Todd Young

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Madam President, on February 25, Indiana lost a great Hoosier when Dr. Thomas L. Morin passed away at the age of 76. Today, I rise to pay tribute to Tom's remarkable legacy as a husband, father, and professor and to recognize his educational service to our State. In 1965, Tom earned his bachelor's degree at Rutgers University, followed by a master's degree from the University of New Mexico in 1967. While on a full NASA scholarship, Tom subsequently earned a second master's degree and a PhD in Operations Research from Case Western Reserve. For nearly 45 years, Tom served as a professor of industrial engineering at Purdue University in West Lafayette, IN. While at Purdue, he won the admiration and respect of his students and colleagues alike. As a professor and researcher, Tom changed the way young Hoosiers think, pushing students to pursue an analytical and practical approach to solving the world's wide-ranging issues. A lifelong educator and Fulbright scholar, Tom was a gifted mentor to his students and a valued member of the scholarly community. Tom is one of those remarkable people that made Purdue University what it is today: the national destination for pioneering research and education in engineering, research to which Tom was a key contributor. To his family, Tom was a man of remarkable character and passion. He was utterly devoted to his children, grandchildren, and the love of his life, Susan, whom he met in 1962 and with whom he remained inseparable for 58 years. As avid travelers, Tom and Susan toured the world together, from Las Vegas, to the Sahara and the Greek Isles. Beyond his own family, Tom served as a role model and a leader in his community. On behalf of the Hoosier State, I recognize how fortunate we are that Tom dedicated his life, passion, and knowledge to Indiana. While West Lafayette has lost a pillar of its community with Tom's passing, I believe that his work will serve as a legacy for future generations. I ask my colleagues to join me in extending our sympathies to Tom's wife, Susan; two children, Michael and Marisa; and four grandchildren, Andrew, Gaby, Charlie, and Kennedy, as they remember the great life of Dr. Thomas L. Morin.

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I rise to recognize 175 years of tourism, history, and hospitality that the French Lick Resort has brought to my home State of Indiana. In 1832, two Hoosier brothers, Thomas and Dr. William Bowles, purchased 1,500 acres of property near French Lick, IN. Part of the property's allure was the abundant mineral springs loaded with Epsom salt and sulfur. As a physician, Dr. Bowles became intrigued by the medicinal benefits that the mineral springs possessed, which famously turned into the Hoosier tonic Pluto Water. In 1845, the brothers welcomed their first guests after building a unique, three-story, wood- framed hotel. In 1901, a small group of investors, including former Indianapolis mayor Tom Taggart, bought the property from the Bowles brothers. Mayor Taggart's vision and political expertise aided in the development of the hotel and the expansion of the Monon Railroad from Chicago to the front entrance, encouraging more tourists to ``take to the waters.'' By 1905, the French Link Springs Hotel had become a grand destination, and its services were greatly sought after by all of Indiana society. Soon enough, it had gained worldwide recognition. With the hotel's stunning success, Donald James Ross, ``the Michelangelo of golf course design'' and a member of the World Golf Hall of Fame, was hired to build the French Lick Springs Golf Course. In 1924, the course hosted a PGA championship, attracting more national attention and further success. By 1931, the hotel became the unofficial headquarters of the national Democratic Party and became the site for the 1931 Democratic Governor's Conference. As a socialite destination, numerous notable guests visited the springs, including Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Ronald Reagan, John Barrymore, and Howard Hughes. Because of its heritage of tourism and hospitality, in 2003 the French Lick Springs Hotel was added to the National Register of Historic Places--a distinction of notable merit. In 2005, the French Lick Springs Hotel and its former competitor, the West Baden Springs Hotel, were purchased by the Cook Group, Inc., a family-owned company headquartered in Bloomington, IN. After a complete 1-year renovation, the French Lick Resort was born, continuing its legacy of attracting visitors from the around the world to Southern Indiana with a variety of events. The French Lick Resort and its world-class amenities have served millions of guests and has greatly added to the cultural history of the United States. On behalf of the State of Indiana, I wish the resort continued success for another 175 years and beyond.

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, as a U.S. Senator, I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and, while sitting in this High Court of Impeachment, I have fulfilled my duty to serve as an impartial juror. After hearing all counsel arguments and reviewing all evidence in the voluminous record, including 17 witnesses, 192 witness video clips, and 28,578 pages of evidence, procedural rules, and constitutional concerns, I will vote to acquit the President, preventing his immediate removal from office and disqualification from the ballot. A fair and accurate reading of this chapter in our Nation's history will conclude that, on the issues of fact and law presented to this High Court of Impeachment, reasonable and public-spirited Senators can disagree. This lends further support to the notion that the American people should be afforded the opportunity to register their opinions by participating in the coming national election. While the Senate worked to remain impartial and open-minded throughout this trial, it must be acknowledged that a political fever permeated this process from the beginning, dating back not just to the start of the House of Representatives' impeachment efforts, but all the way back to November 2016. As a result, the House improperly impeached. Now, the Senate should exercise restraint. Here is why. First and foremost, a fair legal process is fundamental to our democracy. The House managers have repeatedly emphasized that no Americans are above the law. I could not agree more: No private citizen, President, or assembled majority of Congress can violate the rights guaranteed to other Americans under the Constitution. Accordingly, the President is entitled to basic due process rights, and the House failed to afford him these rights. Due process includes the right to legal counsel, the right to review evidence, and the ability to confront your accusers--rights denied by the House majority. House Managers breathlessly insist that ``overwhelming'' evidence already in the record proves ``beyond any doubt'' the President's continued service constitutes an imminent threat to the American people. The House's flawed and rushed process led to unfair proceedings and resulted in superficial, unspecific charges supported by a one-sided, improperly curated factual foundation. Second, Separation of Powers is a cornerstone of our constitutional republic, and its preservation is essential to prevent abuse of power by one branch over another. A majority of the House should exercise extreme caution when it bases impeachment upon the President's exercise of his foreign relations prerogatives, which are expressly granted to him by the Constitution. Additionally, in developing its Articles of Impeachment, the House majority chose to circumvent the judicial branch of government in order to clarify an issue of unsettled law pertaining to Executive Privilege. Instead, the House simply arrogated to itself a novel and dangerous new legal authority: absolute power to define Executive Privilege, even when the President is exercising his foreign relations powers granted by the Constitution. As with prior impeachment inquiries, following a formal request by the House, the Federal courts could have compelled the executive branch to provide sensitive documents and witnesses. The House chose to ignore this longstanding precedent because it conflicted with its political timeline. Astonishingly, Speaker Pelosi rushed the mismanaged process forward only to delay it, again for political purposes, before finally sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. Now the House, having failed to fully develop its evidentiary record, invites the Senate to act as an accomplice to its ramrod impeachment and create a dangerous new 51-vote Senate threshold to override executive branch claims of Executive Privilege. To accept this invitation would be a violation of a long-established separation of powers. Senators might be tempted by a burning curiosity or crass political calculation to further develop the House's vague and tainted articles, but the constitutional separation of powers dictates that our legal charge must be more narrowly confined. To act otherwise would violate our oaths and dangerously incentivize calculating and intemperate House majorities to promiscuously impeach rival Presidents. We must set aside our personal preference because, under the Constitution, we are duty- bound by the ``sole power to try'' the infirm articles before us. Lastly, Americans should stand against any Senate action which abets the creation of a constitutional crisis through the politicization of impeachment. The House majority's misguided process created a precedent to weaponize impeachment, a new precedent that will lead to serial impeachments in a polarized America. If the House majority had its way and the Senate accepted its invitation to fix their broken articles, either political party would be tempted to impeach and potentially remove their political opponents from office by initiating slapdash impeachment investigations. This new precedent would reduce impeachment to a mere vote of no confidence, similar to that in the U.K. Parliament. During President Nixon's impeachment, then Democratic Chairman Peter Rodino of the House Judiciary Committee urged that, for the American people to accept an impeachment, it must be powerfully bipartisan. This has been dubbed the Rodino rule, and I embrace the standard. A decent respect for the law and the opinions of fellow citizens and a concern for future precedent requires that I pointedly emphasize what I am not arguing, that a President can lawfully do ``whatever he wants,'' that inviting foreign election interference is appropriate, that absolute immunity attaches to Executive Privilege, or that a statutory offense must be committed to impeach. In summation, I have ineluctably arrived at a conclusion after impartially applying the law to all facts presented: House managers delivered tainted articles and failed to present requisite evidence to support their exceedingly high burden of proof. Therefore, I am duty bound to join my colleagues who would have the Senate resume the ordinary business of the American people. The Founding Fathers, who warned of the political nature of impeachment, also provided us a means to address dissatisfaction with our Presidents: frequent elections. This week, Americans began the Presidential election process. For the sake of our Constitution and our Nation, the Court of the American People should render its verdict through an election to address its support of or opposition to the current administration.

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chief Justice.

Mr. YOUNG. I send a question to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Braun.

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I rise to formally recognize an important event that will be occurring in my home State of Indiana this week. On Thursday, January 16, the Indiana Women's Suffrage Centennial Commission will be hosting a celebration at the Indiana Statehouse to commemorate the 100th anniversary of Indiana ratifying the 19th Amendment. Moreover, the Indiana General Assembly will present a resolution honoring this historic milestone and the Hoosiers who led the way to ensure equal representation for women in their government. As we celebrate the anniversary, it is important we acknowledge that the record of Hoosiers seeking equal voting rights for women goes back to the 1850s, when Amanda Way, a Winchester native, organized the Indiana Woman's Rights Association and called for its first convention. This act of passionate leadership was just the beginning of a generation-spanning story of determination, sacrifice, and advocacy. Countless women and men followed in Amanda's footsteps and continued to campaign for the betterment of their society and government. Nearly 70 years later, these Hoosiers' tireless efforts led to Indiana becoming the 26th State in the Union to ratify the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, prohibiting States from denying the right to vote on the basis of sex. The centennial of women's suffrage is an opportunity to highlight Indiana's leadership in uniting communities, tearing down barriers to better relationships, and promoting representative governance. On behalf of all Hoosiers, I wish Indiana continued success as it commemorates and recognizes a proud history of supporting equality and constitutional freedom.

Mr. YOUNG

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

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

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I rise to formally express my appreciation to Mr. Jeremy Wheeler. Jeremy is a congressional relations officer in the Department of Veterans Affairs. However, over the last year, he served as a fellow on my national security and veterans team. Jeremy has supported my work helping the veterans of Indiana and the Nation using his exceptional knowledge of the Veterans Affairs system and his experience working with many of the veterans service organizations. A dedicated public servant, Jeremy has spent much of the last two decades serving our Nation. He served in the U.S. Army for 6 years, including two combat tours in Iraq in 2003 and 2005. After 5 years working in Hollywood, he returned to government service at the Department of Veterans Affairs and has spent much of this decade working to improve the quality and access to care for our Nation's heroes, establish deeper relationships with veterans service organizations, and strengthen the VA's outreach and communications capabilities. In my office this year, he has provided valuable insight into how the legislation before this Chamber would be implemented and how it would impact the VA's ability to continue serving our veterans. And perhaps most impressively, I am not sure how many offices on Capitol Hill can boast an Emmy-winning staff member. This is just one of the many unique contributions Jeremy has brought to my office. In the last year, I have continually been impressed with Jeremy's work ethic, professionalism, candor, and knowledge. Next month, Jeremy will be returning to the VA, where I have no doubt he will continue seeking innovative ways to caring for veterans. I wish him the best in all his endeavors, and I look forward to working with him in the future.

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, in August I had the honor of traveling to a tiny town, to a small diner in Auburn, IN. The purpose of my visit was to present a military service medal that was nearly 75 years in the making. Over the last few months, I have had a lot of opportunities to think about those moments in Sandra D's Cafe and what they have meant to me. As we approach Veterans Day, I would like to share a few of those lessons. I served in the military for 10 years, and I saw firsthand the sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform. As an elected representative, I have had further opportunity to visit veterans who served in conflict zones and families who made incredible sacrifices to keep us all free. I learned just how much a sacrifice we truly ask of our troops and their families. In the Marine Corps, we have a motto: ``Semper Fidelis.'' Rarely do we tell folks what it means. It means ``always faithful''--faithful to our Nation and faithful to all those who protect it, faithful to all those who serve in peacetime and are prepared to protect it. It is why I wear this memorial bracelet around my wrist. The folks back home know I wear it. I remind them of it often because it is important. This bracelet honors LCpl Alec Terwiske. He was a fellow U.S. marine from a small town in Dubois, IN, in southern Indiana. On September 3, 2012, he was tragically killed--for all of us--in Afghanistan. His mom, Sandy, has become a close friend. She asked me to wear this bracelet to honor his memory, and I do so. I do so proudly every day to remember Alec and Sandy and the rest of their family and also to remember all those men and women who love our country and what it stands for so much that they are prepared, if necessary, when called to do so, to put their lives on the line for all of us. It takes a special person to take up arms in defense of our country. It takes a belief and cause much greater than ourselves. That cause is, in fact, what America is all about. It is that very belief that makes me think back to that cafe in Auburn. Sandra D's father, Robert Egli, was a World War II veteran who survived the war. He lived a long and happy life back home in Indiana and didn't say much about his military service. In fact, when I showed up, Sandra didn't know much about the story. I did a little personal internet research in the car on the way there to deliver her father's missing Bronze Star, and what I found out was very interesting. It was World War II, in the Philippines, the Pacific theater. Robert's unit was involved in a battle that saved the lives of 511 American prisoners of war. His actions and those of the other American GIs with him allowed those Americans to return home, to marry their sweethearts, to start a family, and to pursue the American dream. Now, think about it. This is the beauty and the magic of the gift that so many of our men and women in uniform have given or are prepared to give. Because of the sacrifice of Robert Egli, there are hundreds of Americans who have had children and grandchildren who are now alive today. As a result of his beautiful act of courage, his selfless act of service on behalf of all of us, his patriotism, his sacrifice, maybe tens of thousands of people across America are alive. For these reasons and many, many more, we must never stop working to ensure that our veterans receive the respect they deserve. That includes ensuring that our veterans receive the care they are due after they are back, safe and secure, at home. The Senate has already taken up and passed many pieces of nonpartisan legislation--commonsense legislation which I cosponsored and was proud to see become law that will improve the lives of our veterans. The VA MISSION Act is perhaps the most notable and ambitious effort where we have all come together to support our veterans. This law has already dramatically improved the way veterans receive their healthcare. We have also taken steps to speed up the appeals process for veterans through the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act. No one should ever have to wait years or, perhaps even in the worst instance, pass away, waiting on their benefits. We made significant improvement with respect to that process. We improved the way our veterans are cared for in nursing homes, and we worked together to provide urgently needed support for veterans who may be contemplating suicide. This year, I have introduced another piece of legislation, working with Tammy Duckworth, a wounded warrior herself and distinguished Member on the other side of the aisle. We introduced the VETS Safe Travel Act to provide TSA Precheck benefits for those veterans who have been severely wounded on the battlefield. This VETS Safe Travel Act would help 70,000 amputees, 100,000 paralyzed veterans, and 130,000 blind veterans who are currently subjected to a rigorous and demeaning screening process when traveling. Unfortunately, the legislation has, at least so far, been languishing in the House of Representatives, and its delay, of course, means veterans in need will be left waiting. I would really hope that before the House takes another recess week, they can take up and pass this important legislation. I think our veterans have more than earned it. Working together, we made significant strides for our veterans in recent years, but of course we must always keep striving to do more. It was George Washington, a veteran himself, of course, who once said: The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional as to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation. Let's treat them well. Let's appreciate them fully this Veterans Day and every day. I encourage you to remember your neighbors, the servicemembers in your State, and servicemembers around the country and deployed around the world. I encourage you to think of all those people before and those still with us who are proud to call themselves veterans of our military. May God bless our veterans. May God continue to bless America.

Mr. YOUNG

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

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess following the cloture vote on the Bremberg nomination until 2:15 p.m. and that if cloture is invoked, the postcloture time expire at 2:45 p.m. and the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination; finally, that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. YOUNG

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

Mr. YOUNG. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue that is very important to me and to the 1,300 Hoosiers currently in need of an organ transplant. That issue is the lack of organs for patients in need and our broken organ donation system. For more than 30 years, our Nation's organ donation system has operated in complete darkness. Groups known as organ procurement organizations, or OPOs, are responsible for getting organs from the donors to the patients who actually need them, but questions surround the effectiveness, transparency, and accountability of these organizations. OPOs are the main link between donor hospitals and organ recipients, and their performance can be a limiting factor for all stakeholders in the organ donation system. In the last 20 years, no OPO has been decertified despite serious issues of underperformance. For example, CMS recently recertified the New York City OPO despite persistent underperformance for nearly a decade. This problem exists throughout the country. Currently, OPO performance is measured by data that is self-reported, unaudited, and fraught with errors. Many of these errors have been documented by Lenny Bernstein and Kimberly Kindy at the Washington Post. That is why today I introduced legislation that would require organ procurement organizations to be held to metrics that are objective, verifiable, and not subject to self-interpretation. This way, there can be meaningful transparency, evaluation, and accountability. Updating these metrics will also enable geographic-level donation rates to be evaluated and improved. This is desperately needed for the more than 113,000 Americans currently waiting for a lifesaving transplant. The legislation I introduced today is supported by the American Society of Nephrology, Dialysis Patient Citizens, and the nonprofit group ORGANIZE. Additionally, in April of this year, I wrote to CMS Administrator Seema Verma urging CMS to update OPO metrics to be objective and verifiable. I am hopeful that we will soon see action from the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services. You see, this issue is very personal to me. My friend Dave ``Gunny'' McFarland from Jeffersonville, IN, died because his heart transplant never came. We served together in the U.S. Marine Corps, and over the years, I have gotten to know his widow, Jennifer McFarland Kern. Jen has made it her mission to raise awareness about the organ transplant process and to help prevent others from facing a similar situation. Because the system is so complex, most people don't know how it works or if patients are actually being protected. It is time to change that. Today's legislation is the first in a series of bills I am working on to reform our organ donation system once and for all and help save precious lives. I will not stop until we increase the availability of organs for patients in need. Semper fidelis.

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue that is very important to me and to the 1,300 Hoosiers currently in need of an organ transplant. That issue is the lack of organs for patients in need and our broken organ donation system. For more than 30 years, our Nation's organ donation system has operated in complete darkness. Groups known as organ procurement organizations, or OPOs, are responsible for getting organs from the donors to the patients who actually need them, but questions surround the effectiveness, transparency, and accountability of these organizations. OPOs are the main link between donor hospitals and organ recipients, and their performance can be a limiting factor for all stakeholders in the organ donation system. In the last 20 years, no OPO has been decertified despite serious issues of underperformance. For example, CMS recently recertified the New York City OPO despite persistent underperformance for nearly a decade. This problem exists throughout the country. Currently, OPO performance is measured by data that is self-reported, unaudited, and fraught with errors. Many of these errors have been documented by Lenny Bernstein and Kimberly Kindy at the Washington Post. That is why today I introduced legislation that would require organ procurement organizations to be held to metrics that are objective, verifiable, and not subject to self-interpretation. This way, there can be meaningful transparency, evaluation, and accountability. Updating these metrics will also enable geographic-level donation rates to be evaluated and improved. This is desperately needed for the more than 113,000 Americans currently waiting for a lifesaving transplant. The legislation I introduced today is supported by the American Society of Nephrology, Dialysis Patient Citizens, and the nonprofit group ORGANIZE. Additionally, in April of this year, I wrote to CMS Administrator Seema Verma urging CMS to update OPO metrics to be objective and verifiable. I am hopeful that we will soon see action from the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services. You see, this issue is very personal to me. My friend Dave ``Gunny'' McFarland from Jeffersonville, IN, died because his heart transplant never came. We served together in the U.S. Marine Corps, and over the years, I have gotten to know his widow, Jennifer McFarland Kern. Jen has made it her mission to raise awareness about the organ transplant process and to help prevent others from facing a similar situation. Because the system is so complex, most people don't know how it works or if patients are actually being protected. It is time to change that. Today's legislation is the first in a series of bills I am working on to reform our organ donation system once and for all and help save precious lives. I will not stop until we increase the availability of organs for patients in need. Semper fidelis.

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, having served in the Navy and as a Marine Corps officer, I am sensitive to the many challenges facing our veterans. The VA was established almost 90 years ago, so when the VA MISSION Act was passed, it was time for a wide-scale reform to modernize and improve the system. I was proud to support and vote for the VA MISSION Act, which was signed into law 1 year ago this month. This new program could dramatically change the way our veterans receive care. For the first time, veterans can walk into a local urgent care clinic, like most Americans can--as long as it is in network--and receive care that day, at no cost to them, up to three visits per year. They can even get a flu shot now at urgent care rather than having to visit the VA for such a simple procedure. The VA MISSION Act is already at work back home in Indiana. In fact, a Hoosier veteran recently approached me while I was traveling throughout the State, and he said there was an appointment he could not get scheduled with the VA until August or September. Now, we had this conversation some weeks ago, but when the VA MISSION Act went into effect at the beginning of this month, he tried again, and he was able to get an appointment right away. So I am sure this is just the first of many positive stories I am going to be hearing as I travel around the State in coming days and even years to come. It is also important that we in Congress listen to those whose experience with the VA has not improved. If there is a part of this act that isn't working or isn't being implemented as intended, then we have to revisit it. We have to work with the VA to get it right--removing barriers within the system and streamlining access to care. This is going to help veterans of all eras live happy and healthier lives. So that is what matters the most. I will continue to fight for the proper care and treatment of our veterans because they deserve nothing less. I yield back.

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining votes in this series be 10 minutes in length.

Mr. YOUNG

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

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, over the weekend, Indiana lost a giant in Richard G. Lugar. Senator Lugar spent 36 years as a Member of this body, and I rise today to celebrate his life, which made the world a better, safer place to live. I had the pleasure in the early 2000s to work on Senator Lugar's staff, and I had a front row seat to history, watching a true statesman at work. He stood by me as I took my oath right here in this Chamber. I will never forget his support of me and of so many others throughout the years. Senator Lugar's reserved and quiet demeanor sometimes might have led people to believe he was something less than competitive. In truth, he was one of the most competitive people I have ever encountered. Senator Lugar was a runner, and his office competed every year in the Capital Challenge, the competitive race between legislative staffs. Senator Lugar had a member of his staff actually track everyone's time and their improvement, or lack thereof, from year to year. I think that spreadsheet still exists somewhere today. When I was going through the hiring process to be a legislative assistant in the Senator's office, I went through the normal series of questions--my academic background, my professional experiences, my policy knowledge, my interest in working in the office. But at the very end of the interview, the Senator asked me a pointed question. He led into the question by indicating that he had seen listed some hobbies on my resume, and one of those hobbies was running. So he asked me pointedly: How fast can you run 3 miles? I quickly told him I thought I could break 18 minutes. A half hour later, I got a phone call saying I was hired. Looking back, I am not so sure it was because of my policy chops. I learned a lot working for this man. I fondly remember his penchant for ice cream and the stacks and stacks of books in his office. I believe he read every one. Senator Lugar would from time to time invite staff members or interns to run with him on the Mall. There was one rule: Never ever run in front of the Senator. He was, after all, a leader, a Rhodes Scholar, a Navy veteran, mayor of Indianapolis where he spurred economic growth, which is still spoken of today, by consolidating the city and county governments into Unigov. As a U.S. Senator, he led on food security, energy independence, and free trade. At a time when nuclear proliferation was regarded as civilization's greatest threat, Senator Lugar helped save the world. The Nunn-Lugar Act, for which he is most well known, has led to the securing and destruction of thousands of weapons of mass destruction and delivery devices. Dick Lugar was a very shrewd politician until his last days. His instincts were very good. I know this from personal experience. In fact, last year, he and I did a forum together at Indiana University. Present on the panel were a former World Food Prize winner, the leader of an international NGO, Senator Lugar, and I. After formal presentations were done and some questions were asked by the moderator, questions were opened up to the audience. Some particularly difficult questions were tendered initially, and whenever one of those questions was asked, Senator Lugar would put on that trademark smile of his--and everyone back home knows what I am talking about. He would just look over at me and let the junior Senator from Indiana field that question. After about three or four times, I decided it was his turn, so I tried to use his method right back at him. He simply smiled back at me until I couldn't stand the silence anymore. I was the first to break. The man still had the gift. The entire audience laughed. He was not to be underestimated. He was not to be underestimated as a boss in the impact he could have on a young, idealistic staffer looking for role models in public life. He was not to be underestimated as a mentor who understood that the most important thing a leader can do is to simply set a good example-- comport yourself in a way that others might want to model. He was not to be underestimated as a human being. Richard Lugar had a heart. He ran for office not to be somebody, but to do things, important things to improve the lives of hundreds of millions--in the end, billions of people around the world. Dick Lugar was the gold standard. He leaves a legacy as an exemplar of wisdom, civility, and bipartisanship. Always staying true to his temperament, he was a quiet man, a dignified statesman. He thought before he spoke. He emphasized substance over personality. In short, he set the bar for public leaders, and he set it high. I would go further and say that he set the bar high for leaders, more generally. We should all look to Dick Lugar. We should all learn from his example. I am not sure we will ever see another Richard Lugar. I sure pray we do. May God watch over him and his family during this difficult time. I yield the floor.

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about our booming economy and the stellar jobs report we saw on Friday, thanks in part to tax reform. With tax day just around the corner, I would like to briefly highlight the many benefits American families, workers, and job creators have experienced as a result of lower tax rates. Since Republicans passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, 3.2 million new jobs have been created. Our 3.8 percent unemployment rate is near a 50- year low. The unemployment rate for women in particular matches the lowest rate since 1953. Ninety percent of middle-class workers have experienced a tax cut, and jobless claims have recently dropped to the lowest level since 1969. Additionally, in 2018, manufacturing job creation was the highest it has been in over 20 years. As the most manufacturing-intensive State in the Nation, Indiana particularly benefits from this tax cut bill. Last year, in conjunction with tax day, I spoke on the Senate floor about the many stories that have already poured into my office from Indiana businesses that are paying their workers more and constituents who are earning more. This year, I am proud to say these stories continue. My guest to last year's State of the Union, Chelsee Hatfield, is a prime example. When tax reform was signed into law, Chelsee, a young mother of three, was working as a teller at a rural bank, First Farmers Bank and Trust Company in Tipton, IN. She received a raise and a bonus as a result of tax reform. This additional income helped Chelsee go back to school to earn her associate's degree, and it enabled her to put money away for her children's future college education. I am proud to say that this summer, Chelsee graduated with her degree, and she has been promoted to a commercial loan administrative assistant position. What a powerful story. I recently had the opportunity to visit with a third-generation small business owner in Fort Wayne. Dan Parker is the owner of Parker Towing & Recovery. He was able to purchase several new trucks thanks in part to tax reform. This means more trucks will be available to assist Hoosiers who have been in a car accident or have had their cars break down. Parker also recently expanded the company's office space and gave his staff raises. Parker said: ``As a result, we have less turnover now.'' Another Indiana employer, Cardinal Manufacturing Company in Indianapolis, rewarded its team members with bonuses and pay raises. Albanese Confectionery, a candy manufacturing company in Merrillville, provided bonuses that it says will happen annually as long as the tax reform bill stays in effect. Lastly, I would note that this new Tax Code incentivizes new investment into distressed rural and urban communities to help the least among us through the creation of tax-advantaged opportunity zones around the State of Indiana. The bottom line is that Hoosiers continue to benefit from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Workers are taking home more of their hard-earned money, and businesses of all sizes are expanding, hiring, and investing in their employees. I look forward to working with my colleagues to continue supporting policies like tax reform that have our economy booming. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the so-called Green New Deal and its impact on Indiana's agricultural community and our Hoosier farmers. As I said last week, this misguided Green New Deal is unaffordable, unattainable, and unrealistic. In fact, over the next decade, this so- called deal would cost up to $65,000 per American household per year. This proposal is a job killer, and it is bad news for hard-working Hoosiers. This is especially true for Hoosiers who rely on our vital agriculture industry for their incomes. Allow me to run through a few numbers. In Indiana, agriculture supports more than 107,000 Hoosier jobs. Agriculture also contributes an estimated $30 billion to Indiana's economy. Indiana is the 10th largest farming state in the Nation, and we are the 8th largest ag export. Perhaps most importantly, 97 percent of Hoosier farms are family owned or operated. Agriculture is a main driver of our State's economy. It is often said that Indiana feeds the world, and we take a lot of pride in that. We need our ag community to continue thriving. Yet the sponsors of this Green New Deal have spoken about cutting back on the farming practices that employ Hoosiers and put food on the table. Imagine the crushing cost to Hoosier farmers of changing out all farm equipment for electric vehicles or the cost of upgrading every single building on every farm in Indiana. This is on top of the sharp climb in energy prices that we would see under the Green New Deal. This bad deal would force the cost of doing business to skyrocket for Hoosier manufacturers and our farmers, which would mean higher prices for consumers and less money in the pockets of hard-working Hoosiers. Jim, a small business owner from Muncie, wrote to my office recently. He said: ``Please stop the Green New Deal in its tracks NOW.'' I also heard from Patrick in Bloomington, who said: ``As a man who has served my country in combat in Vietnam 50 years ago and someone who loves my country deeply--I am very concerned about the direction our nation is heading.'' Regarding the Green New Deal, he added: ``I hope you won't give this idea a second thought.'' Dennis from Greenwood wrote: ``My wife and I are strongly against the `Green New Deal'. . . . We would recommend that you not support this crazy idea.'' Well, Dennis, I don't intend to. Susan from Lafayette wrote: ``Please hold strong and promote the values of Indiana and many Americans. . . . '' The bottom line is this: Hoosiers don't want this harmful Green New Deal. It sets unattainable goals that are bad for Hoosier farmers. It is bad for our economy, and it is bad for our families. I yield the floor.

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the so-called Green New Deal. This unaffordable, unattainable, and unrealistic proposal is bad for all Americans, but it is especially bad for the people who live in my home State of Indiana. Indiana is the most manufacturing-intensive State in the country, and my Hoosiers are rightfully proud of that distinction. We make America's planes, our trucks, our recreational vehicles, our boats, and our pipelines. We produce the aluminum and steel that go into those products. We mine the coal that makes it affordable to power all of those factories. Indiana is home to those respectable, high-paying jobs because of the highly skilled Hoosier workforce, our world-class infrastructure network, and, yes, our low energy costs. But the Green New Deal would crush Indiana's affordable energy prices, forcing the cost of doing business to skyrocket for Hoosier manufacturers and farmers alike and eliminating jobs in the process. What would this Green New Deal mean for American families? Over the next decade, the so-called deal would cost up to $65,000 per American household per year. That is roughly 50 percent--47 percent more than the median Hoosier household income. Yes, America must continue to support an ``all of the above'' energy strategy, and I look forward to working in a bipartisan way to get that done. We must continue to develop renewable energy sources like wind and solar, but we must also continue to utilize our important baseload energy sources--that is your coal, your natural gas, your nuclear power. We simply cannot afford to eliminate these critical sources from our Nation's energy mix, and that is what the Green New Deal would call for. In Indiana, approximately 92 percent of our electricity is generated by coal and natural gas--92 percent. Wind and solar account for just 6 percent of Indiana's electricity, and they cannot reliably and affordably produce the electricity Indiana needs. So instead of turning a blind eye to coal and natural gas--energy sources that power America--let's continue to incentivize research and development. Instead of promoting job-killing legislation like the Green New Deal, we should be promoting proposals like the USE IT Act. This is bipartisan legislation put forward by my colleague from Wyoming that would promote carbon capture research and development. We agree on the need to incentivize market-based carbon capture systems.

Mr. YOUNG. I would like to continue until I complete my remarks. I thank my colleague. We really need to incentivize market-based carbon capture systems and ensure America can continue to cleanly and affordably produce baseload energy. By my reckoning, this is just one of many areas in which Republicans and Democrats can find common ground and work together to protect God's green Earth. Indiana is an environmentally conscientious State. We continue to expand solar and wind production each year. We love to protect our important natural resources, such as the Indiana Dunes and Hoosier National Forest, but we cannot support a proposal like the Green New Deal that would endanger tens of thousands of Hoosier jobs. The Green New Deal is widely out of touch with Indiana's priorities. Hoosiers know a bad deal when they see one. This is a bad deal. My fellow Hoosiers are greatly concerned that this radical proposal will cause utility bills to skyrocket and force Indiana factories to shutter. For these reasons, I am a resounding no on the Green New Deal. I stand with Hoosier farmers, I stand with Hoosier manufacturers, and I stand with Hoosier families in opposing this $93 trillion deal. Thank you, Mr. President.