John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Perdue), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Gardner), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Perdue), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) would have voted ``nay,'' the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Gardner) would have voted ``nay,'' the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) would have voted ``yea,'' the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Gardner), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Perdue), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) would have voted ``Nay''.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, yesterday we confirmed two more excellent judges in the Senate. Despite Democratic obstruction, we continue to move forward on confirming nominees to the Federal bench. Some of our Democratic colleagues have criticized the amount of time the Senate spends on judges. We have spent a substantial amount of time on judges because we have had to. Back in the day, most of the judicial nominees we are considering would have been confirmed without the time-consuming cloture vote process. By this point in President Obama's first term, Republicans had required cloture votes on just three--three--of President Obama's judicial nominees. Let's compare that to today. As of yesterday, July 24, Democrats had required cloture votes on a staggering 94 judicial nominees--94--to 3 at this same point under President Obama. It is not because they are fiercely opposed to all of these nominees. In fact, again and again, Democrats have turned around and voted for the very same judges they delayed. Just a couple of weeks ago in the Senate, we confirmed three district court judges by huge bipartisan margins: 78 to 15, 80 to 14, and 85 to 10. Clearly, these were not nominees that Democrats bitterly opposed. Yet Democrats insisted on the same old delaying cloture vote tactic they have used with so many judicial nominees. I, too, am frustrated that we have had to spend a lot of time on judges. I miss the days when uncontroversial nominees regularly passed without cloture votes, but if my Democratic colleagues are going to insist on delaying the vast majority of nominations, we are going to have to keep spending time on judges because, let's remember, we are not doing these nominations for fun. This is part of our job. We are working to fill a substantial number of vacancies on the Federal bench. Despite the Senate's efforts, the vacancy rate currently stands at 13.8 percent--higher than the rates faced by President Obama, President George W. Bush, and President Clinton at this point in their first terms. Vacancies on the Federal bench have consequences. Primarily, they result in long waits to get cases heard, which serves nobody. It would be nice if my colleagues across the aisle would abandon their delaying tactics on noncontroversial nominees and speed up the process of filling these vacancies, but, regardless, Republicans will continue moving forward with judicial nominees. I am very proud of the judges we are confirming. We are putting excellent Federal judges on the bench who are committed to upholding the law. That sounds like a pretty obvious requirement for a judge--a commitment to upholding the law--but too often it seems like many on the left would prefer activist judges who act as superlegislators, rewriting laws they disagree with when the law doesn't reach a result that fits with Democrats' political opinions. Those kinds of judges-- judges who move beyond the law when the law doesn't line up with their political agenda--are not a good thing for anybody. Sure, it might seem nice when an activist judge who shares your political opinions reaches outside the plain meaning of the statute and rules for your preferred outcome, but what happens when that same judge reaches beyond the law to your detriment? What protections do you have if the law is no longer the highest authority? The answer is none. You don't have any protection because at that point the judge, not the law, has become the supreme authority, and you are at the mercy of his or her personal opinions. Security, justice, equality under law, these principles can only be maintained as long as we have judges who are committed to upholding the law as it is written and not as they would like it to be. If we have bad laws, we can and should change them, but any changes should be made by the people's elected representatives, as our Constitution dictates. They should not be made by unelected judges. Judges are meant to interpret the law, not make it. I am proud we have been putting judges on the bench who will uphold the rule of law in this country by interpreting the law as it is written, regardless of their personal opinions. As I said earlier, we confirmed two excellent judicial nominees this week. Unfortunately, one ran into some Democratic opposition during the confirmation process because he was Catholic. That is right. Apparently, the fact that he takes his faith seriously enough--

Mr. THUNE. Apparently, the fact that he takes his faith seriously enough to participate in a Catholic charitable group, the Knights of Columbus, is enough to make him suspect as a judge. I had hoped we were done with Democrats' flirtation with religious tests for public office when they questioned the fitness of Judge Amy Coney Barrett because she takes her Catholic faith seriously, but apparently Democrats think it is perfectly legitimate to suggest that you can't be both a person of faith and a nominee for the U.S. judiciary. Let me just remind my colleagues what article VI of the Constitution has to say about that. Article VI states: ``No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.'' I repeat: ``No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.'' It is deeply troubling that we have Democrats in the U.S. Senate suggesting that religious faith disqualifies you from public office. If Democrats are using their objections to these candidates' religious faith as cover for the fact that Democrats don't want to confirm anyone who doesn't share their most extreme political opinions, that is deeply troubling too. Religious freedom is a bedrock principle of this Nation. Our Founders considered it so important that it is the very first freedom mentioned in the Bill of Rights. By freedom of religion, they didn't mean it is OK to pray or have religious beliefs if you do it quietly inside your home; they meant freedom to practice your faith in the public square, even if that means having different political opinions from Democrats. I hope Judge Buescher is the last nominee who will have his fitness for public office questioned simply because he chooses to live out his faith. I was glad to vote to confirm him yesterday, and I look forward to confirming more qualified judicial nominees in the near future. I hope the Democrats will drop their delaying tactics and join us as we work to fill these important vacancies on the Federal bench. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, last week, Senator Cardin and I introduced our S Corporation Modernization Act. That brings the total of tax reform bills I have introduced so far this year to six. Obviously, 2017 was a banner year for tax reform. In December of 2017, we passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, a historic, comprehensive reform of our Tax Code that put more money in American families' pockets and helped spur growth at American businesses. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has been a great success for our economy and for hard-working Americans, but there are still things we can do to strengthen our Tax Code even further. As I mentioned, last week, Senator Cardin and I introduced our S Corporation Modernization Act. S corporations are the most common formal business structure in the United States. There are nearly 5 million of these businesses throughout the United States, including large numbers in rural America. Despite the popularity of S corporations, however, there have been few S corporation-related changes to the Tax Code since this business structure was created. There are things we can do to make it easier for these businesses to operate and raise capital. That is why Senator Cardin and I developed the S Corporation Modernization Act. Our legislation makes pro-growth reforms that will make it easier for these businesses to grow and create new jobs and opportunities in their communities. Change is a human constant, but with modern technology, the pace of change has seemed to accelerate. American workers and American businesses face very different situations than they did even a decade ago. It is important that our Tax Code keeps pace with the 21st century economy. In February, I reintroduced my Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act along with Senator Sherrod Brown. Today substantial numbers of workers travel to different States for temporary work assignments on a regular basis, and they end up subject to a bewildering variety of State laws governing State income tax. Senator Brown's and my legislation would create an across-the-board standard for mobile employees who spend a short period of time working across State lines. It would ensure that States receive fair tax payments while substantially simplifying tax requirements for employees and employers. In March, I introduced two other bills focused on updating the Tax Code for the 21st century economy. The last decade or so has seen the rise of the gig economy--services provided by individuals through apps and websites like Uber, Lyft, TaskRabbit, Postmates, Grubhub, and many others. These arrangements have stretched the boundaries of current tax law. My New Economy Works to Guarantee Independence and Growth Act, or the NEW GIG Act, as we call it, updates our tax law to provide clear guidance on the classification of this new generation of workers. It will ensure that Uber drivers, Postmates, Taskers, and others are treated as independent contractors for purposes of tax law if they meet a set of objective criteria. The certainty my bill provides will benefit not only these workers but also traditional independent contractors like freelance writers and delivery drivers. I also introduced the Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act in March with Senator Wyden. Our legislation is designed to prevent consumers from being faced with multiple taxes for downloading digital products. For example, right now, a digital purchase of a television series could hypothetically be taxed in up to three States, depending on the circumstances of the purchase. The Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act would provide rules of the road for taxing digital goods and services and ensure that digital purchases could only be taxed in one State--the State in which the consumer resides. It would also prohibit States and local governments from taxing digital goods at higher rates than tangible goods. In other words, under our bill, that season of ``The Office'' that you want to buy digitally shouldn't be taxed at a higher rate than if you were purchasing the season on DVD. We have a proud history of charitable giving in this country. Americans care about a lot of worthy causes and are committed to helping those in need. That is why I have routinely introduced amendments to the Tax Code to make charitable giving easier, several of which have been signed into law. This year, I again introduced the Charities Helping Americans Regularly Throughout the Year Act, or CHARITY Act, with Senator Casey. This year's version of our bill builds on some of the provisions we succeeded in getting passed over the past few years and will continue to help make it easier for Americans to give--and charities to receive--money. Finally, this year I once again introduced legislation to repeal the punitive double--or triple--taxation known as the death tax. I have worked a lot on the death tax issue over the years because of the way it affects family farms and ranches. The death tax can make it difficult or impossible to hand off the family farm or ranch to the next generation. While we gave farmers and ranchers substantial relief from the death tax in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, that relief is only guaranteed for 6\1/2\ more years, which is why I am committed to passing a permanent death tax repeal. I am proud of the progress we have made for American businesses and American families with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and I will continue working on these bills and others to further refine the Tax Code to spur economic growth and to address the realities of the 21st century economy.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson). (Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)

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

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I would ask unanimous consent that the next two votes be 10 minutes in length.

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, later this morning we will be voting on the nomination of Mark Esper to be Secretary of Defense. Dr. Esper is an outstanding choice. I don't need to tell anyone how essential the position of Secretary of Defense is to our national security. The Secretary of Defense is key to ensuring that our Nation is prepared to meet and defeat any threat. Dr. Esper has the experience, the knowledge, and the character for the job. He has an illustrious resume: West Point grad, Gulf war veteran, Bronze Star recipient, Rifle Company commander, a total of 10 years on Active Duty, and an additional 11 in the National Guard and Army Reserve. In addition to his practical military and leadership experience, he has extensive experience on the policy side of things as well. He has a master's degree from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and a doctorate in public policy from George Washington University here in the Nation's Capital. He worked as a senior professional staff member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Governmental Affairs Committee, as policy director for the House Armed Services Committee, and as national security adviser to former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. He also served as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense during the George W. Bush administration, and during the Trump administration, of course, he has served as Secretary of the Army. As Army Secretary, he has driven budget reform and Army modernization, supported Defense cooperation with our allies, and supervised the most significant reorganization of the Army in 45 years. His character and his expertise have won him respect from both sides of the aisle. The Democratic junior Senator from Virginia recently described Dr. Esper as ``a person of sound character and moral courage'' and encouraged his colleagues to support Dr. Esper's nomination. Reacting to Dr. Esper's appointment as Acting Defense Secretary, the Democratic chairman of the House Armed Services Committee noted that the Department of Defense would benefit from Dr. Esper's leadership. Dr. Esper was confirmed as Secretary of the Army by an overwhelming bipartisan majority, and his nomination as Defense Secretary was reported out of the Senate Armed Services Committee with nearly unanimous support. I look forward to seeing a similarly strong bipartisan vote for his confirmation later today. In November 2018, the bipartisan National Defense Strategy Commission released a report warning that our readiness had eroded to the point where we might struggle to win a war against a major power like China or Russia. The Commission noted that we would be especially vulnerable if we were called on to fight a war on two fronts. Rebuilding our military and equipping it to meet 21st century threats has to be a priority. I was encouraged yesterday by the fact that the budget deal arrived at by the administration and Speaker Pelosi prioritizes money for our military. While it is not a perfect piece of legislation, it will ensure that we are able to keep rebuilding our military and deliver on-time funding for our men and women in uniform. During his confirmation hearing, Dr. Esper revealed his clear understanding of what needs to be done on the national security front: modernize and rebuild our military; ensure that we are prepared for a new era of great-power competition while maintaining our ability to confront terrorist organizations and rogue nations; cultivate our relationship with our allies; and support our men and women in uniform, who sacrifice so much to keep our Nation safe and free. I am confident that Dr. Esper will be an outstanding Secretary of Defense, and I look forward to supporting his nomination later today. I yield the floor.

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 Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the Dakota Alliance Soccer Club's 14U Girls soccer team. On July 14, 2019, the Dakota Alliance Soccer Club, DASC, 14U Girls won the U.S. Youth Soccer, USYS--National Presidents Cup in Murfreesboro, TN. Their 1-0 overtime win over Century V East 05 from Pennsylvania-West secured South Dakota's first ever USYS national championship at any level or age group. The DASC 14U Girls went undefeated during the 2019 National Presidents Cup, with wins over teams from Pennsylvania, Texas, and California. Impressively, the team did not surrender a single goal throughout the tournament, while tallying 13 goals in just four games. For their outstanding play throughout the tournament, DASC players Tessa Van Overbeke, Elsie Odney, Mia Mullenmeister, and Hailee Christensen were given Best 11 honors. Additionally, Cambell Fisher received the Golden Glove award as outstanding goalkeeper, and midfielder Hailee Christensen received the Golden Boot as the competition's top goal scorer. The DASC 14U Girls earned their spot at the National Presidents Cup by winning the Midwest Presidents Cup, attaining wins over teams from Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin. In May, they won the South Dakota Youth Soccer State Cup, with a pair of wins over the Black Hills Rapids Soccer Club. While a perfect postseason record of 11-0 is certainly notable, it is also important to highlight this team's entire 42-member roster. As a group, these ladies spent considerable hours together for practice sessions, community service projects, and competitive tournaments throughout their successful 2018-2019 season. DASC 14U Girls Championship Team: Hailee Christensen, Chloe Dondlinger, Addison Fawcett, Cambell Fischer, Torre Gulseth, Cassidy Jennings, Ashlyn Kelliher, Mia Mullenmeister, Elsie Odney, Ella Ready, Taite Scheafer, Anni Sjovold. Alternates: Lainey Bream, Alexa Brockmueller, Isabella Moe. Team Members: Madison Baatz, Avalon Brenner, Sophie Ernster, Laura Gruhn, Chloe Hansen, Kiera Heinz, Charity LeMier, Kyra McIntyre, Hadley Meier, Reyna Moss, Ella Parks, Stella Peterson, Lily Raysby, Arianna Schlekeway. Head Coach: James Oppenheimer. Assistant Coach: Makayla Grady. Team Manager: Trecia Gulseth.

Mr. THUNE

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