Floor Statements

Mr. President, I spent those several weeks that we were away from Washington, DC, around Labor Day in Kansas, and, unfortunately, it is clearly evident that inflation has returned. Gas prices are up, prices at the grocery store are up, and further price hikes are on the horizon.

Unfortunately, price increases at the grocery store and at the gas pump and, really, everyplace else put the greatest

burden on low- and middle-income families who are already feeling the strains caused by COVID-19 in their pocketbook.

It is apparent, I think, that our spending here in the Nation's Capital over a long period of time is part of the cause for that inflation and, in fact, a significant part of the cause for that inflation. But it doesn't seem to me that my Democratic colleagues are aware of the consequences of pouring a massive amount of more money, more government spending on already this inflationary circumstance that our citizens are now encountering.

The Democratic tax-and-spend spree will exacerbate our inflationary circumstances, meaning that the prices will continue to rise as we borrow more money to pay for these things. It means that interest rates will rise and, at some point in time, those who lend us money will no longer be willing to do so.

While I am sure that many of my Democratic colleagues would tell me the good things that would happen from the spending that is included in this bill, we cannot discount the people who they indicate they are trying to help would be the ones who suffer the greatest burden from increasing costs of everything that they buy.

Given the historic levels of spending that has occurred over the last year and a half, now is not the time to spend even greater amounts of taxpayer dollars.

My view is that we were too slow in turning the spigot in regard to spending that preceded the election of President Biden and a Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate and House. And that, then, resulted in-- even though we had already spent so much money--an additional nearly $2 trillion being spent back in January, and now a $3.5 trillion, which I think ultimately ends up costing a lot more than $3.5 trillion.

In order for the $3.5 trillion package to be paid for--if it ultimately is paid for--the Democratic majority is pursuing tax hikes that will have significant consequence on small businesses and farm families, both of which are so essential to the economic well-being of Kansas and many other States across the country, especially in middle America.

Tax increases on working Americans should be, if at all, a last resort, not a funding opportunity for sweeping--sweeping--massive government expansion. This government expansion includes funding of a radical climate agenda, like the Green New Deal, installing new entitlement programs, and increasing government intrusion into the lives of Americans to levels we have never seen before.

While businesses are struggling to recoup lost revenue from the COVID-19 pandemic--the consequences of that pandemic--the Democrats' plan would slap more taxes on businesses and drive up the costs for everyone.

We should not jeopardize our Nation's economic well-being so that Democrats can make good on their campaign promises. Voters certainly did not have that in mind when they elected such a slim majority here in the Senate: 50 Democrats, 50 Republicans. That wasn't a mandate for the kind of spending and taxing that is now being considered here on the Senate floor.

This proposed massive influx of government spending is irresponsible. Americans generally know how to live within their means, and it is time that government show some fiscal restraint as well.

For a long time, as I did the townhall meetings across Kansas, it was often the topic of conversation. One of the first things Kansans would raise with me is all this spending--all this deficit spending. And for a while that conversation kind of went away. Today, it is back. It is the topic of conversation at every townhall meeting I had for those several weeks in Kansas. It is what I heard at Rotary and Kiwanis and Lions Clubs. Americans, Kansans in particular, are asking for us to show some responsibility here, and this legislation now pending shows no responsibility.

To make matters worse, as the Democrats have spent valuable time testing the limits of their power to pursue this tax-and-spend spree, they have shirked their basic duties of governing.

The debt limit and government funding, the appropriations process, are clearly the province of the party in power. I am anxiously awaiting for our Appropriations Committee to be able to do its work. The appropriations work is to be completed by September 30, which, once again, will not be the case. We await an agreement on topline spending numbers and a balance of prioritization between domestic and defense spending. While the air--the oxygen--is being sucked out of the Senate for purposes of a reconciliation bill and a $3.5 trillion-plus spending bill, we need to be focused on the basics of making sure that government doesn't shut down and that we do our work in appropriating the necessary amounts for government to function.

We have known that the suspension of the debt limit would expire this summer--that has never been in question--but Democrats, with control of the White House and both bodies of Congress, have neglected to address either the debt limit or the regular appropriations process, the funding. They are now combining the issue of debt limit with the annual funding for government operations. This is what we call a CR, a continuing resolution, in which we fund the government at its current level into the future because we haven't gotten our work done. Now that CR and the debt limit increase are tied together. This is another example of not owning their governing obligations, not acting as honest brokers, and not, certainly, seeking bipartisanship. They only seek bipartisanship when it suits their political interests.

What you won't hear from the majority leader and my Democratic colleagues is that there is a clean, short-term continuing resolution that has been proposed by Vice Chairman Shelby of the Appropriations Committee and the minority leader, Leader McConnell. In addition to avoiding an unnecessary lapse in government funding, the Shelby- McConnell CR includes funding for our ally Israel, relief for hurricane-stricken States, and support for Afghan refugees. This is an act of good faith, and it deserves bipartisan support.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I join the Senator from Missouri and his colleague, Senator Blunt, expressing my condolences and concern for the family of Lance Corporal Jared Schmitz from the great State of Missouri and others who died at the Kabul airport in the effort to free Americans and Afghans who helped Americans from their country and from their deaths.

It takes us back to this weekend, Saturday, September 11. Our Nation remembered the horrific attacks that occurred 20 years previous and reflected upon the fight against terrorism, which was set in motion on that very fateful day.

The events that unfolded in Afghanistan these past few weeks have made the 20th anniversary of September 11 that much more painful; painful especially for the men and women who served our Nation in Afghanistan.

The chaos and collapse of that country cost American lives, opened old wounds, and left many Americans questioning how all this could happen in this manner.

The American people require answers from the administration on how our withdrawal from Afghanistan went so horribly--so horribly, horribly wrong.

Officials should be, must be, held accountable for their weak leadership and mismanaged withdrawal.

During my tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives and here in the U.S. Senate, following the attack of 9/11, I visited Afghanistan four times. Over the course of those visits, I saw progress being made by our troops and by civilians, by our NATO allies, and by Afghan partners.

My last visit was about 4 years ago just to the day about a week ago. At that time, the U.S. had less than 15,000 servicemembers in Afghanistan and our men and women were operating as advisers to the Afghan military. For the most part, the war seemed to be being fought by the Afghan military. Certainly, several terrorist groups had a presence in the region, but our military was preventing them from gaining the ability to strike our homeland.

President Biden's withdrawal plan, if it could be called that, led to the deadliest day for American servicemembers in Afghanistan since 2011. Thirteen of our servicemembers returned home in flag-draped caskets. Most of them were too young to remember 9/11, yet they laid down our lives to help Americans and Afghans flee the Taliban and find safety.

Americans remain in Afghanistan and thousands of our Afghan partners who are likely to face persecution or death at the hands of the Taliban have little hope of escaping the country. Our own office continues the effort to try to find and help those individuals remove themselves from a country where death seems certain.

I thank my staff, and I pray for those people, and I thank the Kansans who brought them to our attention.

People at home worried about Christians being persecuted for being Christians in Afghanistan. Those who serve in Afghanistan worried about someone who saved their life--an Afghan who saved their life or who was their interpreter or who was there side by side with them--now being left to the fate of the Taliban.

I am a member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittees that fund the Departments of Defense and State. We must hold hearings to examine the President's decision-making process and his consideration of the advice provided by his military and intelligence community leaders. We need to determine what steps, if any, were taken to plan for the withdrawal of Americans, with Special Immigrant Visas holders from Afghanistan.

We also need to hear directly from the administration how costly the lethal American weapons ended up in the hands of Taliban. The high- ranking officials who were responsible for this failure must answer to the American people why this operation failed so spectacularly and why their taxpayer dollars were left behind for the Taliban in the form of helicopters, combat vehicles, and weapons.

How is it that we came to rely upon the Taliban to help those we are responsible for, we owe a debt to, to be able to escape from the Taliban?

The administration must also be held accountable for its mismanagement and for the precarious security situation that this incompetent withdrawal created. Hastily withdrawing thousands of troops, apparently in the interest of a symbolic departure before the 20th anniversary of 9/11, made this world a more dangerous place. It created an environment that will allow radical terrorists to find refuge under the Taliban rule, and produced one that was the most pressing humanitarian crisis in history.

We deserve answers on how we will remedy this complex security situation, how we will help Afghan women and girls who are already being persecuted, and how we will learn from mistakes that were made to make certain it cannot happen again.

Finally, our veterans who served honorably in Afghanistan need to know that their service--and when I say ``finally,'' this is not the least important point. It is made at the end to make the point so clear. Our veterans who served honorably in Afghanistan need to know that their service was not--was not--in vain. More than 775,000 servicemembers were deployed to Afghanistan over the two decades since 9/11.

To those servicemembers: Make no mistake, your service has left a lasting and unparalleled impact upon the world.

Our country has been safe from a terrorist attack from the region of Afghanistan since their arrival in Afghanistan. Their work and efforts, their sacrifice and service made a difference for the safety of their fellow Americans. Those who served significantly reduced the threat from al-Qaida and brought Osama bin Laden to justice.

You deserve to know that the collapse of Afghanistan does not fall on your shoulders but on the failure of leadership here in the Nation's Capital City. Our sudden, disastrous, and poorly executed withdrawal opened old wounds and created new ones.

I commit as the ranking Republican on the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs to work side by side with our chairman, the Senator from Montana, to make certain that our veterans receive the care and attention they deserve and are entitled to, the respect and honor from their fellow American citizens, and the benefits that we promised to be available, available.

We have made the world a more dangerous place by our failing departure, and we have left Americans and our Afghan partners behind.

I served in the House of Representatives on 9/11, 20 years ago. I remember the day and the attack. I was one of the first Members of Congress to visit Ground Zero, where I saw the remains of the two Twin Towers--still smoke coming from the ground, steam--a bit like a construction site as they were trying to remove the rubble that were the remains of those towers.

First, family members were brought in to see the site where their loved ones died, which captured my heart as I watched them see where their loved ones died. After paying my respects to those family members and as I was leaving, I found a makeshift memorial that New Yorkers had placed there. It was a series of long tables at which people had brought flowers and cards, stuffed animals--teddy bears--and notes to pay tribute to those who had died just a few weeks before at that location.

I picked up one thing from that table of remembrance and honor and respect. It was a piece of notebook paper with a jagged edge along the side, torn out of a spiral notebook, with a child's handwriting:

Dear Daddy, how much I love you, how I hope Heaven is a

wonderful place, and I hope, Daddy, that I live a life good

enough to join you there someday.

Amanda, aged 12.

That moment has stuck with me for 20-plus years now--the point being that we have a responsibility to make sure that there are no more Amandas who suffer the fate that this young girl suffered that day with the death of her father. It occurred because of a terrorist attack occurring on the lands of Afghanistan, held by the Taliban, that allowed ISIS to attack the United States of America.

I have tried to change my conduct as a Member of Congress, since that day, to be a more responsible Member, to do the things necessary to be more worldly and understand what is going on, to make sure that I make the decisions that help make the world a safer place.

What we have seen in the last few weeks discourages me in making the world a safer place, but I rise to the call again to say we have responsibilities left in Afghanistan; we have responsibilities to the people we left behind to allow and to help them escape near certain death; and we also have responsibilities to those men and women who served in Afghanistan, who answered the call because they saw what happened to our Nation on 9/11 and said: I have something to give. I have something--perhaps my life--to give to see that this doesn't happen again.

I hope that we, despite the circumstances that we have seen in the last days, now have the ability as a U.S. Congress, as a Member of the U.S. Senate, to rise to the occasion in which we are still needed in this world to protect American lives, to save lives in Afghanistan, and to make certain--to make certain--that there are no more Amandas asking for the opportunity to see their fathers someday in Heaven.

The burdens are great for us. The responsibilities are real. Those who have failed us to date need to be held accountable, and the rest of us need to rise to the occasion to protect this country we love, the United States of America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3795, and I ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, there is no denying that we have a humanitarian crisis at the southern border. I have witnessed this personally. Just last month, Customs encountered 200,000 individuals attempting the dangerous and deadly trek across the southern border. At least tens of thousands of these individuals have been released into our country without an official court date.

The Biden administration's rollback of immigration laws has not only magnified the humanitarian crisis, but it has left our law enforcement with the impossible task of trying to slow the flow of illegal crossings while also attempting to stop drugs, weapons, and human trafficking entering our country.

My amendment simply states that we must enforce our existing immigration laws to address the humanitarian crisis and to increase resources for smart and effective border security, improve asylum processing, and reduce immigration court backlogs.

Voting no on this amendment signals a refusal to acknowledge we have a humanitarian crisis on our southern border and an unwillingness to support our existing immigration laws.

I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this straightforward amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I joined the bipartisan infrastructure group of 22 Senators. I am one of the originals. I did so for a number of reasons. One is how important infrastructure is to Kansas and to the country.

I would highlight the importance of infrastructure investment to my State. We are in the middle of the country, where our manufactured goods and agricultural commodities need to be able to compete in the world economy. How efficiently and effectively we get those goods and those commodities to market has a huge consequence to the ability for Kansans to earn a living.

Across our State, from Southeast Kansas to Southwest Kansas, from the suburbs of Kansas City in Johnson County and Wyandotte County, all across Northwest and Central Kansas, the demand for improved roads, greater safety, is there. There is a great desire to see that roads and bridges are repaired. County commissioners and trustees of our townships have called to say: We have a bridge. Could you help us do something about that?

So I entered this group of 22 Senators. I was one of the 11 to provide some input and to see that Kansas priorities--that we had a seat at the table and to help negotiate a deal that didn't raise taxes, that didn't spend trillions of dollars and focused on actual traditional infrastructure, and to avoid what I fear is to follow, what I would describe as a Democratic wish list. I wanted this to be a smaller, more affordable, paid-for package that was not excessive in scope, didn't add to the national debt, and did not raise taxes on the American people.

This package includes a number of priorities of mine, including a historic increase in investment in broadband and does provide critical resources to repair our roads, bridges, and airports.

So a desire for a seat at the table, a desire to invest in infrastructure, and I also would add a desire to see that this U.S. Senate, Republicans and Democrats, can work together for a beneficial product for the American people. However, from the very beginning, I outlined criteria that would be needed to be met for my support on any final outcome of the negotiations. My priority was that the bill be paid for and therefore not raise the national debt.

Half of the new spending in this bill is not offset--is not offset-- with reduced spending or increases in nontax revenues. The Congressional Budget Office scores this bill as adding a quarter of a trillion dollars to the national debt.

My view has been from the beginning that if we can only find offsets to pay for a certain amount--in this case, about half of the increased spending included in this bill--then the size of our bill should be half of what it is. If you can only find a way to pay for half of what you are spending, then spend less money--spend half as much less money. That, of course, was not the outcome of these negotiations.

Additionally, I had hoped that this bipartisan plan would dissuade Democrats from pursuing their own partisan $3.5 trillion tax-and-spend spree. The Democratic plan to immediately follow this bipartisan infrastructure bill with their own spending bill significantly

undermines the bipartisan effort to deliver a good outcome for the people of this country.

I had hoped that if we reached a bipartisan agreement--in fact, I had hoped a bipartisan agreement would be reached among the 22 Senators, but pretty early in the negotiations, it became clear that there was significant input and direction from the Biden administration and from the majority leader, the Democratic majority leader in the U.S. Senate. So instead of negotiating with my colleagues and seeking an outcome that we supported, it had to be run by those who are in the White House and those who are the leadership of the Democratic Members of the U.S. Senate.

My desire to see that we pass or reach an agreement to pass a bill that would be paid for did not occur, was not met--that criteria was not met--and the desire to see Democratic Senators say: If we do this together, we are not going to do something else on our own. In fact, some of the things we negotiated in or out of the bipartisan package will now be included in the broader package of the Democratic wish list.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to reach an agreement, only to discover then that in a succeeding bill, one that immediately follows, the things that we negotiated in or out are now included or taken out. So the bipartisan nature of the agreement is in many ways offset by the bill that follows.

Reaching an infrastructure deal in a bipartisan way would send a great message that we are capable of working together, and I certainly indicate to my colleagues--I particularly indicate to Senator Sinema, the Senator from Arizona, how much I appreciate her efforts to pull us together and to lead our meetings in a productive way, and I would say again that I am open to those opportunities.

I am saddened by the fact that this did not reach an agreement that I can support, but I certainly indicate to my colleagues that I am willing to work with Republican and Democratic Members of the Senate to see if, in other instances, we can come together in a way that provides hope for the American people that we can work together on a better product than we were able to reach in this instance.

Unfortunately, to sum up, there is too much spending, too much debt, and therefore there will be too much inflation. My efforts to reach a compromise were honest and sincere, and I regret that we were unable to arrive at a bill that I can support

I yield the floor.

Madam President, 10 years ago I attended the memorial service for CW2 Bryan J. Nichols. I vividly remember the outpouring of support from the Hays community as hundreds of people lined the streets with American flags to honor their hometown hero.

On Friday, August 6, 2021, a memorilization ceremony was held in New Century, KS, by the Army Reserve Center and Aviation Support Center to once again honor the bravery and sacrifice of Chief Nichols.

I have been told that Bryan knew his life's purpose was to become a soldier, a calling he pursued to defend our freedom.

He took his oath of enlistment in 1996, swearing to protect our country from enemies foreign and domestic. After 9/11, he answered our country's call to defend our homeland, serving on

multiple tours abroad, including in Iraq.

As we approach the 20th anniversary of 9/11, the way Americans like Bryan dedicated themselves to their country following the attacks continues to move and inspire me.

After graduating flight school in 2008, he was assigned as a pilot to the Army Reserve's 7th Battalion of the 158th Aviation Regiment in New Century, KS. He deployed in May 2011 in support of Operation Enduring Freedom as a CH-47 Chinook pilot.

On August 6, 2011, he gave his life for his country alongside 29 of his brothers in arms when his helicopter was shot down by enemy fire. It remains the single deadliest loss of U.S. forces during the war in Afghanistan.

The ultimate sacrifice he made a decade ago is a painful reminder that freedom is not free. And that it is the solemn duty of our Nation to make certain his sacrifice--and those of all American heroes--are never forgotten.

On Friday, that duty was fulfilled in a particularly special way with the Memorialization Ceremony remembering Chief Warrant Officer 2 Nichols as a fallen hero and beloved member of this community.

As Kansans so naturally do, we have also seen the Hays community continue to keep his legacy at the forefront of our minds, from creating the annual Memorial Ride in his honor to dedicating the new flag pole outside Thomas More Prep-Marian High School in his name.

Shortly after his passing, I was also pleased to support efforts to designate the junction of I-70 and US 183 as the ``CW2 Bryan J. Nichols fallen veterans memorial interchange.'' This designation serves as a reminder to all those who drive by of the heroes who have safeguarded our opportunity to live in the strongest, freest, and greatest Nation in the world.

While Bryan was an American hero to all of us, he was also a son, brother, husband, and dad to those who loved him most. Military service is family service, and I want to recognize his family's sacrifice to this country as well. Thank you.

Our nation is forever indebted to Bryan for his service.

May God bless our servicemembers and their loved ones.

Mr. President, I want to congratulate and pay tribute to Mildred Schindler Janzen, a World War II survivor and author of the memoir, ``Surviving Hitler, Evading Stalin.''

Mildred was born in Great Bend, KS, in 1929 to German parents. Shortly after her birth, her family returned to Germany to take care of the family farm. Growing up in Nazi Germany, World War II completely disrupted Mildred's childhood and her family's life. Mildred and her family were driven away from their home, separated from each other, and forced to become refugees in their own country. As a teenager, Mildred and her family were captured by Russian soldiers, and eventually, her father was led away to never be seen again. After returning to their family farm, she and her mother and brother were displaced once again by Polish soldiers.

Mildred experienced the horrors of World War II and her courage in sharing her story should be commended. After the war and with the help of her American birth certificate, Mildred was able to return to the United States to live with relatives. Back in the United States, Mildred came back to Kansas, to her birthplace. She settled in Ellsworth, KS, where she attended high school, learned English, and worked at a local bank. During her time in high school, Mildred met and married Leon Janzen, and they had four children together: Karen, Kenton, Susan, and Galen.

After sharing her story with many others, Mildred decided to write a memoir. It is her hope that releasing this memoir will help prevent history from repeating itself. Mildred's bravery and resilience is a testament to her strong character. Her choice to rise above past hardships and instead focus on a life filled with happiness, persistence, and love is a prime example of the enduring survivor that Mildred is.

Today, Mildred spends her time gardening, baking, being active within her church and being with family. She embodies a true Kansan: determined, hard-working, and committed to her community.

Mildred, I congratulate you on the release of your memoir and thank you for demonstrating to Kansans and the world your outstanding courage and character. Thank you for telling your story.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I want to pay tribute to our colleague Mike Enzi and express my condolences to his family and pay my respects to him.

Senator Enzi's long career in public service began when he was elected as mayor of his hometown of Gillette, WY, in 1974.

I can just see Mike Enzi--a younger Mike Enzi--being the mayor of a place like Gillette, WY, and it brings a smile to my face and a warmth to my heart. And I can imagine how hard he worked to see that only good things happened to the citizens of his hometown.

He then went on to serve in the Wyoming House of Representatives and the Wyoming Senate, before being elected to four terms in the U.S. Senate, beginning in 1996.

Prior to being elected to office, Senator Enzi served in the Wyoming Air National Guard.

In Congress, Senator Enzi never wavered in his deeply held values and his beliefs, and yet he was always held by all of us in high esteem, by all of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

He had the ability for bringing a consensus, to bring us together, and that remained true even as this body became increasingly polarized.

In his farewell speech to the Senate, Senator Enzi--unfortunately, just a few months ago, Senator Enzi spoke about his 80-20 rule. It is a rule that those of us who work with him knew well: the rule which emphasized focusing on the 80 percent of issues we agree on versus the 20 percent of issues where we disagree. It allowed Senator Enzi to work with Senators across the political spectrum on legislation that he cared so much about.

Senator Enzi carried himself in a quiet and serious demeanor. He was interested above all in achieving good policy outcomes for the people of Wyoming and the people of our Nation.

His leadership has been missed in this Chamber this year, but his legacy as a statesman and his impact on the State of Wyoming will live on forever.

My thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends during this time, including his wife Diana, their daughters Amy and Emily, and son Brad and his grandchildren.

Senator Enzi, may you rest in peace, and please know that your time in the U.S. Senate and your time living on this Earth was well spent, a role model for the rest of us. Thank you.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have the privilege of representing Kansas in the U.S. Senate and Kansans and especially the opportunity, the privilege of representing farmers and ranchers. It is 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 him 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 is 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 have watched farmers talk to their kids about where the future lies for them, and sometimes it is positive in the sense that there is hope for a bright future, and at other times, in difficult days in agriculture, it is 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 that the value of a piece of property for its inheritance tax purposes is valued at the date of the death of the person--the farmer in this case and 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.

Farm- and ranchland have tripled in value since the late nineties, so even a second generation, somebody currently just now coming to the farm because of the death of a parent, could be devastatingly impacted.

For example, a 2,000-acre farm purchased in the midnineties in Kansas by a first-generation producer--kind of a typical-size farm, particularly in western 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 is 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 family 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 trillion-dollar 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 Democratic colleagues, to reject imposing taxes, to changing the issue of stepped-up basis that is 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 and their families, it would be a bad thing for the community in which they live, and it would be a terrible thing for our Nation.

I yield the floor.

Madam President.

Madam President, I rise this evening to express my support for the Cuban people who have taken to the streets of their country to advocate for a government that can meet their basic needs of food, medicine, and political rights.

The Cuban Government is attempting to deflect responsibility for the plight of its own people by blaming the United States of America. It is not our country that denies basic political freedoms to ordinary Cubans. The oppression is underscored by the fact that these are the first significant protests in Cuba in 25 years.

The people of Cuba cannot be blamed for the actions of a Cuban Government

that greets those who speak out for a different future with violent crackdowns. In response to the latest protests, the regime says it is ``prepared to do anything'' to protect the current system.

Along with most all American people, I stand in solidarity with the demonstrating Cubans, and in a particular way, I seek to improve their lives by leading bipartisan legislation that would lift our country's 60-year-old trade embargo with Cuba. While this legislation would provide a new market for our own farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers, it also deprives the Cuban Government of its false talking point that the United States is somehow the cause of the misery of the Cuban people.

After 60 years of communist rule, 11 million Cubans deserve better. They deserve freedom. They deserve dignity. They deserve hope. We have witnessed this intense desire in a powerful way this weekend. The courage of Cubans who are risking their livelihoods--and possibly their lives--does not go unnoticed. They stand alongside those in Hong Kong, in Minsk, and in Moscow who challenge governments that disregard inalienable rights.

As demonstrations to enact change in Havana continue, I pray they be peaceful and effective at bringing about a brighter tomorrow for the citizens of Cuba.

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

Madam President, earlier this week--in fact, yesterday-- the Senate Democrats attempted an unprecedented power grab in the Senate that, in my view, clearly would have affected the sanctity of our elections and violated our Constitution.

S. 1 was one of the most monstrous bills I have seen during my time in Congress, and it certainly didn't meet my standard of doing things that are constitutional.

In doing so yesterday, the Senate Democrats underscored for me something I thought I knew well, and they reaffirmed it, and that is the importance of maintaining the legislative filibuster, the 60-vote threshold for legislation.

I am sorry we went down the path of changing the rules for judges, then for the Supreme Court, and now, potentially, for legislation. Sixty votes is a good thing. Sixty votes allow--people say they want us to work together--60 votes require us to do that. In the absence of 60- vote rule, everything becomes political. In the absence of 60-vote rule, there is no certainty.

A party in power, one that has the majority of the Senate, the President--the election changes, and there is a new majority, and then we change what we just passed 2 years before. There is nothing good for job creation and economic security. There is nothing good for families and trying to figure out what is next in their life when the law can change every time a new, a different party has the majority in the U.S. Senate and House or there is a new President.

My view is that what happened yesterday was not by design. As a matter of fact, the vote, among others, was designed to fail in order to pressure Democratic Senators into altering the rules of the Senate and render this place a majority-run institution.

Democrats achieved control--the voters gave them control of both Chambers of the Congress and the White House--and are convinced that they have a mandate to erode the governing norms of the Senate. By my count, the Senate stands at an evenly divided, 50-50, and the majority, by a slight number, Democrats have in the House of Representatives. Surely, this is hardly a mandate for a radically progressive agenda, much less changing the threshold for which minority rights are protected and bipartisan cooperation is promoted.

Should the legislative filibuster meet its demise at the hands of this Senate because Democrats decide on a majority vote, that the rules that have been in place for decades should be changed overnight on a whim, the august U.S. Senate will be condemned to a partisan spectacle.

The idea that everything should be decided by one vote means that everything here becomes political and that the American people become even more partisan. If every vote in the U.S. Senate--every outcome--is determined by one person, then politics become the passion of the American people by necessity. The 60-vote rule is designed to moderate both sides of a question, to bring us together, to pull us to the middle in something that is more acceptable to the American people than anything we might decide if we could decide it on our own, Republican or Democrat. It means that every citizen would feel the need to lobby us.

The normal course of life becomes much more about politics. While politics is important to the country and while it is important for the American people to be engaged, they send us here to make decisions. That 60-vote rule allows us to make decisions that are more acceptable to them so they can spend their lives living their lives, not worrying about what, on any given day, the U.S. Senate might pass.

I don't think the motivation by the Senate Democrats is what it may seem to some. The suggestion is that we can't seem to pass any legislation here. I read this week in the Wall Street Journal an editorial, an op-ed piece, by Mike Solon and Bill Greene, and this was a comment that stood out to me:

The movement to end the filibuster is less about a Senate

that doesn't work than it is about a socialist agenda that

doesn't sell.

The idea that everything is decided on the margin of one means that we become politics, that politics rules in this country. The freedoms and liberties that the American people enjoy every day because they can rely on not radical change but modest change--on improvements day by day, not improvements overnight--means that we have a different country. We certainly would have a different Senate, but a consequence of having a different Senate means America is not what it is today.

Again, I say this in a way that would, I hope, remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: I stand ready to work on many issues on which we can bring ourselves together. I hope this week--tomorrow, today--that we learn there is an infrastructure agreement, a bipartisan agreement. This isn't a belief that I have the ability to dominate the agenda of the U.S. Senate or that one party should. It is a reminder that America is better when we work together and that eliminating the 60-vote

rule, ending the filibuster, changes America for the worse.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I am on the floor this afternoon to discuss the issue of student athletes having greater control over their name, image, and likeness.

Over the years, intercollegiate athletics have become a staple in American culture and higher education. No other country in the world has a sports college model that compares to ours, which affords thousands of young adults each year the opportunity to leverage their athletic ability into a quality education and continue playing the sport they love. But over the years, college athletics have grown into an increasingly profitable, billion-dollar industry, and the rules surrounding athlete compensation have not kept pace.

Now, individual States have created laws that will guarantee an amateur athlete the ability to profit off their name, image, and likeness without fear of being reprimanded. Again, I highlight that individual States have made those decisions and are creating laws. Nineteen States have now passed NIL legislation, and of those 19, 6 will go into effect in less a month--July 1, just, really, a few days away.

As more and more States continue to pass their own legislation, we are quickly headed for a system of inconsistent State laws that will be cumbersome and in some cases unworkable for athletes and the schools to navigate. Intercollegiate athletics are an inherently interstate matter. Our model makes certain the best teams and the best athletes compete against one another no matter their geographic location. This requires a single Federal standard that all schools and all athletes can operate under.

College sports and the opportunities they provide student athletes will be dramatically harmed if we are unable to pass a Federal standard. Each year, we will have States introducing or updating their NIL laws in order to gain just a bit more of an advantage in attracting athletes to their institutions.

We have already seen this begin to play out. Following California's passage of the first State NIL law in September 2019, there has been a rush of action by 18 other States to quickly follow suit, hoping to remain competitive as athletic departments recruit athletes to their States' schools. The floodgates will fully open on July 1--only 16 days away--when State NIL laws begin to take effect.

The time to act is now. There is a compromise to be found to both empowering amateur athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness and guaranteeing greater protections, while at the same time maintaining the integrity of our one-of-a-kind collegiate model that has provided millions

of people the opportunity to get a quality education. We can accomplish both of these goals and provide college athletics with the certainty that it needs.

In February, I introduced the Amateur Athletes Protection and Compensation Act--my proposal to accomplish this necessary balance. My legislation would create a single set of guidelines that would enable amateur athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness by prohibiting conferences, schools, and athletic associations, like the NCAA, from rendering an amateur intercollegiate athlete ineligible on the basis of receiving that NIL compensation. It would also codify serious athlete protections like extended healthcare coverage for athletic injuries or illness and scholarship guarantees.

I understand this legislation is not perfect in everyone's eyes. It is not perfect in its current form, but it offers not only the quickest but the best path towards enacting meaningful Federal legislation on issues of amateur athletic name, image, and likeness.

When I say it may not be perfect, there are certainly things that we can negotiate to improve, and it is not the extreme on either side of this issue, but it is something that a broad set of Senators, Members of the House, and a President could come behind and certainly is perhaps the only piece of legislation that has a chance of being enacted anytime soon. I recognize there are many ideas on what should and should not be included in an NIL bill, and I welcome those conversations with my colleagues.

I strongly encourage the U.S. Senate, the Commerce Committee, and my colleagues on that committee to act quickly on this urgent matter and join us in this legislation to make progress on this important issue. The time is short, but if we work together, we can accomplish a goal that is needed in this country and accomplish it by the time that it is needed to occur.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, we have seen across many sectors of our economy the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences. It has dramatically shifted the supply and demand for lots of products in unexpected ways.

I am on the floor today to speak about the price of lumber and the impact the soaring costs are having on homebuilders and on home buyers.

Nationwide, construction for new homes is up 37 percent over the last year and up 87 percent in the Midwest region, where I come from. Rising demand for new home construction, as well as an upturn in do-it- yourself home projects during the pandemic, have rapidly driven up the cost of lumber. As a result, since last April, overall lumber prices are up over 300 percent.

Lumber and wood products account for roughly 15 percent of the construction costs for a single-family home. We all work to see that that single-family home is something that is available to Americans. It is the American dream. But lumber accounts for the second largest overall cost of building a new home, only behind the cost of the land the home sits on. These increases have resulted in a $36,000 increase in the price of a typical single-family home and a $13,000 increase in the market value of a multifamily unit.

The reality is that record-high lumber prices are putting the American dream of home ownership out of reach for hundreds of thousands of potential home buyers and disproportionately harming middle- and low-income families across our Nation.

At a time when residential homebuilding is booming, it is essential that homebuilders and consumers have access to the materials they need at competitive prices.

Historically, Canada has been the largest foreign supplier of softwood lumber in the United States. These imports are vital to support the ongoing housing boom but have been declining. These imports have been declining over the past 4 years.

In April 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced countervailing

duties averaging 20 percent on softwood lumber products from certain Canadian producers. In December of 2020, the average tariff was reduced to 9 percent. While a reduction in tariffs for some Canadian producers is a step in the right direction, the complete elimination of these tariffs is necessary to provide additional relief for rising lumber prices.

At a recent Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Subcommittee hearing, I raised this topic with U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai and urged her to engage with her Canadian counterpart to reach a long-term agreement on softwood lumber trade. It is American home buyers, not Canadian lumber producers, who end up paying the cost of these trade restrictions.

In addition to working to resolve this trade dispute, we should also work to boost the domestic production of the types of lumber used in home construction. Additional lumber can and should be sustainably harvested from public lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Adding to the existing lumber supply and ensuring that domestic sawmills are operating at full capacity will help soften lumber prices.

It is important for Kansans to have the opportunity and economic means to own their own homes. Unfortunately, the current lumber prices are making that dream unattainable for way too many families.

Resolving the longstanding trade dispute with Canada on softwood lumber and better managing our public lands to increase lumber production will both help alleviate the problems facing homebuilders and home buyers.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues who worked diligently to enhance the legislation that we are considering on the floor here this morning. I commend them for the work they put into this effort.

I have an amendment that has been included in a vote we are going to take here momentarily, a NO HATE amendment, and I would like to speak for just a few minutes about this topic. I will limit my remarks to speaking in support of the amendment's language, which simply seeks to collect better data on hate crimes under existing statutes.

We know that crimes committed against specific groups increased in recent years. Anti-Semitic attacks hit a record high in 2019. There are gaps in our knowledge of how prevalent these crimes truly are.

The language included in this amendment, based upon the NO HATE Act introduced by Senator Blumenthal, has bipartisan support in this Chamber and for its companion in the House. It would establish incentives for State and local law enforcement to submit credible and complete hate crime reports, create grants for State-run crime hotlines, require the Department of Justice to collect and analyze data on hate crimes, and allow judges to require community service or educational programs for individuals convicted under existing statutes.

I would also take a moment to express my gratitude to Senator Rick Scott for working to help improve the text, and that improvement, in fact, is also found in this agreement.

Kansans have personally been touched by incidents during my time in the Senate.

In 2014, a neo-Nazi killed three at the Jewish Community Center of Greater Kansas City and a Jewish retirement home, both in Overland Park. In late 2016, the FBI thwarted a bomb plot against an apartment complex housing Somali immigrants in Garden City, and the following year, a man shot two Indian immigrants, killing one, at a restaurant in Olathe, KS, after shouting, ``Get out of my country.''

These were high-profile, well-publicized incidents of hate. It is important that the incidents that do not gain broad attention are nevertheless recorded properly so that the Department of Justice can properly analyze the data.

A bipartisan group of attorneys general for 35 States and territories, including Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt, have endorsed the NO HATE Act. It is also backed by Major Cities Chiefs Associations and the National District Attorneys Association.

No statutes are expanded by this amendment, nor are there any mandates. Instead, it will allow for State and local entities to voluntarily seek grants to better provide data on specific crimes in their jurisdictions and to give judges flexibility in sentencing violent offenders.

I condemn the recent attacks on Asian Americans, and assaults on minorities are an assault of our Nation's creed of ``e pluribus unum''--out of many, one. That is what our country is--out of many, one.

The crimes Senator Blumenthal and I seek more information on tear at the fabric of our Nation. But out of many crimes, it is time we speak as one to condemn the perpetrators and their ideology, to support the communities that live in fear despite that all of us--all of us--are made in God's own image.

Committed to unifying principles, our diversity is our country's strength. We continue to strive to make a more perfect union. This amendment is but a small step in that direction.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I yield the floor.