemented and was ultimately repealed four years later in 1980. the impacts of a repeal of

stepped-up basis would not only be felt by our farmers and ranchers, but it would also impact small businesses and their employees and supplementary services. a recent report from ernst and young estimates the repeal of stepped-up basis would result in the loss of 80,000 jobs in each of the first ten years after the repeal and loss of 100,000 jobs in each subsequent year. 80,000 jobs to 100,000 jobs. similarly, a study by the texas a&m food and agriculture policy center determined that more than 99% of the representative farms in its 309-state database would be impacted by a proposal to eliminate stepped-up basis with an average additional tax liability totaling nearly $725,000 per farm. and while the administration claims these changes would impact only 2% of farms, they

have provided no explanation or data to support those assertions. with the average age of farmers in our country now nearly 60 years old, now is not the time to you had about the next generation of -- to burden the next generation of farmers and ranchers with massive, complex tax bills. the biden administration is proposing lifetime exchanges, a provision that's been in the tax code since 1921 which allows farmers and ranchers to defer taxes on land transfers when they continue their investment in similar land assets. farmers and ranchers use the 1031 lifetime exchange for many reasons. this includes consolidating land parcels to reduce time and money they spend moving equipment, supplies, and commodities from one place to another. producers also consolidate cropland closer to their livestock, barns, crop storage facilities or even as part of

the planting process to help young or beginning farmers join their business. in short, in the middle of a recovery from a global pandemic, president biden is proposing a massive tax and spend bill that will harm our economic recovery, increase the cost of consumer goods, reduce american competitiveness globally, and disproportionately hurt our small businesses, our farmers, and our ranchers. instead we need to get our debt and deficit under control, ensure u.s. competitiveness in the global marketplace, while positioning our farmers, ranchers and ag supply chain to continue to produce the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. a senator: over the last few weeks i've been back home, and

many, many people are finish up wheat harvest, absolutely one of the joys of the entire year when a year's worth of hard work comes to fruition. mr. marshall: every corner of the state was speck celd with tractors, grarn carts and truck doing their part in the harvest process. inside those implements were fathers, sons, sisters, mothers, brothers and my cousins working side by side to harvest the crop that would provide the harvesting for land payments, operating loans for next year's inputs like seed and fertilizer. agriculture is a capital intensive industry, much more than i could have ever imagined. harvesting wheat requires four pieces of machinery many costing $250,000 or $5,000 or more each. it takes years for a farmer to build up equity to purchase a new piece of equipment or land

and for many families it's only by passing down the land and equipment that a family farm can remain viable. this is the only way a young farmer can truly survive. the common saying in kansas is that farmers live poor but die rich. across this great nation, contrary to most people's beliefs, 98% of farms and ranches are family owned. 98% family owned. those families produce much of the food, fuel, and fiber we consume here in the united states and around the globe. these family farms, many in their fourth, like mine, fifth generation and even sixth and seventh generation farms are out there now. they endure turbulent weather, inconsistent market conditions and tight labor markets. it seemed like growing up a week never passed that my dad never looked at me and said you know, farming has to be the biggest gamble there is in america. in 2017, republican-led

government-passed the tax cuts and jobs act which provided sweeping tax changes to encourage private entrepreneurship and economic growth. the tax cuts and jobs act, the exemptions for the estate tax, as we call it, the death tax, more than doubled, keeping most family farms safe from redundant government taxation. but now the current administration and some of my friends across the aisle want to tax hard working agriculture producers with the financing of the roughly $5 trillion reckless tax and spending bill. i think president eisenhower or ike, as we call him, a fellow kansan, hit the nail on the head when he said, and i quote, you know, farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you're 1,000 miles from the cornfield, end quote. first they proposed not only eliminating stepped-up basis on

property. their proposal would tax unrealized capital gains over $1 million at ordinary income tax rates which would be levied at the top marginal rate at 39.6%. that means the next generation inheriting land and equipment would have to pay taxes on the increase in value, even if the property is never sold. secondly, the administration's proposed lowering the exemption to the death tax from 11.7 million under the tax cuts and jobs act to 3.5 million per person and increasing the top tax rate from 40% to 45%. consequently a family farm would have to sell off a third of their land to keep going from generation to generation and the buyers unfortunately would be large corporations or foreign entities. according to a report published by texas a&m agricultural and food policy center under current law only two out of 94 would be

impacted. only 98% of representative farms would see how higher tax burdens in certain parts of the administration's plan were enacted. from 1997 to 2020 in kansas, cropland values raised 2020%. -- 220%. if there was a 20% capital gains tax on those valuation increases, the average kansas farmer would have to have a new tax obligation of nearly a quarter of a million dollars. these numbers are simply unbearable. i stop and pay homage to my grandfather and both of my grandfathers who had fourth-generation family farms. these farms were bought in the early 1900's. both farms have been in the family over 100 years. i would suppose my grandfathers paid less than $100 per acre. today those farms, maybe they're worth $1,000, $2,000

per acre. but if you can imagine the tax burden of trying to pass down that farm and pay for that stepped basis, for the tax on the increase nbltions -- in that property it isn't going to happen. none of us have brothers, sisters and cousins that have that type of cash available. we want to encourage the next generation to return home to the family farm, not tax them into bankruptcy. america will see millions of acres of land and equipment change hands over the next decade. while the current administration contests a small percentage of farm families will be impacted by proposed changes, all evidence indicates otherwise. the administration fails to consider the several realities of multigenerational farms with some siblings staying on the farm and some selling their interest. any changes to the estate tax and opportunity to pass assets from one generation to the next will lead to further consolidation in the ag industry. fewer young families returning

home to their rural communities and more rural main street businesses closing shop. we can't allow this administration to saddle hardworking farming families with the responsibilities of funding their socialist agenda. agriculture is still responsible for 40% of the kansas economy. we must do what we can to ensure family farms have every opportunity possible to continue their way of life and bring the next generation back to the farm and keep rural america alive and well. thank you, mr. president, and i yield back. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi.

mrs. hyde-smith: thank you, mr. president. i appreciate the opportunity to join a number of my colleagues representing farm states to sound the alarm to the millions of rural americans who will be harmed by proposed tax changes outlinedment american families plan -- outlined in the american families plan, described as a plan to help american families, it would do the exact opposite for farm families across the united states. the most concerning changes to the tax code include decreasing the estate tax exemption, increasing capital tax gains on transfers of property to heirs and increasing taxes on appreciated assets such as farmland, which has increased in value very significantly in recent years. these misguided proposals fail to take into consideration the fact that farmers in general are highly vulnerable to these types of tax changes as land and equipment comprise most of the

farmers' net worth. if enacted, these tax provisions would strongly discourage and make it more difficult for our next generation to get into farming. the provisions would create significant hurdles from a financial perspective, to say the least. with the average age of u.s. farmers being nearly 60 years old, do we really want to force surviving spouses or heirs to sell half of the farm they inherited simply to continue farming the land that has been passed down for generations? family farms are the backbone of american agriculture. roughly 98% of all u.s. farms are family owned and operated. whether you like large family farming operations or not, they account for 44% of total u.s. farm production annually. that is a staggering figure. given that american farmers

contributed $136 billion to the u.s. gross domestic product in 2019, these people who put food on our table, clothes on our back do not need to go out of business because they are being taxed at every turn, punished for their achievements and sacrifices. initial reports from the biden administration suggested that the proposed tax changes i am discussing would have very little impact on american farmers and ranchers. however, recent research and analysis conducted by texas a&m university paints a very different picture. for instance, should the proposed capital gains tax changes and generational transfers become enacted into law, nearly all u.s. family farms would face higher taxes. nationwide, the average additional tax liability per farm under the capital gains tax

change would be $776,104. mississippi would be the state heavily affected with $2.1 million. totally unbelievable. should the estate tax changes become law, recent analysis also determined that nearly half of all u.s. family farms would face higher taxes. the average additional tax liability per farm nationwide would be $2.2 million. and the fifth-most heavily impacted state would again be mississippi with an average additional tax liability per farm of $4.6 million. that is totally incredible. as a former ag commissioner of mississippi, i personally know

these farmers and their families. this is truly unbelievable. more than three years of net cash farm income would be needed to meet these additional tax obligations alone. that is simply unmanageable. i am perplexed as to why democrats want to place the highest tax burden on one of the most economically challenged and socially disadvantaged states in the nation, my home state of mississippi. let's not forget that in rural america, the primary source of jobs and income are often associated with agriculture. it's the number-one industry in mississippi, employing more than 17% of the state's workforce either directly or indirectly. if family farms are taxed out of business far more than the farmers will suffer. low-income and minority populations across rural america

will lose jobs and be forced to rely on government support. i hope this is not the underlying plan of my democratic colleagues. let me be clear. for those who are willing to pay for reckless spending by punishing america's farmers and ranchers and everyone who relies on them, you will be doing far more than just that. you will be running off our next generation of farmers. you will be making it easier for large corporations owned by foreign adversaries such as china to buy up available farmland. and you will be ensuring that every american pays more for the food they eat and the clothes they wear. the list goes on. mr. president, i know there is a deep desire on the other side of the aisle to enact a reckless tax and spending spree that makes americans more dependent on the federal government,