Floor Statements

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young) would have voted ``nay''.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

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

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

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

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, in the time that I have been in the Congress, which includes 6 years in the House of Representatives and now in my 17th year in the Senate, I have been a part of or witness to or voted on numerous spending proposals and appropriation bills, tax bills, deficit reduction bills, and debt-limit increase bills through the years, and I don't think I have ever seen in all my time in the Congress a spending bill where Democrats didn't want to spend more and Republicans wanted to spend less.

Maybe that is consistent with our overall governing philosophies. Republicans historically believe in limited but effective government, in personal freedom coupled with individual responsibility, in economic freedom, and in peace through strength. Those are sort of guiding principles.

So when you get into a debate about spending and budgets and appropriation and taxes and all those sorts of things, in all the time I have been here--and I say this with respect to the bill that we are going to be voting on here in a few moments--Republicans try to spend more efficiently, more effectively--less, because they know that every dollar that gets spent here is coming from an American taxpayer.

So when the bipartisan legislation that the Senate will vote on here momentarily was being considered, it started out at about $2.5 trillion. That is what President Biden wanted to spend on infrastructure. Democrats in the Congress--in the Senate; for sure in the House of Representatives but in the Senate here as well--wanted to spend way more than what Republicans wanted to spend. Republicans, on the other hand, wanted to come up with a bill that met the needs that the country has, that was robust in addressing infrastructure concerns out there but spent significantly less than what Democrats proposed

I say that simply because it has been my experience--I have observed this, as I said, over the better part of 25 years now here in the Congress--that every debate, every fight about spending, taxes, and debt, Democrats want to spend more and Republicans want to spend less, again with the recognition that every one of those dollars that gets spent here in Washington, DC, is coming from an American taxpayer somewhere across this country.

So, as we think about what we are going to do next, I have to just say it is staggering to me, what we are talking about--the dimensions; the scale; $3.5 trillion in spending on top of $2 trillion spent earlier this year, much of which had nothing to do with the coronavirus.

Much of the justification for a lot of the spending at one time, at least, was that we had to deal with the pandemic, the coronavirus, but that is not the case now. We still have ongoing issues there. We need to make sure that we are investing in vaccines and all the things that make sure that people in this country are able to combat and that we are able to get this pandemic behind us. But what we are talking about with this $3.5 trillion that the Democrats are intending and that we are going to vote on later today--$3.5 trillion--their own estimate, not ours. A lot of private estimates out there suggest that when this is fully implemented over the full window, you are talking about $5.5 trillion. You add to that the $2 trillion that has already been spent earlier this year--all put on the debt, by the way, all borrowed from our children and grandchildren--and you are talking about a stunning, staggering, insane amount of money.

I have heard the analogy used here on the floor and other places by Democrats saying: Well, this is like the New Deal. This is the modern New Deal for America.

Well, the New Deal occurred in the middle of a Great Depression, where unemployment rates were running as high as 25 percent. The New Deal happened at a time when--my dad grew up in the Depression. I have heard him tell the stories through the years. People were struggling. They were struggling enormously. The government stepped in with some programs to help address that to get people back to work.

But what we are talking about here is double--double--the size of the New Deal as a percentage of our economy--double--at a time when we have, and the President was crowing about this the other day, 5 percent, 5.4 percent unemployment in this country and 900,000 new jobs created in the last reporting.

So if you think about where the economy is, we are coming out of the pandemic. People are investing again. People are getting out. They are spending money. We are seeing growth get back in the economy. We are seeing jobs created. It is literally, to me, the definition of ``insanity'' to pour 3.5 trillion, by their estimate--by a lot of

other estimates, 5 trillion--more dollars into the economy to literally give people free everything.

This isn't about addressing the pandemic or helping get people back to work. We have programs that do that. We have unemployment insurance that has been in place now for a long time. Many of us think the plus- up that the Federal Government provided was for too long because it was keeping people from going back to work. But the fact of the matter is, we are talking about a massive expansion of the Federal Government literally to give people pretty much free everything.

Not only does that contradict, I think, what this country was all about, which in its inception was about freedom and liberty, personal freedom, economic freedom, individual responsibility, providing people incentives to achieve and to do well, making sure that we have programs in place, safety nets for those who need that help, but the idea that at a time when the economy is growing and expanding and unemployment is at a fairly low rate historically, we are creating jobs that the Federal Government would think that it needs, in all its wisdom here in Washington, DC, to infuse $5 trillion.

We already have inflation. It is at the highest rate in 13 years. Do you think pouring a lot of--flooding the economy with a whole bunch more money isn't going to exacerbate the inflation problem we already have? Not to mention, they are talking about paying for it--I don't think it will all be paid for. I think a lot of it will go onto the debt.

By the way, under this budget that is being proposed today, that the Democrats are, on a one-sided partisan procedure, going to vote on, is the biggest thing that we have seen certainly in my lifetime and will dwarf, as I said, anything we have seen in history. The debt at the end of all that--at the end of all that, 2031, the 10-year budget window-- will be $45 trillion, 134 percent of our gross domestic product.

There was a day when we were worried about borrowing up to 100 percent of GDP. Well, we have blown past that. We have dwarfed that. This is now completely out of control, completely out of hand. We are talking about a massive amount of new spending to expand government and, to the degree that it is paid for, paid for with taxes that are going to hit individuals, that are going to hit businesses, that are going to hit small businesses, and that are going to hit farmers and ranchers.

When you go down the list of taxes, the tax increases in this proposal, again, I mean, I don't know where you stop. The idea--the suggestion by the administration that you are not going to hit people who make less than $400,000 a year is just absolutely, again, I think, insane. I don't know how you can raise $3.5 trillion in taxes and not have an economic impact felt by people who are on the lower end of the income scale.

I mean, think about it. When taxes go up on businesses, what happens? Well, people work for businesses. Democrats think it is easy. We will just raise taxes on businesses. Businesses are not paying enough. Well, where do people in this country work? They work for businesses. That is where they get their paychecks. That is where they get their benefits. Wages go down when taxes on businesses go up, to a historical fact.

If you think about what also happens when taxes are put on businesses, businesses obviously can do a couple of things. They may reduce wages or not hire people or reduce the size of their workforce. But they also pass that on with the cost of higher prices to people out there in the economy who are paying the price for it. That is what we are talking about here. It is just absolutely, absolutely stunning, really, in my time in the Congress to observe something that is being compared to, historically, the New Deal in a circumstance where the economy is growing and expanding, people should be going back to work; and in a time when we have already a $30 trillion debt, as I said, headed in 2031 to $45 trillion in debt, and something that literally dwarfs, as a percentage of the economy, what was done at the time of the New Deal, parallel the analogy that is being used here by my colleagues on the other side. There is just absolutely no rationale for doing this.

But that is what it calls for, $3\1/2\ trillion. According to the budget committee analysts, it includes $4.2 trillion in spending--on discretionary spending--and increased interests on the debt are included.

That bill, which was entirely unpaid for--and I am talking about the $1.9 trillion bill that was passed in March, that was ostensibly COVID relief, but, in reality, was more like a list of payoffs to Democrat constituents.

There were billions and billions of dollars for schools, while keeping teachers unions happy by omitting any requirement for actually getting kids back in the classroom, even though schools have barely touched the billions of COVID aid they have already been given.

And, by the way, handoffs to States with a distribution formula heavily weighted in favor of blue States, included bailouts for union pensions, loans for labor unions, and I could go on.

And when we talk about the money that is going to be, you know, in the budget the Democrats are going to force us to vote on later today, the additional spending that is going to be in there, that is on top of--on top of--the trillions that we put out the door last year, much of which went to State governments and many of which don't know how to spend the money they already have. We are talking trillions, much of which went to, as I said, blue States.

But while that bill wastes a lot of taxpayer dollars, the problem with that bill pales in comparison to what is before us today. Today, Democrats are taking the first step toward a massive and permanent expansion of government that would be paid for on the backs of ordinary Americans. And my colleagues, as I said, on the other side of the aisle, will tell you they are just levying tax hikes on wealthy Americans, but that is not the whole story.

Those corporate tax hikes that Democrats are proposing, that tax just isn't going to be paid for by CEOs and the board members of corporations. A huge part of that is going to fall on American workers in the form of things like lower salaries and fewer opportunities.

The Tax Foundation notes that the share of the corporate tax burden that falls on labor is, ``routinely found to be between 50 percent and 100 percent, with 70 percent or higher the most likely outcome.''

By substantially hiking taxes on corporations, Democrats will be substantially increasing the burden borne by workers, not to mention reducing our competitiveness in the global economy by once again giving the United States one of the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world.

With our economy still emerging from the challenges of coronavirus, it is very difficult to understand why Democrats would decide that we should make American businesses less competitive on the global stage.

And that is the impact of just one of the Democrats' tax hikes. I haven't talked about the probable effects of their tax hike on small businesses--that is right, small businesses--or the negative economic effects of their huge tax increase on investment.

And then--then--there is the Democrats' new death tax. That is right, new death tax to add to our already existing death tax, which will reduce inheritances for middle-class Americans around the country, not to mention threatening the very existence of family farms and ranches and small businesses.

From the way that Democrats have been governing, you would think that voters have given them a resounding mandate to permanently expand government and implement the socialist fantasies of the far left.

In fact--we all know this--Democrats hold a narrow majority in the House of Representatives, where they lost seats; and the Senate is equally split between Democrats and Republicans.

And Democrats' far-left Presidential candidates couldn't make it out of the Democrat primary. That is right, President Biden was able to win the Democrat primary and the general election because he presented himself accurately or inaccurately as a moderate.

But despite their lack of a mandate, Democrat leaders are apparently more and more willing to let the far left of the Democrat party run the show, which is why we are standing here today contemplating a $4.2 trillion

spending spree to permanently expand the size of government.

We don't yet know all the details of Democrats' budget-busting spending legislation, but what we do know is not encouraging. In addition to taxes that will burden hard-working Americans and hurt our economy, Democrats are contemplating a new welfare benefit with no associated work requirement. Lots and lots of free stuff, like 2 free years of community college; elements of Democrats' most extreme specialist fantasy, the Green New Deal; amnesty for individuals here in our country illegally; funding for tens of thousands--yes, tens of thousands--of new IRS agents; a tax cut for blue State millionaires and billionaires; and more.

And, by the way, on that point, it is really ironic to me to hear Democrats come down here and talk about Republicans wanting to cut taxes for rich people when this proposal, in this legislation, 50 percent--50 percent of the tax cut, by doing away with the cap on deductibility of State and local taxes; 50 percent of that benefit goes to people making more than $1 million a year. So much for worrying about people on the low income of the income scale.

Democrats want to spend taxpayer dollars to hire hundreds of thousands of young people for a Civilian Climate Corps to fight climate change--Civilian Climate Corps. There is no word yet on whether this is actually an effective way to address our Nation's climate challenges, but that isn't going to stop Democrats from spending billions of dollars to find out.

I haven't even mentioned how all this new government spending is likely to increase inflation. Americans are already facing significant inflation, thanks in part to Democrats' earlier flooding of the economy with government spending. Now Democrats want to come close to doubling that spending. I don't even want to think about what inflation will look like if they succeed in their spending plans.

Thanks to Democrats' decision to utilize special Senate budget rules for their tax-and-spending spree, they have the ability today to force through this massive spending package on a totally partisan basis.

But my Republican colleagues and I will do everything we can to protect Americans from the consequences of Democrats' reckless, reckless legislation. And I hope some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--all it takes is one--will intervene before their party's taxing-and-spending spree turns an economic recovery into an economic disaster.

I yield the floor.

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

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

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

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

Madam President, I rise in support of amendment No. 3106, which would preserve the longstanding step-up in basis for family-owned businesses, farms, and ranches.

For decades, the Tax Code has allowed family-run businesses to be handed down without imposing capital gains taxes on the appreciation in value from the prior generation.

Changing this would hit generationally owned enterprises hard, particularly in rural communities. And it could force families to sell off part of the farm or business just to pay the new tax.

Congress tried something similar before and had to repeal the tax before it took effect because it was unworkable.

Unlike amendment No. 3317, which is a side-by-side the Democrats will be offering here temporarily, which would simply delay the tax, my amendment would provide permanent relief by preserving step-up in basis for all family-owned businesses, farms, and ranches.

I encourage my colleagues to support it and would add that I have letters of support from the National Association of Manufacturers, NFIB, Family Business Estate Tax Coalition, Taxpayers Protection Alliance, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, Americans for Tax Reform, National Taxpayers Union, Center for a Free Economy, Family Business Coalition, Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, and

I call up amendment No. 3106 and ask unanimous consent it be reported by number.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Madam President, I appreciate the support of my colleagues in acknowledging the full benefit of step-up in basis for all businesses.

This amendment proposed by the Senator from Nevada dilutes that support.

As I previously described, the administration's proposal would end the existing step-up in basis tax treatment that protects generationally owned businesses from tax liability when a business is passed on to the next generation.

And I might add--I said this earlier--this was tried once in the 1970s. Chuck Grassley was here, and he was the guy who helped end this because it was unworkable. So here we are trying to do this all over again.

The administration suggested it might include arbitrary exemptions to this ill-advised idea, which I think is what the Cortez Masto amendment speaks to. But, unfortunately, these so-called protections for family- owned operations would not provide sustained relief and, in practice, would be incredibly difficult to implement--the reason they didn't do it in the 1970s.

We have never taxed unrealized gains in this country. This proposal is a half measure that would still punish hard-working families and businesses in this country, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Vote on Amendment No. 3317

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

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

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

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

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

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

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

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

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

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

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

The result yeas and nays resulted--yeas 67, nays 27, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 309 Leg.]

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from South Carolina, (Mr. Graham), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).