Floor Statements

Mr. President, in a moment, I am going to put forward a unanimous consent request to pass an important bill exercising Congress's constitutional authority and approving the first modern agreement regulating trade between the United States and Taiwan.

The bill was cosponsored by all 48 Democrats and Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee and was ultimately passed in the House of Representatives by a voice vote. It was originally put forward by Ways and Means Committee Chair Smith and Ranking Member Neal, as well as Senator Crapo and myself as chair and ranking member of the Finance Committee.

Before I make this unanimous consent request on the bipartisan, bicameral bill called the United States-Taiwan Initiative on 21st- Century Trade First Agreement Implementation Act, I want to highlight, for just a couple of minutes, why this bill is so important.

First, the reason behind this proposal, first and foremost, is that the U.S. Congress fully supports deepening our trade relationship with Taiwan and wants to ensure that the recent agreement covering trade facilitation, anti-corruption, and small business is legally sound and durable.

Not only is Taiwan a critical market for U.S. exporters, it is a democracy that shares our values and has strong ties with Oregonians and Americans across the land.

Next, this body wants to be clear that trade agreements are within the constitutional authority of the Congress. One of the ways the Senate demonstrates that is by approving trade agreements like this one.

Finally, the legislation requires greater transparency and consultation, as well as public review for future Taiwan trade agreements. Our workers, our farmers, and our businesses deserve the opportunity to read a trade agreement and understand how it affects them before it is signed by a government official and declared the law of the land. Trade agreements that affect millions of Americans can't be done in the dark. Congress and the American people need to know what is in these agreements and how they benefit American interests.

I look forward to working with the USTR, our point person for trade, to negotiate the bigger-ticket items with Taiwan--issues like digital trade, labor, environment, and agriculture, as outlined in the negotiating mandate. Future agreements need to bulldoze barriers to trade for Oregon exporters and American businesses everywhere, including by cutting red tape like labeling rules and making sure that Taiwan's technical standards don't make it tough for exporters to sell their goods. Involving Congress and the public is going to help the administration identify issues and hold them accountable for breaking down barriers.

This is a proposal that brings both sides together. The Taiwan trade agreement approval bill, as I indicated, passed unanimously in the other body. This trade agreement legislation is a can't-miss opportunity for the U.S. Senate to support Taiwan, clarify Congress's role in trade, and call for more transparency and consultation in future agreements.

Moreover, it needs to be done now. Taiwan is expecting to pass their implementing bill in the next few weeks. It is imperative that we move our bill before the administration moves forward with what is called ``entry into force'' to ensure that the United States gets what it has bargained for.

Let me close by saying that we especially look forward in the future to working with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The chairman of the committee, Senator Menendez, and I have been talking about ways to recognize the intersection between foreign relations and global economics. There are a whole host of issues--whether it is supply chains, digital trade, the environment, and the like--where we have an opportunity to really recognize that, in this century, what we have to do is break down barriers. We have to find a way to have a unifying strategy for this country, and that means coming together around foreign relations and global economics. That is what Chairman Menendez and I talked about this evening and in the past, and I look forward to working with all of our colleagues on that.

So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4004, which was received from the House and is at the desk.

Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, in a moment I am going to put forward a unanimous consent request to pass a trade bill cosponsored by all the Democrats and Republicans on the relevant committee in the other body-- the Ways and Means Committee--and was ultimately passed by the other body--the House--by voice vote. So there was no opposition in the other body. In fact, it was put forward by the Republican Chair Jason Smith and the Democratic Ranking Member Richard Neal, as well as Senator Crapo and myself over here.

I think it would be fair to say that this kind of unanimity over in the House, where sometimes they can't agree to order a 7-Up, is pretty amazing--that they passed a trade bill unanimously.

Before I make the UC request on this bipartisan, bicameral bill called the United States-Taiwan Initiative on 21st-Century Trade First Agreement Implementation, I am just going to talk briefly about why the bill is so important.

The basic proposition is this: First and foremost, the U.S. Congress fully supports deepening our trading relationship with Taiwan and wants to ensure the recent agreement covering trade facilitation, anti- corruption, and small business is durable and legally sound. Not only is Taiwan a critical market for U.S. exporters, it is also a democracy that shares our values and has strong ties with Oregonians and Americans across the land.

Next, this body wants to be clear that trade and trade agreements are within the constitutional authority of the Congress. One of the ways the Senate demonstrates this is by approving trade agreements just like this one.

Finally, this bill requires greater transparency and consultation, as well as public review, for future Taiwan trade agreements. These ideas can sound a little abstract, so I will put it in real-world terms.

In a few hours, I am heading to rural Oregon to meet with my constituents and hold town hall meetings. Farmers and ranchers in Grant, Harney, and Malheur counties care a lot about trade. They want new markets to sell wheat and potatoes and the like.

I am never going to tell a farmer in Ontario or La Grande that they don't deserve the right to read a trade agreement and understand how it affects them before it is signed and wrapped up.

Trade agreements that affect millions of Americans can't be done in the dark. Congress and the American people need to know what is in these deals and how they benefit American interests.

I look forward to working with the USTR as it negotiates the bigger ticket items with Taiwan--issues like digital trade, labor, environment, and agriculture, as outlined in the negotiating mandate. Future agreements need to bulldoze barriers to trade for Oregon exporters, including red tape like labeling rules and technical standards that make it hard for exporters to sell their goods. Involving Congress and the public is going to help the administration break down these barriers.

This is a proposal that brings both sides together. As I said, every Member of the Ways and Means Committee--every Democrat, every Republican--is on board. So the glide path to passage here was no accident. My colleagues, Ranking Member Crapo, as well as Chair Smith and Ranking Member Neal worked with me to hammer out a bill that could receive that kind of attention.

My colleagues are eager to get back home, so here's the bottom line: Passing the Taiwan trade agreement bill is a can't-miss opportunity for the Senate to support Taiwan, clarify Congress's role in trade, and call for more transparency and consultation.

In a moment, I am going to make a unanimous consent request.

In fact, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record my good friend from Idaho Senator Crapo's statement.

I am going to yield now to Chairman Menendez, the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, because he and I work very closely together on all of these kinds of issues, on the Foreign Relations Committee and the Finance Committee, and I have the good fortune of having Senator Menendez, essentially, sit next to me in the Finance Committee.

So we are going to be working together. I am going to make the unanimous consent request in a minute. But I want to yield to Chairman Menendez.

Thank you for the fact that we are working together today. We have got lots to do in the future and we are going to work together.

I yield to my colleague.

Mr. President, before I make my unanimous consent request, I just want to reiterate that Senator Menendez and I are going to be working together on these issues. He made this point with respect to taxes, and we are going to be able to find common ground, I believe, with Senator Crapo, who can't be here today but who is very, very strongly in support of this effort.

Let me repeat that, colleagues. Senator Crapo, the ranking member on the Finance Committee, is very strong for this effort.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4004, which was received from the House and is at the desk. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I will be brief because I know my colleagues want to go to the other body.

I think this is very unfortunate. This is an extraordinary opportunity for our country, and this is a great opportunity for the world.

The fact is that there has been an extensive review of this particular agreement. The administration talked to a number of Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. This legislation went through the House of Representatives unanimously, and that was after every member of the relevant committee--the House Ways and Means Committee-- cosponsored the legislation. They didn't just vote for it; they cosponsored it.

I think it is very unfortunate for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to object. The chair of the Ways and Means Committee, Congressman Smith, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, Congressman Neal, and the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, Senator Crapo--all of us--have been working for months now on this particular proposal, and I think it is very unfortunate that our colleague from Arkansas has decided to object. It is his right, but I think it is very unfortunate for our country because this could have been a very, very special day with the passage of this.

We are going to be back here, working together, as you have heard-- Chairman Menendez from the Foreign Relations Committee and I and Senator Crapo. We are going to work together with every Member of this body to get this very important trade initiative enacted into law.

With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess subject to the call of the Chair.

Madam President, one topic there is much agreement on is the benefits of work, and our laws should support those who want to work. The bill I am introducing today will change Social Security so that parents and their children will know that working will never disadvantage them in the future.

Let me explain the problem. Under current law, a child with a disability that began before age 22 may receive a Social Security benefit based on the work of a disabled, retired, or deceased parent. Often the child receives this benefit for the rest of their life. Social Security provides the benefit because the child is usually dependent on their parents for financial support. The problem is that the law regards earnings by the child above $1,470 a month as ending that dependency--even if the child is no longer able to maintain that level of work in the future. When that dependency ends, the child ceases to be eligible for the benefit from the parent. Instead, the child would receive a benefit based on their work. The benefit from the parent's work is often significantly larger than the child's own benefit. Because of this policy, parents of children with disabilities may prevent their child from working at their full potential, fearing that the work will cause the child to lose out on the larger benefit. We need to change Social Security to ensure parents and their children that working will not cause them to be worse off in the future.

To provide that assurance, I am introducing the Work Without Worry Act. The bill ensures that any individual with a disability that began before age 22 will receive the larger of the benefit from either their parent's work or the benefit from their own work. Any earnings from work--no matter how much--will not prevent the child from receiving a Social Security benefit from their parent's work as long as the child is eligible for disability insurance by the same impairment from before age 22. This legislation would give parents the assurance that their child with a disability can work without having to worry that the child will lose out on the full protections that Social Security provides.

I want to thank Kathy Holmquist, president of Pathways to Independence, Inc., in Portland, OR, who has been a leader in my State helping people with disabilities live and work with dignity. Kathy contacted me about the need for this legislation, and I appreciate her advocacy and support. Additional thanks to The Arc for the technical assistance and endorsement of the bill. The bill is also endorsed by the American Network of Community Options and Resources, ANCOR, National Down Syndrome Congress, the Association of University Centers on Disabilities, Justice in Aging, American Association on Health and Disability, Lakeshore Foundation, Autistic Women and Nonbinary Network, National Organization of Social Security Claimant Representatives, Special Needs Alliance, National Association of Disability Representatives, Autism Society of America, Disability Rights Education Fund, and the Consortium for Constituents with Disabilities, CCD, Social Security Task Force. I am grateful that Social Security Subcommittee Ranking Member John Larson is introducing the companion bill in the House of Representatives. The Senate bill is cosponsored by Senators Cassidy, Budd, Sanders, Klobuchar, Markey, Warren, Whitehouse, Merkley, Murray, and Brown.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record following this statement, along with two support letters.

Madam President, one topic there is much agreement on is the benefits of work, and our laws should support those who want to work. The bill I am introducing today will change Social Security so that parents and their children will know that working will never disadvantage them in the future.

Let me explain the problem. Under current law, a child with a disability that began before age 22 may receive a Social Security benefit based on the work of a disabled, retired, or deceased parent. Often the child receives this benefit for the rest of their life. Social Security provides the benefit because the child is usually dependent on their parents for financial support. The problem is that the law regards earnings by the child above $1,470 a month as ending that dependency--even if the child is no longer able to maintain that level of work in the future. When that dependency ends, the child ceases to be eligible for the benefit from the parent. Instead, the child would receive a benefit based on their work. The benefit from the parent's work is often significantly larger than the child's own benefit. Because of this policy, parents of children with disabilities may prevent their child from working at their full potential, fearing that the work will cause the child to lose out on the larger benefit. We need to change Social Security to ensure parents and their children that working will not cause them to be worse off in the future.

To provide that assurance, I am introducing the Work Without Worry Act. The bill ensures that any individual with a disability that began before age 22 will receive the larger of the benefit from either their parent's work or the benefit from their own work. Any earnings from work--no matter how much--will not prevent the child from receiving a Social Security benefit from their parent's work as long as the child is eligible for disability insurance by the same impairment from before age 22. This legislation would give parents the assurance that their child with a disability can work without having to worry that the child will lose out on the full protections that Social Security provides.

I want to thank Kathy Holmquist, president of Pathways to Independence, Inc., in Portland, OR, who has been a leader in my State helping people with disabilities live and work with dignity. Kathy contacted me about the need for this legislation, and I appreciate her advocacy and support. Additional thanks to The Arc for the technical assistance and endorsement of the bill. The bill is also endorsed by the American Network of Community Options and Resources, ANCOR, National Down Syndrome Congress, the Association of University Centers on Disabilities, Justice in Aging, American Association on Health and Disability, Lakeshore Foundation, Autistic Women and Nonbinary Network, National Organization of Social Security Claimant Representatives, Special Needs Alliance, National Association of Disability Representatives, Autism Society of America, Disability Rights Education Fund, and the Consortium for Constituents with Disabilities, CCD, Social Security Task Force. I am grateful that Social Security Subcommittee Ranking Member John Larson is introducing the companion bill in the House of Representatives. The Senate bill is cosponsored by Senators Cassidy, Budd, Sanders, Klobuchar, Markey, Warren, Whitehouse, Merkley, Murray, and Brown.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record following this statement, along with two support letters.

Madam President, before she leaves the floor, let me say to my seatmate on the Senate Finance Committee how much I appreciate her passion and leadership on this critical issue.

I note that the Presiding Officer is also one of the outspoken members on the committee on this issue.

This has been a terrific debate coming from our side, and I thank my colleague for her comments.

It has been a year since the atrocious decision of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. I remember reading the leaked decision in the press early last May and realizing with dread that the Court was going to strike down Roe v. Wade. My first reaction was that the Court has set in motion a catastrophe for the health, safety, and privacy of American women. To the horror of the 36 million women living in States that have already banned abortion or are likely to ban access to abortion, unfortunately, my prediction was right.

The Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs tossed out half a century of legal precedent, curtailed the fundamental rights of women, and jeopardized the health and safety of millions across the country. The Court defied the American people, who are living with the grim reality that some of the Nation's most powerful people are eager to violate their privacy and their basic right to make their own decisions with respect to healthcare.

So the last year has been a nightmare for millions of women in America. It has been especially felt by those living in the more than 20 States that have passed laws banning or severely restricting access to abortion.

The personal stories that you hear if you spend time listening are gut-wrenching. Women in Texas who desperately wanted to be parents and suffered pregnancy complications nearly died trying to access lifesaving care. Yet they were told they weren't sick enough to get it. Far-right politicians

are suing healthcare providers for providing care to a 10-year-old who had been raped--raped--and was pregnant. The cruelty apparently is the point.

I am proud to be from Oregon, where abortion remains legal. We have some of the most pro-choice laws in the country for those seeking reproductive health care. That is because, in Oregon, we understand that people can make the best decisions for themselves and their families. But even in Oregon, you can't take freedom for granted. Extreme Republicans won't stop until they pass a national ban on abortion, and they are trying.

A national 6-week ban was introduced in Congress right after the Dobbs decision came out. Anti-abortion advocates sought out a lone judge in Amarillo, TX, to ban mifepristone, which is widely and safely used in medication abortions nationwide. The FDA approved the safe and effective medication for dispensation more than 20 years ago. I organized the first congressional hearings about this drug as a Member of the other body in 1990. This effort was never based on some extreme or some political agenda; it was based on one proposition--that science ought to be making the judgments and not politics.

I came to the Senate floor in February and called on the administration to do everything it could to keep the lifesaving medication on the market. Thankfully the far-right extremists haven't won yet, but, as a number of my colleagues have said today correctly, we are not home-free as that case moves through the courts.

Contrary to what Justice Kavanaugh told us in concurrence of Dobbs, anti-abortion zealots are not leaving these matters up to the States. Several States are trying to restrict freedom of movement, criminalizing women who travel to other States for an abortion or even the person who gives them a ride. Think about that. You can't sugarcoat that. They are talking about enacting laws that reach beyond State borders, and that hearkens back to some very dark days in our history.

This has always been about control, and one speaker after another on our side has said that through the course of the day. This is about politicians inserting themselves in exam rooms and in the private decisions about whether and when to start a family.

I care about this issue for several reasons. Right at the heart of my concern is Americans' right to privacy. That right to privacy is what makes America, America.

As women grapple with the strictest State laws that threaten their health and take away their privacy, they also face a crisis of digital privacy and what we have come to call uterus surveillance. Governments are weaponizing the most personal and private data about women's bodies and healthcare and using it against them. I and a number of colleagues on our side have been sounding this alarm for years that location data leached from phone apps is ripe for abuse. States where extremists have restricted or banned abortion--that goes straight to a five-alarm crisis.

We also know that shady data brokers have tracked women to and from Planned Parenthood centers. They have and will sell this information to anybody with a credit card. And in States where abortion is illegal, anything women say or read online can be used against them. Researching birth control online, updating a period tracking app, even just carrying a phone into the doctor's office--you name it--it is potential evidence for the prosecution. The possibilities are endless and frightening.

As to our laws governing women's sensitive private health data, as we think about what is ahead, we have to recognize that those laws have been outdated and weak for decades. I commend the administration for drawing attention to this issue and being interested in shoring up loopholes in our laws.

More has to be done. We have seen over this past year that Republican State attorneys general and Governors are ready and willing to discard women's privacy in their quest to prohibit access to reproductive health care.

This has been a horrific year, but as my colleagues have said on the floor this afternoon, we are going to be resolute. All the bills that the group led by Senator Murray, my colleague, the President of the Senate--they are common sense. They are common sense, the package that my colleagues have offered today for unanimous consent. They go a long way toward protecting women and healthcare providers.

I just want my constituents to know and I want my colleagues here in the Senate to know I am on the program. I don't think this is the time when we can even take for granted any of these concerns--not a one. The whole question of access to healthcare, the right to privacy, making sure that States' rights really mean States' rights and not tracking people down across the country--these are all priorities that my colleagues have laid out very, very well.

As long as I have the honor to represent Oregon in the U.S. Senate, I am going to be working with all of them.

The fact is, as we close--and it seems like we are getting ready to wrap up--I think it is clear that the American people are on the side of my colleagues over here who have spoken today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I want to recognize and honor KOBI- TV/NBC5 in Medford on its 70th anniversary. KOBI went on the air on August 1, 1953, and is an integral part of its parent company California Oregon Broadcasting, Inc., founded in 1933 by William B. Smullin.

In classic KOBI and ``Oregon Way'' fashion, this TV station is celebrating seven decades of public service serving southern Oregon by teaming up with the United Way of Jackson County for a ``United in Kindness'' campaign.

This community campaign is gathering stories of kindness, civility, generosity, and charity that will be featured throughout this year on the air and online.

What a wonderful example of how KOBI informs and lifts up its community. That has been the case since 1953 when Bill Smullin founded the station--the first VHF TV station in Oregon. Seventy years later, it remains one of the very few locally owned and operated TV stations in the United States.

Bill Smullin's daughter Patricia C. ``Patsy'' Smullin has guided KOBI since 1985 as owner and president of California Oregon Broadcasting, Inc., Ms. Smullin has earned numerous honors in that time. Among those honors are the Chuck Sherman Television Leadership Award from the National Association of Broadcasters in recognition of an individual demonstrating leadership, service and commitment to local television in medium and smaller markets; and the Oregon Association of Broadcasters Tom McCall Award for outstanding service to the State and to the nation.

When I am in southern Oregon, for townhalls, community meetings and more, I make it a regular practice to come into the KOBI studio. There, I can count on a thorough and fair discussion from well-prepared interviewers about issues affecting southern Oregon.

For 70 years, viewers in southern Oregon have been equally able to count on KOBI's steadfast commitment to local journalism. I know I speak for all those viewers when I say thank you for that commitment the past seven decades and here is to many more decades of success.

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

Mr. President, our country is facing a medication shortage crisis. Americans can no longer count on their medicines being available at the pharmacy counter when they need them.

Unfortunately, it is actually worse than a simple shortage. It is, in particular, that America doesn't have access to an adequate supply of generic drugs that can be stocked by our pharmacies.

I have heard from parents throughout my State whose kids are sick with a strep throat, and they are out there scrambling from pharmacy to pharmacy trying to track down a basic antibiotic. These concerns are especially serious in rural parts of my State--I think this is true in a lot of parts of this country--because of the long distances families have to drive if their community pharmacy in a rural area can't meet their needs. This, in my view, is an enormous and urgent national challenge.

There are, for example, cancer patients who can't get treatment because

the medication they need is in low supply. With cancer, we know every single second counts. In many cases, people die if they are not treated. This makes the crisis not abstract, but it is a real life-or- death crisis. There are Americans suffering from ADHD who can't get their hands on the medications they rely on that their doctor prescribed to them to help so they can function at school, at work, and at home.

A pharmacist in southern Oregon told me that one of their patients went without their medication for almost 2 months, and it undercuts their ability to complete daily tasks. Derailing these lives--young and old--due to a generic drug shortage just has got to be unacceptable-- unacceptable--to the richest country in the world.

Now, the crisis is hurting Americans in many places; but as I have indicated, it is especially stark in rural America. Independent pharmacies have been essential in rural communities in my State. These pharmacies can't always afford to keep brand-name drugs stocked, especially during a shortage. They rely, as do so many of these pharmacies across the land, on available generic medicines so they can serve their customers and stay in business.

And the travel I mentioned from pharmacy to pharmacy to get needed medications is no simple challenge. I'm having a whole group of town halls in eastern Oregon at the end of this month. I made a commitment to have an open-to-all town meeting in every county that I have the honor to represent. I've had 1,050 of them, and I can tell you the distance between small towns in eastern Oregon is often measured in hours, not miles or minutes. So if you live in rural Oregon and your local pharmacy lacks your medication, you have got to find the time and the gas money to travel anywhere from 60 to 90 minutes to the next closest pharmacy and hope and pray that the medication hasn't just been sold before you got there. These commute times are even longer in the winter months when the weather conditions are especially serious.

I heard recently about an Oregonian who went to the pharmacy every day for 2 weeks--2 weeks--to get that day's shipment of the prescription they needed. Every single day, they went to the pharmacy. That is a lot of time spent on top of working, taking care of a family, and trying to get your basic needs met. This is going to get worse in pharmacies across Oregon and the Nation without this Congress and our country acting.

Shortages of these generics has generated a domino effect. It's caused shortages of alternative medications to treat ADHD. And so many Americans--millions and millions--have looked for this drug, and they are looking for alternatives. And some of these other medicines may be less effective. We ought to be clear, in some cases there is no domino effect because some generics don't have any alternatives at all.

I asked a pharmacist in eastern Oregon to share with me how this has affected the people she and her family serve. She told me that many customers who took medication that were working very well are now bumping up against this shortage. So now a patient's doctor, according to this pharmacist, will write a prescription for another medication and then change the patient back to the original preferred medication-- the one that has been working for them--if and when it is available. In essence, the doctors are forced to lurch as their patients go back and forth from one medicine to another--medicines that can have a different effect--if they can get them.

Another patient in rural Oregon was receiving the generic for Adderall at a 30-milligram dose, which suddenly became unavailable. Their insurance wouldn't pay for the brand-name drug, so the patient was forced to take a lower dose version of the generic. This patient has to change the medication every month, not based on their medical needs, but trying to figure out what their rural pharmacy is going to be able to provide.

Then, because ADHD medicines are Schedule II drugs, the prescriptions can't be transferred between pharmacies. If a person's medication isn't available at their local pharmacy but is available at a pharmacy 90 minutes away, patients in this situation have to double back to their doctor to get a new prescription before they can even start the trek to the distant pharmacy. So sometimes this means the patient has to physically drive to the doctor's office and pick up a hard copy of the prescription if the doctor isn't registered with the Drug Enforcement Agency, the DEA.

Just picture this kind of bureaucratic nightmare for people who are just hoping--hoping--in small towns that somebody is thinking about their needs. But the idea of physically driving to a doctor's office, getting a hard copy of the prescription when the doctor, as I said, isn't registered with the DEA to prescribe the drugs electronically is just a microcosm of what these patients in rural Oregon and rural America are telling us.

A rural pharmacist told me that what I just described happened this week with a patient who was forced to drive from Heppner to Pendleton, an hour and a half away, to pick up their physical, paper prescription, and then off they went to their pharmacy.

Now, there are a variety of reasons of why we have these shortages; but when it comes to the ADHD medication, specifically, part of the problem may be that the generic drug manufacturers are not communicating with the government Agencies who regulate the manufacturing of these drugs. And neither the generic manufacturers nor these Agencies are communicating effectively with the public, which is why so many Members of Congress are getting these calls asking them to step in and help.

Now, the DEA is in charge of how much of this ADHD medication can be produced and dispersed. Okay? This is the Agency that tells you how much of this medication is going to be available. They are telling me drug companies can make more medication any time they want to. The companies say, not so. They are saying what the DEA says isn't true. The companies claim that the DEA is denying their applications to make more medicine during the shortage. Now, add to this the Food and Drug Administration, the FDA, saying they don't know of any denials to make more drugs handed down by the Drug Enforcement Agency to the drug manufacturers and that the DEA has approved applications that the FDA has weighed in on.

So if your head is now spinning as you try to sort through the word salad, as I call it, of American healthcare, it is understandable, because at every level, there are new requirements that you try to reconcile with what I have already described.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services is required by law to post justifications when the DEA denies these kinds of applications on the FDA's website, but none have been posted. So if you are a patient who is hurting or a family who is trying to treat a sick child or an elder, you deserve something better--something better--than the chaos I have just described. Again, companies are saying their applications to make more medicine have been denied.

So I have just given you the conflict between these Agencies that, heaven forbid--quaint idea--would actually talk to each other. Something doesn't add up, so the Senate is going to have to step in and sort this out so that the citizens of this country get straight answers. And this bureaucratic doublespeak is particularly hard on Oregonians who come to me and ask why they are suffering from a crisis that is not of their making.

Now, I recently spoke to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency. She was aware I had an interest in this as I serve as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and she agreed that greater transparency in the process is going to help the ongoing work of the Agency to reform the system.

Well, we are sure going to hold them to that. Certainly some clear, at least coherent language is desperately needed and better communication for the patients. That is what I am insisting on from the Drug Enforcement Agency and the FDA because they have a responsibility to reach out to these companies of these essential medicines to sort these out and make these medicines accessible to the American people, and the Agencies ought to give the manufacturers clear guidance on how to navigate the bureaucratic fiefdoms that exist here in Washington.

I will also say that I am concerned that despite this heightened attention to medication shortages, these Agencies appear to be solely focused on production at the national level, and there is no real connection to the local pharmacy window. We know that when we finally took away the grail--the Holy Grail--from the pharmaceutical companies and that Medicare could negotiate to hold down, you know, prices, one of the reasons we did is that we knew this issue really mattered at the pharmacy window. That is when people in New Jersey and Oregon and everywhere else want to have available drugs and have them made affordable. It has to become local.

Further, it is important not just to focus on the production and availability of these drugs like Adderall but to ensure that the generic equivalents are broadly available and recognized as a part of access for patients. For instance, a copay for the generic medicine could be $10. If it is not available, and after the pharmacy spends 45 minutes on the phone with the patient's insurance company and the patient, the name brand Adderall could be approved, but even with insurance, the patient could face a copay of anywhere from $75 to $200.

For all of those families in America who are walking an economic tightrope in balancing their food bill against their fuel bill and their fuel bill against their rent bill, they are not going to be in a position to pay these constantly escalating prices, and, you know, when you are trying to feed your family, you might make your own health your lowest priority.

So the Federal Agencies need to help manufacturers get better at reporting spikes in consumer demand for important medicines that they are going to have a hard time meeting, and Congress has to work on making it a requirement--a requirement--for the manufacturers to report this information.

I am going to close by offering a really radical idea: that the Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration get together and work this out, because it is not about Democrats and Republicans. I am a Democrat, and the Republicans sit over there. This has nothing to do with that--nothing--but it has everything to do with the proposition that Americans deserve better. These Agencies that I have cited ought to give a full explanation to the American people about what they are doing now, what they are doing a month from now, and what they are going to be doing until they get this fixed.

In my call to these two Agencies, I believe--and I know the Presiding Officer does--that Americans ought to be able to get the healthcare they need when they need it, and right now, too many Americans are suffering because they can't, particularly with respect to those who need medicines to deal with ADHD.

We are hurting people's lives. In the worst case, I believe Americans may be using drugs not prescribed by their doctors as a result of all of this bedlam I have described.

I will tell the Presiding Officer, in wrapping up, you know--and he and I have talked about this--that I was the co-director for the Oregon Gray Panthers for many years, and this has been the area of healthcare I have really tried to specialize in because I have always felt that if you and your loved ones don't have your healthcare, everything else goes by the board. I don't recall very many examples of this kind of dysfunction. I don't know any other way to sum it up. This kind of dysfunction is unacceptable to the millions of Americans who need this medicine.

So I am going to stay at it. I know the Presiding Officer well enough to know that he feels strongly about helping exactly these kinds of people. It is a problem that is hammering families from one end of the country to another. It is particularly hard right now as we speak on the folks I represent in rural Oregon, the folks I am going to see at the townhall meetings here in a few days. We are going to stay at it until we get it fixed.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following nomination: Calendar No. 167, Eric G. Olshan to be U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 245, which is at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 3 p.m. on Monday, June 12; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that following the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Allen nomination; further, that the cloture motions filed during today's session ripen at 5:30 p.m.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Booker.

Madam President, I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and Senate Democrats will keep this Chamber on time.

There are three important reasons to vote against this amendment. First, it would be an even bigger Republican handout to wealthy tax cheats--nearly $200 billion. Second, at a time when Congress is supposed to be debating fiscal responsibility, this amendment double counts billions and billions of dollars by increasing the deficit with more spending on defense contractors and bigger handouts to wealthy tax cheats.

Finally, this Senate should focus on better service to taxpayers, improved information technology, and ending the free ride once and for all for wealthy tax cheats.

I urge colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 125

Madam President, I rise in opposition.

The bipartisan package importantly negotiated between Speaker McCarthy and President Biden, in fact, makes specific rescissions to unused COVID funds while protecting important funding for programs that are still necessary to support our community.

This amendment, colleagues, goes beyond the McCarthy-Biden agreement. This amendment would take an ax to nearly all of the funding in the Recovery Act and several other COVID bills, even if the communities are still depending or planning on using that money.

Blue States or red States, pass this amendment and you risk default. I strongly urge a vote against this amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 134