Nomination of Brooke Rollins (Executive Session)
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes, Senator Crapo for up to 5 minutes, and Senator Schumer for 2 minutes prior to the scheduled votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, late into the night, Senators spoke on the Senate floor about why Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is the least qualified nominee to ever be tapped as America's chief health officer.
On issue after issue, Mr. Kennedy has demonstrated a profound lack of knowledge, at best, and deeply dangerous views, at worst.
Mr. Kennedy has refused to tell Americans how we would manage healthcare issues that they are deeply worried about: vaccine safety, women's reproductive health, drug pricing, and affordable healthcare, to name a few. This leaves millions of Americans alarmed about the future of health and science in America.
Last week, two Oregon medical students approached me to talk about Mr. Kennedy's nomination. These medical students told me they were less concerned about the damage Mr. Kennedy would do as HHS Secretary in the weeks and months to come. These medical students are not only worried
So I ask my colleagues to think about those medical students' words. Is that a legacy you want to leave behind as a result of supporting Mr. Kennedy?
Senate Democrats have been making this exact case. In his hearing before the Finance Committee, I asked Mr. Kennedy to square his anti- vaccine views with more recent statements designed to appease a number of our Senators who are quite nervous about his nomination.
In his testimony, he used the fact that his own children were vaccinated to prove he was not anti-vaccine. But the record shows that just a few years ago, he said he would ``do anything'' and ``pay anything'' to go back in time in order to prevent them from getting those vaccines.
Elsewhere in his testimony, Mr. Kennedy stated he was not anti- vaccine but, rather, ``pro-safety.'' But about 18 months ago, he said on a podcast:
In other words, in the Senate Finance Committee, we brought the evidence; we brought the receipts, and Mr. Kennedy said nothing to actually disavow his prior statements. He stuck by the timeworn tactics of a conspiracy theorist: Always ask for more evidence, and never accept the evidence that is placed in front of you.
Even some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are now deeply disturbed by Mr. Kennedy's refusal to entertain evidence that would require him to change his mind on vaccine safety. Nevertheless, it sure looks like my Republican colleagues have bowed to pressure from Donald Trump and are poised to hand Mr. Kennedy the platform he has been seeking for two decades to push fringe views.
Before the Senate votes, I would like to take a moment to talk a little bit about the fights ahead on healthcare.
Republicans in the House are already pressing ahead this morning with their plan to kick millions of Americans off of their health insurance in order to fund more tax cuts for those who are very wealthy. And as HHS Secretary, Mr. Kennedy is going to be a key player in this effort.
While Senators were on the floor speaking yesterday, the Senate Budget Committee debated a budget resolution that unlocks the legislative tools Republicans need to make good on their go-it-alone plan. At the same time, the House Budget Committee released its own budget resolution that will be debated today.
What is clear in both of these blueprints, in their game plan, is that Medicaid cuts are at the top of the list.
Eighty-one million Americans rely on healthcare coverage under Medicaid and the CHIP program for kids. Those people are folks with disabilities, low-income families, seniors, and, of course, children.
The damage and destruction to American families if Republicans go through with their plans to gut Medicaid cannot be overstated.
Take nursing homes, for example. Two out of three nursing home residents are currently being covered for their healthcare by Medicaid.
Imagine you visit your mom in her nursing home in the months after the Republican bill makes steep cuts to Medicaid. Your mom complains there are fewer and fewer staff. She had to wait more than an hour after calling for help to use the bathroom on several occasions.
The next time you visit, she tells you some of the new staff don't have time for her. You learn that the facility no longer has the resources to conduct background checks and that they are desperate for workers.
A few weeks later, the facility manager pulls you aside to deliver some bad news. Her nursing home can no longer accept patients with Medicaid after steep Federal cuts to the program. Unless you can find another facility that accepts Medicaid, you have got to pay the high monthly costs out of your own pocket.
Suddenly, and with no warning, you have got impossible options. Either you scramble to find the money to cover a new facility that costs thousands of dollars a month, or you bring your mom home with you.
So between holding down a full-time job and raising young kids, suddenly, you have to deal with making sure your mom gets full-time care, and that requires nursing assistance around the clock.
Unfortunately, this case I described is something you see in every nook and cranny of America. I know that from my days as codirector of the Gray Panthers. And I know that many of your friends and neighbors with aging parents and grandparents in nursing homes are facing the catastrophe that I have just described.
Now, Republicans are going to do somersaults to disguise their cuts to Medicaid, and they are going to describe it in healthcare lingo that they think plays well with people.
For Republicans, every single child, senior, or family struggling to pay the bills that gets denied coverage is a win. That brings us to Mr. Kennedy.
During his confirmation hearing on everything from abortion to vaccines to Medicare and Medicaid, Mr. Kennedy was given ample opportunity to go on the record about how he would improve these programs, bring down costs, save taxpayers money, and improve care. Instead, he showed a complete lack of understanding of the basics of Medicaid and how it functions.
I personally believe it shouldn't be too much to ask for the future CEO of Medicaid to understand how important it is to provide affordable coverage for millions of families.
Republicans, with Donald Trump at the helm, are steering our country toward a healthcare cliff. Their ultimate objective is to take away Medicaid from as many people as they can.
Colleagues, so much for making America healthy again.
What the American people need is a leader who will be the voice of reason in the room as Trump and his assistants in Congress start slicing and cutting.
Our country needs a leader at Health and Human Services who is actually going to work to improve care and lower costs, defend the reproductive freedom of families, and listen, in particular, to facts and science.
The American people have no reason to believe, based on the record, the evidence that the Senate Finance Committee has accumulated--to believe that Mr. Kennedy will be that leader.
There is no question the healthcare system in America needs reforms. It has fallen short, and Democrats want to work in a bipartisan way on those issues.
We are disillusioned by a system that puts profits over patients in too many circumstances. Nobody on this side of the aisle is arguing for the status quo.
But the solution, colleagues--and I am closing with this--does not lie in Donald Trump's ``concept of a plan'' to make our country less healthy, less safe, and less successful.
When kids are kicked off their Medicaid coverage and forced to go without basic medical care and grow up with chronic illnesses that leave them in a lifetime of pain and suffering, Republicans are going to regret any vote they give to Robert Kennedy.
When seniors are told they have to vacate their nursing homes because it no longer accepts Medicaid, Republicans again will regret a vote for Robert Kennedy.
When families are struggling to pay the bills and they are landed with a mountain of medical debt because their kid got sick and they were kicked off their insurance, finally, Republicans will regret any vote they give to Robert Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy will, no doubt, be right alongside Republicans, a willing participant in this future for healthcare that I have described today that is really stepping back from progress that has been made.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. President, I rise today in support of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s nomination to be Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of his confirmation.
Contrary to the attacks that have constantly been made on him, he has made it very clear that he will support safe vaccinations and just wants to see
When his nomination for the role of Secretary at HHS was announced, Mr. Kennedy stated:
I agree with him. We have got to get into the business of making America healthy again.
Mr. Kennedy's dedication to this commitment has been apparent throughout the nomination process. He will bring a fresh perspective to healthcare, prioritizing consumer choice, information transparency, and early interventions to strengthen the well-being of all Americans.
He has been responsive to a wide variety of questions from Members on both sides of the aisle, appearing before two committees and answering hundreds of questions for the record, not to mention going through the extensive vetting process of the Finance Committee, which I chair, which is the most extensive vetting process that any candidate for a position in this administration goes through in the Senate.
While some of my colleagues continue to question his financial agreements, Mr. Kennedy met and then exceeded the requirements set forth by the Office of Government Ethics. Mr. Kennedy has participated in one of the most extensive processes, as I have said, that our Senate puts a nominee through and has succeeded in meeting those standards, and I encourage my colleagues to support his nomination.
Healthcare Funding (Executive Session)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute for an opportunity to respond to my colleague from Idaho.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I would only say to my friend from Idaho that he says this is not going to happen, that people are going to be safe and seniors on Medicaid and the like will be safe--I would just say to my colleague, it starts today--today--in the other body of Congress, I would say to my colleague. The process of setting in motion these cuts to essential healthcare services begins today. We can read about it in the publications about the congressional schedule.
I look forward to working with my colleague when we can find common ground, but on this point that it is not going to happen and everybody is going to be safe, the efforts to cut these vital programs, including Medicaid, begins this morning in the other body.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 30 seconds to just respond.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I would simply say that we hear this every time we look at trying to address the spending excesses in our government.
And I will just say to my colleague and to everyone: We are not going to take healthcare away from children. We are not going to take healthcare away from adults, from seniors, or from middle-aged people. We are not going to attack the benefits that people get under Medicare.
And, frankly, we will reform some of the spending, yes, but we will not do all of the terrible things that are being spun up to try to attack this effort to control the excessive spending in our government.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. President, the fact that we are here right now--that we are even here right now--voting on this wildly unqualified conspiracy theorist to trust with one of the most life-or-death jobs, HHS Secretary, charged with protecting the health of every single American should be an affront to every Senator and the millions of Americans that will be impacted by this horrific nomination.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I implore you, think one more time, one last time, about this vote. My colleagues on the Republican side, you know the consequences of what you are doing. My colleagues on the Republican side, you know how dangerous this is. My colleagues on the other side, you know you are not putting your constituents, their health, their families first when you vote yes.
To quote my colleague the junior Senator from Texas just a few years ago, he said:
Well, which is Robert Kennedy? An expert? A scientist?
Or what about the senior Senator from Louisiana, the chair of the HELP Committee and a well-respected medical professional himself? A few years ago, here is what he said:
I ask my colleagues: Which of these qualifications does RFK possess?
You know the answer: None of them.
The question in front of this body today--the question in front of this body--is not simply to confirm RFK to run the Nation's Health Department. The question before us is very simple: Which is more important to you--the health and well-being of your constituents or blindly obeying orders, knowing full well the dangerous impacts your vote will enable?
I plead with you one more time: Rethink this issue. This is dangerous. This is wrong--very wrong.
I yield the floor.
Trump Administration (Executive Calendar)
Mr. President, last week, the Senate voted to confirm Pam Bondi as U.S. Attorney General. I was proud to support her nomination both at the Senate Judiciary Committee level and on the Senate floor.
Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a markup on the nomination of Kash Patel for Director of the FBI. Likewise, I was happy to support his nomination in committee, and I look forward to supporting him here on the Senate floor as soon as that vote comes before us.
One of President Trump's most important pledges during the campaign was to end the politicalization and the weaponization of the Department of Justice, including the FBI. Pam Bondi and Kash Patel, I think, are outstanding picks to fulfill this pledge, which is very important. I am pleased the Senate is moving to confirm them with no delay.
I believe that the FBI and the Department of Justice are two of the most important institutions in America. If you look around the world, you see a lot of countries that have a similar economic system to ours, and you wonder, why is America uniquely prosperous? Why is it that we succeed where others fail?
I believe it is two things. One is our independent judiciary, and secondly, our institutions of justice like the FBI and the Department of Justice that are supposed to discharge their responsibilities without regard to politics and without regard to the sorts of activities we have seen in recent years.
We know that both of these individuals--Mr. Patel and Ms. Bondi--have their work cut out for them.
The mission of the Department of Justice, after all, is to uphold the rule of law, to keep the country safe, and to protect civil rights. The FBI's mission is to protect the American people and to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Under the Biden administration and even before that, the Department of Justice and the FBI failed to achieve those noble and worthy goals. Of course, back even during President Trump's first term of office, there was the infamous Crossfire Hurricane FBI investigation. There was the so-called Russian hoax based on a phony piece of Russian propaganda known as the Steele dossier, which ultimately we found out was part of the opposition research that Hillary Clinton's campaign collected during her campaign against President Trump back in 2016. This was dressed up to make it look like a credible bit of intelligence, when, in fact, it was Russian propaganda, we ultimately found out, Russian disinformation.
Two weeks ago, during his hearing at the Judiciary Committee, Kash Patel told me that the rule of law is one of the fundamental precepts that make America an exceptional nation. Without the rule of law, he said, ``we go back to the Uganda that my father fled.''
Kash Patel's adherence to the mission of the FBI and its parent Agency, the Department of Justice, is a stark contrast from what we have seen in recent years. We saw, for example, Merrick Garland's misguided memo in October of 2021 directing the FBI to work with U.S. attorneys to ``discuss strategies for addressing threats from parents'' who were taking an active role in their children's education by participating in parent-teacher meetings and school board meetings.
Similarly, we have the FBI Richmond Field Office that sent a memo in 2023 suggesting that traditional Catholics might pose a threat as violent domestic extremists.
So we know that there is example after embarrassing example of how the FBI and the DOJ have gotten off track.
A report from the House Judiciary Committee highlighted, for example, the FBI's misguided attempt to artificially inflate the number of domestic extremism threats by claiming Americans who were exercising their First Amendment rights were somehow potential domestic terrorist threats, not to mention the FBI's role in censoring information related to Hunter Biden's criminal activities.
A Senate report from the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, in 2020, detailed many of Hunter's and his associates' unseemly--and likely illegal--activities, including payments from Ukrainian, Russian, Kazakh, and Chinese nationals and revealed that the FBI may have had knowledge of these activities for some time and done nothing.
In September 2020, when the House Judiciary Committee sent a followup letter to Director Wray, related to Hunter Biden's alleged misconduct, the FBI stonewalled them and refused to confirm or deny any ongoing investigations.
I know that is a common response by the FBI. Well, they are not going to talk about ongoing investigations, and, certainly, we understand that, as a routine matter, there shouldn't be any sort of interference in ongoing investigations. But Congress has a unique constitutional role of oversight, and, essentially, what Director Wray was saying was, he wasn't willing to give the Congress, as an oversight body, the information we need in order to do our job.
Of course, despite these numerous efforts within the FBI and the Department of Justice to protect Hunter Biden from accountability for his crimes, we know his own father issued a Presidential pardon in the final weeks of his Presidency, even though for months he had said he would never do such a thing. But then he did, claiming his son was selectively and unfairly prosecuted.
Well, my recollection was Hunter was convicted of one crime by a jury but pled guilty to others. So it is not clear to me how President Biden can say that he was selectively and unfairly prosecuted for the crimes that he pled guilty to.
It is hard to imagine thinking someone was unfairly targeted when the entire government--all the government Agencies involved--did everything they could to assist the Biden family and to protect that person from justice.
While it is no surprise that the American people were upset and even outraged by this, who could forget the marked differences, the double standard, in response to when President Trump was found to have sensitive documents in his home in Mar-a-Lago and when President Biden was found to have sensitive documents in his home in Wilmington, DE.
And all the while, during the historic crime wave we have experienced in recent years, Merrick Garland directed his Agency not to enforce mandatory minimums against most drug crimes. He did this while Americans across the country were suffering from fatal drug overdoses at record numbers, especially from fentanyl, which took the lives of approximately 70,000 Americans last year alone.
The results of all of these abuses of authority has been a loss of trust and confidence by the American people in these important institutions: the FBI and the Department of Justice. These institutions were no longer believed to be engaged in the fair administration of justice based on facts and evidence, as opposed to political gamesmanship.
Now, I realize that Attorney General Bondi and soon-to-be Director Patel are going to have a huge task ahead of them to restore these Agencies to their core missions and to restore the trust that has been eroded of the American people in our American system of justice. But both of these individuals have pledged to do just that, and I believe they should have an opportunity to do that.
Pam Bondi, after all, has been a career prosecutor. She then went on to be attorney general of Florida for two terms. As a former attorney general of my State in Texas, I know how tough that job can be. But she has done an outstanding job, and I have no doubt that her promotion to U.S. Attorney General by President Trump was well deserved. She is prepared for this important job.
My goal for the Department of Justice and the FBI is to restore the nonpartisan functioning of our country's chief law enforcement Agencies. The American people deserve an FBI and a Department of Justice that they can trust. They deserve to live under a system where the guilty are prosecuted and where the innocent are not unfairly targeted. They deserve to live in a place where political views are not a basis for a criminal investigation and where an accused person is still presumed innocent until proven guilty. In
I believe that being Attorney General is probably one of the toughest jobs here in Washington, DC, because you are not only the chief law enforcement officer for the country, you are also a member of the President's Cabinet.
But even given the difficult nature of the job, Merrick Garland practically abdicated his responsibilities as chief law enforcement officer in order to be a partisan advocate for President Biden's policies.
President Trump's Attorney General will have a chance to turn the page from Merrick Garland's failures by reversing the partisan hackery that has been a part and parcel of President Biden's Department of Justice. President Trump's Attorney General can restore the Department of Justice to its core mission. Pam Bondi can serve President Trump and the Nation well by enforcing the law that is on the books and ending the weaponization of political enemies.
Similarly, Kash Patel has an opportunity to turn the page from the abuses and the lack of accountability that we have seen at the FBI in recent years.
So I look forward to working with Ms. Bondi and Mr. Patel in their noble endeavor to restore trust in our Nation's justice system, and by doing so, to restore the trust of the American people.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Food for Peace Program (Executive Calendar)
Mr. President, today I want to speak about a program that has shaped our Nation's humanitarian efforts and made a significant impact on my home State of Kansas, a program called Food for Peace.
In 1953, agricultural surpluses had reached an alltime high, but the price of storing excess commodities was too expensive to rationalize, and it was at risk of going to waste.
Kansas farmers, like Cheyenne County's Peter O'Brien, worked hard to cultivate and grow these commodities. Looking for a solution, Peter suggested at a local Farm Bureau meeting that maybe the excess food could be sent to countries in need. Peter understood that, out of our abundance, we have a moral duty and opportunity to feed the hungry. His idea sparked the origin of a program we now know as Food for Peace.
Another Kansan, one of my predecessors, Andy Schoeppel, led the Food for Peace Act in the Senate, which was signed into law by President Eisenhower, another Kansan, in 1954, and Senator Bob Dole from Russell, KS, later championed the reauthorization of Food for Peace.
The program's premise was simple but impactful: By leveraging the food surpluses we produce in Kansas and across the Nation, we could address famine around the world, while creating new markets for our commodities and bolstering our agricultural economy.
The first shipments of American wheat and corn were sent to Korea and Greece in 1954, and by the end of Food for Peace's initial year of operation, it had fed 1.2 million people. Over the last 70 years, the program has fed more than 4 billion people in more than 150 countries, all with American-grown commodities.
Hunger, whether driven by price increases or food shortages, can act as a catalyst for protest and armed conflict. We have seen how food can be used as a weapon of war as radical Islamic groups in Syria used food as a means to recruit soldiers. We have witnessed regions of the world that are critical to America's strategic interest descend into chaos due to people not having access to affordable food.
In a turbulent world, stricken with conflict, American leadership is more than just our military and our economic might. Food aid provided by the United States reduces despair and increases stability within fragile countries by enabling economic productivity and minimizing the risk of radicalization.
For countless individuals around the world, their survival is dependent upon the resources provided by the American people. These vulnerable populations rely on the strength and prosperity of the United States. However, much work remains in the ongoing battle against hunger, and part of that battle is improving the process and programs that administer our aid.
Food for Peace is administered by the USAID, and the inefficiency of USAID has been a growing concern. The Agency struggles with bureaucratic delays, mismanagement, and a lack of coordination, which undermines its ability to deliver effectively aid to those in need. This inefficiency not only wastes taxpayer dollars but also diminishes the impact of America's foreign aid in addressing global crises.
Reports suggest that millions of taxpayer dollars have been allocated to promoting tourism in Lebanon and Egypt, funding the purchase of electric vehicles for Vietnam, and inadvertently supporting the cultivation of opium in Afghanistan.
Even more concerning, it has been confirmed that $9 million intended for civilian food and medical supplies in Syria fell into the hands of terrorist organizations linked to al-Qaida, due to the failed oversight of USAID.
Amid these concerns of corruption, President Trump has taken steps to dismantle USAID. In conjunction with the President's action and with approval of the White House policy team, I have introduced a bill with Senator John Hoeven and Senator Roger Marshall and Representative Tracey Mann to move Food for Peace from the turbulent USAID program and move it to the Department of Agriculture, in an effort to prevent waste and bring the program closer to farmers that depend upon it.
USDA has a long and proven history of managing agricultural policy and programs that support American farmers, food distribution systems, and global security efforts. USDA has boots on the ground and the infrastructure already in place to support the logistics for food assistance. The Agency understands how to move crops efficiently, sustainably, and quickly. This knowledge is indispensable when responding to international crises, where speed and reliability can mean the difference between life and death. By placing Food for Peace under USDA's authority, we make certain that the program is in good hands and can continue to bring revenue to American agriculture.
As of just a little over an hour ago, the Senate confirmed the new Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins. I have no doubt she will be an excellent advocate for our Nation's farmers, and I appreciate the conversations we have already had on this legislation. The Secretary has told me she is excited about this proposal and looks forward to working together on this issue.
We produce more than we can consume in this Nation. So without programs to export to, our ability to make a living in agriculture in Kansas and across the country disappears.
In fiscal year 2023 alone, $713 million of U.S.-grown commodities were purchased by the Food for Peace program, putting money back into the hands of farmers. In rural America, food assistance programs like Food for Peace put American-grown products in the hands of the hungry, and this food is a tangible extension of the hard work and dedication of farmers and ranchers.
I am pleased to help find ways to make our delivery of food aid more effective, more efficient, and remove the challenges and things that we have seen that are so disturbing.
America is the greatest country on Earth and the most prosperous. Food for Peace bolsters the farmers who feed us, creates a more stable world, and feeds the hungry.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. President, I am here to speak in opposition to the confirmation of Senator Kelly Loeffler to serve as Administrator of the Small Business Administration.
I am concerned for the more than 722,000 small businesses that call Massachusetts home and that last year relied on $708 million in loans from the Small Business Administration.
I am concerned because of Donald Trump and Elon Musk, who have sent a clear message: They are here to illegally cut off funding for critical government Agencies and services. They are here to make government work for billionaires but at the expense of working-class people, and they are filling their Cabinet with people who are going to carry out that illegal bidding.
As I stand here today, DOGE operatives continue to work under the cover of darkness, including at the Small Business Administration. The American people want answers. Is the private information of families and businesses and individuals safe at the SBA? Will an entrepreneur looking to open their beauty salon be looking to close on an SBA loan and get their money on schedule? Can government contractors, many of whom are veterans, continue providing critical services while getting paid on time?
Lawmakers and American families alike are scrambling to figure out whether the government is open for business. Small business owners are wondering what will come from the illegal access to their private data by Musk's minions. These are just small business people across the country who have handed over the financial secrets of their families, and there is no guarantee that all of those secrets of their families are being protected right now. They are small business people. We have 7 million people in Massachusetts and 722,000 small businesses.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump continues to attack DEI--diversity, equity, and inclusion--when, in reality, the administration is carrying out a different kind of DEI--``defending Elon's interests.''
So today, I stand in opposition to the confirmation of Kelly Loeffler because of this effort which is going to be throwing us into a constitutional crisis through their illegal actions. I fear that, as Administrator, Senator Loeffler will put the interests--at the command of Donald Trump and Elon Musk--of the more than 34 million small businesses second and of Elon and billionaire interests first.
In a moment when our democracy is under threat, I expect a clearer commitment to the rule of law. So far, Senator Loeffler has offered an unapologetic defense of Trump's Executive orders, which attempt to supersede the law of the land, and has supported pardons for the January 6 insurrectionists.
Taxpayers need to ensure they have an environment which is fair and impartial at the SBA. Instead, Senator Loeffler has, in the past, basically bragged that she is more conservative even than Attila the Hun.
I need to make sure that this environment that is being created is one which is going to be hospitable to small businesses, because they need to ensure that there is an Administrator who will act ethically and for the benefit of America's entrepreneurs. Small businesses need an Administrator who will help them compete and innovate. They do not need an Administrator who is only listening to the White House's, Trump's, and Elon Musk's orders.
To conclude, under the Biden administration, we saw a record number of new small businesses, but just because they were recovering, it doesn't mean they weren't hurting.
So to all of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we have to work together to uplift our entrepreneurs and promote a ruthless Darwinian marketplace that would bring a smile to Adam Smith. That is my goal. The vibrancy of our communities depends on us ensuring small business can compete, expand, and create jobs.
By crippling government from within, Trump is trying to damage the critical services that help working families put food on the table. So I urge a ``no'' vote on the confirmation of Senator Loeffler to serve as Administrator of the Small Business Administration.
Unfortunately, by now, we are able to look back and see the totality across the EPA, across the NIH, across the President's call for the dismantlement of the Department of Education as to what the real story line is here as the Trump administration and the DOGE apparatchiks move into Agency after Agency and are in the Small Business Administration right now.
So my goal is to try to protect that SBA that we have all known on a bipartisan basis for generations--to just protect it from this storm of partisanship that is taking over our country, and on that basis, I recommend a ``no'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. President, later today, we have the opportunity to advance the nomination of the Honorable Kelly Loeffler to be the Administrator of the Small Business Administration.
Senator Loeffler is immensely qualified for this role. As a successful businesswoman, it is abundantly clear that Senator Loeffler truly understands what it takes to be an entrepreneur and will be an effective voice for small businesses across America.
Since President Trump's election in November, optimism on Main Street has surged to its highest levels since 2018. Our Nation's job creators--small businesses--are excited about the prospect of having a dedicated and knowledgeable leader at the helm of the SBA.
Last week, the Small Business Committee, on which I serve as chair, favorably reported her nomination out with a bipartisan vote--a sure sign that my friends on both sides of the aisle believe she is fit to lead the SBA.
Senator Loeffler will bring accountability back to the Agency and promote policies that will truly benefit America's small businesses. As evidenced in her nomination hearing, Senator Loeffler's experience and her expertise make her the right person to lead the SBA and advocate for our small businesses.
Growing up on her family's farm in Bloomington, IL, Senator Loeffler experienced firsthand the problems facing America's farmers and small business owners. And as a fellow farm girl myself, I look forward to having some more Midwest common sense in Washington, DC.
Senator Loeffler also witnessed her parents start up a small trucking business and navigate complex rules and regulations. She understands the struggles small businesses face because--do you know what?--she has experienced them. Fortunately, Senator Loeffler is ready to cut the redtape and reduce the burdens that so many of our job creators still face today.
Senator Loeffler is also a successful entrepreneur. She was the first employee and CEO of a financial technology company. Through her hard work and tenacity, she aggressively grew the company and took it public within 3 years.
Additionally, Senator Loeffler knows what it means to work for Main Street and the American people. During COVID, as a U.S. Senator, she worked tirelessly to bring relief to the people of Georgia, specifically through the Paycheck Protection Program. However, she, like me, recognizes that some took advantage of this program, and they need to be held accountable. During her confirmation hearing, Senator Loeffler detailed her zero-tolerance policy for waste, fraud, and abuse in the SBA. That should be welcome news for all of us.
In addition, Senator Loeffler indicated the need for a full-scale audit--I started my political career as an auditor, so I agree with this--a full-scale audit at the SBA to uncover improper spending and stated she would rely on that data to make the best decisions for the future of the SBA.
Senator Loeffler also noted the importance of working with Congress, particularly when it comes to disaster relief. She recognized the tragedy of the SBA's disaster shortfall, which lasted for 66 days in the middle of back-to-back natural disasters. She recognized this should never happen again.
SBA's vital role in the disaster process cannot be overstated, and we must ensure we have an Administrator who will alert Congress at the first signs of any concerns.
The SBA needs a strong leader with a proven track record in business management, and Senator Loeffler brings all of that and more to the table.
I look forward to working with Senator Loeffler to ensure small businesses all across America can thrive and maintain these high levels of optimism we are already seeing under this administration.
I urge my colleagues to advance her nomination and support her with a ``yes'' vote.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 573. A bill to designate a mountain in the State of Alaska as Denali; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a century- long dispute. A hundred years plus, there has been a dispute about the Federal designation of North America's tallest mountain. It is a pretty majestic picture, but it does nothing to really convey the amazing grandeur of Denali. It is majestic. It is breathtaking. It is something that as Alaskans and as a lifelong Alaskan, there is not a day when I am able to see Denali and just say--just kind of breathe deep, because it is that extraordinary.
And in my hometown of Anchorage, we are about 250 miles away from Denali, and on clear days, when you are on the road, just about a mile from my house, just a little bit of elevation, you can see the mountain.
And we talk about it that way. We say: She is out. The mountain is out today. The big one is out today.
It is an extraordinary gift from God, really. Snow-blanketed crevasses, the ridges are just gleaming in the sun. How this mountain connects earth to sky beyond, it is just extraordinary.
And, again, this picture is beautiful--obviously, on a summer day. There is never a time when she is not covered in snow, but Denali can also be one of the coldest, most treacherous places on Earth.
It has storms in the middle of winter. You expect that. But it has storms in the middle of July that obey no rules. It has its own rules. Denali creates its own weather. It literally creates its own weather.
I had an opportunity to go up on Ruth Glacier on my birthday. My birthday happens to be the end of May. It was going to be an extraordinary big-ticket item--it was a big-ticket item, but we were chased off that mountain after about 40 minutes because the weather which, when we had arrived at the mountain, was pretty great, and in 40 minutes, she was shutting down, and we were either going to be spending the night there, which was not prime condition to do, or we were getting off in order to get out safely. You respect her.
But it is a place where you respect the nature around you because what can be that perfect day can descend with wind and snow into chaos. It falls on you so quickly, you can't see your own footprints in the snow.
The lives that have been lost and the legends of the stories told remain, but no matter what happens with the weather, as transitory as all that is, Denali stands resilient and true.
For centuries, the Koyukon Athabascans have lived, they have hunted, they have foraged, they have loved, they have died, they have survived in the shadow of this great mountain.
They have been on the waterways, in the valleys, on the hills, and in the ridges. Alaska Natives have persevered in one of the most challenging climates, and they have done so in harmony with the food supply and the surroundings around them.
Denali is Koyukon for ``the Great One,'' for ``the Great One.'' This is how Native people have always known it, and as the great witness of untold stories from their ancestors.
The very first-ever map to label the mountain read ``Tenada,'' and this is a transcription of Denali--again, the Great One.
The first mountaineers to summit the peak called it Denali. It is interesting to note that the first individual to actually summit was not the mountaineers who had paid for the climb, but it was the Alaskan Native guide who took them safely and successfully to the top. But it is the same Native people, those same mountaineers that were baffled that anyone would dare to modify the original Native name.
And yet, in 1917, the mountain was not named Denali. And there is a fair amount of legend that comes with that as well, that there was a trapper who came out of the woods--this was during the early days of the President McKinley administration--and he said: Out of respect, let's honor the new President.
But much like Native lands, health, and culture, you just don't come in and say we are going to disregard, we are going to disrespect the rightful name, the name that had been in place for generations, for thousands of years.
And so since that time in 1917, the U.S. Board on Geographic Names has received over 20,000 letters and signatures, most of them--the vast majority of them calling for the name Denali to be restored.
This massive mountain commands a reverent name, a steadfast name--not the name of an individual, a person who comes and goes, who may have had an impact for a brief moment in time.
But this is ageless, timeless. The Great One, 20,310 feet tall, the tallest mountain in North America. So when you have something that is that significant, that is that connected as part of the land in ways that are beyond just a mere name--but, again, a reverence with which you speak of this piece of land, this geography.
When Alaskans leave our home State and boast to outsiders, whether spinning a globe or just talking about it, we say: That is Denali. That is the Great One. She is out today.
So that is why today I have introduced legislation that would officially restore the federally recognized name of this quintessential mountain as Denali.
Now, this is not the first time I have done this. This is actually the fourth Congress that I have introduced this legislation. Maybe I am persistent; I think Alaskans are just very resilient, and we will continue to be. We will continue to be because this magnificent mountain is something that each of us holds in our hearts, that we hold dear. For these last 100 years or so, we have continued to call our great mountain Denali, regardless, and will continue to do that 100 years going forward. Denali existed before any person, and it will remain long after we are dust.
So I share this with my colleagues today, letting you know that we put this legislation out there. My introduction follows on the actions of the Alaska State Legislature--both the house and the senate have moved a resolution urging us in Congress to move forward with this and officially restore the federally recognized name, and so I am pleased to be able to begin that process today.
S. 579. A bill to amend the National Quantum Initiative Act to provide for a research, development, and demonstration program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 587. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the estate and generation-skipping transfer taxes, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
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:
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.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 597. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the purchase of certain firearms by individuals under 21 years of age, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Age 21 Act, a vital piece of legislation aimed at reducing gun violence and enhancing the safety of all Americans.
The Age 21 Act would prohibit the sale of assault weapons, large- capacity ammunition, and related items to individuals under the age of 21.
However, this bill includes reasonable exceptions to allow temporary transfer or possession of assault weapons for specific activities, such as recreational use or work-related responsibilities, including Active military service.
Every American has the right to live free from the fear of gun violence. Yet this epidemic continues to devastate our communities, claiming over 46,000 lives in 2023 alone, the third-highest number of gun-related deaths ever recorded. This ongoing crisis demands urgent and meaningful action.
Assault weapons--engineered for military purposes--are designed to inflict maximum damage in the shortest amount of time. Unsurprisingly, they are frequently chosen by those who perpetrate mass violence. Their deadly impact is tragically evident in many of our Nation's darkest moments.
In 2022, an 18-year-old gunman in Uvalde, TX, used an AR-15-style rifle to kill 19 children and 2 teachers at Robb Elementary School. In 2018, a 19-year-old gunman at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL, murdered 17 students and staff members with an AR-15 rifle. And in 2012, a 20-year-old gunman used an AR-15-style rifle to kill 20 children and 6 educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.
These are not isolated incidents but part of devastating pattern. Data shows that more than 85 percent of fatalities in public mass shootings involving four or more deaths are caused by assault rifles. The evidence is clear: These weapons amplify the scale of violence and loss of life.
Scientific research supports raising the minimum age for accessing such destructive weapons. Studies show that the human brain continues to develop into a person's mid-20s, particularly in areas related to impulse control, judgment, and long-term planning. Recognizing this, Federal law already restricts the purchase of alcohol and tobacco to individuals over 21, commonsense measures to protect public safety. Assault weapons, with their unparalleled potential for destruction, deserve no less consideration.
Americans deserve to feel safe in their schools, places of worship, and neighborhoods. By passing the Age 21 Act, we can take a meaningful step to reduce the availability of these deadly weapons to young individuals, helping to save lives and prevent future tragedies.
Public safety is a shared responsibility, and this bill represents an important measure to strengthen our collective efforts to combat gun violence. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and working to pass the Age 21 Act as swiftly as possible.
S. 602. A bill to amend the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 to support research and development of ungulate grazing land management techniques for purposes of wildfire mitigation, fuel reduction, and post-fire recovery; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. President, I rise to introduce the bipartisan Wildfire Resilience Through Grazing Research Act. This legislation aims to advance research into the use of hooved animal grazing as a tool for wildfire prevention, mitigation, and recovery.
Wildfires in the U.S. are becoming more frequent, intense, and destructive, posing significant threats to lives, ecosystems, and property. The economic and ecological costs of these fires are devastating. To mitigate future risks and support postfire recovery, we must adopt effective land management strategies. One promising and natural method is ungulate grazing, which has proven effective in reducing the fuel loads that exacerbate fire spread.
However, we still lack sufficient scientific understanding of how to optimize grazing practices for wildfire mitigation while avoiding potential environmental harms. Supporting this research will allow the Federal Government, as well as private landowners, to make grazing a core, cost-effective tool in wildfire prevention, working alongside other mitigation strategies to protect our landscapes, our communities, and our way of life.
Our bipartisan bill would add the Grazing for Wildfire Mitigation Initiative to the National Institute of Food and Agriculture's (NIFA) High-Priority Research List. Specifically, this initiative would support research and development of ungulate grazing land management techniques that promote wildfire mitigation, fuels reduction, and postfire recovery. In addition, it would support information dissemination of ungulate grazing land management techniques that support wildfire mitigation to public and private landowners, land managers, and livestock owners.
I would like to thank my colleagues Senators Moran, Hirono, and Lankford for their leadership in introducing this bipartisan legislation with me. I urge my colleagues to support the Wildfire Resilience Through Grazing Research Act, and I look forward to working together to ensure our communities are better prepared to face the challenges posed by increasingly frequent and severe wildfires.
S. 603. A bill to designate the General George C. Marshall House in the Commonwealth of Virginia, as an affiliated area of the National Park System, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. President, today, I am joining with Senator Mark Warner to again introduce legislation to designate the General George C. Marshall House, also known as the Dodona Manor, in Leesburg, VA, as an affiliated area under the National Park Service. This same bill passed unanimously in the Senate at the end of the 118th Congress.
The legislation will be the final step in the yearslong effort to recognize the Dodona Manor as a unit of the National Park System. It will also promote the public appreciation of the significant historic contributions made by U.S. military leader and statesman George C. Marshall.
George C. Marshall was an American hero, playing a significant role in the Allied victory in World War II and serving as an architect of one of the most significant foreign policy initiatives in our country's history. He led a lifetime of public service, serving as Chief of Staff to the Army during America's entry into World War II, as Secretary of State, where he orchestrated the historic Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe following the war and provided counsel to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, and as Secretary of Defense after the onset of the Korean war. He acquired Dodona Manor while serving as the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army in 1941 and lived there until his death in 1959.
Today, the George C. Marshall House is dedicated to preserving and advancing General Marshall's life's work and legacy by hosting international exchanges, historical exhibits, and community events, and supporting educational programming based on General Marshall's desire to inspire future leaders. The legislation would bring greater resources, including technical assistance, accessibility improvements, and new programming, to this historical site and enable the Marshall House to improve and expand its work.
I am hopeful that this designation will provide new resources to preserve, honor, and celebrate General Marshall's legacy at this historic site, and I am pleased that companion legislation is also being introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by my colleague Representative Suhas Subramanyam.
Introductory Statement on S. 573
Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a century- long dispute. A hundred years plus, there has been a dispute about the Federal designation of North America's tallest mountain. It is a pretty majestic picture, but it does nothing to really convey the amazing grandeur of Denali. It is majestic. It is breathtaking. It is something that as Alaskans and as a lifelong Alaskan, there is not a day when I am able to see Denali and just say--just kind of breathe deep, because it is that extraordinary.
And in my hometown of Anchorage, we are about 250 miles away from Denali, and on clear days, when you are on the road, just about a mile from my house, just a little bit of elevation, you can see the mountain.
And we talk about it that way. We say: She is out. The mountain is out today. The big one is out today.
It is an extraordinary gift from God, really. Snow-blanketed crevasses, the ridges are just gleaming in the sun. How this mountain connects earth to sky beyond, it is just extraordinary.
And, again, this picture is beautiful--obviously, on a summer day. There is never a time when she is not covered in snow, but Denali can also be one of the coldest, most treacherous places on Earth.
It has storms in the middle of winter. You expect that. But it has storms in the middle of July that obey no rules. It has its own rules. Denali creates its own weather. It literally creates its own weather.
I had an opportunity to go up on Ruth Glacier on my birthday. My birthday happens to be the end of May. It was going to be an extraordinary big-ticket item--it was a big-ticket item, but we were chased off that mountain after about 40 minutes because the weather which, when we had arrived at the mountain, was pretty great, and in 40 minutes, she was shutting down, and we were either going to be spending the night there, which was not prime condition to do, or we were getting off in order to get out safely. You respect her.
But it is a place where you respect the nature around you because what can be that perfect day can descend with wind and snow into chaos. It falls on you so quickly, you can't see your own footprints in the snow.
The lives that have been lost and the legends of the stories told remain, but no matter what happens with the weather, as transitory as all that is, Denali stands resilient and true.
For centuries, the Koyukon Athabascans have lived, they have hunted, they have foraged, they have loved, they have died, they have survived in the shadow of this great mountain.
They have been on the waterways, in the valleys, on the hills, and in the ridges. Alaska Natives have persevered in one of the most challenging climates, and they have done so in harmony with the food supply and the surroundings around them.
Denali is Koyukon for ``the Great One,'' for ``the Great One.'' This is how Native people have always known it, and as the great witness of untold stories from their ancestors.
The very first-ever map to label the mountain read ``Tenada,'' and this is a transcription of Denali--again, the Great One.
The first mountaineers to summit the peak called it Denali. It is interesting to note that the first individual to actually summit was not the mountaineers who had paid for the climb, but it was the Alaskan Native guide who took them safely and successfully to the top. But it is the same Native people, those same mountaineers that were baffled that anyone would dare to modify the original Native name.
And yet, in 1917, the mountain was not named Denali. And there is a fair amount of legend that comes with that as well, that there was a trapper who came out of the woods--this was during the early days of the President McKinley administration--and he said: Out of respect, let's honor the new President.
But much like Native lands, health, and culture, you just don't come in and say we are going to disregard, we are going to disrespect the rightful name, the name that had been in place for generations, for thousands of years.
And so since that time in 1917, the U.S. Board on Geographic Names has received over 20,000 letters and signatures, most of them--the vast majority of them calling for the name Denali to be restored.
This massive mountain commands a reverent name, a steadfast name--not the name of an individual, a person who comes and goes, who may have had an impact for a brief moment in time.
But this is ageless, timeless. The Great One, 20,310 feet tall, the tallest mountain in North America. So when you have something that is that significant, that is that connected as part of the land in ways that are beyond just a mere name--but, again, a reverence with which you speak of this piece of land, this geography.
When Alaskans leave our home State and boast to outsiders, whether spinning a globe or just talking about it, we say: That is Denali. That is the Great One. She is out today.
So that is why today I have introduced legislation that would officially restore the federally recognized name of this quintessential mountain as Denali.
Now, this is not the first time I have done this. This is actually the fourth Congress that I have introduced this legislation. Maybe I am persistent; I think Alaskans are just very resilient, and we will continue to be. We will continue to be because this magnificent mountain is something that each of us holds in our hearts, that we hold dear. For these last 100 years or so, we have continued to call our great mountain Denali, regardless, and will continue to do that 100 years going forward. Denali existed before any person, and it will remain long after we are dust.
So I share this with my colleagues today, letting you know that we put this legislation out there. My introduction follows on the actions of the Alaska State Legislature--both the house and the senate have moved a resolution urging us in Congress to move forward with this and officially restore the federally recognized name, and so I am pleased to be able to begin that process today.
Introductory Statement on S. 587
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:
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.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
