Floor Statements

Mr. President, along with my colleagues Senator Jim Risch and Representative Mike Simpson, I congratulate three Idaho athletes who competed in the XXIV Olympic Winter Games in Beijing. I commend Andrew Blaser, Chase Josey, and Hilary Knight for their diligence and dedication that resulted in them representing our great State and country on this world stage.

Four-time Olympic medalist Hilary Knight, of Sun Valley, once again competed with distinction on the U.S. women's hockey team. The team earned a silver medal, and Hilary scored one of the team's two goals in the final game. In the 2022 Olympic Games, she scored her 12th career Olympic goals, becoming the second leading scorer in U.S. Olympics Women's Hockey history. With 15 career Olympic assists, Hilary also ranks second in most career assists. She played in her 22nd career Olympic Game, giving her the record for the most Olympic Games played in U.S. women's hockey history. This follows her earning a gold medal in the XXIII Olympic Winter Games in PyeongChang; a silver medal in the XXII Olympic Winter Games in Sochi; and a silver medal in the XXI Olympic Winter Games in Vancouver.

Two-time Olympian Chase Josey, of Hailey, earned seventh place in the snowboard halfpipe. Chase completed two frontside double cork 1080s and a cab double cork 1260 in his third run of the 2022 Olympics, earning 79.50 points. He earned sixth place in the halfpipe in the XXIII Olympic Winter Games in PyeongChang and was fifth at the 2021 world championships.

Nick Blaser, of Meridian, who ranked 28th in the world, competed in his first Olympic games on the U.S. Olympic Skeleton Team. With three competitors, the team was characterized as ``small but mighty.'' Nick, who came in 21st place at the 2022 Olympics, was a top pole vaulter and hurdler at the University of Idaho before competing in skeleton after college.

These athletes lead through their examples of dedication and persistence. As younger generations watch, they show us all how to turn preparation into achievements. Thank you, Olympians, for representing Idaho and our country so well in the Olympics, while overcoming the added pressures of training and competing during a global pandemic, in a high-risk and dangerous political environment. We commend you for your extraordinary hard work and commitment.

Madam President, reserving the right to object.

Madam President, our Nation's seniors deserve meaningful solutions that increase prescription drug access and affordability.

This bill, unfortunately, would double down on the deepest flaws in our current healthcare system and usher in a host of new problems from fewer treatments to more bureaucracy. And, yes, it is almost certain under this legislation we would see launch prices for new drugs actually increase. The solution is not to go and double down on a failed socialist theory of price-fixing and work to make our market better.

Even setting aside the overwhelming implementation challenges and technical issues that this legislation would present from the outset, the provisions included would do far more harm than good, particularly for the very older Americans they are intended to help.

I would note from the outset there is talk about wanting to have process and a vote. This legislation was just introduced today. It just got a bill number today. There has been no vetting of this legislation in the committee, which is the regular order of this Senate. There has been no public analysis. There has been no public review. There has not been any hearing on this legislation. There has been not any negotiation on this legislation.

I heard numbers thrown out here about what a savings this would be. CBO has not scored this legislation, and there are serious flaws with it.

Under this proposal, we would see a staggering decline in the game- changing research and development that our universities, medical centers, and entrepreneurs conduct every day, as vital investments in the cures of the future would decline.

As countless studies of price control mandates like the one before us today have concluded, these policies would slash new drug discoveries in the years to come, jeopardizing some of the highest risk projects, in particular.

Potential treatments targeted at conditions affecting seniors at high

rates, like certain cancers, would likely suffer the greatest impact, as Medicare would become increasingly stagnant and unable to meet the evolving needs of rapidly aging populations.

After coming in under budget with satisfaction rates soaring and premiums remaining remarkably stable, Medicare Part D would lose the market-driven structure that has made it such a success story for so many seniors. Instead, we would move closer to a government-run healthcare system--which is the ideal and the goal--where bureaucratic price controls like these would become the norm.

The vast majority of Americans, in my opinion, still reject the notion of a government-run healthcare system and price controls in place of a free market.

Meanwhile, our frontline healthcare providers have weathered a truly unprecedented 2 years of pandemic, and they would face a sweeping, immediate, and drastic payment cut as this legislation aims to advance immediate payment reductions under Medicare Part B with direct implications for doctors and other healthcare professionals across all settings.

In the face of widespread provider burnout, retirements, closures, and consolidation, these cuts risk accelerating trends that already jeopardize access to healthcare for far too many Americans from all walks of life, particularly in rural and underserved communities.

The VA, which has been referenced here, for its part, would inevitably see higher healthcare costs as any discounts or other price concessions that lower drug costs for our Nation's veterans would disappear.

Previous payment systems along these lines that have been suggested in the past have resulted in a host of unintended consequences, from higher launch prices to withheld rebates and discounts.

Our veterans do not stand to gain from being tied to this unvetted and failed new proposal.

As we confront unprecedented challenges at home and abroad, we must look to consensus-driven solutions that meet Americans' everyday needs, including prescription drug access and affordability. We can agree on that.

Members across the political spectrum have developed bipartisan drug pricing policies that could make a meaningful difference for workers and families. I have introduced legislation which is waiting in the committee for a vetting rather than coming to the floor here to try to get it brought to the floor without even going through Senate regular order.

My legislation is called the Lower Cost, More Cures Act. Here is just a quick summary of what it contains: a hard cap on annual out-of-pocket spending for all seniors under Medicare Part B, with an installment- based monthly payment option; reforming of Medicare Part B benefits to reduce seniors' cost-sharing burdens and incentivize plans to negotiate the best possible deal for enrollees; increasing Part D plan choices; increasing options; and reducing prices.

My bill does have an out-of-pocket monthly insulin cap at $35. That, you might remember, is the insulin cap that President Trump put into place. That is the kind of approach we need to follow.

It also includes establishing a chief pharmaceutical negotiator to combat foreign freeloading and ensuring the best trade deals that achieve American success in dealing with these price discrepancies that are driven by terrible behavior from our counterparts in other parts of the global economy; strengthening our consumer-oriented oversight through our cost-comparison tools and price transparency measures and robust reporting requirements in the drug supply chain; facilitating value-based arrangements where private and public sector payers can pay based on patient outcomes, driving better results for patients; and restructuring payments for drugs administered in the doctor's office or hospital outpatient department to encourage physicians to deliver cost- effective treatment options where appropriate clinically.

My point is, there are a lot of solutions that can work within the consistent free market and private sector solutions that we have solved here and are working on to make them better.

We have an opportunity to lower prescription drug costs without threatening access to therapies or cures or the future handling of giving an advantage, frankly, to our global rivals like the Chinese. With a bipartisan and bicameral effort undertaken through regular order, we could make a major impact on these issues. This legislation, unfortunately, does no such thing. It is thoroughly unvetted, showing no signs of technical assistance or practical feasibility. It has not, as I said, received a CBO score or even an informal analysis or a committee hearing. It did not advance through regular process in the Senate.

I see that our time is running out, and so I will end my comments at this point but just ask my colleagues to let us engage in regular order in the Finance Committee in the Senate and work these issues through. There are a lot of ideas on the table. Let's work them through rather than try to cram through one side's idea on the very day the bill was introduced in the Senate. I object.

Mr. President, along with my colleague Senator Jim Risch, we honor Idaho State Senator Patti Anne Lodge for her 22 years of service in the Idaho State Senate.

Senator Lodge, an educator for 35 years and agribusiness owner, is a dedicated servant of the community. Her determination and patience are hallmarks of her attentive problem solving. The list of committees, councils, task forces and boards she has led and devoted her time and talents to is extensive and diverse. They include her chairmanship of three senate committees: State affairs; judiciary and rules; and health and welfare. She has also cochaired the joint millennium fund committee and criminal justice reinvestment oversight committee, to name some of her many other leadership roles.

Her service stretches far beyond the State senate and well into the communities she represents, as she has served on the Boys & Girls Club Advisory Committee, Idaho Meth Project Advisory Board, Nampa Chamber of Commerce, Caldwell Chamber of Commerce, and so much more. She has led local Republicans with distinction, serving as precinct chairman, Canyon County GOP chairman, president of the Idaho Federation of Republican Women, on the board of the National Republican Women, and more.

It is no surprise she has earned many awards and recognitions for her committed service. They include her recognition as the Idaho Republican Senator of the Year in 2010 and Idaho Fraternal Order of Police Legislator of the Year in 2014, her induction into the Idaho Republican Hall of Fame and so many more honors.

Throughout, Senator Lodge has worked hard to be a good steward of tax dollars, promoted jobs and educational opportunities, backed personal accountability and responsibility, and, overall, she has been a thoughtful, steadfast advocate for Canyon County residents, including the small family farmers and ranchers who call this wonderful part of our State home.

Thank you, Senator Lodge, for you decades of service on behalf of Idahoans. In addition, thank you to your friends and loved ones, especially your husband Edward J. Lodge; children Mary-Jeanne, Edward R. and Anne-Marie; and grandchildren, who have shared your time with our great State all these years. We congratulate you on your extraordinary career and wish you well.

Mr. President, I honor Herbert M. Franklin, who passed away on November 16, 2021. He has left a meaningful and beautiful mark on the heart of our Nation's Capital.

Mr. Franklin's true affection for the history and buildings of our exceptional Capitol and Washington, DC, was put to great use through his service as executive officer to George M. White and Alan M. Hantman, the 9th and 10th Architects of the Capitol, from 1989 until Mr. Franklin's retirement in 2001. In that capacity, he acted as chief of staff for all administrative policies and actions of the agency, which has over 2,000 employees and is essential to the preservation and maintenance of this marvelous structure and its grounds.

His appreciation for architecture, politics, and gardens showed in the thoughtful proficiency he put into the many important projects under his purview. Among his accomplishments, he served as project director for the design and construction of the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, the 1995 refinement of the Capitol Center Visitor Project, the National Garden Project, and the renovation of the U.S. Botanic Garden.

Additionally, Mr. Franklin served on the National Capital Memorial Commission. While on the commission, he worked on a special task force that also included the Commission on Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning Commission. The group was asked to draw up a master plan for the placement of memorials in the capital city, with the challenging objective of preserving the remaining open space on the Mall for particularly significant memorials. Through his role at the Architect of the Capitol, he also served on the D.C. Zoning Commission.

A person needed only to take a tour of the Capitol with Mr. Franklin to see just how deeply he loved it, the people who work in these halls, and the processes and procedures at the core of its operation. He delighted in his work and took very seriously his charge to guard and honor our Capitol.

Susan Hawkes Wheeler, chief of staff for my Washington, DC, office, is one of the very lucky people to have benefited from one of Mr. Franklin's tours. He gave Susan her first and best tour of the Capitol, and I am so glad he did. Her visit with his warm and hospitable family was instrumental in her deciding to join my staff just a few weeks later. And she is just one of many who benefited from his experience and guidance throughout his extraordinary life and career.

Mr. Franklin's admiration for architecture and the building arts also showed in his volunteer work, as he was instrumental in the founding of the National Building Museum. In 1977, he was part of a small group that created the Committee for a National Museum of the Building Arts, in response to concerns over the fate of the historic Pension Building in Washington, DC. Mr. Franklin drafted the legislation that eventually led to Congress establishing the National Building Museum in 1980. He later served as its counsel, sat on its executive committee, and was chairman of its board, among his many contributions.

Mr. Franklin also devoted considerable time to leadership roles for many

other organizations. He taught at American University, was a guest lecturer at numerous colleges and universities, and was very involved in the governance of the Cosmos Club in Washington, DC, including as its president. He also authored and coauthored several published articles and books.

Mr. Franklin graduated from Harvard College and Harvard Law School. Originally from Milwaukee, WI, he started his legal career in his hometown before coming to Washington, DC, during the Kennedy administration as a lawyer in the Housing and Home Financing Agency. In 1965, he served as the director of the Business and Development Center for Urban America, Inc. before becoming the first development administrator for the city of Middletown, CT. He couldn't stay away from his beloved Washington, DC, for long, though, returning in 1968 to serve in a leadership role for the National Urban Coalition, where he staffed a national task force on urban revitalization.

In 1973, Mr. Franklin became a founding partner in the law firm of Lane and Edson, P.C. in Washington, DC, specializing in real estate finance and development. He was in private practice until joining the office of the Architect of the Capitol in 1989.

I extend my condolences to Mr. Franklin's wife of 61 years, Barbara Braemer Franklin; daughter Marcia; son and daughter-in-law Jonathan and Sharon; son David; grandchildren Stephanie, Noah, Sophia, Norah and Sarah; and other family and friends. Thank you for sharing Mr. Franklin with us and our extraordinary seat of government he loved so much. We are all, no doubt, bettered by the respect, intellect and calm he put into the measured problem-solving that typified his service to our country.

Mr. President, the current voting rights proposals or so- called voting rights proposals that the Democrats are proposing are not about increasing access to the ballot box. According to the Washington Post, the 2020 election saw the highest voter turnout in 120 years, and 94 percent of the voters said that voting was easy. These bills are really a power grab that would circumvent and federalize our entire elections process, stripping States of their constitutional authorities.

These power grabs would force taxpayers to pay for political campaigns, expand the practice of ballot harvesting, prohibit important voter ID laws, keep deceased people and those who have moved out of the area on voter registration rolls, and federalize election laws, which would violate the U.S. Constitution's clear directive that States administer the elections, to name just a few.

Article I, section 4 of the U.S. Constitution delegates the election processes to the States. This is a Union of 50 States. States are the best equipped to implement and enforce election policies that protect the integrity of all future elections.

Although many who have spoken today would have you believe that States across this Nation are seeking to violate the rights of American citizens and restrict their access to voting, the laws that are being proposed and adopted by the States are doing just the opposite. They are helping to expand voter access and improve security at the polls.

There are a lot of myths and untruths running rampant because the Democrats seem to want the public to think there is this widespread voter suppression in Republican-led States, which there is not.

A couple of myths and the facts:

Myth: Republican State legislatures are enacting laws that will roll back early voting.

The fact is that the States are expanding early voting. Georgia's bill, for example, which has been attacked, allows for and provides for--mandates 17 days of early voting with two additional optional Sundays of early voting. The list goes on. Arizona allows 26 days. Iowa allows 20 days. Texas, another State that has been attacked, allows 17 days. The fact is the States are expanding early voting.

Myth: States are implementing voter ID for vote-by-mail in order to disenfranchise voters.

The fact: As vote-by-mail is increasing in the States, the States are implementing some of the same safeguards--the same safeguards--that are used for in-person voting to ensure a secure election, such as voter ID, which the legislation before us seems to want to prohibit. Recent polls show that 80 percent of the people support being required to show ID in order to vote, including 62 percent of Democrats.

Myth: Prohibiting ballot harvesting and requiring people to vote in their own correct precinct constitutes discrimination outlawed by the Voting Rights Act.

Fact: In a recent Supreme Court case, the Court ruled 6 to 3 against this claim. Arizona law mandates that voters must vote in their assigned precinct, and those who vote early by mail cannot have anyone other than a household member, a family member, a caregiver, a postal worker, or an elections official collect their ballot; in other words, supervised ballot collection. This law effectively bans the practice of ballot harvesting.

The Democrats seem to want to expand, even mandate, ballot harvesting in the legislation we are being asked to support tonight.

Myth: States are improperly purging eligible voters from their voter rolls.

Fact: States are taking reasonable measures to ensure their voter rolls are accurate, which makes elections more efficient and fair. States are simply implementing a time-honored practice of cleaning up voter lists, removing voters who have died or who have moved or who have been declared incompetent by a court or convicted of a felony, a time-honored practice in many of the States across this Nation.

Myth: Recent changes in Georgia to prevent people from giving bottles of water is inhumane and targets minority communities.

Fact: The law allows poll workers to set up self-serve water stations for voters to use. The statute prevents political organizations-- political organizations--from giving people in line things like meals, water, or gifts. Once again, this is a longtime honored practice in States. This law of anti-electioneering or anti-vote-buying is standard practice in many States, including many of my colleagues' blue States like New York, New Jersey, and President Biden's home State of Delaware.

So let's get on to the filibuster. The argument is, since the Republicans won't accept these long, directed, so-called reforms of our election laws, that we should eliminate the filibuster in the Senate. That is the last thing that should be done in the Senate. President Biden himself has argued against eliminating the filibuster, and according to a recent report, Democrats used that filibuster over 300 times in 2020.

In 2005, then-Senator Joe Biden gave a passionate floor speech defending the Senate filibuster, saying that this is a key procedural tool and ending it would ``eviscerate the Senate'' and do a ``disservice to the country'' and would ``upset the constitutional design.''

In another floor speech, then-Senator Biden further argued the reason Republicans in Congress were attempting to end the filibuster was because they controlled ``every level of government.'' He went on to point out that the reason to have the filibuster rule was so that ``when one party controls all levers of government, one man or [one] woman can stand on the floor of the Senate and resist the passions of the moment.''

Again, in 2005, Senator Chuck Schumer also said that eliminating the filibuster would be a ``doomsday for democracy'' that would turn our country into, in his words, a ``banana republic.''

Former Senator Robert Byrd wrote about preserving the filibuster. We heard it many times today. He said:

We must never, ever, tear down the only wall--the necessary

fence--this nation has against the excesses of the Executive

Branch and the resultant haste and tyranny of the majority.

He went on to say:

The Senate has been the last fortress of minority rights

and freedom of speech in this Republic for more than two

centuries. I pray that Senators will pause and reflect before

ignoring that history and tradition in favor of the political

priority of the moment.

As Leader McConnell quoted on the floor yesterday, ``[T]he smallest majority we have ever seen in our politics is trying to change the rules for how people get elected in every State.''

You may recall, Republicans were asked to do this exact thing when we controlled every lever of government, and we refused to make that change because of the importance of the filibuster to this institution. Eliminating or weakening the legislative filibuster would destroy the intentional design of the Senate to be the world's most deliberative body. It would allow any

small majority in the Senate to strip the voice of millions of Americans considered in the minority.

Removing the ability to filibuster legislation would reduce the incentive for the Senate to forge broad agreements and force further debate and would likely increase divisiveness rather than efficiency.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this Federal takeover of our State's constitutional right to manage their own elections, and I urge my colleagues to reject this unfounded assault on the Senate filibuster.

Mr. President, along with my colleagues Senator Jim Risch, Representative Mike Simpson and Representative Russ Fulcher, I congratulate Andy Brunelle on his remarkable career in government service. Andy is retiring on January 31, 2022, after 27 years with the U.S. Forest Service.

For more than 20 years, Andy has worked with our offices in his position as the Capitol City Coordinator for the U.S. Forest Service. In this position, he has represented both the U.S. Forest Service Region 1 and Region 4 and the seven National Forests in Idaho as he has served as a liaison working with State and local government officials, Agency directors, Idaho's congressional delegation, and interest groups in Idaho on issues of statewide concern. Given the importance of the natural resources and species habitat on the more than 20 million acres of Federal forested land in Idaho he has acted on behalf of, Andy has worked on many challenging issues over the years. This includes working closely with our delegation concerning improving and extending the Secure Rural Schools Program, a vital resource for Idahoans. We thank him for his thoughtful, helpful, and pragmatic work for the betterment of our great State and country.

Andy began working for the U.S. Forest Service in 1995 after serving as special assistant for natural resources in the Office of Idaho Governor Cecil D. Andrus. From 1988 to 1995, he was the Governor's key staff person on a wide variety of natural resource issues, including challenging issues such as water quality, Federal lands management, and protection of Snake River salmon. Additionally, he served on the Northwest Power Planning Council, Boise City Planning and Zoning Commission, and City of Boise advisory committees. Andy also dedicates considerable time to serving on boards of nonprofit organizations, including the Boise WaterShed Exhibits Environmental Education Center, Idaho Environmental Forum, Ted Trueblood Chapter of Trout Unlimited, and Harris Ranch Wildlife Mitigation Association.

As we wish Andy well in his well-earned retirement, we express our deep gratitude for dedicating so much of his time and talents to enhancing, sustaining, and conserving such an essential part of our State's treasures. Thank you, Andy, for your decades of dedicated work and skilled problem-solving on behalf of Idahoans, and congratulations on your retirement.

Mr. President, I congratulate Lindsay Nothern, a cherished member of my staff who is retiring from Senate service.

In Ralph Waldo Emerson's famous poem about how to measure success, he concludes, ``to know that even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is to have succeeded.'' I am among the many who have breathed easier because of Lindsay. He has represented me, spoken for me, written for me, and provided outstanding counsel. He has aptly communicated the needs of Idahoans and kept Idahoans informed about the happenings in Congress. For example, this includes him taking a direct interest and involvement in advocating for Idaho domestic violence victims and Idahoans affected by Cold War era above-ground nuclear testing, often referred to as ``downwinders.'' He has taken on each challenge with great compassion and persistent optimism.

Prior to joining my staff, Lindsay was a journalist and worked in news management. He also served as press secretary for former Idaho Governor Phil Batt and campaign press secretary for Representative Mike Simpson. Lindsay has been with me since I began my Senate service in 1999. I am so grateful my then communications director insisted on waiting until Lindsay was available to bring onto the staff. Lindsay has been with me ever since, moving from press secretary to communications director in 2011. Throughout, Lindsay has been patient, kind, empathetic, a great listener, and a trusted adviser.

Thank you, Lindsay, for your service to this extraordinary branch of our government, and, most importantly, your service on behalf of the great people of Idaho. I understand you have said you have had two of your three wish-list jobs--bartender, radio disc

jockey, and cabdriver--and you still have one job on your list left to do. Thank you for diverging from that list to be such a valuable part of my staff for all these years. I hope that in your retirement, you may reach all your dreams and more. You have certainly earned it. Thank you for your outstanding help and guidance, and congratulations on a very successful career.

Mr. President, along with my colleagues Senator Jim Risch, Representative Mike Simpson, and Representative Russ Fulcher, I congratulate Andy Brunelle on his remarkable career in government service. Andy is retiring on January 31, 2022, after 27 years with the U.S. Forest Service.

For more than 20 years, Andy has worked with our offices in his position as the Capitol City Coordinator for the U.S. Forest Service. In this position, he has represented both the U.S. Forest Service Region 1 and Region 4 and the seven National Forests in Idaho as he has served as a liaison working with State and local government officials, agency directors, Idaho's Congressional Delegation and interest groups in Idaho on issues of statewide concern. Given the importance of the natural resources and species habitat on the more than 20 million acres of federal forested land in Idaho he has acted on behalf of, Andy has worked on many challenging issues over the years. This includes working closely with our delegation concerning improving and extending the Secure Rural Schools program, a vital resource for Idahoans. We thank him for his thoughtful, helpful, and pragmatic work for the betterment of our great State and country.

Andy began working for the U.S. Forest Service in 1995 after serving as Special Assistant for Natural Resources in the Office of Idaho Governor Cecil D. Andrus. From 1988 to 1995, he was the Governor's key staff person on a wide variety of natural resource issues, including challenging issues such as water quality, federal lands management, and protection of Snake River salmon. Additionally, he served on the Northwest Power Planning Council; Boise City Planning and Zoning Commission; and City of Boise advisory committees. Andy also dedicates considerable time to serving on boards of nonprofit organizations, including the Boise WaterShed Exhibits Environmental Education Center; Idaho Environmental Forum; Ted Trueblood Chapter of Trout Unlimited; and Harris Ranch Wildlife Mitigation Association.

As we wish Andy well in his well-earned retirement, we express our deep gratitude for dedicating so much of his time and talents to enhancing, sustaining, and conserving such an essential part of our State's treasures. Thank you, Andy, for your decades of dedicated work and skilled problem-solving on behalf of Idahoans, and congratulations on your retirement.

Madam President, I congratulate Idaho Operation Lifesaver on its 50-year anniversary of working to keep people safe around railroad tracks and railway crossings. Thank you to all those involved with this highway/rail safety effort for advancing rail safety across Idaho and our country.

Idaho Operation Lifesaver was started in Post Falls, ID, in 1972 and was adopted in other States and nationally. According to Idaho Operation Lifesaver, the average number of highway/rail incidents was 12,000 annually when Idaho Operation Lifesaver was created. Idaho Operation Lifesaver is credited with a 43-percent decrease in incidents in its first year following a 6-week public awareness campaign started through cooperative work between then-Idaho Governor Cecil Andrus, the Idaho State Police, and Union Pacific railroad.

This effort is currently supported by 78 volunteers across our great State of Idaho who assist with providing safety presentations to school groups, driver education classes, community members, professional drivers, law enforcement officers, and emergency responders. The group's focus on education, engineering, and enforcement is also part of its Officer on a Train Program, employed for the past nearly 30 years to decrease car-train collisions. Through the program, Idaho State Police Troopers and Officers from local police departments work together to stop drivers committing track safety violations to prevent collisions, prevent trespassing on railroad property, and save lives.

Idaho is filled with problem-solvers and doers. So it is no surprise this railway safety effort got its start in our great State. I congratulate Idaho Operation Lifesaver on this significant milestone. I wish all those involved with Idaho Operation Lifesaver well, as you continue to work to keep people safe from rail accidents across our State and Nation.

Mr. President, I congratulate KTVB News anchor and journalist, Mark Johnson, on his remarkable career, as he retires after 40 years in the television news business.

Mark's dedicated career started in television sports in Missouri in 1981, brought him to Idaho, then took him to Wisconsin and Pennsylvania before, thankfully, bringing him back home to Idaho and KTVB in 1996. He served as KTVB's sports director before his 2003 promotion to serve as the station's main anchor. He is well-described by the station as, ``A constant in the lives of generations of Idaho families, Mark Johnson has watched 30 years of Idaho history unfold from his spot in the KTVB studio.''

He has understandably earned significant recognitions for his work. This includes KTVB earning regional Emmy awards for the News at 10 while Mark was a pivotal part of the team as lead anchor and his winning of a national Edward R. Murrow award for his work involving the 2002 Salt Lake Olympics. In addition to the time and talent he has committed to reporting, he has also supported many community efforts.

His heartfelt appreciation for and deep interest in the people of Idaho and its valued spaces are reflected in his thoughtful journalism. Those who have had the opportunity to work with Mark and know him consider themselves lucky. His calm demeanor during challenges and his sense of humor have shaped the way many have faced the events that are part of daily life, and it is clear he will be greatly missed in the anchor chair.

Mark, as you start your next chapter, I wish you more, well-earned time with your many friends and loved ones, including your wife Chris; daughters Hannah, Lindsey, Alexa, and Grace; and grandson. I congratulate you on an amazing career and thank you for bringing Idahoans the news for all these years.

Mr. President, in the past few weeks, I have been working with my colleagues in the Senate to draw attention to the privacy concerns of requiring all financial institutions to report to the IRS on the inflows or outflows on every checking, loan, and investment account above a certain threshold.

Under the guise of closing the tax gap, Democrats have proposed to drastically expand the powers of the IRS and turn banks and credit unions into private investigators for law-abiding Americans. The proposal as it originally came out in the ``Green Book'' from the White House required that every single financial account--not just bank accounts, not just credit union accounts, but all financial accounts that have more than $600 worth of inflow or $600 worth of outflow in a given year would have to have that reported to the IRS.

We have been pointing this out to people across America now for several weeks, and the uproar is loud. The message has been getting heard obviously because now the administration and the IRS are saying: Well, we didn't really mean just everybody who has a $600 inflow or outflow of their account. We are willing to raise that to $10,000--so that you don't have to have the IRS snooping on your financial data in your financial accounts unless you have more than $10,000 worth of income or more than $10,000 worth of outflow in your account.

And they said: And we are not even going to count wages or interest or government benefits in that.

Well, let's see what that really means. Does that really reduce the scope of this spying on Americans' financial accounts, this dragnet, letting the IRS have access to everybody's account? How many people don't have $10,000 worth of income or outflow in their account?

Let me just give you a few data points. From the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average household in America--the average taxpayer in America spends about $61,000 a year. What do they spend that on? The average is housing, $20,000; transportation, $9,700; personal insurance and pensions, $7,296; healthcare, $4,968; groceries, $4,464; restaurants and other meals, $3,459; entertainment, $3,226; other, $2,030; cash contributions, $1,888; apparel and services, $1,866; education, $1,407; and personal care, $768--for a grand total of the average American running $61,224 through their personal accounts in a year.

So does raising the total to $10,000 really stop the IRS from accessing very many people's accounts? No. The IRS today, because of the pressure that we have been putting on them, said today: Well, you know, we already have data from everybody's account on their paychecks; and we already have data on their interest that they get on their various accounts, which has to be reported to us; and we already have data on Federal benefits, like the COVID payments that have been made to people. So we don't need to have those data points collected in this new, massive privacy violation. We can leave those out. But we need-- and this is what the IRS said today, trying to defend this: But we need to have access to the other sources of income that people have.

Now, in that very same document, the IRS said: Well, we are not going to audit anybody who makes less than $400,000 a year. Well, that wasn't what the Green Book said. They didn't say we will change our proposal to forbid us from auditing anybody who makes less than $400,000 a year. All they said was: Take our word for it. We promise. We will only audit rich, rich people who are billionaires.

Well, if that is really the position they are taking, then why don't they put it in the bill? Why don't they put it in the proposal? Why don't they put right in the proposal that they cannot, secretly or publicly, access the data of private individuals in their private accounts if they make less than $400,000 per year? It would be really simple, wouldn't it?

But the IRS didn't say that, and the reason they didn't say that is because that is not what they intend to do. Remember, they started out at $600. That tells you what they wanted. Now, they said: Well, we think we can get away with $10,000--because they know that still covers everybody.

Think of a family that doesn't spend more than $10,000--yeah, that spends less than $10,000 in a year in their financial accounts. Think of a small business in America that doesn't run more than $10,000 a year of income and expense through their accounts. It will pick up every small business in America; it will pick up, I think, every family in America; and nothing will be changed. The IRS will have data on every American's account.

Then they say: Well, OK, but it is only two numbers. It is just the total of your income and the total of your outflow.

Well, everybody can kind of intuitively tell that that doesn't make sense. What would they do with those two numbers? What they will do with those two numbers is use their algorithms to figure out which taxpayers to audit--or which taxpayers that they don't even need to audit; they will just send them a notice of deficiency and say: Well, we think you should owe more taxes, and this is what we think you should owe us.

And if the taxpayers don't comply, then the IRS can go ahead and audit them. And guess what happens when they audit them? They get access to every single transaction in their account.

I asked the IRS Commissioner about whether this proposal involved transactional data or just totals, and he said: Well, we already have access to their transactional data if we want it. That is not a direct quote, but that is the essence of what he said. And it is true. If they want to audit you, they can get access to your bank accounts already.

So the question is: Who are they going to audit? Now, today, those who are trying to defend this say: Well, we are only going to audit people who have, as they said, $10,000 worth of inflow or outflow, and we will even exclude wages, which are already reported, and we will exclude government benefits, which are already reported, and we will exclude interest, which is already reported, and we won't look into anybody's account if they make under $400,000.

Well, that is actually not true. They just said they wouldn't audit those accounts. How can they make the money they are trying to make out of this proposal if they don't?

Let's look at this in another perspective. We asked the Joint Committee on Taxation to tell us what they think the distribution of audits and tax collections would be from Americans in all income brackets of this proposal, and the Joint Committee on Taxation said: Well, you know, we can't tell you that because they haven't given enough detail on their proposal. So we can't tell you what their proposal is going to do because they haven't told us just the details of how their proposal is going to work.

But Joint Committee on Taxation did say: You know, what we can do is look at the tax gap, which this is supposedly aimed at addressing, and we can tell you where that tax gap falls among the various income cohorts. So we asked them to do that.

They indicated that the tax gap falls mostly in ineffective or less than accurate reporting on schedules C and schedule E. So they went through and they looked at this. So if you look at the Joint Committee on Taxation's report and the tax gap that is available for the IRS to go get, here is what would happen: 40 to 57 percent of the tax gap collections would come from taxpayers making $50,000 or less. If you add in up to $100,000, 65 to 78 percent of those making less than $100,000 would be part of the tax gap that they would be going after; 78 to 90 percent from those making less than $200,000; and only 4 to 9 percent would come from those making $500,000 or more.

So if you want to know what the IRS wanted, you can look at this data on the tax gap; you can look at the data on where the tax gap lies; and you can look at their very first proposal that was down as low as $600. And you know then what the IRS is seeking to get.

Americans should be outraged that the IRS is seeking to make banks, credit unions--I don't know--Venmo, PayPal, credit card companies, everybody who handles financial transactions, report to them, if you hit some level, whether it be $600 or $10,000 of either income or expenditure. And then the door is open. Then the IRS can use its algorithms and decide whether to do a deeper dive on you.

And if they use the data from the Internal Revenue Code and from the tax reporting that has already gone on, 90 percent or more will come from people making $200,000 or less. Or the IRS will have to forgo that; in which case, they will be trying to collect on only 4 to 9 percent, which is the people making over $500,000.

Either way you look at it, either they are going to be collecting money--and that is billions and billions of dollars--from people who make less than $400,000 and mostly less than $200,000 or $100,000--or they won't make the tax collections that they are claiming they are going to get to justify the spending they want to make in their spending spree, in this big tax-and-spending spree that they are trying to cram down through Congress.

Let's look at it from another way. Does Treasury envision gathering information on all of a--let's take a teacher. So if you have a teacher, does Treasury envision gathering information on all of the teacher's savings, checking, PayPal, Apple Pay, and Venmo accounts and somehow expect financial institutions to crosscheck these transfers to see if the threshold has been tripped? And at which point must additional reporting be done?

It is very important to point out here: When I said earlier the White House and Treasury haven't really said what their plan is, it is because they don't want people to know what the real plan is.

There is a telling sentence in the Green Book, put out by the White House, about this plan. It says that broad powers will be given to Treasury Department to issue by rule and regulation the details of how they are going to utilize and access this data.

So if you have got a Treasury Department which has already proven it can't keep the data it has safe and that its data will be hacked; if you have a Treasury Department that has already proven that it will not avoid utilizing the data it has for political purposes, that it will not weaponize the data it collects to punish or try to diminish the effect and influence of people with different political points of view; if you already have an IRS that has proven that it will take those kinds of actions, and that it is available to be accessed for its private data to be hacked, what can Americans expect from that?

Again, those today who have talked about it said they have fixes that, as I see it, don't really fix the proposal because it has fundamental flaws. The IRS does not need to have access to the accounts of every American who spends more than $10,000 or every American who has income of over $10,000.

Industry has already spoken up about these changes that were proposed today. The American Bankers Association says that even with the modifications announced today, this proposal goes too far by forcing financial institutions to share with the IRS private financial data from millions of customers not suspected of cheating on their taxes.

The exclusion of payroll and Federal program beneficiaries does not address millions of other taxpayers who will be impacted by this proposal. Not every nonwage worker is a millionaire. How about self- employed hair stylists, convenience store owners, and farmers, just to name a few?

If enacted, this new proposal would still raise some of the same privacy concerns; increase tax preparation costs for individuals and small businesses; and create significant operational challenges, particularly for community banks. The list goes on.

Americans must speak up loudly and say ``no.''

When asked if she was going to put this in the next bill, Nancy Pelosi said: ``Yes, yes, yes, yes.''

Americans should say ``No, no, no, no.''

I yield to Senator Grassley.

Mr. President, that concludes the Finance Committee Members' discussion today.

I just want to thank Senator Grassley and Senator Young for joining me to help to continue to make the American people aware of what is going on here in Washington with this reckless tax-and-spending spree and this massive dragnet of IRS access into people's individual bank accounts and other financial accounts.

I hope Americans across the country will speak out loudly in opposition to these terrible ideas that are now being crammed down in both the House and the Senate.

I yield back our time.

I believe Senator Grassley is here to speak on other matters.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all remaining time be yielded back.

Mr. President, I draw attention to and recognize the immense service and commitment to our country of our Nation's Atomic Veterans. I also extend special recognition and gratitude to Idahoan and Atomic Veteran Noelan ``Mac'' McCormack for his service to our country and his efforts to ensure his fellow veterans receive appreciation and recognition for their service and sacrifices.

Mac McCormack of Coeur d'Alene, ID, served in the U.S. Marine Corps Test Unit #1, a unit active from 1954-1957 involved in specialized tactics, including warfare as it related to nuclear weapons. An Atomic Veteran is a veteran who, as part of his or her military service, participated in nuclear testing between 1945 and 1962, served in the U.S. military forces in or around Hiroshima and Nagasaki through mid- 1946, or was held a prisoner of war in or near Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Earlier this year, when designating July 16, 2021, as National Atomic Veterans Day, President Biden noted the considerable challenges Atomic Veterans have faced, ``Atomic Veterans

served our Nation with distinction, but their service came at a great cost. Many developed health conditions due to radiation exposure, yet because they were not able to discuss the nature of their service, they were unable to seek medical care or disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs for their illnesses.'' Decades after their service, in 1996, Congress repealed the Nuclear Radiation and Secrecy Agreement Act, which enabled Atomic Veterans to seek services and share their experiences. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs provides information to connect Atomic Veterans with medical services and compensation. However, the National Association of Atomic Veterans, Inc., notes, ``Currently, there are approximately 195,000 Atomic Veterans across America who either do not know their oath-of-secrecy has been rescinded, and who are not aware of the potential monetary benefits due them for (service connected) radiation induced illnesses.''

While the best healthcare and other services in the world can never reverse what many Atomic Veterans and their families have endured, we owe it to America's servicemembers who have answered the call to duty to ensure access to high-quality services and resources to support their commitment to our country. As part of this effort, I cosponsored S.565, the Mark Takai Atomic Veterans Healthcare Parity Act, which would reclassify veterans who participated in the cleanup of the Enewetak Atoll as radiation-exposed veterans, making them eligible for the same benefits afforded to those covered by Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, RECA. Work also continues on bipartisan legislation to extend and expand RECA eligibility to those in Idaho and other States who have suffered from cancers related to fallout from nuclear weapons testing during the Cold War period of the 1950s and 1960s. As work continues on these and other efforts to support veterans, I join in honoring Atomic Veterans whose service has been a central part of our national defense. I hope recognition can also draw attention to available services and resources for Atomic Veterans.

In 1983, then-President Ronald Reagan urged fellow citizens to join him in appreciation of the service of Atomic Veterans he characterized as, ``those patriotic Americans who through their participation in these tests helped lead the United States to the forefront of technology in defense of our great Nation and the freedoms we as Americans hold so dear.''

Thank you, Mac McCormack, and your fellow Atomic Veterans, for your immeasurable and in many ways unrepayable service. I hope you know how deeply grateful we as a nation are for your patriotism.

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

Mr. President, I am here today with a number of my colleagues from the Finance Committee to discuss in the next hour the partisan $3.5 trillion reckless tax-and-spend bill that the Democrats are trying to cram down on the American people.

The United States is experiencing unprecedented economic pressures, including significant inflation and record price increases, significant friction in labor markets, and intense international competition, all while the pandemic continues to threaten Americans' health and our economic recovery. Yet the Democrats want to move forward with this reckless $3.5 trillion tax-and-spending spree that will stunt our economic recovery, further impede labor markets, and punish low- and middle-income workers with higher prices for everyday goods and services.

The Democrats are currently debating just how high they want to increase taxes on American businesses and workers. House Democrats have proposed to hike the corporate tax rate to 26.5 percent from 21 percent. This would return our combined corporate tax rate, at 31 percent, to one of the highest among developed countries.

Hiking the rate indisputably hits the middle class. Estimates suggest that workers shoulder up to 70 percent of the burden of the corporate tax. A recent analysis performed by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation says the burden on over 98 percent of Americans who make less than $500,000 a year increases over time.

Let me make that clear. Ninety-eight percent of the increase that is felt by labor falls on those making less than $500,000 per year and the vast majority of that on those making less than $400,000 per year.

Our Democratic colleagues argue that these increases do not violate President Biden's pledge since they are not specific higher individual tax rates. But hard-working Americans do not care about the distinction between a direct or indirect tax; they care about how taxes hit their pocketbooks. A higher corporate tax rate would result in lower wages and reduced benefits, hit the nest eggs of everyone saving for retirement, and force consumers to pay more for everyday necessities.

This plan would also impose hundreds of billions of dollars in tax hikes on U.S. businesses operating across the globe, overwhelmingly rewarding our foreign competitors and making the United States again one of the highest taxing countries in the developed world. These pro- China tax hikes would raise the relative cost of doing business in America and punish businesses selling products or services overseas, reigniting inversions and foreign acquisitions, again putting America's business climate back into trouble.

Democrats also want to increase the top individual tax rate to 39.6 percent from 37 percent--a rate that kicks in at $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for married couples. This includes a supercharged marriage penalty, as unmarried couples can earn almost a million dollars a year without being subject to increased taxes.

Democrats have also proposed increasing the number of Americans subject to the original death tax, including farmers and small business owners. Others are pushing for a double death tax by eliminating the step-up in the basis entirely. Rather than be given time to grieve their loss, families could be forced to sell farms, businesses, and homes just to pay Uncle Sam.

Less noticed are some of the plans to drastically expand the powers of the Internal Revenue Service and turn banks and credit unions into private investigators for monitoring law-abiding Americans. This financial dragnet will force financial institutions into reporting deposit and withdrawal flows on as little as $600 in their customers' accounts, exposing sensitive data to future breaches. Whether the cutoff for monitoring transactions is $600 or $10,000, Americans of all income levels would have their private financial activities reported to the leaky IRS. The threats to privacy and invasion of compliant taxpayers' personal financial affairs are staggering.

Moving on, the Democrats are also proposing sweeping government price controls on the very innovators in our healthcare system who helped to battle the pandemic by developing lifesaving vaccines and therapeutics. Under the guise of negotiation, government bureaucrats would have the power to set prices for medications, devaluing the lives of the most vulnerable among us, including older Americans and those with disabilities. Their proposals could prevent scores of game-changing prescription drugs from coming to the market in the years to come--with one recent study projecting as many as 342 fewer new medication approvals in the next two decades--in addition to driving up the launch prices for new products.

This even went too far for some of the House Democrats, with three Members at least voting against this legislation in committee.

As I have indicated, this reckless tax-and-spend plan comes just over a year after we were experiencing one of the most prosperous economies in decades. Before the pandemic, a combination of reduced regulatory burden and pro-growth tax policies helped to create one of the strongest economies in our lifetime. All in the period of a short few years, we have seen that evaporate.

We should be focused on policies that will get us past this pandemic and back to the strong and inclusive economic growth we were experiencing rather than taking advantage of a prolonged pandemic to reimagine America as a welfare state.

This is the wrong time to raise taxes.

Excuse me just a moment, Mr. President. Excuse me. I didn't notice that I have been joined by the Senator from Nebraska.

I will now yield more of my time to the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. President, that wraps up the presentations that we have for today, and I want to thank my Republican colleagues on the Finance Committee for coming and helping to explain the dangers of this incredibly reckless taxing-and-spending spree that is being proposed here in Congress.

As we get more details, as this package gets played out, we will be back to explain further the dangers that there are. But I think we have shown very clearly today that not only is the spending going to be so damaging to this country, but the tax plan that is accompanying it will make us less competitive if, in fact, not completely back into last place in terms of competitiveness globally and will impact people all across this country in their own tax burdens and their own inflationary cost pressures, not just those who make over $400,000 per year.

This tax-and-spend spree must be stopped.

I yield back our time.

Mr. President, in honor of the observation of National POW/MIA Recognition Day this September 17, 2021, I join in raising awareness about the more than 81,600 Americans the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency, DPAA, reports remain missing from World War II, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Cold war, the gulf wars, and other conflicts. Thank you to the members of the POW*MIA Awareness Rally Corp. of Pocatello, ID, and other similar groups for their unwavering commitment to keeping the need to bring all missing American servicemembers home at the forefront of our national focus.

Etched on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery are the words, ``Here Rests In Honored Glory An American Soldier Known But To God.'' The tribute prompts reflection on the American servicemembers, many also in graves known but to God, who have not yet been identified or returned home. This year marks 100 years since the first unknown soldier, a World War I veteran, was interred at the tomb. Over the century since, a World War II, a Korean war, and a Vietnam war veteran were also laid to rest in the tomb. Following the identification and exhumation of the interred Vietnam veteran Air Force First Lieutenant Michael Joseph Blassie, the empty crypt was rededicated to honor American servicemembers who remain missing in Southeast Asia.

The DPAA reports 75 percent of lost Americans are located in the Indo-Pacific, and more than 41,000 of the missing are presumed lost at sea. My heart remains with the families of the missing and those working tirelessly, often through significant challenges to get needed answers, to bring them home. Despite the difficulty, the DPAA has reported accounting for more than 100 of America's missing since the start of this year. This includes Navy Fireman 2nd Class Carl M. Bradley who was

killed in action aboard the USS Oklahoma on December 7, 1941. He was returned to rest in his hometown of Shelley, ID, earlier this year.

To support these efforts, work continues toward reintroducing the Bring Our Heroes Home Act to provide a more efficient process for accessing records needed for recovery efforts of missing servicemembers. We can never let up in bringing home all our Nation's heroes, including the 358 Idahoans, who have yet to be returned. Our country's dedication to bringing our lost servicemembers home must mirror the precision, stamina, formality and respect with which The Old Guard unwaveringly protects the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. They resolutely honor our Nation's unidentified and missing servicemembers, as we must in steadily pressing forward to get answers for the families who await their return.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3099 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, the IRS financial institution reporting requirement forces financial institutions to turn over detailed bank account information to the IRS based on vague and flexible criteria, such as a $600-threshold, and account inflows and outflows would be covered--this all to be determined by the IRS.

Think about that. It subjects every law-abiding American who has a bank account or a credit union account in which they transact more than $600 worth of transactions to have that information monitored and reported to the IRS.

This is an outrageous violation of the privacy of American citizens, and we should reject it.

The community banks and credit unions support this amendment, and I thank the ICBA, CUNA, the ABA, and the NAFCU for their support, as well as the Americans for Tax Reform and the Center for a Free Economy.

My amendment prevents the undue monitoring and reporting of sensitive financial information on law-abiding Americans.

Mr. President, this is one of the biggest violations of the privacy of American citizens to come to the floor of the Senate in a long time.

This amendment would require reporting of--and I quote--``large'' financial account balances to the IRS. So now, instead of $600, they are going to say that whatever the IRS says is large is what they will require every single American, whether they are an individual, a small business, or a corporation owner. Everyone is going to be subject to reporting on whatever the IRS says is ``large.''

And this comes after another proposal that is coming down the pike to double or triple the funding to the IRS, so they can monitor the financial transactions of American citizens.

This amendment should be rejected.

Vote on Amendment No. 3365