Floor Statements

Mr. President, I got back late last night from Oregon-- another round of community meetings. You can't do your job well sitting behind your desk back here; you have to get out into the community. I have had more than 1,000--really more than 1,060--open-to-all townhalls, in every corner of Oregon, and I am going to talk for a few minutes about the issue I hear about constantly, and that is the shortage of affordable housing for working families.

I am going to talk about what it means for my constituents, but I will tell you, I hear about it all across the country and from Senators on both sides of the aisle. I have just introduced legislation with the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Senator Sullivan, about housing that is affordable for working families. Ask the New Hampshire Senators about employers and workers facing housing challenges there. Ask those from Kansas what is going on in Kansas City, where they can't house teachers. Oregonians from Brookings to Baker City are facing rising rents and housing costs and are making tough financial choices. They ought to have enough money because they are working hard to pay for affordable shelter.

Here is a statistic that will give you a sense of what the challenge is all about. In my State, 26 school districts have been forced to buy, rent, or build housing for their teachers. So get this, Mr. President-- and we are westerners, and we understand this. We know we have a lot of challenges competing in tough markets. We have a leg up geographically with Asia, for example, on the west coast, but we are losing it if we don't have affordable housing for working families, for firefighters and teachers.

Folks, the minority community has said: We are trying to start small businesses on a credit card, and we can't afford shelter.

In Oregon, these school districts--more than 20 of them--are now basically in the housing business. How in the world--I see my friend from Alaska is here. We have been talking about these issues. It is wonderful to work with him on it. How in the world did our schools suddenly get in the housing business? I guess in some places they are going to in effect rent houses they bought to teachers, and the teachers will practically be back, I say to my friend from Alaska, in their college days. They will be waiting to use the washing machine in line with other teachers.

So I just don't think it is right that all our school districts have to get into the housing business--by the way, there was a front-page story in the Wall Street Journal here not long ago about the same sort of thing in Kansas City.

I have introduced comprehensive legislation as chairman of the Finance Committee to tackle this issue. It is called the DASH Act--the Decent, Affordable, Safe Housing for All Act. Today, we are just going to focus on one piece, which is affordable housing for working families.

Senator Sullivan and I have teamed up here in the Senate. I am very pleased that our bill is bipartisan and bicameral.

I am very pleased that our bill is bipartisan and bicameral. Representatives Jimmy Panetta and Mike Carey are offering the same kind of tax credit that Senator Sullivan and I are offering for working families, and our proposal is built on the proven and successful--what is called LIHTC--low-income housing tax credit.

My view is that the combination of LIHTC, plus the help that Senator Sullivan and I and our counterparts in the House want to advance--those two efforts--could spur a juggernaut of new and desperately needed housing construction. Our bill could be a big shot in the arm to the countless middle-income Americans hoping to get their shot at the American dream of owning a home.

I want, as we get into this issue of working families, to make sure that everybody understands that we are also recommitting our support to the existing programs that help the homeless and help folks of modest incomes, like LIHTC. These are people who, every week, walk an economic tightrope. They are balancing the food bill against the fuel bill and the fuel bill against housing costs. We desperately need more LIHTC funding, and as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I am going to continue to push that.

But I don't think the two needs here for working families and low- income folks are mutually exclusive. We can do both. We ought to do both. Our country is not at its best when we pit working families against people of modest means. We ought to be extending opportunity for all Americans.

I will just say--and I am going to yield to my friend from Alaska-- that small businesses across my State--and I heard it yesterday again at our business summit in Portland--can't grow because employees can't afford housing. Even when they have good-paying jobs, families are forced to search for months for reasonably priced properties, only to be up against several other families in similar circumstances and contending for the same property.

So we are going to continue to try to build on the progress of LIHTC. My hope is--and I had a good talk just this morning with the chairman in the other body, Chairman Jason Smith of the Ways and Means Committee, my counterpart. We had a good conversation about the effort to get help for kids with what is called the child tax credit, and an equal amount of help for the research and development tax issue for innovation so we can outcompete China. We made good progress just in the last week, Chairman Smith and I,

in looking at the numbers and the various ways in which we can ensure that an equal amount of assistance--an equal amount of assistance--goes for the child tax credit and the research and development tax credit.

One of the reasons I was so pleased to be able to come to the floor this morning and talk with my colleague from Alaska is I think we also ought to be talking about, on top of--and I use those words--an agreement that is proportional in assistance for the child tax credit and for the research and development tax credit. I think, on top of that, we ought to give a boost to housing, particularly the low-income housing tax credit, which has gotten significant support from my colleague from Washington, Senator Cantwell, and a number of Republicans as well, and we should include such a housing effort--on top of a child tax credit and a research and development-innovation package, help on housing--and make them all bipartisan.

I see my friend from is Alaska here. I thank him for his cooperation.

I will just say, in closing, no community is immune from the skyrocketing cost of housing. Democrats aren't usually supposed to use this word, but I will tell you I am a supply-sider on housing. We need to increase supply, and on that, Senator Sullivan and I are working together.

I yield the floor to him.

I will yield very quickly to Senator Peters after I wrap this up.

Mr. President, first, I want to thank Senator Sullivan again for giving us a chance to bring housing, in a bipartisan way, to the Senate floor and just to tell colleagues there is an opportunity to do something really big here in the U.S. Senate.

I just got off the phone again with the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in the other body, my counterpart. We are making good progress in the effort to make sure that there is a child tax credit and a significant boost to research and innovation in this country. They have to be proportional. We have made that clear. That is the essence of a good and fair agreement.

Now, Senator Sullivan and I and our colleagues who are advocating for LIHTC are getting an opportunity to also discuss building upon that and taking some steps to ensure that there is housing for working families and for low-income folks.

I thank my colleague from Michigan for the chance to close this discussion up.

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

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I must regretfully object to the promotion of Lt. Gen. Timothy Haugh to the grade of general and, consequently, to be the Director of the National Security Agency--NSA-- and Commander of U.S. Cyber Command.

In January of 2021, I made public an unclassified memo I received from the Defense Intelligence Agency revealing that it was purchasing, retaining, and using location data revealing the movements of Americans. After receiving that information, I pressed the Department of Defense to identify which other Agencies within the Department are buying Americans' personal data, including location data and web browsing records.

The Department provided me with that information in March of 2021, but marked the information ``Controlled Unclassified Information''-- CUI--a made-up designation with no basis in law. The administration is abusing the C-U-I designation to keep this unclassified information from the American public. In May of 2021, I wrote to Secretary of Defense Austin to urge him to remove the restrictions on that information, so that the American people can be told which Agencies are buying their information without court oversight and so that Congress can conduct appropriate oversight. In August of 2021, I received a response letter from the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security, declining to clear the information for public release.

In connection with Lieutenant General Haugh's pending promotion to lead the NSA, I narrowed my request. I asked that the American people simply be provided yes or no answers as to whether the NSA is buying their location data and web browsing records. Unfortunately, intelligence officials have been unwilling to release even that basic information.

The American people have a right to know whether the NSA is conducting warrantless domestic surveillance of Americans in a manner that circumvents the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Particularly as Congress is currently debating extending section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Congress must be able to have an informed public debate about the scope of the NSA's warrantless surveillance of Americans.

Until the NSA publicly releases the information described above, I must object to the Senate proceeding with the Haugh nomination.

Madam President, I am going to spend a few minutes discussing the three words on this chart next to me: buy, borrow, and die. These three little words are allowing billionaires across America to legally get away with paying little or nothing in taxes for years and years on end.

Here is how it works: A billionaire buys and holds assets, like works of art, more houses than they can possibly live in, stocks and bonds, you name it. They increase in value untaxed.

The billionaire then borrows against these assets to support a lavish lifestyle, and they can borrow at a fraction of the consumer rate due to the enormous holdings of these valuable assets. That loan is untaxed. The billionaire's assets appreciate at a higher rate than the interest on the loan--that is not hard to do. So the billionaire can, essentially, do all of this until they die, and then their kids can start all over again.

So let's now contrast buy, borrow, and die with the tax system in America for firefighters and nurses. Nurses and firefighters, for example, living in Philomath, OR, are required to pay taxes out of every paycheck. Working people don't get to play by these billionaire rules. They don't get to call up an army of high-priced lawyers and accountants every time they don't feel like paying their taxes.

Right now, the average billionaire can wriggle their way into a low 8 percent tax rate while a nurse or a firefighter making $45,000 is paying a 22 percent tax on their wages. Now, here is the gut punch for everybody who is following this and works for a wage: Current buy, borrow, and die practices under our tax law are perfectly legal. That is a pretty sickening reality. Tax laws simply don't apply to billionaires in the same way they do to firefighters and nurses.

Nurses, firefighters have mandatory tax rules. The billionaires can pretty much pay what they want, when they want to. How is that fair? Americans overwhelmingly believe it is not. So it is time to look to solutions that restore fairness to the Tax Code while still rewarding success. After all, that is what our country was founded on. We believe deeply in success and the ethic of giving everybody a chance to get ahead.

Luckily, there is a solution that achieves both fairness and economic growth. Today, I, along with 15 other Members of the Senate, am introducing the first comprehensive Billionaires' Income Tax that would finally end buy, borrow, and die. This is going to put a stop to one of the most common schemes billionaires can use to pay little or no taxes for years and years on end.

Now, as to implementation of our bill, there is a way already on the tax books that allows you to do it. In the Tax Code there are mark-to- market rules and policies.

Now, for the tax wonks out there, people who think tax policy and its root-canal-like pain are enjoyable, here are the sections: Mark to market is in section 475, it is in section 877A, it is in section 1256, and it is in section 1296. So there is your model. That is how you do it. You use rules and policies that are on the books today, a blueprint right in front of us to use as a model for taxing billionaires fairly.

Mark to market under the Billionaires' Income Tax would require billionaires to pay taxes every year, just like those firefighters and nurses. It is time to close the loopholes and make sure that everybody at the very top is paying taxes on their income as it is earned, and our Billionaires' Income Tax is the way to do it.

This Congress, our staff on the Finance Committee and I have investigated a number of tax schemes that the very wealthy, with the help of armies of tax lawyers and accountants, use to pay virtually no Federal tax. The Finance Committee has investigated crooked Swiss bankers hiding wealthy Americans' income; $34 billion in unpaid taxes from the very wealthy, who won't even file a tax return--we are not even talking about schemes, they won't even file a return; unpaid taxes for millionaires; tax-dodging schemes between Leon Black and the notorious Jeffrey Epstein; and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's wealthy buddy secretly forgiving a massive private loan. Billionaires looking to dodge their taxes are thriving today under the current tax laws.

So I want a tax policy, as chairman of the Finance Committee, that gives everybody in America the chance to get ahead. Our friend, our former colleague, Senator Bradley from New Jersey--has a better jump shot than I do--that is what he talked about, is opportunity, giving everybody a chance to get ahead. Unfortunately, the flawed tax policies that billionaires take advantage of promote wealth building in the hands of a fortunate few.

This is leaving a lot of people behind. Over one-third of families in America don't have the cash on hand to pay for a $400 emergency if they had to. Meanwhile, during the pandemic, when families were forced make tough choices between paying rent and buying groceries, billionaires increased their wealth by over $1 trillion.

We have big needs in this country--obviously, the Medicare solvency crisis. We have seniors at the risk of losing the Medicare guarantee unless there is a way forward for paying for it. If Medicare becomes financially insolvent, seniors and Americans who counted on those guaranteed health benefits need look no further than billionaires, tax cheats, and their Republican allies who refuse to say that the billionaires could pay their fair share.

The Billionaires' Income Tax raises an estimated $557 billion over 10 years. If the ultra-wealthy started paying their fair share under my Billionaires' Income Tax proposal, we could be on our way to making Medicare financially sound, protecting the Medicare guarantee for millions of Americans.

I am going to close with this: The Billionaires' Income Tax is not an attack on success; it is a fundamental strike for fairness. We want a successful economy, and to have a successful economy, you have to have a Tax Code that ensures that everybody in America gets a fair shake, and treats everybody fairly.

It is time, in my view, to close the gap between the billionaires at the top and everybody else, and our Billionaires' Income Tax is a way to make that happen.

Madam President, I am going to spend a few minutes discussing the three words on this chart next to me: buy, borrow, and die. These three little words are allowing billionaires across America to legally get away with paying little or nothing in taxes for years and years on end.

Here is how it works: A billionaire buys and holds assets, like works of art, more houses than they can possibly live in, stocks and bonds, you name it. They increase in value untaxed.

The billionaire then borrows against these assets to support a lavish lifestyle, and they can borrow at a fraction of the consumer rate due to the enormous holdings of these valuable assets. That loan is untaxed. The billionaire's assets appreciate at a higher rate than the interest on the loan--that is not hard to do. So the billionaire can, essentially, do all of this until they die, and then their kids can start all over again.

So let's now contrast buy, borrow, and die with the tax system in America for firefighters and nurses. Nurses and firefighters, for example, living in Philomath, OR, are required to pay taxes out of every paycheck. Working people don't get to play by these billionaire rules. They don't get to call up an army of high-priced lawyers and accountants every time they don't feel like paying their taxes.

Right now, the average billionaire can wriggle their way into a low 8 percent tax rate while a nurse or a firefighter making $45,000 is paying a 22 percent tax on their wages. Now, here is the gut punch for everybody who is following this and works for a wage: Current buy, borrow, and die practices under our tax law are perfectly legal. That is a pretty sickening reality. Tax laws simply don't apply to billionaires in the same way they do to firefighters and nurses.

Nurses, firefighters have mandatory tax rules. The billionaires can pretty much pay what they want, when they want to. How is that fair? Americans overwhelmingly believe it is not. So it is time to look to solutions that restore fairness to the Tax Code while still rewarding success. After all, that is what our country was founded on. We believe deeply in success and the ethic of giving everybody a chance to get ahead.

Luckily, there is a solution that achieves both fairness and economic growth. Today, I, along with 15 other Members of the Senate, am introducing the first comprehensive Billionaires' Income Tax that would finally end buy, borrow, and die. This is going to put a stop to one of the most common schemes billionaires can use to pay little or no taxes for years and years on end.

Now, as to implementation of our bill, there is a way already on the tax books that allows you to do it. In the Tax Code there are mark-to- market rules and policies.

Now, for the tax wonks out there, people who think tax policy and its root-canal-like pain are enjoyable, here are the sections: Mark to market is in section 475, it is in section 877A, it is in section 1256, and it is in section 1296. So there is your model. That is how you do it. You use rules and policies that are on the books today, a blueprint right in front of us to use as a model for taxing billionaires fairly.

Mark to market under the Billionaires' Income Tax would require billionaires to pay taxes every year, just like those firefighters and nurses. It is time to close the loopholes and make sure that everybody at the very top is paying taxes on their income as it is earned, and our Billionaires' Income Tax is the way to do it.

This Congress, our staff on the Finance Committee and I have investigated a number of tax schemes that the very wealthy, with the help of armies of tax lawyers and accountants, use to pay virtually no Federal tax. The Finance Committee has investigated crooked Swiss bankers hiding wealthy Americans' income; $34 billion in unpaid taxes from the very wealthy, who won't even file a tax return--we are not even talking about schemes, they won't even file a return; unpaid taxes for millionaires; tax-dodging schemes between Leon Black and the notorious Jeffrey Epstein; and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's wealthy buddy secretly forgiving a massive private loan. Billionaires looking to dodge their taxes are thriving today under the current tax laws.

So I want a tax policy, as chairman of the Finance Committee, that gives everybody in America the chance to get ahead. Our friend, our former colleague, Senator Bradley from New Jersey--has a better jump shot than I do--that is what he talked about, is opportunity, giving everybody a chance to get ahead. Unfortunately, the flawed tax policies that billionaires take advantage of promote wealth building in the hands of a fortunate few.

This is leaving a lot of people behind. Over one-third of families in America don't have the cash on hand to pay for a $400 emergency if they had to. Meanwhile, during the pandemic, when families were forced make tough choices between paying rent and buying groceries, billionaires increased their wealth by over $1 trillion.

We have big needs in this country--obviously, the Medicare solvency crisis. We have seniors at the risk of losing the Medicare guarantee unless there is a way forward for paying for it. If Medicare becomes financially insolvent, seniors and Americans who counted on those guaranteed health benefits need look no further than billionaires, tax cheats, and their Republican allies who refuse to say that the billionaires could pay their fair share.

The Billionaires' Income Tax raises an estimated $557 billion over 10 years. If the ultra-wealthy started paying their fair share under my Billionaires' Income Tax proposal, we could be on our way to making Medicare financially sound, protecting the Medicare guarantee for millions of Americans.

I am going to close with this: The Billionaires' Income Tax is not an attack on success; it is a fundamental strike for fairness. We want a successful economy, and to have a successful economy, you have to have a Tax Code that ensures that everybody in America gets a fair shake, and treats everybody fairly.

It is time, in my view, to close the gap between the billionaires at the top and everybody else, and our Billionaires' Income Tax is a way to make that happen.

Madam President, my colleagues have said it so well. Very briefly, I want to thank Senator Murray and all my colleagues who have done such good work.

Let me start by saying that we Democrats are generally not supposed to use the words ``supply-side economics.'' I want everybody to understand we have to be supply-siders on childcare. We desperately need more childcare facilities. We need more built. And I have no qualms about saying as a proud Democrat and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee I am a supply-sider on the issue of childcare.

I will say that everywhere I go in my State, big communities and small communities, there are waiting lines, very long waiting lines, for childcare. It is absolutely unacceptable.

We have to increase our supply. We passed a number of good pieces of legislation. We have more to do.

Point No. 2 is this is a fundamental issue of American productivity. We know that we are trying to compete in tough global markets. The President of the Senate, in my part of the world, California, Oregon, and the West, we have a geographical advantage, a leg up on China. Let's not give it away with the absence of good childcare facilities.

You have to have childcare in order to be able to get to work and know that your kid is going to be OK while you are gone making a living.

Finally, the third point that I would make is that we need to tap all the resources that are available in our communities--all of them. Child care centers, in-home child care, and we should also be thinking of how to partner with churches.

This isn't a red or blue issue. It's not a rural or urban issue. It's an everyone issue. So our committees, working together, can do this. But we ought to utilize all our resources.

I am going to make this a filibuster-free zone. My colleagues have all said it, you know, really well. Supply-side economics for getting us more childcare facilities. Let's focus on this as a productivity issue, a competitiveness issue. Third, let's utilize all the resources in our communities.

I congratulate all my colleagues, and it is great to see the Finance Committee stalwarts out in force.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am announcing my intent to object to any unanimous consent request to proceed to S.1490, the Kids Online Safety Act.

I agree with the sponsors of this bill that social media and online games can have a negative impact on the mental health of minors. However, this bill makes the mistake of empowering State attorneys general already enforcing bans on LGBTQ information and prosecuting individuals for helping others receive abortion healthcare. Armed with this bill, all a State attorney general would need to do is link the content they want to scrub from the internet with causing ``anxiety'' or ``depression'' and demonstrate that the platform allowed minors to access such content. For everyone except the largest platforms, the act of being served with the complaint, no matter how specious, would be enough incentive to take down the content in question. Sadly, some deep-pocketed groups that promote anti-choice and anti-LGBTQ policies are cheerleading the bill for this reason.

Until the bill is amended to foreclose the ability of State attorneys general to wage war on important reproductive and LGBTQ content, I will object to any unanimous consent request in relation to this legislation.

Mr. President, Senator Klobuchar has said it very well, and I want to pick up on her remarks. And we are here to reflect on the extraordinary achievement in the Inflation Reduction Act in order to provide for the first time a real measure of relief--a real measure of relief--for these staggering costs seniors and others pay for medicine in our country. And I am going to talk about the negotiation issue.

And I want to say, this is just the next and essential piece of what we are doing to get relief for the consumer. For example, through most of the summer, I talked about the price-gouging penalty that we got in the law.

And I see my friend Senator Stabenow, my colleague who has been my seatmate on the Finance Committee--we sure wish she wasn't retiring-- but the price-gouging penalty is the first such thing in Federal law. This is a penalty that it has imposed, as Senator Stabenow remembers, when drug companies hiked their prices over inflation. They have to pay a rebate to Medicare, which is used to lower the out-of-pocket costs for seniors. And Senator Stabenow and I have been out crunching the numbers on this issue. And one of the areas that we found is that these drugs, particularly those that are administered in a doctor's office, already are producing massive savings.

Senator Stabenow, we found a drug a couple of weeks ago where seniors are saving several hundred dollars per dose--per dose--I would say to my colleagues--on one of these cancer drugs you get in the office. And this is just the beginning, as Senator Klobuchar has said.

So this legislation, which didn't, unfortunately, get a single Republican vote, represents a seismic shift in the relationship between consumers and Big Pharma and especially authority for Medicare to negotiate prices of prescription drugs with manufacturers.

And I just want to take a few minutes to pick up on this issue of the barrage of legal actions Big Pharma and their allies are taking to stop Medicare drug price negotiation. And we have been talking about all these lawsuits that the big companies--and I gather the Chamber of Commerce is with them all the way--have filed to prevent seniors and families from getting a break on medicine.

So these legal actions that the big companies and the Chamber of Commerce are taking beg the question that I just want to offer up this afternoon: What would happen in America if our country didn't negotiate in our economy?

The fact is, negotiating on price is the underpinning of the American marketplace. It ensures you bring two sides together to get a fair deal. And the question really has to become: Are these companies that have filed these suits really arguing that the government shouldn't try to get a fair price on medicine for more than 50 million American seniors?

Senator Stabenow, that is the essential question--are they really arguing to the American people--and by the way, this is taxpayer money, much of this is taxpayer money--are they really arguing that seniors and taxpayers shouldn't get a fair deal?

Now, the fact is that Medicare, in particular, with such strong taxpayer backing has a special argument for being a program that negotiates to get fair prices on because Medicare is not just a slip of paper, as we have examined in the Finance Committee often.

I see Senator Whitehouse, our distinguished colleague.

Medicare is not just a slip of paper with a few words on it. Medicare is a guarantee; it is a guarantee for seniors of good quality coverage. And it just begs the question: If you have a guarantee and a guarantee of something specific--good quality coverage--wouldn't you automatically say that the taxpayer should be able to have a friend and advocate negotiating for them in order to get the best possible deal? And I think the answer to that question is pretty obvious.

Now, Big Pharma has, unfortunately, taken a very different position. They have been guarding the prohibition on price negotiation in this country like the Holy Grail. And they don't like that we have closed this chapter. And the first 10 drugs were not drawn out of a hat. Congress made it clear in black letter law the criteria of the Federal Government has to use.

And so what we are doing now, Senator Stabenow--we have been talking to many of the members of the Finance Committee--is we are looking at the fact that these 10 drugs also were ones where we made sure and put in the criteria specifically where you had significant taxpayer support in terms of getting the drug to market. So again, another argument for why you ought to negotiate, the costliest drugs and drugs that get to market with taxpayer money.

Now, Senator Klobuchar, I thought, very eloquently described a number of the drugs, but I think--and I want to give my colleagues a chance to make their remarks--I think we ought to reflect on the importance of making sure that, when Big Pharma has been double-dipping into taxpayers' wallets for these important medications--groundbreaking research from the National Institutes of Health are another research arm of the Federal Government. Then, after the research was funded by taxpayers, manufacturers sell the drugs developed using taxpayer-funded research back to taxpayers at sky-high prices, are they really not going to have a chance to get a better deal?

Enbrel, which is the drug we mention often on the floor, was discovered at Massachusetts General Hospital using NIH-supported research. The hospital sold the patent rights to the drug manufacturer that has profited off Enbrel

at the expense, Senator Stabenow, of taxpayers for now going on 30 years.

My colleagues are going to have a chance to go into further detail about this, but I think when you are talking about Big Pharma and a new law that considers among a host of other factors prior to Federal financial support, provided by the taxpayers that we have the honor to represent, it means that the government should stand up for seniors and taxpayers to make sure that they get a good deal.

An investment in basic science funded by American taxpayers is based on our record in the Finance Committee, often the foundation of the new drug--and when drug manufacturers use this taxpayer-funded research to make a drug, the price of the drug should be lower to reflect taxpayer investment, and you get the best possible deal for those taxpayers when you negotiate.

And I will just close by saying, I think my colleagues know from talking to people at home, most people when you discuss this issue think it is absurd that for all these years, nobody could negotiate for them. What they are surprised about is not so much that a law passed, even though Senator Klobuchar talked about beating all these lobbyists, what they are surprised about is how people with a straight face have made the case for years that, with all of the taxpayers' support for medicine that I just outlined, that you wouldn't have started negotiating for taxpayers and seniors a long time ago.

I really appreciate Senator Klobuchar doing this. I see the Chair, who has been our champion in the other body for many years, my seatmate, Senator Klobuchar--we have an exciting new Member from the west who has also joined us. This is an important chance to really think through where we are headed. And Senator Stabenow knows we have got a lot more to do. We are taking on the PBMs, the middle men, who are also a factor in driving up prices.

But tonight is a chance because Senator Klobuchar has taken this time for us to outline what the negotiation issue is all about. I have tried to go through some of the history about how you were stunned to hear over the years that you couldn't negotiate. That has been changed.

My colleagues are going to continue this discussion, and you are going hear a lot more about it because, for all of those people, all of those people that I knew, starting with the Gray Panthers who were standing in those pharmacy lines, getting mugged at the pharmacy counter trying to figure out how they were going to choose between their food and their rent, they are going have new hope because prices are going to be negotiated. There is going to be hope for them, and there is going to be hope for American taxpayers. And it is long overdue.

I yield to my colleagues.

Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Maryland for putting forward this critical amendment ending China's developing nation status.

The ability of countries to take advantage of ``special and differential treatment'' as it is called in the World Trade Organization--WTO--to skip out on meaningful obligations and upend the trade playing field has long concerned me and other members of the Finance Committee on both sides of the aisle.

While I support the goal of the amendment, the language needs to be refined to effectively achieve that objective. I want to work with you in conference to ensure this amendment directs the U.S. Trade Representative to meaningfully address China's status at the WTO. The WTO has a unique and, frankly, antiquated form of governance and is long overdue for significant reform, including its treatment of major economies like China.

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

Mr. President, before I make a unanimous request on this important bipartisan, bicameral bill, I wish to talk for a moment about why it is so critical that the Senate pass this urgently needed legislation.

For hundreds of thousands of Americans and their families waiting for a transplant, this is not an abstract issue. We are talking about life and death. More than 100,000 people are on the waiting list to receive a transplant, and, on average, 17 people die each day waiting for an organ transplant. In the first half of this year alone, more than 2,200 Americans have died while waiting for a transplant.

The inadequacies of the current system are especially harmful to minority populations who are disproportionately represented on the organ transplant waitlist, yet, on average, wait longer for a transplant and are at a higher risk of death while waiting.

I would just say to my colleagues that this is morally repugnant, and this legislation begins, finally, to root out this bias against our minority communities.

For the last 40 years, the same contractor has had a stronghold on this contract. The lack of competition has not been in the best interest of patients, and this fall the contract will be up for renewal.

In last year's bipartisan investigation, the Finance Committee found shocking failures with the current contractor who oversees the entire system: long wait times for patients on transplant lists, viable organs being lost or damaged in transit. We saw pictures of these organs lying around in airport hangars. There has just been a lack of accountability when the problems happen, technology failures, and even patient deaths.

The last place anybody wants to hear about gross mismanagement and incompetence is in the business of saving lives. It is time for real accountability and real change.

This bill would build on the administration's recently announced plans to modernize the program and clarify that there is the ability to award multiple contracts for these key functions. This would create real competition for these contracts and ensure the best-in-class organizations can be awarded contracts to support this critical system.

The bill, which passed in the other body last week, would bring much needed change and modernization of the organ transplant system by supporting the administration's efforts and codifying, in the black letter law, modernization efforts where we aren't going to turn back the clock. We are not going to go back. We are going to go forward.

I would like to thank a number of Members on both sides of the aisle who have been on the frontlines in this fight, particularly Senator Grassley, Senator Cardin, and Senator Young, who always worked in a bipartisan way. Senator Grassley, in particular, has been a longtime leader on this issue, an outspoken advocate for fixing a broken organ transplant system. I believe he had a challenging schedule, as many Senators did tonight, but I wanted to thank Senator Grassley. And I want to also thank my friend from Vermont, Senator Sanders, and his very talented staff for their commitment to help us get to this point, and we are going to continue to work in the future.

Let's be clear about what is on offer. Every Member of Congress wants Americans to have the best-in-class organ transplant system. Our legislation is written from top to bottom to ensure competition for technical functions like those that will help this program perform to the highest possible level.

I said we were going to pull out all the stops to get this passed because the patients deserve it. This is the final stop after all of these years of foot-dragging and excuses. And tonight, this is the final stop. Let's send the Securing the U.S. Organ Procurement Transplantation Network Act to the President's desk today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2544, which was received at the House and is at the desk; further, that the bill be considered read a

third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

I thank my colleague for all his leadership, and I am certainly planning to speak on the very strong merits of what you described. And if you would like to continue, we will go through that shortly.

Would the gentleman like to yield to me?

I thank my colleague for being our leader here in the Congress and, frankly, for this Nation because he has consistently made the point that given the demographics of where we are going to have so many more older people, where we have so many young people at risk, we desperately need Chairman Sanders to do what he is talking about, which is to address this massive shortage of healthcare workers in America.

Addressing healthcare workforce shortages means we are going to have to have fresh, big league ideas to get these workers all across our country, and it is vitally important that we address several of the biggest ideas Chairman Sanders and I are talking about.

For example, expanding funding for the Medicare Graduate Medical Education Program--what is called GME--would grow the number of doctors, especially primary care physicians and psychiatrists.

This evening, Chairman Sanders, I want to make it clear that our two committees--yours doing important work, what is known as HELP, and ours on the Finance Committee--we are committed to bipartisan legislation that is going to increase investments in the Medicare Graduate Medical Education Program. We are also going to focus on incentivizing healthcare providers to partner with schools to train and develop healthcare professionals from medical assistants to advanced practice nurses.

We are also going to have to address expanding the number of behavioral health providers because we know we have an enormous mental health program challenge in America. We have to increase access to maternal health programs in rural areas and invest in the direct care workforce to ensure the health and safety of older Americans and those with disabilities.

What Senator Sanders is talking about is an all-hands-on-deck approach with our two committees, the two lead committees in the healthcare area working together to increase the number of workers.

Tonight, Chairman Sanders, as chair of the Finance Committee, I want to make clear that I intend to work very closely with you on these issues. We are going to be partners in the effort in the Finance and HELP Committees to bring forward legislation in the fall to address the healthcare workforce crisis in America. And I want to hear the rest of your remarks and hope then we can have a lifting of the objection and pass the bill.

Madam President, in a moment, I will put forward a unanimous consent request to pass the secure the U.S. Oregon procurement and transplant patient network act. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following members of my personal office and Finance Committee team be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress: Joshua Hauser, Aleksandra Czulak, Phoebe Canagarajah, Dylan Irlbeck, Maya Ward, Shreyas Gandlur.

Mr. President, I am announcing my intention to object to any unanimous consent request to proceed to S. 1080, the Cooper Davis Act.

There is no question that there is a fentanyl epidemic in the United States. However, this bill fails to offer serious solutions to this epidemic. Instead, it would mandate that platforms scan their users' communications for anything that could be interpreted as being about selling or using drugs. Given this country's experience with the failed ``War on Drugs'' it is easy to predict that communities of color will disproportionately have their conversations surveilled and referred for prosecutions, which is why it is opposed by civil rights groups, including the ACLU, NAACP and Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Further, forcing a platform to decide what represents a drug transaction means that lots of innocent people will be referred for investigation and prosecution. Finally, the reporting structure of this legislation is likely to produce large numbers of meritless referrals to the Drug Enforcement Administration and do little to address the real causes of the fentanyl epidemic or protect vulnerable communities.

Given these concerns, I will object to any unanimous consent request in relation to this legislation.

Mr. President, I am announcing my intention to object to any unanimous consent request to proceed to S. 1199, the Strengthening Transparency and Obligations to Protect Children Suffering from Abuse and Mistreatment Act of 2023.

The protection of children from exploitation and abuse is an incredibly serious issue. The criminals that create and distribute child sexual abuse material, or CSAM, need to be hunted down and locked up. The victims of their crimes need critical support. However, this bill would limit the availability of encrypted communications, making children and families less safe. Indeed, whistleblowers, human rights activists, journalists, labor organizers, and women seeking reproductive care, as well our children and families, all depend on secure and private communications and would suffer the harms of its unavailability.

The portions of this bill that hurt the availability of encrypted communications are extraneous and stray from the ostensible purpose of the bill. Until

they are removed, I will object to any unanimous consent request in relation to this legislation.

Mr. President, I am announcing my intention to object to any unanimous consent request to proceed to S. 1207, the Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act of 2023.

The protection of children from exploitation and abuse is an incredibly serious issue. The criminals that create and distribute child sexual abuse material, or CSAM, need to be hunted down and locked up. The victims of their crimes need critical support. However, this bill would limit the availability of encrypted communications, making children and families less safe. Indeed, whistleblowers, human rights activists, journalists, labor organizers, and women seeking reproductive care, as well our children and families, all depend on secure and private communications and would suffer the harms of its unavailability.

Given the threat this bill poses to encrypted communications, I will object to any unanimous consent request in relation to this legislation.