{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["http://www.thune.senate.gov//public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=FDE5C1DB-6289-459E-A265-F89B8326A957", "Thune: I Will Continue to Fight to Protect Religious Liberty", "2019-10-23", "2019", "2019-10", "Republican", "House", "SD", "John Thune", "T000250", "www.thune.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Clickhereor on the picture above to watch Thune's speech.\r\n\r\nWASHINGTON Senate Majority Whip Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) today discussed the growing hostility to religion within the far-left wing of the Democrat Party, which recently included a proposal to selectively tax churches based on their religious beliefs. Thune also discussed the Democrats' desire to roll back a key provision of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which would amount to a tax cut for millionaires.\r\n\r\nThune's remarks below (as prepared for delivery):\r\n\r\nToday, Democrats are forcing a vote to repeal the administration's sensible rule to disallow bogus charitable deductions that are designed to circumvent the SALT deduction cap.\r\nFrankly, I welcome this vote and today's debate. It gives us an opportunity to review all of the benefits of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.\r\nWhile drafting the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Congress made a conscious choice to cap the state and local tax, or SALT, deduction at $10,000.\r\nDoing so allowed us to provide additional tax relief to the middle class, support families by doubling the child tax credit, and simplify the tax code for filers by nearly doubling the standard deduction.\r\nThese changes resulted in the average family of four in my home state of South Dakota receiving a tax cut of more than $2,000.\r\nIn response to this cap, certain high-tax states adopted  what some call creative but I call bogus  schemes to try to circumvent the cap.\r\nThe so-called charities these states have set up are designed solely as an alternative method of paying state and local taxes so millionaires can shirk their federal tax obligations.\r\nSo the IRS did what the law directed  it enacted sensible regulations to shut down these bogus tax avoidance schemes.\r\nBut it did so in a thoughtful manner, carefully considering more than 7,700 comments and creating a safe harbor for certain donations to avoid unintentionally discouraging actual charitable giving.\r\nIt's ironic that Democrats  who uniformly opposed the middle-class tax cuts in the new tax law  are now calling for a tax cut for the most well-off Americans.\r\nBased on nonpartisan data from the Joint Committee on Taxation, 94 percent of the benefit from passing this CRA would flow to taxpayers with incomes over $200,000.\r\nFifty-two percent of the benefit would go to those with incomes over $1 million.\r\nIn fact, repealing the SALT cap would result in millionaires receiving an average tax cut of nearly $60,000, while the average tax cut for taxpayers with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 would be less than $10.\r\nThe choice here is clear. Vote no on Democrats' tax cut for millionaires.\r\nMr. President, the Democrat Party has undergone quite an evolution over the past three years.\r\nLike all political parties, the Democrat Party has always had an extremist fringe, but the far-left wing of the Democrat Party is rapidly becoming its mainstream.\r\nDemocrats have been falling over each other to see how far they can run to the left.\r\nSocialism, a concept that  in America at least  seemed to have been firmly consigned to the ash heap of history, is now being openly embraced by the Democrat Party.\r\nLeading Democrats have embraced putting the government in control of everything from Americans' energy usage to their health care.\r\nBut Mr. President, it's not socialism or government-run health care that I want to focus on today.\r\nI want to talk about another trend that has been gradually emerging in the Democrat Party, but that doesn't always get the coverage that proposals like Medicare for All receive.\r\nAnd that is the growing Democrat hostility to religion, which culminated a couple of weeks ago in a Democrat presidential candidate's proposal to selectively tax churches based on whether or not he agrees with their religious beliefs.\r\nLet me repeat that, Mr. President.\r\nA Democrat presidential candidate proposed that the government should selectively tax churches (and synagogues and mosques) based on whether or not their religious beliefs pass muster with the president.\r\nThat is  or should be  a shocking statement, Mr. President.\r\nThe idea of taxing churches based on whether or not their religious beliefs meet with a political party's approval is antithetical to the fundamental right to freely exercise one's religion.\r\nAnd not just antithetical  it's frankly unconstitutional.\r\nTargeting churches for discriminatory treatment based on their theology is a violation of the First Amendment.\r\nIt's an understatement to say that it's deeply disturbing to see this proposal emerge from a mainstream candidate.\r\nBut what might be even more disturbing is that members of the Democrat Party aren't lining up to reject this outlandish and unconstitutional proposal.\r\nBut maybe we shouldn't be surprised.\r\nBecause this is not the first time a Democrat has shown signs of regarding religious people as second-class citizens.\r\nDuring some of the judicial confirmations during this administration, it became clear that Democrats believed religious people should be subjected to extra scrutiny.\r\nThere was the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett, during the first year of this administration.\r\nShe was an outstanding judicial candidate who received the American Bar Association's highest rating of well-qualified. (The ABA's evaluation, as the Democrat leader once said, is the gold standard by which judicial candidates are judged.)\r\nYet during the confirmation process, it became clear that some Democrats thought she should be disqualified because she is a practicing Catholic.\r\nThe dogma lives loudly within you,' the Democrat ranking member on the Judiciary Committee said, with the implication that anyone who takes his or her religious faith seriously can't be trusted to hold public office.\r\nLast December, Democrats raised questions about another judicial nominee because he is a member of a Catholic charitable organization, the Knights of Columbus  which participates in such disturbing activities as serving veterans, raising money for the needy, and providing young people with scholarships.\r\nMr. President, the Constitution is very clear on whether being a person of faith can disqualify you from public office.\r\nFrom Article Six: No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.'\r\nNOreligious test shalleverbe required as a qualification toanyoffice or public trust under the United States.\r\nMr. President, religious liberty is a foundational part of our system of government.\r\nThere's a reason it's the very first freedom mentioned in the Bill of Rights.\r\nMore than one of the 13 original colonies was founded for the express purpose of securing religious freedom.\r\nAnd by religious freedom I don't mean the right to worship privately as long as you don't bring your faith into the public square.\r\nWhat people were looking for in America  what they still look for in America  is the freedom to live according to their religion, according to their conscience and beliefs,freely and PUBLICLY, without interference from the government.\r\nThat's what the First Amendment was intended to protect.\r\nI want to move away from the Constitution for a minute, though.\r\nThere's no question that Democrats' increasingly hostile public attitude to religion raises some serious questions about constitutionality.\r\nBut that's not the only disturbing aspect of it.\r\nI'm also profoundly disturbed by the none-too-subtle implication that religious people are second-class citizens  that we may have to tolerate them, but that we should seek to push them out of public life.\r\nThat idea is also one that would be absolutely antithetical to the Founders.\r\nThe Founders didn't see religion as something to be tolerated  they saw it as an absolute good.\r\nAnd that isn't just because a number of the Founders were men (and women) of faith.\r\nThey didn't think religion was just a private good  that it kept you in a good place with God.\r\nNo, they thought religion was good for society.\r\nThink of the famous passage from Washington's Farewell Address, which we read in the Senate every year in observance of Washington's birthday:\r\nOf all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man,ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with privateand publicfelicity.'\r\nThis is a sentiment that occurs over and over again during the founding  that religion is of benefit not just to individuals privately, but to the public.\r\nThat it makes men and women into good citizens.\r\nIt encourages them to uphold the law.\r\nTo live virtuous lives.\r\nTo take their oaths seriously.\r\nTo respect the property of others.\r\nTo moderate problematic passions like vengeance and avarice.\r\nNow, that's not to say that you have to be religious to be a good citizen.\r\nBut it does point to the truth that religion is something that adds value to society.\r\nThat it builds men and women who are a blessing to their neighbors and to their country.\r\nAmericans are known for being a generous people.\r\nI don't think it's much of a coincidence that Americans are also known for being a religious people.\r\nAgain, to be clear, that doesn't mean that you have to be religious to be generous.\r\nBut religion encourages generosity.\r\nThink about how much of the charitable work in this country would go away overnight without religion.\r\nChurches and religious organizations support food banks and homeless shelters and crisis pregnancy centers.\r\nThey run tutoring programs and scholarship programs and mentoring programs.\r\nThey reach out to immigrants and refugees, to struggling parents and struggling families.\r\nThey serve military members and first responders.\r\nThey sign up people to vote, they help families looking to adopt, they implement recycling programs, they collect aid for individuals caught in the path of natural disasters, they build houses for those without a home  I could go on, and on, and on.\r\nTo provide just one South Dakota example, a few months ago I visited LifeLight's new youth center in the Pettigrew Heights area of Sioux Falls.\r\nIn addition to providing spiritual opportunities, the center is focused on providing a safe place where underprivileged children can come to hang out, play games, have a snack, and do their homework.\r\nIt's just one of the many tremendous things being done by churches and religious organizations in Sioux Falls and around my state.\r\nI doubt there's any area where good work is being done in this country where you won't find religious people helping out.\r\nSo, Mr. President, I don't just want to see religious people tolerated.\r\nI'd like to see the Democrat Party rejecting the un-American idea that being religious makes you less qualified to participate in the public square.\r\nAnd I'd like to see the Democrat Party standing up to condemn unconstitutional ideas like that proposed by one of their presidential candidates.\r\nUntil then, I will keep fighting to ensure that every American's fundamental right to live in accordance with his or her religious beliefs is protected.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["http://www.thune.senate.gov//public/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=FDE5C1DB-6289-459E-A265-F89B8326A957"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 0.8399190846830606, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}