Floor Statements

I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Madam President, I ask that the Senate execute the order of February 13 in relation to the Lutnick nomination.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to the Lutnick nomination, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 13, S. Con Res. 7.

Mr. President, anybody who knows me well knows that I say this a lot, and that is that agriculture is the lifeblood of South Dakota and the lifeblood of our country, and farmers and ranchers are hard at work every single day to feed America and the world. But what I hear lately from farmers and ranchers is not good.

Agriculture producers across the country have faced strong headwinds in recent years--higher input costs, high interest rates, lower commodity prices--all leading to declining farm income year after year. Natural disasters have struck many of our farm regions, and the bird flu continues to ravage agriculture across the country.

Of course, in the last few years, the Biden administration was hardly much help. It imposed burdensome regulations like WOTUS, or waters of the United States, that threatened to devastate the farm sector. The administration put expanding market access on the back burner while our agricultural trade deficit grew to record levels, and their profligate spending led to inflation that hit farmers and ranchers especially hard in the form of higher input costs.

Meanwhile, Democrats here in Congress failed to prioritize a modernized farm bill to support agriculture through these challenges, and we are now more than a year past due for an updated farm bill. America's farmers and ranchers deserve better--much better.

I expect things will be different under President Trump, and I know that farmers and ranchers will have a friend in Brooke Rollins, the President's choice for Secretary of Agriculture.

Ms. Rollins grew up in the small, agricultural town of Glen Rose, TX. She spent summers working for her family on their farm in Minnesota, helping with their corn, potato, and soybean crops. She was a 4-H-er, an FFA State officer, and a barrel racer, and her four kids are keeping up her family's way of life by showing cattle in Texas.

After studying agriculture development at Texas A&M, Ms. Rollins went to work for then-Governor Rick Perry, where she worked on agriculture policy. She then continued her ag work by building up a Texas think tank, empowering the voices of farmers, ranchers, and rural communities. Then she served in President Trump's first administration--first leading the Office of American Innovation and then on the Domestic Policy Council.

Brooke Rollins is a policy wonk with a farmer's heart. She understands the needs of agriculture producers, and she knows how to deliver results. She promises to get right to work after she is confirmed on four key priorities: first, getting disaster and economic aid out the door and into the hands of farmers; second, getting the bird flu and other animal disease outbreaks under control; third, getting the farm bill done; and finally, revitalizing the U.S. Department of Agriculture to focus on its core mission and put America and American agriculture first. I am looking forward to working with Ms. Rollins on these key priorities.

Under this Republican majority, delivering a modernized farm bill is a priority, and I am glad that Ms. Rollins has pledged to work with Congress on one of the top farm bill needs, which is strengthening the farm safety net--essential to keeping existing operations going--and encouraging the next generation of producers to get started.

I was also pleased to hear Ms. Rollins acknowledge the need to improve the management of national forests. The Black Hills National Forest, among others across the country, has seen its timber industry decimated by bad management policies. So I look forward to working with the USDA, under Secretary Rollins, to provide relief from the dire situation in western South Dakota.

I am encouraged as well that she will prioritize getting disaster and economic assistance out the door. Last year, many parts of the country suffered from natural disasters, including South Dakota. As I said, farmers and ranchers have suffered lower commodity prices and declining incomes. In December, Congress passed $31 billion in agricultural disaster and economic assistance, and we need to get that money into the hands of farmers and ranchers working to rebuild.

Brooke Rollins understands the mission of the USDA. She understands the day-to-day needs of America's farmers, and she has the expertise to deliver results. I trust that she will put America's farmers and ranchers first as Secretary of Agriculture, and I look forward to working with her in this role.

(The remarks of Mr. THUNE pertaining to the introduction of S. 587 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, later today, I will introduce a bill to repeal the death tax.

As I mentioned, as a resident of a rural State filled with family farms and ranches, I have made death tax repeal a priority for a long time, and I was proud to help secure a doubling of the death tax exemption in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This doubled exemption has provided certainty to a lot of farms and ranches and small businesses over the past 7 years, but the expanded exemption is expiring at the end of this year. It is my hope that we will not merely extend this exemption but that we will get rid of this fundamentally flawed tax once and for all.

The death tax is fundamentally flawed both in theory and in practice. There should be a limit to how many times the government can tax you. The money you leave at your death has already been taxed by the government at least once, which makes the death tax double taxation, and the government isn't even profiting all that much from this double taxation. That is right. The death tax accounts for a teeny, tiny fraction of government revenue. In fact, there is reason to believe that the government would collect more in taxes if it got rid of the death tax entirely due to the economic growth and job creation that would stem from its elimination.

So how is there any support left for this burdensome tax? That is a good question. For some, of course, heavy taxation is axiomatic. ``Do well,'' their thinking runs, ``and the government should come after you.'' Some think that you shouldn't be able to pass the results of hard work down to your children upon your death.

Well, death tax proponents tend to talk as if the death tax only affects the extremely wealthy, but nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. The death tax can sweep up those who have very little in the bank--notably, family farms and ranches and family businesses. How? Well, farming and ranching is often a cash-poor business. A farmer might have substantial looking assets on paper, but the vast majority of that is land and farming equipment. Only a small fraction of it is money in the bank.

On top of that, farmland can often be valued at a level that is inconsistent with its agricultural productivity value. A farmer might have land with a substantial value on paper, but the crop yield on that land could be worth far, far less.

So what happens when a farmer or a rancher dies and his estate is subject to the tax? There is a very good chance that his liquid assets--in other words, the cash he has available in the bank--won't come close to covering the tax bill from the Federal Government, and the only alternative for his heirs may be to start selling off land or farm equipment to pay the tax. In some cases, they will be able to keep the farm, just a smaller version of it; in others, they may have to sell off the family farm entirely.

The case is similar with family-owned businesses. The owner might appear to have substantial looking assets on paper, but only a small fraction of that may be money in the bank. The vast majority may be tied up in the business. Once again, when the Federal Government comes around, demanding a huge portion of this individual's taxable estate, there may not be anywhere close to enough money in the bank to pay the tax. To pay the Federal Government, the owner's descendants will have to sell off part or all of the family business.

Now, family farms and ranches are the lifeblood of the rural communities in South Dakota. They are a source of jobs. They provide support for local businesses. They help build up local schools and local infrastructure. Losing a local farm can hit rural communities very, very hard, especially when that farm or ranch is bought up by an out-of-State business with few ties to the community and limited interest in building it up.

It is not just those who actually get hit by the estate tax who suffer. A lot of family farms and ranches and family businesses spend a lot of time and money on estate planning to avoid being hit by this tax. That is time and money that could have gone into building their business, investing in new equipment, hiring new workers, and the list goes on.

Some set aside capital to prepare for the death tax--capital that, again, could go into building up a farm or ranch or hiring new workers for the family business.

As one of my Democrat colleagues, the senior Senator from Washington, said a while back:

The estate tax is bad for businesses. It is bad for workers

and new job creation. And it is bad for our communities who

are watching their local, family-owned businesses get

swallowed up by large corporations.

As I said, we protected a lot more family farms and family businesses by doubling the death tax exemption in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act back in 2017, but we didn't protect them all. And those we did protect will lose those protections at the end of this year. It is time to end this punishing and burdensome tax once and for all.

I want to thank my Republican colleagues who have joined me in sponsoring this legislation. I hope that 2025 will be the year that we permanently bid farewell to the death tax.

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

Mr. President, later today, I will introduce a bill to repeal the death tax.

As I mentioned, as a resident of a rural State filled with family farms and ranches, I have made death tax repeal a priority for a long time, and I was proud to help secure a doubling of the death tax exemption in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This doubled exemption has provided certainty to a lot of farms and ranches and small businesses over the past 7 years, but the expanded exemption is expiring at the end of this year. It is my hope that we will not merely extend this exemption but that we will get rid of this fundamentally flawed tax once and for all.

The death tax is fundamentally flawed both in theory and in practice. There should be a limit to how many times the government can tax you. The money you leave at your death has already been taxed by the government at least once, which makes the death tax double taxation, and the government isn't even profiting all that much from this double taxation. That is right. The death tax accounts for a teeny, tiny fraction of government revenue. In fact, there is reason to believe that the government would collect more in taxes if it got rid of the death tax entirely due to the economic growth and job creation that would stem from its elimination.

So how is there any support left for this burdensome tax? That is a good question. For some, of course, heavy taxation is axiomatic. ``Do well,'' their thinking runs, ``and the government should come after you.'' Some think that you shouldn't be able to pass the results of hard work down to your children upon your death.

Well, death tax proponents tend to talk as if the death tax only affects the extremely wealthy, but nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. The death tax can sweep up those who have very little in the bank--notably, family farms and ranches and family businesses. How? Well, farming and ranching is often a cash-poor business. A farmer might have substantial looking assets on paper, but the vast majority of that is land and farming equipment. Only a small fraction of it is money in the bank.

On top of that, farmland can often be valued at a level that is inconsistent with its agricultural productivity value. A farmer might have land with a substantial value on paper, but the crop yield on that land could be worth far, far less.

So what happens when a farmer or a rancher dies and his estate is subject to the tax? There is a very good chance that his liquid assets--in other words, the cash he has available in the bank--won't come close to covering the tax bill from the Federal Government, and the only alternative for his heirs may be to start selling off land or farm equipment to pay the tax. In some cases, they will be able to keep the farm, just a smaller version of it; in others, they may have to sell off the family farm entirely.

The case is similar with family-owned businesses. The owner might appear to have substantial looking assets on paper, but only a small fraction of that may be money in the bank. The vast majority may be tied up in the business. Once again, when the Federal Government comes around, demanding a huge portion of this individual's taxable estate, there may not be anywhere close to enough money in the bank to pay the tax. To pay the Federal Government, the owner's descendants will have to sell off part or all of the family business.

Now, family farms and ranches are the lifeblood of the rural communities in South Dakota. They are a source of jobs. They provide support for local businesses. They help build up local schools and local infrastructure. Losing a local farm can hit rural communities very, very hard, especially when that farm or ranch is bought up by an out-of-State business with few ties to the community and limited interest in building it up.

It is not just those who actually get hit by the estate tax who suffer. A lot of family farms and ranches and family businesses spend a lot of time and money on estate planning to avoid being hit by this tax. That is time and money that could have gone into building their business, investing in new equipment, hiring new workers, and the list goes on.

Some set aside capital to prepare for the death tax--capital that, again, could go into building up a farm or ranch or hiring new workers for the family business.

As one of my Democrat colleagues, the senior Senator from Washington, said a while back:

The estate tax is bad for businesses. It is bad for workers

and new job creation. And it is bad for our communities who

are watching their local, family-owned businesses get

swallowed up by large corporations.

As I said, we protected a lot more family farms and family businesses by doubling the death tax exemption in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act back in 2017, but we didn't protect them all. And those we did protect will lose those protections at the end of this year. It is time to end this punishing and burdensome tax once and for all.

I want to thank my Republican colleagues who have joined me in sponsoring this legislation. I hope that 2025 will be the year that we permanently bid farewell to the death tax.

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

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, President Trump's border czar was at the Capitol yesterday to update Republican Senators on the progress the administration is making on arresting and deporting criminals here illegally. And it is difficult to believe some of the individuals they have arrested were still in the country--members of violent international gangs; individuals arrested for murder, for rape, for kidnapping, for drug trafficking, for sexual crimes involving children, and for human smuggling. Again, it is staggering to think that these criminals were out there on our Nation's streets. And our communities will be safer places without these individuals.

Since day one of his administration, President Trump has been fulfilling his campaign promise to crack down on illegal immigration and secure our border. And it is good to see.

Immigration is a key part of our country's story, and immigrants have made untold contributions to our country. But we need to ensure that immigration is done legally, for both the safety of our country and to preserve respect for the rule of law. The chaos of the last 4 years was unsustainable, and it was dangerous.

We had 10 million individuals flood across our southern border. We had millions--millions--of undocumented individuals take up residence in our country, more than the population of a number of U.S. States. Law enforcement officials were overwhelmed, and officers were pulled off of essential work of guarding the border just to process the flood of migrants.

Border cities and other cities across the United States struggled to deal with the influx. And all of this chaos was an invitation to terrorists, to smugglers, to drug cartels, and other dangerous individuals to enter our country.

So I am tremendously proud and grateful for the incredible amount of work the President has done so far to make it clear that illegal migration will no longer be tolerated. There is a lot more work to do, and some of that is going to require Congress's help.

Mr. Homan, President Trump's border czar, made clear to Senators yesterday that Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement are going to need additional resources to continue the good work they have been doing to secure our border and to get criminals off of our streets. We intend to deliver.

Today, Senator Lindsey Graham, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, is kicking off the committee markup of a budget resolution that will lay the foundation for a transformational investment in border security and immigration enforcement and in our national defense. We will provide resources to increase the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and Border Patrol agents, expand detention space, facilitate deportations of dangerous individuals, and obtain the barriers and technology that we need to secure the border.

Mr. President, for too long, our country has tolerated rampant illegal immigration. That ends now. I am grateful for everything the President is doing to protect our streets and uphold the law. And the Republican-led Congress will ensure that the administration has the resources needed to continue this important work.

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

Mr. President, in a few minutes, we are going to be voting on a couple of nominees. The first one is Tulsi Gabbard to be the Director of the DNI. The second one will be a cloture vote to proceed to the nomination of Bobby Kennedy to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

What I observe--it is interesting about both of these nominees--is that both are former Democrats. In fact, a year ago--a year ago--they were Democrats. I would argue they have seen the light. They have become Republicans and now they have been nominated by President Trump to fill important roles within his administration.

But I made that observation only because there is a lot of talk these days about loyalty oaths and allegiance and saliva purity tests for people to be considered good enough to be in the so-called MAGA movement--in other words, the Republican Party.

Yet when it comes to Democrats, a very different standard seems to be applied here because both of these people were former Democrats. In fact, frankly, they probably agree with the Democratic Party here in the Senate on a lot of positions that they hold.

And yet they have the temerity to come out and support positions that, perhaps, run contrary to some of the positions held by, particularly, the progressive wing of the Democrat Party in this country--in the case of RFK, coming out for positions that run counter to the orthodoxy of the healthcare so-called establishment, or in the case of Ms. Gabbard, different views, perhaps, about national security matters than those held by a lot of Democrats, certainly here in this Chamber, and progressive movement in the country.

It harkens back to two other Democrats who pretty much got pushed out of their party here in the U.S. Senate for holding views that ran contrary to the majority view of the progressive wing of the Democrat Party. Those two Democrats were Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema.

In the case of Kyrsten Sinema, she was viewed, I think, by Democrats as, perhaps, too free market. She was viewed as pro-business, as pro- investment, and as pro-jobs, lighter regulatory touch, lighter tax policy, pro-energy policy.

In the case of Joe Manchin, he had--I should say he had what I would say are accurate views with respect to energy development in this country--in other words, making America energy dominant, a view shared by many in our party, including our President. And for that, he was viewed as too conservative to be a true Democrat.

So Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema ended up getting pushed out of the Democratic Party here in the U.S. Senate.

Their ultimate cardinal sin, however--in the case of Manchin, as I said, he was pro-energy in a party that is dominated by climate, green, all those--whatever adjectives you want to use to characterize it or describe it--his views ran contrary. In fact, he tried to cut a deal with the Democrats in the Inflation Reduction Act only to find out they kind of went back on it, and the deal wasn't what he thought he had agreed to.

So his views were out of step, out of the mainstream of the Democratic Party, as were Kyrsten Sinema's. But their cardinal sin-- their cardinal sin--was that they voted against getting rid of the legislative filibuster, a view that was held by--up until just a few years ago--a majority of Democrats here in the U.S. Senate. There was a letter signed, which I shared the other night, that had 32 Democratic signatures on it pleading with the leadership here in the Senate not to abandon the Senate tradition and heritage with respect to the Senate filibuster; to maintain the heritage and tradition that the Senate has for open debate and for representation of the minority; for the requirement of collaboration and bipartisanship when it comes to moving consequential legislation. Those are the things that the filibuster traditionally was about.

And up until a few years ago, most of my colleagues on the other side--a majority on the other side--signed a letter articulating their views that it ought to be the position of the U.S. Senate.

Well, they tried to push it because they weren't getting the outcomes they wanted on a couple of pieces of legislation when they had the majority a couple of years ago. And they forced a vote on changing the rules--breaking the rules--to get rid of the legislative filibuster and be able to map an agenda that is more consistent with their liking.

There were two people that voted against it on their side, Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin. And for that cardinal sin, they were essentially ostracized. And to this day, the Democratic Party continues to hold a position now, very contrary to the one they held just a few years ago, about getting rid of the legislative filibuster.

Why do they want to do that? Because they want to enact an agenda--a progressive leftist agenda--which the American people voted against in November.

As recently as last summer at the Democratic convention, the Democrat leader basically laid out the things they want to do. First he said: We are going to get rid of the filibuster because we have the votes now. Manchin and Sinema are gone. I talked to the Democrats that we think we are going to elect, and we will have 51. At that time, he was predicting a clean sweep--they were going to win the House, the Senate, and the White House. They would get rid of the legislative filibuster, and the first thing they would do is they would Federalize our elections. That was the first thing they would do.

Then they said they would enshrine abortion rights in law. That was one thing they would do. There were many on their side who talked about packing the Supreme Court, about allowing statehood for Puerto Rico and for Washington, DC--all elements of the agenda they want to accomplish through getting rid of the legislative

filibuster. That was articulated by the Democrat leader as recently as the Democrat convention last summer--intentions that they had to get rid of the legislative filibuster so they--their party is in control-- they could do the things they wanted to do that they felt that the American people were asking them to do.

Well, it turns out there was an election between last summer and now in which the American people spoke otherwise. And they had a very different view than the Democrats on a whole range of issues; issues on which, I think, the left and Democrat Party are completely out of step with the American people, not the least of which is allowing boys to play girl sports. That is a 90-percent issue with the American people.

The House passed legislation on it. We will vote on it at some point in the future. And I just can't imagine--I speak as a dad of daughters who were both female athletes, one of whom is in her high school and college hall of fame. I don't know how anybody--this is where I say I think there is just a certain intuitive common sense the American people have, and they voted for that, and made that abundantly clear in the election just this last fall.

So I say to that, again, just to remind people, when you hear this perspective about how Republicans don't have any room for dissent, they all have to be in lockstep--believe me, we have a lot of dissent on our side. Try leading the Republican conference. The Democrats, on the other hand, if you have a dissenting view, particularly on something like the filibuster--sorry, you are out of here.

Mr. President, today, it is ironic to me that we are going to vote on two nominees--President Trump's nominees--to be Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services and to be Director of National Intelligence who are former Democrats. And I will be surprised--I would like to be surprised--but I don't believe there is going to be a single Democrat that votes for either of the two people who, less than a year ago, were members of their party--in some cases, members of their party that go back decades. The Kennedy family--the Kennedy family-- Democratic politics in America.

You have two nominees who were Democrats a year ago, but because they articulate views now or demonstrate a dissent from the ideology of the Democrat Party, no longer can get even one Democrat to vote for them here on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

Again, I am hoping to be surprised. That vote is going to happen in about 30 minutes on Tulsi Gabbard to be Director of National Intelligence. And then shortly after that, we will have a cloture vote on Robert F. Kennedy to be Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services.

In each of those cases, you have Democrats in good standing as recently as a year ago who have been pushed out, come now--their nominees brought by President Trump for positions within his administration--and you are not going to see a single Democrat vote for them. But we will confirm them, and we will get these people into these positions as soon as possible. And in answer, I think, to the mandate that was given by the American people in November--and that is they want a different track in this country, a different direction. They have a different set of priorities than is being articulated here in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. President, we also had just recently a vote on Laken Riley. That was probably the most glaring example, again, of Democrats' willingness to filibuster, something they wanted to get rid of 2 years ago. They wanted to get rid of the legislative filibuster.

We get the majority, first time we put a bill on the floor, what do they do? They filibuster. Here we are, slowing down these noms--full 30 hours on Tulsi Gabbard. I assume they will do the same thing on RFK. But these are people that are going to be confirmed and going to be, again, working in this administration to implement the agenda that the President of the United States has articulated and the one that he carried to the voters in this last election, an election in which the voters gave him a decisive majority at the polls.

Mr. President, I hope, again, I am wrong. I hope we have a bipartisan vote today on either or both of these nominees. But I will tell you that based on my assessment of where the party is, the Democratic Party in this country, it would come as a great surprise to me if that is the case.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I move to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Kennedy nomination.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the postcloture time with respect to the Kennedy nomination expire at 10:30 a.m., Thursday, February 13. I further ask that, following disposition of the Kennedy nomination, the cloture motion with respect to the Rollins nomination be withdrawn and the Senate vote on confirmation of the Rollins nomination with no intervening action or debate; further, that following disposition of the Rollins nomination, the Senate resume consideration of the Lutnick nomination, and the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Lutnick nomination at 1:45 p.m.; and if cloture is invoked on the Lutnick nomination, that all time be considered expired, and the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Loeffler nomination; and if cloture is invoked on the Loeffler nomination, that all postcloture time be expired, and the Senate vote on confirmation of the Loeffler and Lutnick nominations at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader no earlier than Tuesday, February 18.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business for debate only, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.