John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today, Democrats are forcing a vote to repeal the administration's sensible rule to disallow bogus charitable deductions that are designed to circumvent the SALT, or the State and local tax, deduction cap that was part of the 2017 tax reform bill. Frankly, I welcome this vote and today's debate. It gives us an opportunity to review all the benefits of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. While drafting the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Congress made a conscious choice to cap the State and local tax deduction, or SALT, at $10,000. Doing so allowed us to provide additional tax relief to the middle class, support families by doubling the child tax credit, and simplify the Tax Code for filers by nearly doubling the standard deduction. These changes resulted in the average family of four in my home State of South Dakota receiving a tax cut of more than $2,000. In response to this cap, certain high-tax States adopted--what some would call ``creative'' but what I would call ``bogus''--schemes to try to circumvent the cap. These so-called charities that these States have set up are designed solely as an alternative method of paying State and local taxes so millionaires can shirk their Federal tax obligations. So the IRS did what the tax law directed. It enacted sensible regulations to shut down these bogus tax avoidance schemes. But it did so in a thoughtful manner, carefully considering more than 7,700 comments and creating a safe harbor for certain donations to avoid unintentionally discouraging actual charitable giving. It is ironic that Democrats, who uniformly opposed the middle-class tax cuts in the new tax law, are now calling for a tax cut for the most well off Americans. Based on nonpartisan data from the Joint Committee on Taxation, 94 percent of the benefit from passing this CRA would flow to taxpayers with incomes of over $200,000. Fifty-two percent of the benefit would go to those with incomes of over $1 million. In fact, repealing the SALT cap would result in millionaires receiving an average tax cut of nearly $60,000, while the average tax cut for taxpayers with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 would be less than $10. If you put that into perspective, the choice here is very clear. Today, we have an opportunity to vote no--to vote no--on the Democrats' proposed tax cut for millionaires. Religious Freedom The Democratic Party has undergone quite an evolution over these past 3 years. Like all political parties, the Democratic Party has always had an extremist fringe, with the far-left wing of the Democratic Party rapidly becoming its mainstream. Democrats have been falling all over each other to see how far they can run to the left. Socialism, a concept that, in America at least, seemed to have been firmly consigned to the ash heap of history is now being openly embraced by the Democratic Party. Leading Democrats have embraced putting the government in control of everything from American's energy usage to healthcare. It is not socialism or government-run healthcare that I want to focus on today. I want to talk about another trend that has been gradually emerging in the Democratic Party but doesn't always get the coverage that proposals like Medicare for All receive. It is the growing Democratic hostility to religion, which culminated a couple of weeks ago in a Democratic Presidential candidate's proposal to selectively tax churches based on whether he agrees with their religious beliefs. Let me repeat that. Think about that for a minute. A Democratic Presidential candidate proposed that the government should selectively tax churches and synagogues and mosques based on whether their religious beliefs pass muster with the President. That is, or should be, a shocking statement. The idea of taxing churches based on whether their religious beliefs meet with a political party's approval is antithetical to the fundamental right to freely exercise one's religion. It is not just antithetical, but it is unconstitutional. Targeting churches for discriminatory treatment based on their theology is a violation of the First Amendment. It is an understatement to say that it is deeply disturbing to see this proposal emerge from a mainstream candidate. But what might be even more disturbing is that members of the Democratic Party aren't lining up to reject this outlandish and unconstitutional proposal. Maybe we shouldn't be surprised. This is not the first time a Democrat has shown signs of regarding religious people as second-class citizens. During some of the judicial confirmations of this administration, it became clear that Democrats believed religious people should be subjected to extra scrutiny. There was the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett during the first year of this administration. She was an outstanding judicial candidate who received the American Bar Association's highest rating of ``well qualified.'' The ABA's evaluation, as the Democratic leader once said, is ``the gold standard by which judicial candidates are judged.'' Yet during the confirmation process, it became clear that some Democrats thought she should be disqualified because she is a practicing Catholic. ``The dogma lives loudly within you'' is a quote from the Democratic ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, with the implication that anyone who takes his or her religious faith seriously can't be trusted to hold public office. Last December, Democrats raised questions about another judicial nominee because he is a member of a Catholic charitable organization, the Knights of Columbus, which participates in such disturbing activities as serving veterans, raising money for the needy, and providing young people with scholarships. The Constitution is very clear on whether being a person of faith can disqualify you from public office. From article VI, ``no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.'' ``No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.'' That is a quote from article VI of the Constitution. Religious liberty is a foundational part of our system of government. There is a reason it is the very first freedom mentioned in the Bill of Rights. More than one of the 13 original colonies were founded for the express purpose of securing religious freedom. By religious freedom, I don't mean the right to worship privately as long as you don't bring your faith into the public square. What people were looking for in America--what they still look for in America--is the freedom to live according to their religion and according to their conscience and beliefs, freely and publicly, without interference from the government. That is what the First Amendment was intended to protect. I want to move away from the Constitution for a minute, though. There is no question that Democrats' increasingly hostile public attitude toward religion raises some serious questions about constitutionality. I think that is clear. That is not the only disturbing aspect of it. I am also profoundly disturbed by the none-too-subtle implication that religious people are somehow second-class citizens, that we may have to tolerate them, but that we should seek to push them out of public life. That idea is also one that would be absolutely antithetical to the Founders. The Founders didn't see religion as something to be tolerated. They saw it as an absolute good, and that isn't just because a number of the Founders were men and women of faith. They didn't think religion was just a private good--that it kept you in a good place with God. No, they thought religion was good for society. Think of the famous passage from Washington's Farewell Address, which we read in the Senate, literally, every single year in observance of Washington's birthday. Let me quote: Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Again, this is from President Washington's Farewell Address. This is a sentiment that occurs over and over again during the founding--that religion is a benefit not just to individuals privately but to the public, that it makes men and women into good citizens. It encourages them to uphold the law, to live virtuous lives, to take their oaths seriously, to respect the property of others, and to moderate problematic passions like vengeance and avarice. That is not to say that you have to be religious to be a good citizen, but it does point to the truth that religion is something that adds value to society and that it builds men and women who are a blessing to their neighbors and to their country. Americans are known for being a generous people. I don't think it is much of a coincidence that Americans are also known for being a religious people. Again, to be clear, that doesn't mean you have been to be religious to be generous, but religion encourages generosity. Think about how much of the charitable work in this country would go away overnight without religion. Churches and religious organizations support food banks and homeless shelters and crisis pregnancy centers. They run tutoring programs and scholarship programs and mentoring programs. They reach out to immigrants and refugees and to struggling parents and struggling families. They serve military members and first responders. They sign up people to vote. They help families looking to adopt. They implement recycling programs. They collect aid for individuals caught in the path of natural disasters. They build houses for those without a home, and I could go on and on and on. I will provide just one South Dakota example. A few months ago, I visited LifeLight's new youth center in the Pettigrew Heights area of Sioux Falls. In addition to providing spiritual opportunities, the center is focused on providing a safe place where underprivileged children can come to hang out, play games, have a snack, and do their homework. It is just one of the many tremendous things being done by churches and religious organizations in Sioux Falls and around my State. I doubt there is any area where good work is being done in this country where you won't find religious people helping out. I don't just want to see religious people tolerated. I want to see the Democratic Party rejecting the un-American idea that being religious somehow makes you less qualified to participate in the public square, and I want to see the Democratic Party standing up to condemn unconstitutional ideas like that proposed by one of their Presidential candidates. Until then, I will keep fighting to ensure that every American's fundamental right to live in accordance with his or her religious beliefs is protected. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, there are Members who object to this. They can't be here to object on their own behalf. I object on their behalf. I say to the Senator from Minnesota that, like her, I also want to do everything we can to ensure that our elections are fair and transparent in this country. I think there are a number of solutions, as she pointed out, that are out there. I think there is a lot of good work that is being done and can be done, hopefully, on a bipartisan basis. As a former chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, I have worked with the Senator from Minnesota on a number of issues where we have been able to fashion solutions that are bipartisan in nature. I suspect work on this will continue. As I mentioned, we have a couple of Members on our side who do have objections to the bill in its current form or the process of trying to do it this way. I do think there is a way in which we can come together and work toward solutions that will help do what I think all of us have as an objective, and that is to keep our election process in this country fair and transparent.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, over in the House today, the Ways and Means Committee is marking up Speaker Pelosi's drug bill, the latest installment in Democrats' campaign for government-run healthcare. Like Democrats' other plan for government takeover of healthcare, the so-called Medicare for All vote, the Pelosi drug bill will ultimately leave Americans worse off when it comes to access to care. There is no question that the American healthcare system isn't perfect. High drug costs are a problem, and one in four seniors reports difficulty affording medications. Stories of patients being forced to ration pills or abandon their prescriptions at the pharmacy counter are unacceptable, but upending the entire American healthcare system is not the answer. A strong majority of Americans are happy with their health insurance coverage and the quality of the healthcare they receive. Americans have access to treatments that individuals in other countries simply don't have access to. Take cancer drugs, for example. Between 2011 and 2018, 82 new cancer drugs became available. U.S. patients have access to 96 percent of those new drugs. In Germany, by contrast, patients have access to just 73 percent of those new cancer drugs. In France, it is just 66 percent, and in Japan, patients have access to only 54 percent of these new cancer drugs. In other words, Japanese patients are missing out on access to roughly half of the new cancer drugs that emerged between 2011 and 2018. So why do Americans have such tremendous access to new drugs while other countries trail behind? Because the U.S. Government doesn't dictate drug prices or drug coverage. That is also the reason American companies lead the world in medical innovation. Back in 1986, investment in drug research by European drug companies exceeded U.S. investment by approximately 24 percent, but all of that changed--all of that changed--when European governments stepped in and started imposing price controls. Today, European investment in drug research and development is almost 40 percent lower than U.S. investment. It was 24 percent higher in 1968, and, today, it is 40 percent lower. Speaker Pelosi's bill would start the process of destroying the system that has produced so much access and innovation for American patients. Her legislation would impose government price controls on as many as 250 medications. If progressives in her caucus have their way, the bill would impose government price controls on all medications. Either way, the result is likely to look much the same as we have seen before--reduced access to lifesaving treatments and substantially reduced investment for the prescription drug breakthroughs of the future. Under the Pelosi bill, Americans could look forward to a future where we might be the ones losing out on a quarter or more of the new cancer drugs that are coming to market. There is no question that we need to find solutions to drive down drug costs, but the answer to the problem of high drug costs is not to destroy the system that has given American patients access to so many new cures and treatments. Republicans want to develop bipartisan legislation focused on lowering prescription drug costs without--without--destroying the American system of access and innovation. The Senate Finance Committee, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and the Senate Judiciary Committee have spent a lot of time this year working on this issue, and work on truly bipartisan solutions remains ongoing. Earlier this year, House committees advanced drug pricing legislation on a bipartisan basis, but, unfortunately, House Democrats have made it clear that they are more interested in playing politics than in cooperating on legislation to address the challenges that are facing American families. Democrats know that the Pelosi drug bill has no chance of passing the Senate, but they have chosen to pursue this socialist fantasy instead of working with Republicans to develop a bipartisan prescription drug bill that isn't just price controls and that might actually go somewhere. Like the Democrats' larger socialist fantasy, Medicare for All, the Pelosi drug bill will ultimately hurt the very people it is supposed to help, in this case, by restricting their access to lifesaving drugs and future prescription drug innovations. The Pelosi drug bill is a bad prescription for the American people. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, before I begin, I, too, want to join with my colleagues who have preceded me and just say how sad I was to hear of the death of Elijah Cummings. We joined the House together. He got there a little before I did in a special election in 1996. I came in January of 1997. I always admired his fire and his dedication. He was a fierce advocate for his constituents and for the causes he believed in. The House will be a lesser place for his absence. Our prayers are with his family and all those who had the opportunity to know him, his constituents, those he represented in Baltimore and the State of Maryland who are going to mourn his loss today and miss his presence for many, many days in the future. United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement Madam President, farmers and ranchers have gotten some good news on the trade front in recent weeks with the signing of a trade deal with Japan. U.S. farmers depend on access to the Japanese market. It is the fourth largest market for U.S. agricultural producers. This agreement will remove barriers to the sale of a variety of products, from cheese to sweet corn, beef, pork, and wheat. While this is very good news for farmers and ranchers, we have a lot more work to do on the trade front to help our ag community and to increase demand for American agricultural products around the world, and we should start by passing the United States-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement. Canada and Mexico are the No. 1 and No. 2 markets for American agricultural products, and preserving and expanding access to these markets is key to improving the economic outlook for America's farmers. Over a year ago, the administration finished negotiating a strong deal with these countries that will help boost our struggling agricultural economy. To start with, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement will provide farmers with certainty about what these important markets are going to look like going forward. One of the biggest challenges facing farmers on the trade front right now is the uncertainty about what markets around the world are going to look like. The United States-Mexico- Canada Agreement will give farmers and ranchers clarity on what trade is going to look like with these two key trading partners. In addition to providing certainty and preserving American access for American farmers and ranchers, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement makes a number of improvements to the status quo. Of particular interest to South Dakota are the agreement's dairy provisions. If you drive the I-29 corridor north of Brookings, SD, you can see firsthand the major dairy expansion South Dakota has experienced over the past several years. The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement will preserve U.S. dairy farmers' role as a key dairy supplier to Mexico, and it will substantially expand market access in Canada. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates that the agreement will boost U.S. dairy exports by more than $277 million. The agreement will also expand market access for U.S. poultry and egg producers. It will make it easier for producers to export wheat to Canada and much more. I have just focused on the benefits for farmers. In fact, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement will benefit almost every sector of our economy, from the automobile industry to digital trade and e-commerce. It will create 176,000 jobs, and it will raise wages for workers. Given the major benefits not only for farmers but for the economy as a whole, why hasn't Congress passed this agreement yet? That is a good question, and the answer really is quite simple. By law, the House of Representatives has to take up the agreement first, but the House has unfortunately been more focused on political theater of late than on collaborating on measures that would actually help American families, and unfortunately it doesn't look like that is going to change. I heard the Democratic leader down here earlier sort of attacking the current administration for not doing enough on this or that. Well, the fact is, if you look at the economic statistics over the past couple of years, they are pretty remarkable. Unemployment is at a historically low rate--3\1/ 2\ percent. Those are numbers we haven't seen in a very long time-- about 50 years, as a matter of fact. The number of jobs that have been created since the President took office is about 6.4 million jobs. In fact--a very important data point--the number of people looking for work juxtaposed against the number of job openings in our economy--for the 17th month in a row, we have more jobs available--about 7.3 million jobs available--than those people looking for work--about 5.9 million people. That is a historically sort of unprecedented, if you will, statistic. So if you look at the overall economy, things are in the right place. They are moving in the right direction. Wages are up--the highest level in a decade. The American people's pocketbooks, the things they care about, the things they talk about over the kitchen table in terms of their wages, their jobs, their prospects, their certainty about the future--those things have all improved over the past couple of years because of the policies this administration has put in place, coupled with the work this Congress has done to try to create conditions that are favorable to economic growth. What does that mean? Well, his tax policy. We have cut tax rates for individuals and families. We have cut tax rates for small businesses that are trying to expand. We allowed them to accelerate their cost recovery. Those are both key incentives when it comes to investment and expansion. And we have seen the results of that. We have seen regulatory changes made by the administration--in some cases cooperating and coupled with the steps we have taken here in the Congress--that have lessened the burden for businesses that are trying to invest and grow and expand and create more jobs. If you look at the energy changes, energy policy, we have become energy independent--something that a decade ago or two decades ago, nobody ever anticipated was possible. As a nation, we are now actually an exporter of energy--a remarkable change over a short period of time. I would argue that is largely due to changes in policy that have enabled and encouraged that kind of investment in energy, regulatory changes that have lessened the regulatory burden and made it less expensive and less difficult to create jobs in this country rather than more expensive and more difficult, which is what we particularly saw in the past administration, and lowered the tax burden in a way that provides incentives for people to invest, to grow their company, to pay better wages, and to add jobs. Those are the types of policy changes that have been made that have resulted in the economic data and statistics we are looking at today. They are not just data and statistics; they are actually being felt by people across this country. So it begs the question as to why, then, another step that we could take on that road to economic progress hasn't been taken yet. Why, 320 days after the President signed the U.S.-Canada-Mexico Free Trade Agreement, has that not been taken up and passed by the House of Representatives? I would argue that if they would take that up and send it to the Senate, we would vote on it here. We would pass it. We would send it to the President. He would sign it into law, and farmers and ranchers in places like South Dakota and other agricultural States across this country would get the benefit from that. And it is not just farmers and ranchers. As I mentioned earlier, it is pretty much every sector of our economy. It is manufacturing. It is digital. There are benefits in this trade deal that translate into a stronger, more robust economy that will keep this expansion going forward and will continue to create these good-paying jobs and higher wages and create that better standard of living and quality of life for people in this country. The reason it hasn't moved is because it is up to the House of Representatives. They have all the control on this. The Speaker of the House can move this whenever she wants to. What they are trying to do now is renegotiate the deal all over again. Unfortunately, they are very much obsessed at the moment with other types of activities in the House. If you look at what is happening over there right now, it doesn't look like that is going to change anytime soon. With even the Speaker of the House joining the far left's now impeachment crusade, I don't think it is likely that Democrats are going to wake up one morning and decide they should spend less time on partisan politics and more time working with Republicans to pass real solutions for the American people. But I do hope they will not destroy this trade agreement. There are thousands of farmers in my State of South Dakota and around the country who are waiting for the relief that the United States-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement would bring. Irrespective of what the distractions are in the House of Representatives at the moment and much of the partisan rush toward impeachment that is underway there, I hope they will figure out a way to multitask and will do what they should have done a long time ago, and that is to pick up this free-trade deal, pass it through the House of Representatives, send it to the U.S. Senate, where we can pass it, and send it to the President, where it can be signed into law, and the American people can continue to see the benefits of policies that are good for this economy, that will create more growth in our country, faster growth in our economy, better paying jobs, and a better quality of life for people not just in South Dakota but all across America. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), and the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), and the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, later today, the Senate will vote to confirm Barbara Barrett as Secretary of the Air Force. I have come to the floor directly from a meeting with her this morning. Ambassador Barrett has had an impressive career both inside and outside of government. Among other things, she has served as U.S. Ambassador to Finland, Deputy Administrator of the FAA, and as a member of the Civil Aeronautics Board. Most importantly, she has a deep understanding of the U.S. Air Force, thanks to her work as a civilian adviser to the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs. As a member of the Defense Advisory Committee on women in the services, she fought to expand opportunities for women in the military. She became the first civilian woman to land an F-18 on an aircraft carrier, which was part of a mission to demonstrate women's fitness to fly in combat. Thanks, in part, to her work in 1993, the military changed its regulations to allow women to fly combat aircraft. I am always particularly interested in making sure we have an outstanding Air Force Secretary because my State of South Dakota is lucky enough to play host to Ellsworth Air Force Base, home of the 28th Bomb Wing and future home of the B-21 bomber. Over the State work period in October, I was able to visit Ellsworth to sit down with the new commander of the 28th Bomb Wing, Col. David Doss, as well as CCM Rochelle Hemingway. We had a great discussion, and we had a chance to talk about the needs of the base going forward, including what will be needed as Ellsworth prepares to serve as the first home of the B-21. Ensuring that the base has the necessary resources and infrastructure to fully support the B-21 mission will be a priority of mine not just as we await the mission but for decades to come. Since I came to Congress, I have worked with the base and the Greater Rapid City community to build up Ellsworth. We have gone from fighting to keep the base open, to adding an MQ-9 Reaper mission and supporting the B-1 as a workhorse of the bomber fleet, to hosting the largest training airspace in the continental United States, and to being chosen to host both the B-21 training mission and first operational squadron. I am incredibly proud of all that Ellsworth airmen have accomplished, and I am looking forward to seeing everything the team at the base will be able to do in the future.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the past 2 weeks have provided a kind of microcosm of the Democrat Party since the 2016 election--a combination of unhinged partisanship and a radical shift to the far left. In the past 2 weeks, we have seen Democrats call for not one but two impeachments--Justice Kavanaugh's and the President's--and introduce another socialist-inspired, government-run approach to healthcare, this time on the issue of prescription drugs. First, there were the calls to impeach Justice Kavanaugh based on yet another vague rumor. It quickly became glaringly obvious that there was no substance to the rumor. The alleged victim apparently has zero memory of the alleged behavior, but that didn't give Democrats any pause. It was right on to the next rushed impeachment proposal. On Tuesday, the Speaker of the House announced that she was opening an impeachment inquiry into the President. Never mind that the President had declared he would make public the transcript of the phone call in question. Apparently, she couldn't take the time to wait. After all, as the leader pointed out on the floor this week, Democrats have been looking to impeach the President since the moment he was elected. For Democrats, impeachment is not something to be gravely considered as an answer to serious crimes; it is a political weapon they hope to use to fix the fact that they didn't get their way in the last Presidential election. Democrats' calls for impeachment have come so thick and fast over the past couple of years, it would be difficult to trust them to conduct an impeachment investigation if there ever were a serious reason to consider one. They have made it absolutely clear that they have no objectivity at all. In addition to poisonous partisanship, the other thing that has characterized the Democratic Party since the 2016 election is a rapid swing to the extreme left. Last week, Speaker Pelosi introduced the latest addition to the socialist agenda Democrats have been laying out over the past year--a prescription drug bill that abandons the free market and competition that have enabled the United States to lead the way in drug innovation and lifesaving cures for Americans. There is no question that many Americans face high prescription drug costs, and there is no question that we can and should implement measures to drive down these costs. For months, the Senate Finance Committee, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and the Senate Judiciary Committee have been working on this issue. The same is true in the House. There are multiple bipartisan ideas both houses of Congress could act on, but Speaker Pelosi's bill is not the answer to the problem of high drug costs. The Speaker's bill would force drug companies to either accept government price controls or face up to a 95-percent tax on the sale of their drugs. That is right, 95 percent. This is not a good- faith effort to come to the table to talk about solutions for lowering drug prices and out-of-pocket costs for Americans. Right now, America is a leader in prescription drug innovation and the development of new treatments. The Speaker's bill would threaten all of that. Under her bill, research into new treatments and cures would decrease. Yes, we need to address high drug prices, but discouraging the innovation that has improved the lives of so many Americans is not the way to go about it. The Speaker's proposal for government-run prescription drug prices would do exactly what Democrats' larger socialist healthcare fantasy would do, and that is to hurt Americans' healthcare. It would add limited healthcare innovation to the many negatives Americans would experience under so-called Medicare for All--negatives such as reduced access to care, limited treatment options, long wait times, and big tax bills for ordinary Americans. Of course, Democrats like to talk about forcing the wealthy to pay for Medicare for All and their other pie-in-the-sky proposals. The junior Senator from Vermont recently introduced a wealth tax he wants to use to pay for some of his special socialist programs. His proposal would ostensibly raise $4.35 trillion over 10 years. Here is the problem. Let's suppose he put all that money toward paying for his government-run takeover of healthcare, Medicare for All. At a conservative estimate, Medicare for All would cost $32 trillion over 10 years--$32 trillion. The Senator from Vermont's wealth tax wouldn't even cover 15 percent of that cost. Who is going to pay the other 85 percent? And that is supposing his wealth tax actually raises the money he says it will. European countries have repealed their wealth taxes right and left because they were ineffective. While I am sure the Senator from Vermont would be happy to levy additional taxes on the wealthy, the truth is, there simply aren't enough wealthy people in the United States to pay for all of the Democrats' socialist proposals. Ultimately, the burden for paying for these proposals would fall heavily on the middle class. There is no question that divided government can make things challenging, but it can also be the occasion for real, bipartisan action. Senate Republicans would love to work with Democrats on solutions to problems like the cost of healthcare. Unfortunately, Democrats have chosen to spend most of their time on partisan messaging and on proposing socialist fantasies that would hurt the very people they are supposed to help. I don't have a lot of confidence they will change anytime soon, but I hope they will. There is a lot we could still get done if Democrats are willing to come to the table and work with Republicans on solutions that will meet the challenges faced by the American people. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, it is always a privilege to honor the men and women of America's Greatest Generation. They brought peace to the world and defended the freedoms we all enjoy every day, and we owe them a tremendous debt of gratitude for their service and sacrifice. Today, I wish to recognize one of these heroic Americans from my home State of South Dakota. Marcella Ryan LeBeau volunteered to serve in the U.S. Army Nurse Corps during World War II--WWII--providing care to wounded soldiers across Europe. Next month, Marcella will enjoy her 100th birthday at a celebration with family and friends, and I wish to add my voice to the chorus of those praising her lifetime of achievement and dedication to public service. Marcella has dedicated her life to serving others. She completed a diploma in nursing at St. Mary's Hospital in Pierre, SD, in 1942 and served in the Army Nurse Corps as a first lieutenant in WWII, taking her from the United States to Wales, England, France, and Belgium. While serving in the Army from 1942 to 1946, Marcella cared for countless wounded soldiers, including D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge. In 2004, on the 60th anniversary of D-Day, Marcella was among 100 WWII American veterans awarded France's highest civilian award, the French Legion of Honor, at the French Embassy in Washington, DC. Following her service in the Army, Marcella worked for the Indian Health Service--IHS--in Eagle Butte for 31 years. She would eventually become the Eagle Butte IHS Hospital's director of nursing. In addition to her work at the IHS Hospital, she served 4 years on the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Council while raising eight children with her husband, Gilbert. After retiring from the IHS, Marcella opened a quilting shop with her granddaughter. They make a variety of quilts, with the main feature being the star quilt used by the Lakota people for honoring and naming ceremonies, memorials, and various life achievements. In 2016, Marcella was inducted into the South Dakota Hall of Fame, and she received the Women in History award from the Spirit of the Prairie Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution. She also received an honorary doctorate of public service from South Dakota State University in 2018. With her lifesaving work in the Army and a longtime commitment to South Dakota, Marcella has made a lasting impression on the lives of many, and on behalf of all of them, I would I like to wish her a happy birthday and thank her for her remarkable service to the United States.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``yea.''