Floor Statements

Madam President, I come to the floor to discuss the new Graham legislation to create a national abortion ban. The centerpiece of the Senator's argument is that Senator Graham wants our country to believe that his national abortion ban is a moderate proposal--his words. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

A moderate bill would not institute criminal penalties for doctors providing lifesaving medical care. That is what this so-called moderate bill does. A moderate bill would not take rights away from American women, no matter where they live. That is what this so-called moderate bill does. A moderate bill would not create a presumption of women's guilt by requiring them to report a rape or seek counseling before they get an abortion. This so-called moderate bill does that, too.

Just think about that last point. If you are trying to assess our colleague from South Carolina's argument that his bill is moderate, under Senator Graham's new restrictions, a 12-year-old rape victim, regardless of the terror she feels or the danger she faces, would have to find a way to report her assault to police before she could get the care she needs. That is a stunning overreach and there is absolutely nothing that is moderate about this proposal. The reality is this is not a moderate proposal. It is an extreme proposal, way out of step with the overwhelming opinion of the American people.

The other important argument I wanted to discuss was this whole matter of how so many of my colleagues on

the other side of the aisle have pledged loyalty--pledged loyalty--to the importance of States' rights that they are going to leave the decision on abortion to the States. But Senator Graham has shown us that all his talk about States' rights means that the States have to agree with Senator Graham. That is what his idea about States' rights is all about.

His bill tramples, for example, on the rights of Oregonians, who sure don't share Senator Graham's view on this, and people in many other States, women and men who voted to protect abortion, women's healthcare, and women's individual freedom.

Senator Graham's bill is about control. It is about government-- government--mind these words--government having control over women's bodies rather than women having control over their bodies.

It is also clear that what has always been envisioned is not just a nationwide ban on abortions but criminalizing this with women and doctors at some point, I gather, possibly locked behind bars.

It is election season and Senator McConnell wants everybody to forget the Republicans' top priorities include passing these extreme restrictions through Congress and the courts. I believe that Americans know better. When it comes to this kind of legislation that is so far removed--far removed--from the moderate claim of its sponsor, I think we ought to recognize what we are looking at is a total national abortion ban, criminalization, and the rights of women curtailed and the power of government over them increased.

Senator Graham's bill is the next step in that direction for Republicans. Introducing his proposal, Senator Graham basically confirmed that:

If [we] take back the House and Senate, I can assure you

we'll have a vote [on our bill].

Madam President, I think we have a lot of speakers coming, but I think the American people ought to take Senator Graham at his word. This is what his agenda is about. This is what he is going to be championing from sea to shining sea. I just hope we do everything we can here in the Senate--in this country--to make sure that the Graham bill does not see the light of day.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, it is time for a reality check here in the Senate.

The far right has had an awful lot to say about the IRS in these last few days. Even Senators who should supposedly know better are spinning wild fantasy stories about 87,000 agents who are armed to the teeth and coming to

the doors of innocent small business people. All this talk is unscathed by the truth.

Here is what is true: Every year, wealthy tax cheats and scofflaw corporations skip out on paying what they owe and rip off the American people for billions and billions of dollars. Let me say that again. Wealthy tax cheats are ripping off innocent taxpayers, every year, of billions and billions of dollars. They are sophisticated. They are wealthy. They want to protect the status quo. By attacking the IRS, the Republicans are helping high-flying tax cheats get away with breaking the law.

The IRS has had its resources gutted by the Republicans over the last decade. It is badly outmatched now by the wealthy tax cheats, who have armies of lawyers and accountants who are prying open loopholes and hiding income in the shadows. Let me give the Senate an example.

A few weeks ago, I put out the findings of a yearlong Finance Committee investigation into the largest alleged tax evasion scheme by one individual in American history. With the right financial wizardry and a complicated network of offshore accounts and partnerships, this individual, Robert Brockman, was able to evade taxes on over $2 billion in income. To hide his money, he set up offshore entities that we call shell banks. They were offshore entities dressed up like financial institutions that Mr. Brockman set up to hide his money from the IRS, betting correctly that the IRS wouldn't have the resources to uncover his scheme. There may be hundreds of thousands more of these shell banks that the IRS has never examined.

The Finance Committee is also in the midst of an investigation into the tax practices of some of the biggest members of Big Pharma. One of the companies whose tax data we examined was AbbVie. In 2020, 75 percent of AbbVie's sales were made in the United States, but AbbVie reported only 1 percent of its income to the United States for tax purposes. Earlier this year, we requested financial information from Merck, which makes nearly half of its sales in the United States, but it reported only 14 percent of its income here. We also requested information from Bristol Myers Squibb, which reportedly used a thicket of foreign subsidiaries and partnerships to take its effective tax rate from 24.7 percent all the way down to a negative 7 percent in a single year.

The IRS struggles to do anything about many of these cases even when they get reported in the press. Criminal tax evasion cases have fallen nearly by half. The number of highly trained experts who know how to break down these complex tax evasion cases has fallen by a third. It takes hundreds and hundreds of hours to review the tax filings of corporations and the rich, and the IRS just doesn't have the resources to go after these wealthy tax cheats and scofflaw corporations. So there is a reason the Democrats believe you have to invest more resources to enforce the laws on the books.

Here is the most important point: It doesn't have anything to do with middle-class taxpayers, because their taxes are taken out automatically of every single paycheck. That is really different than the way the big guys go about their activities in ripping off the little guys with complex tax evasion schemes. What so many Republicans want to do is preserve the status quo so that only the little guys get audited while billionaire friends like Robert Brockman get off scot-free.

Funding for the IRS is also about providing a basic level of customer service to taxpayers who are in Colorado, in Oregon, and in every part of the country. At one point during the filing season this year, the IRS told the Finance Committee that it was able to answer only 11 percent of the service phone calls it was receiving. Taxpayers in America deserve better service from their government, and that means making sure the IRS has the resources to provide it.

The far right and the tax cheats--the wealthy tax cheats--want the IRS, apparently, to continue to struggle because it makes it easier to attack and vilify. That is why we have heard so many falsehoods about the thousands of new IRS agents. I don't know where this number came from. It is absolute nonsense that has been conjured out of nothing.

Even worse are the falsehoods about IRS agents and firearms. Alongside the DEA, the FBI, and other law enforcement Agencies, the IRS often plays a part in going after drug cartels, money launderers, and other serious, hardened criminals. So the question is, How do my Republican colleagues expect IRS criminal investigation officers to defend themselves during drug busts against violent cartels? Should they bring a set of sharpened No. 2 pencils?

We are talking about living in the real world. The IRS funding that the Democrats passed last month is about making sure that the IRS can do its job and meet the expectations of the American people.

I can tell you, as a Senator who has townhall meetings in every county of my State every year, the people of my State say: Look, we are law-abiding. We pay our taxes. There is something way out of whack when these wealthy tax cheats and scofflaw corporations can pay little or nothing.

It is time for Members of Congress to stop going to bat for these wealthy tax cheats who break the law. The IRS needs to be able to crack down on these rip-offs. The IRS needs to be able to provide adequate and timely service. The taxpayers need help, and that is what the IRS funding does.

What we have heard so much about from my colleagues on the far right in raising this specter of agents--thousands of them, armed to the teeth, coming to the doors of small businesses--is simply unscathed by the truth.

For that reason, I object.

Mr. President, I would just like to briefly discuss the amendment that came up during the budget discussion.

Senate Democrats made it very, very clear that we were strongly against taxing those in our country with incomes under $400,000. The problem with the amendment that the Republicans offered is they used the word ``taxable'' income. So, while we strongly opposed raising taxes on middle-class people and others making under $400,000, the wording of the Republicans' amendment, which talked about taxable income, could have immunized billionaires from being subject to an audit. That is because, as the Presiding Officer and I have talked about, billionaires often live by this ``buy, borrow, and die'' philosophy, and they have little or no taxable income for years on end. My colleagues probably saw some of the stories, for example, about billionaires who are claiming the child tax credit because their taxable income

is actually low under the way it is defined.

Just to make sure the record is clear, we are all in on this effort of not taxing middle-income folks. We subscribe completely. In fact, it is what we had in the bill, and our enforcement section made that clear as well. But we are not for creating new paths to tax evasion for billionaires. Regrettably, that is what the language in the Republicans' amendment would have done.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, public service is about making people's lives better, and here is what is on offer this afternoon to make people's lives better in our country: Reduced healthcare costs for seniors, reduced carbon emissions, reduced energy costs, and reduced cheating by wealthy tax cheats. That is just a part of what is on offer this afternoon.

Let me just briefly touch on each of them.

We all know that medicines are way too expensive in our country. People always come back from trips, and they say: Why is it so much cheaper overseas?

It is because these big pharmaceutical companies are under absolutely no restraints to hold down the prices, and that is what we are beginning to change today.

What we are beginning to change today is to say that for those seniors who count on Medicare, for the first time, the program that they love, Medicare, is going to have the power to negotiate lower drug prices for them. The fact is, the Senate is lifting a curse with this legislation. That is how seniors feel when they hear that Medicare can't even go to bat for them. And, of course, Big Pharma has protected this ban on Medicare negotiating like it was the Holy Grail. Even today, they are warning that when we pass this, they are going to try to tie it up with the courts and the State legislatures and the Agencies. But we are not going to let that happen.

The prediction from some independent authorities on medicine has said that because of the compounding benefits of our bill--with more drugs being negotiated on a regular basis--we are looking at the possibility of a trillion dollars in savings before too long.

If a drug company refuses to negotiate, they are going to face a steep excise tax on the sale of their products until they come to the table. If they are price gouging, if they are raising their prices above the rate of inflation, say, for an older drug, they are going to pay a penalty.

And then we have new significant relief for seniors who, when they get mugged at the pharmacy counter, come home and say they just can't pay all the bills. Our legislation puts a new $2,000 out-of-pocket cap on Medicare Part D so that seniors are no longer forced to choose between paying for medicine and paying for food.

Those are all important benefits. The fact is, that penalty for price gouging is going into in effect in a couple of months, in November, so seniors are going to be able to say: We are seeing real relief from this legislation.

There are other steps that we would have liked to take. I understand that. I pushed for them. The President of the Senate has pushed for them. But let's understand the bottom line here. Every one of the policies I have outlined, on their own, is going to be life-changing for millions of senior citizens, and it is going to lay the groundwork for doing more.

I would also like to move briefly from healthcare to climate because the Inflation Reduction Act includes the biggest effort in history to save our climate and invest in clean energy and jobs. And because we all worked together, those are going to be jobs here in America. They are going to be clean energy jobs in our country because of the black letter text that we wrote into the bill.

The old system was a joke. It picked winners and losers, and anybody who was powerful could probably figure out how to get a tax break. And there were permanent breaks for oil and gas but only temporary incentives for clean energy. The system was broken. It was out of date a long time ago.

We put that old system into the dustbin of history, and we put in place emissions-based credits to turbocharge investment in clean energy, clean transportation, and energy conservation. Our new plan is going to reduce the typical American household's energy cost by $500 per year, and it is going to create 600,000 new jobs from Portland, OR, to Portland, ME.

As the President of the Senate knows, we pay for this bill with a few important changes in our tax law. For example, we just showed a couple of days ago that of 100 companies--these are companies with billions of dollars in profits--they are paying--many of them, more than 100--an effective tax rate of 1.1 percent.

Let me say that again: More than 100 hugely profitable companies that are going to pay under this legislation, and the President of the Senate did very important work on this, they are paying, on average, 1.1 percent in taxes.

Now, it is no surprise that those companies that are paying 1.1 percent think that somehow making them pay a minimum rate--a minimum rate, by the way, which is far less than the rate that a firefighter and a nurse pay--that, oh, my goodness, we won't have jobs, we won't have businesses if they do.

And we make it clear that we are not raising taxes on anybody. Anybody making less than $400,000 is not going to pay any additional taxes under this bill. I know there are some of our colleagues on the other side who have always subscribed to this trickle-down theory of economics and say that, well, if those at the very top--say, those corporations paying 1.1 percent--actually pay some taxes, that means that nurses and firefighters are going to pay more taxes, and nurses and firefighters don't buy that for a second.

We also paid for the legislation in an important way that was proposed by our colleague from Ohio, Senator Brown, that I was proud to join him on, and that is a 1-percent tax on stock buybacks.

Corporations have spent trillions of dollars on stock buybacks in recent years, a huge windfall for corporate executives and wealthy shareholder. It set a record in 2018, broke it again in 2021 right in the middle of a global pandemic, and I just noticed the profits of some of the biggest oil companies here in the last few weeks, again, they are kind of leading the league in stock buybacks.

Stock buybacks make a lot of wealthy people even wealthier on paper, but they do very little to strengthen the economy, drive innovation, or improve the well-being of American workers.

Our 1 percent tax is not only going to help pay to prevent the worst effects of climate change, it is also going to encourage big corporations to invest in their workers and research and development instead of more handouts to the top.

Finally, I just want to emphasize this question of tougher IRS tax enforcement. We have heard some of our colleagues on the other side say that somehow this is going to target the working person. I see our good friend from Delaware, another member of the committee. That is just not going to happen. And the reason it is not, as my colleagues on the Finance Committee know so well, working people are not the problem here. They pay taxes with every single paycheck. It is right there on their paycheck. Everybody knows what taxes they pay, and should they be engaging in any questionable activities, it would end up showing up on these forms. They are not the problem.

But as we have been told again and again by independent experts, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, we do have a problem with big, wealthy tax cheats. Big, wealthy tax cheats don't pay taxes with every single paycheck like firefighters and nurses.

And after a decade of Republican budget cuts, we are now in a very difficult position to go after these wealthy tax cheats who rip off the American people for billions of dollars every year.

The current Commissioner who joins many Democratic Commissioners and Republican Commissioners in the past--the current one is a Republican appointee--estimated the number of

taxes owed that are not collected could be as much as a trillion dollars per year.

We believe that the Agency ought to have the resources it needs to go after sophisticated, lawbreaking tax cheats at the top. And I know that my colleagues on the Finance Committee join me in saying: We are going to watchdog the Agency very carefully and make sure the focus is on these wealthy tax cheats and not the typical working person, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have talked about.

So there you have it, folks. Here is what is on offer: What is on offer are lower costs for seniors, reduced climate emissions, help for working families, cracking down on wealthy tax cheats. That is what this is all about today. That is why this legislation, I believe, is going to give public service a good name.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Yes.

Yes.

I thank the Senator for his inquiry and can clarify that the Senator is correct that the current-law limitations that generally apply to tax credits under section 38 would not reduce the amount of credits eligible for transfer by the transferor of transferable tax credits under the bill and that the Treasury Department should issue technical guidance that reflects this intent.

I thank the Senator for her inquiry. That is correct. The credit is intended to incentivize production of biofuels of a certain quality, usable as fuel for highway vehicles or aircrafts, but not limited only to fuels which are actually used in highway vehicles or aircrafts.

Yes, regulations such as these would be in line with the legislative text and our intent for companies to be able to appropriately utilize foreign tax credits in the corporate alternative minimum tax.

I thank the Senator for his inquiry and can clarify that, for purposes of the corporate alternative minimum tax, Other Comprehensive Income is not included in financial statement income.

I thank the Senator for his inquiry. That is correct. The credit is intended for any eligible components produced and sold after December 31, 2022, regardless of the portion of the component that was produced before January 1, 2023.

Yes, we believe that Treasury will have authority to issue regulations dealing with potential issues with the ordering of the calculation of the credit under section 53 and the tax under section 59A. Regulations such as these would be in line with our intent in drafting the BEAT interaction provisions in the corporate alternative minimum tax.

A commercial lawn mower could qualify as mobile machinery, since it performs a similar operation to the purposes listed in the statute. Therefore, if such a vehicle met the other criteria for the qualified commercial clean vehicle credit, it would be eligible.

Mr. President, this amendment would strike a four-tenths- of-a-cent-per-gallon fee on Big Oil refiners that helps pay for the cleanup of toxic waste spills, especially important to our low-income, historically disadvantaged communities.

One expert analysis found that our bill is going to decrease the average household's energy costs by $500 per year. So, for many consumers, the Superfund fee would be less than $10 a year, a fraction of the savings from our bill.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 5301

Madam President, I rise in opposition to my friend's amendment. We all agree here that taxpayers with less than $400,000 in taxable income should not face a tax increase. And there is language already--and I would like to note this--in the enforcement section of the bill that says just that.

But the Crapo amendment goes much further than that. It applies--and I quote here--``to taxpayers with taxable income.''

And as Americans have learned recently, billionaires often have little or no taxable income for years on end.

So under this amendment, the billionaires who live off their borrowings would be immune from audit, and that would invite further tax avoidance.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 5404

Madam President, I gather that this is the first of the motions to commit this legislation back to committee.

I want my colleagues to understand what this is really all about. These motions to commit are motions to kill this bill, period. And what that means is: Let's try to do everything we can to delay Democrats from being able to deliver for the American people lower prescription drug costs for the elderly, lower healthcare premiums, lower carbon emissions, lower energy costs, less tax cheating by the wealthy.

The Senate ought to be moving this legislation forward instead of trying to kill the bill through these motions to commit.

One last point, I gather we are going to have a bit more of this discussion.

I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds of additional time.

I urge opposition to the Scott proposal.

Vote on Motion to Commit

Mr. President, I oppose this amendment for two reasons. The first is, it would water down the new negotiations program, so it would be harder to negotiate over the most expensive drugs in Medicare today, including cancer drugs, which are at the top of our list. Second, it would water down the efforts at the Internal Revenue Service to beef up tax enforcement against wealthy tax cheats.

I would urge opposition to the Marshall amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 5389

Mr. President, unfortunately, this amendment is just bad news. This amendment lowers capital gains taxes, and it is more tax giveaways to the most fortunate.

And if you are a wealthy tax cheat, you can rest easy because Republican budget cuts at the IRS mean you can get away with breaking the law scot-free. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. President, once again, this sends the bill back to committee and kills Democratic efforts to reduce the cost of prescription medicine, reduce health insurance premiums, reduce carbon emissions, and crack down on wealthy tax cheats. And if you are a wealthy tax cheat, you can rest easily because Republican budget cuts at the IRS mean that you can get away with breaking the law scot-free.

I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Madam President, what Americans don't want is wealthy tax cheats to be able to rest easy because Republican budget cuts to the IRS mean that they can get away with breaking the law scot-free.

And I want everybody in this body to understand that, on our watch at the Finance Committee, we are watchdogging this Agency every single day because there is no evidence of what the Senator from Texas has said is going on with respect to the privacy of innocent Americans, and on our watch it is never going to.

I urge opposition.

Vote on Amendment No. 5263

Madam President, the Senator from Georgia is absolutely right in his description of this moral abomination where the citizens he represents have no healthcare decency. And he is right that it stems from the decisions of Republican Governors. He is talking about individuals with too much to qualify for Medicaid and not enough to get ACA subsidies.

Tragically--and I have talked with my colleague about this--to preserve the rest of this bill's health, climate, and tax policy, it is just not possible--as much as I want it--to get this fixed today.

I will just close by saying to my colleague that I will work with him every day, day in and day out, until his citizens get the healthcare decency he so correctly calls for this morning.

Reluctantly, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

This, again, is about delay, about postponing, about putting off the job that needs to be done. What the focus of this bill is all about is cutting costs.

What I have said to colleagues--and my friend, the Presiding Officer of the Senate, knows this--is that our bill on prescription drugs kicks in this fall. We really kick in on the efforts to hold down price gouging when medicine is going up faster than the rate of inflation.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this. We can't afford any further delay in priorities like saving senior citizens from their medicine costs.

Mr. President, there are no tax increases on small businesses in our bill. The only companies that are paying under our bill are corporations with at least $1 billion in profit per year.

Republicans are calling private equity giants and foreign corporations with at least $1 billion in profits small businesses because they want private equity and foreign corporations to get more favorable treatment. Rather than close loopholes for billion-dollar private equity firms, Republicans would raise taxes on those making less than $400,000 per year.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Vote on Amendment No. 5472

I am pleased to join the senior Senator from Nevada in this colloquy today to discuss sections 13701 and 13702 of the Inflation Reduction Act. These sections of the Inflation Reduction Act reflect the work of a variety of Members, but few Members have been as focused on geothermal energy than the Silver State's senior Senator.

I appreciate the question. For those unfamiliar with geothermal energy, it is generally produced by delivering geothermal brine and steam from underground reservoirs to the surface, where the resource then runs turbines to generate electricity. In some cases, there is a de minimis of amount of naturally occurring noncombustion emissions released in the renewable generating process and the electricity produced is considered emissions free.

Thanks in part to the relentless efforts from Senator Cortez Masto, the Inflation Reduction Act provides the same incentives for geothermal energy resources placed in service after December 31, 2024, as it does for electricity produced by solar, wind, and other renewable resources. Indeed, all geothermal energy is included among the resources meeting the definition of ``qualified facility'' for the purposes of the new sections 45Y and 48D included in the Inflation Reduction Act.

I thank my colleague from Nevada for her dedication to and leadership on geothermal energy incentives. I am pleased to have worked with her on these incentives, and I most certainly agree that electricity produced from geothermal resources property qualifies for the production and investment incentives provided by sections 13701 and 13702 of the Inflation Reduction Act. That has been my intent throughout the course of drafting this legislation. Geothermal resources are critical to our clean energy future, and I thank my colleague for her collaboration in developing these robust new tax credits for clean energy.

Madam President, Oregonians will soon gather to honor an American hero, Ethyle O'Neal. Ethyle will be posthumously awarded the Congressional Gold Medal next month in McMinnville, OR. When the Senate voted to award the medal to Ethyle and her fellow Civil Air Patrol volunteers from WWII, it was with the heroism and devotion to service she embodied in mind. Since I won't be able to attend the ceremony, I want to spend a few minutes today to honor her outstanding legacy, her service, the communities she bettered, and the family she has left behind.

Born and raised in my hometown, Portland, 14-year-old Ethyle E. Kremers was the first from her high school to volunteer for the Civil Air Patrol, or CAP. With the U.S. military tied up in WWII, the CAP was tasked with patrolling America's borders to detect threats, deter submarine attacks, and protect vital shipping lanes. Ethyle trained as a radio-communicator and support person, as well as taking on the responsibilities of cadet training at dozens of CAP camps across the country. Six years after joining the CAP, Ethyle used her training to single-handedly save the life of a young child and assist in the rescue of four more during the Vanport Flood disaster. For the rescues, she became the first CAP cadet to receive the program's highest honor, the Distinguished Service Award. Soon after, Ethyle joined the U.S. Air Force and trained as a medical laboratory assistant at Edwards Air Force Base, where she met her future husband Theodore O'Neal. The two went on to have four wonderful children: Timothy, Ken, Kathy, and Susie.

After years traveling with her family to Air Force bases around the world, Ethyle returned to Portland. She shortly resumed work with the CAP as commander of the Milwaukie and then Beaverton Cadet Squadrons. Tasked with training new recruits, Ethyle's dedication to the role was matched only by the compassion she showed to her cadets. Her family still remembers Ethyle inviting cadets over to her house to study and practice maneuvers around the dining room. For her service, Ethyle was awarded the CAP's highest award for adult officers, the Gill Robb Wilson Award, and the grade of lieutenant colonel. In addition to training new cadets, Ethyle began flying search and rescue sorties as a mission observer, took the role of director of cadet programs, earning numerous commendations for her work.

Ethyle was also an active member of her community outside of the CAP. For 13 years, she worked as a bus driver for children with special needs, ensuring education remained accessible for the most vulnerable in society. She also loved teaching local children to fly model rockets.

A model of selflessness, Ethyle's accomplishments survive her, reminding us that the efforts of a determined few can raise, or even save, the lives of many. Ethyle's success as a woman in the Armed Forces and work with children with special needs inspire me to continue my own work for these underrepresented groups. It is an honor to remember her achievements, and I can think of nobody more deserving of the Congressional Gold Medal. It is my sincere hope that her story continues to inspire the best in all who hear it, in Oregon and across the Nation.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to print the following letter in the Record.

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Hawaii for making these very important remarks today with respect to expanding access to family planning.

And, Senator Hirono, let me also, while you are on the floor, tell you how much I appreciate your leadership on the My Body, My Data Act. I am thrilled to be, I believe, one of your sponsors here in the Senate. It is hugely consequential, because we have known from even the draft Alito opinion that women were going to have their personal data weaponized against them.

I know you have a busy schedule, but I just wanted the body to know how extraordinarily important this is, because when we look at technology and, particularly, what technology can do today, what your legislation does--with our colleague from the House, Congresswoman Jacobs--is it gives us a chance to get back to the fundamental issue of privacy rights. We are going to start looking more at the contractual relationships between women and various companies because a lot of those privacy policies aren't worth the paper they are written on.

I just want you to know I am so honored to be your cosponsor on a very related piece of legislation. Your leadership has made a big difference.

I just say to my colleague, sometimes it is a little difficult to figure out where a piece of legislation is going. That is not the case with your bill. My Body, My Data sums it up.

Again, thank you so much for your leadership.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 4550

Mr. President, I also want to briefly touch on the important legislation that Senator Smith--my Pacific Northwest colleague--Senator Murray, and Senator Warner have recently introduced. They have an important proposal called the Expanding Access to Family Planning Act. I am proud to cosponsor this legislation. This is another area where Chair Murray and I work very closely together because a lot of these issues can often involve Medicaid, for example. And I just so appreciate my colleague bringing up her important bill with respect to family planning.

The proposition behind this is pretty straightforward. The Supreme Court overturned Roe against the will of the American people. States are criminalizing abortion. Many women and girls are now being forced to carry pregnancies to term and give birth. If they are going to stand by this forced-birth agenda, then you better guarantee basic health for women and families. That is really Senator Murray's challenge to Senate Republicans. You can't be pro-life and pro-family if you are against healthcare that saves lives and protects families.

The Murray legislation, with Senator Smith and Senator Warren--I am pleased to be for it today--is centered on a significant increase in what is known as title X funding, which goes to basic essential services like HIV tests, contraception, treatment for infections, and pregnancy counseling.

And one of those services is really so vitally important. I just want to mention it, and that is cancer screenings. Cancer screenings are a particularly important issue now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe. Over the last few weeks there have been a wave of these horrendous stories, as Senator Murray knows better than anyone, about the chaos this radical Supreme Court ruling has unleashed on women's healthcare-- drawn-out miscarriages, potentially fatal complications left untreated, physicians unsure of what treatments they are legally allowed to perform.

And we know one of the absolute nightmares for women living in forced-birth States is getting pregnant and having cancer at exactly the same time. And the question is: In a world where a miscarriage could lead to criminal charges, how do you treat a pregnant woman with cancer?

So we ought to think about that. And could getting chemo be a crime in a forced-birth State, Senator Murray? In forced-birth States, how many Americans are going to die because they waited too long to begin treatment for breast cancer or cervical cancer or because they didn't maybe get treated at all?

It is appalling that Americans are facing this kind of awful, I think, unthinkable situation, all because six Republicans on the Supreme Court threw 50 years of settled law on abortion rights into the dustbin.

In the parlance of the Senate, Senator Murray, I yield to you. I think your legislation is extraordinarily important.

Uh-oh. I have to reverse some parlance of the Senate and yield to Senator Klobuchar, who also has been a champion of this issue. And I just want the Senate to know, because we are in the Pacific Northwest, we talk about these issues. People ought to make no mistake about it-- Senator Murray has put years and years into the cause of women's health. And I really enjoy being junior partner in the whole effort and look forward to her leadership.

And I yield to Senator Klobuchar.

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

Mr. President, our economy is as resilient as any in the world. At the same time, we know that it is important to always look to modernize key economic policies, particularly as it relates to fundamental questions of research and development and also production and manufacturing, in order to create high-skilled, high-wage jobs from sea to shining sea.

Now, I come from a State that is a leader in technological innovation, not just for our country but for the world. Oregonians know how important it is to invest and make sure that the United States stays at the forefront of technological breakthroughs.

The reality is, when it comes to chips, we have some important work to do, so I want to take just a few minutes to describe why it is so essential for the Congress to get this legislation done now.

First of all, our bill is going to bring down costs for consumers and businesses. Everybody knows there are chips in laptops, phones, and cars, but there are also chips in refrigerators and even vacuum cleaners, as we saw at Stark's in Southeast Portland recently.

From the time you pick your head up off your pillow until the time you go to bed at night, you are interacting with chips. That is what made it such an economic nightmare when the pandemic hit and the supply of semiconductors got cut short. Prices for a host of important goods went into the stratosphere. Some products weren't available at all. Factories in America went dark because they couldn't get component parts. Anybody who has had to buy a car in the last few years probably can tell you a horror story about the buying process.

This legislation is going to go a long way to increasing the production and manufacturing of chips in this country and bringing down consumer costs and addressing the shortages by increasing the supply here in America.

That leads to my second point. Investing in domestic chip production is going to create a huge, huge number of good-paying jobs. Oregonians know well that the jobs at these chipmakers can become an economic fuel for a whole region in the country. We need to guarantee that investment happens here in America instead of overseas.

Third, the bill is going to help shore up our national security and our economic security. With respect to the economy, when there aren't enough chips to keep our factories running and our shelves stocked, workers and the American economic system suffer.

And when the vast majority of chips are produced in just a few sites overseas, there is a big risk that the United States won't be able to get its hands on the chips needed to keep the American people safe in a conflict.

I am a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. I can't get involved in classified matters that I have some access to. But I want everybody in the Senate to know this is a top-tier national security issue. Producing more chips here at home means that our economy will be more resilient for the days ahead and our country will be safer and more secure.

One last comment in this short statement. The Senate passed a larger version of this bill last year, and it included a trade package that Senator Crapo and I, our colleague from Idaho, worked together on. It focused on cracking down on China's worst trade abuses, including the horrendous practice of forced labor, including proposals that went after authoritarian censorship overseas and a growing danger of freedom of speech here in America.

I also sought to update the system for job training and workers' support, so key to our workers having access to high-skill, high-wage jobs. That trade package is not included in this slimmed-down version of the CHIPS legislation. I can promise, however, as chairman of the Finance Committee, we will keep working on these issues.

Cracking down on trade cheats, fighting for investments and jobs in America is at the top of the priority list for the Finance Committee. I look forward to continuing our work on those issues in the weeks and months ahead.

This legislation is long overdue. It is a serious, fresh commitment to innovation in America. I am proud that I was able to lead the effort in the Senate Finance Committee to focus on producing and manufacturing more semiconductors in America. It is hugely important for my State, which really does research and development for the entire country. But it is important for all Americans every single day because, from the time you get up in the morning until the time you go to bed at night, you are using these chips. This is, in my view, the first step of many that we have to take to promote more innovation and the path to creating high-skill and high-wage jobs in America.

Let's take the first step with this important legislation. Pass this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote for it later when we get to the final vote.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in a few minutes, I am going to put forward a request for the Senate to confirm the nomination of Rebecca Jones Gaston to serve as Commissioner on Children, Youth, and Families within the Department of Health and Human Services. I briefly want to talk about why her confirmation is so important and what makes her the right person for the job.

The Administration on Children, Youth, and Families may not grab national headlines every day, but its work is essential to the well- being of millions of young people and families across the land. That is particularly true for vulnerable children, including those in the child welfare system.

One of its big jobs over the last few years has been the implementation of the Family First Prevention Services Act. The landmark reform of the child welfare system was written by the Finance Committee on a bipartisan basis. And for colleagues who remember the late Orrin Hatch, who cared so much about children and particularly welfare reform, this and the extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program for 10 years--the longest extension ever--were the two bills for children that Chairman Hatch really felt strongly about.

The underlying goal of the legislation, which I was proud to cosponsor with him, was simple. The foster care system was breaking families up too often. We designed the Family First Act to keep families together whenever it was safe and possible to do so. Maybe a grandparent is the right person to step in as a caretaker for their grandkids. I have been particularly involved in having grandparents play a bigger role in our human services programs. It is known as kinship care. We have been working on it for well over a decade. Chairman Hatch helped us expand it. Maybe all that is needed for a

family to thrive is to help with mental healthcare for mom or dad. And with a little more flexibility in the program, a little more support, more families stay together and get ahead.

The underlying goal that Chairman Hatch and I had was simple, but implementation has certainly been a challenge. It has required a lot of close collaboration between the Department of Health and Human Services, the Finance Committee, and State and local agencies.

My view is, when you are talking about reforms dealing with the well- being of our youngest, particularly most vulnerable kids, it is just critical to get it right. That is why Rebecca Jones Gaston is the right person to lead the Administration on Children, Youth, and Families. She serves as the child welfare director for Oregon's Department of Human Services. She is showing herself to be an effective leader and a strong advocate for the vulnerable. She served in a similar role in the State of Maryland under a Republican Governor. So this is somebody who shows up every single day, willing to work with elected officials on both sides of the aisle. All in all, she brings nearly 25 years of experience in public policy dealing with support for families and children.

The Finance Committee approved her nomination on a bipartisan basis in March. My view is, the full Senate has waited long enough. Ms. Gaston is a highly qualified nominee, and the Administration on Children, Youth, and Families needs a confirmed leader.

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 763, Rebecca E. Jones Gaston to be Commissioner on Children, Youth, and Families, Department of Health and Human Services; 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 any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, just speaking briefly again, let me tell my colleague from Tennessee that I have very much enjoyed working with him on various policies here in the Senate.

My understanding is that my colleague believes that his State has some ideas for showing that you can essentially meet Medicaid standards for health services for vulnerable people and that the State of Tennessee is interested in trying out some new approaches. I want to assure my colleague that we are interested in hearing more about this. There is a specific waiver provision, for example, in the Affordable Care Act to try out new approaches consistent with these guardrails so that people actually get healthcare coverage. My colleague has said to me that he is interested in pursuing those kinds of ideas. I want him to know that the Finance Democratic staff is available to hear his staff out on this, and I hope we can work it out, and I hope we can move Rebecca Gaston quickly.

This is a program that really makes a difference. Prior to Chairman Hatch working with me on this, we had essentially two alternatives for these vulnerable kids, neither of them particularly valuable. One was just sending the kids off to foster care--some of those facilities are good; some of them, not so good--or keeping them at home in a less than desirable situation. What we did on a bipartisan basis is find a third path for these vulnerable youngsters, where, for example, if a parent was having difficulty with alcohol or drugs, they could get treatment and stay as the parent.

So this is an important program. Rebecca Gaston knows how to run it well. I want to see her confirmed as quickly as possible, and I want to tell my colleague I recognize his concern today and will be interested in following up with him and his staff to hear more about the program in the days ahead.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, many colleagues want to speak, and I am going to be brief.

The name of Senator Cortez Masto's bill sums up what this is really all about. The Senator has proposed--and she is a former attorney general, a very skilled lawyer--she has proposed legislation, the Freedom to Travel for Health Care Act. I just want us to take a second to think about the name of my colleague from Nevada's legislation.

I would submit to the Senate that you know something has gone horribly wrong in America when the Senate is forced to consider a proposal entitled the ``Freedom to Travel for Health Care Act.'' Colleagues, just look at those words, the ``freedom to travel for health care.'' My colleague has introduced a bill that is as basic as it gets--freedom.

The fact is, six Republicans on the Supreme Court have ripped that freedom out by the roots. Now State governments are moving toward criminalizing travel for healthcare. They are even moving towards criminalizing helping--helping--people travel for healthcare. That is unthinkable, in my view, except millions and millions of Americans are, in fact, thinking about it and being terrified every single day.

In my home State of Oregon, we are fortunate to live in a State that protects women's health and women's basic freedoms. My home State is going to be there for people to get the healthcare they need, including an abortion.

But the fight cannot be left up to the States. That is why I am so pleased to stand with my colleague from Nevada, Senator Cortez Masto, and my partner from the Pacific Northwest, Senator Murray, to call for the Senate to pass legislation with the name the ``Freedom to Travel for Health Care Act.'' What my colleague's legislation does is protect women and doctors, and she does it by protecting a constitutional right--the constitutional right to interstate travel.

Colleagues, even 3 weeks after the ruling that overturned Roe, it is shocking and appalling to see what has come next. We see States sprinting towards banning and criminalizing abortion outright. Are you a victim of rape or incest? No exceptions. Are you a child? You will still be forced to birth a child. Is your life in danger if you carry a pregnancy to term? You better get your affairs in order. That is the world millions and millions of American women are living in now that the Republicans on the Supreme Court have ripped away Roe v. Wade. More women's lives are in danger. More American freedoms are disappearing.

The legislation proposed by my colleague from Nevada is as basic as it gets. The Senate needs to act now, and it needs to act without any further delay.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this is an exciting time for my home State of Oregon. The eyes of the sports world are turning to the city of Eugene, where thousands of elite athletes have arrived for the World Athletics Championships that start Friday.

For those who may not have been paying attention, Eugene, OR, is known in track-and-field circles as TrackTown USA. Eugene has fewer than 200,000 residents, but it punches far above its weight as one of the athletic capitals of the world, particularly the newly rebuilt Hayward Field on campus at the University of Oregon.

My view is, you are not going to find a better track-and-field venue anywhere else. And that is not only because it is where the Oregon Ducks routinely fly past the competition; it is the home of track and field in the United States dating back decades to when Bill Hayward first had his vision for the sports in Eugene.

It is a vision that picked up speed when Oregon's own Steve Prefontaine provided drills for me when I was a law school student at the University of Oregon, as well as millions of running fans the world over. And, of course, Hayward Field has been home for Olympics trials in greatness, as well as dominance by my fellow Ducks in college meets.

The legacy of athletics in Eugene is a big reason why it is the first ever American city to host the World Athletics Championships. This year, the games are known as Oregon22.

Two thousand top Olympic-level athletes are going to compete. They come from nearly 200 countries. They are the best of the best, ready to break records and make their home countries proud.

A little bit ago, I was home, and I talked with the fantastic team of workers who have been working for years on this event. It has been a colossal team effort carrying the baton over the line, but now, the games are about to start. And I can tell you an awful lot of Oregonians are thrilled at the prospect of witnessing this level of unique competition in person at Hayward Field and across the Willamette River in the streets of Springfield.

This is also a spectacular showcase for my home State. Not only is Eugene playing host to thousands of athletes, organizers, staff, media, and fans, the games will be broadcast to an audience of a billion people around the world--let me repeat that--a billion people who are going to learn something about what makes my home State so special and different.

London has hosted this competition. Paris has hosted this competition. Tokyo has hosted this competition. Now it is our turn in Eugene, OR, and I could not be more proud.

So, Mr. President, I would just say everybody ought to tune in from July 15 to July 24. The athletes are going to put on an amazing show, and so is my home State of Oregon.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am honored to recognize Karen Fisher for her decades of leadership toward innovation and systematic change to improve the health of Americans. Karen may be retiring from a momentous health policy career, but the Nation will long feel the positive impact of her work.

From 2011 to 2016, the Senate Finance Committee was fortunate to benefit from Karen's expertise on the Medicare program and other key health policy issues. Serving as senior health counsel, Karen led the committee's work in 2015 to permanently repeal the outdated and flawed sustainable growth rate--SGR--formula previously used to determine Medicare physician payments and to replace it with a new payment system that advances value-based care for the millions who rely on the Medicare program as a lifeline.

In addition to her historic role in permanently retiring the SGR, Karen oversaw legislative activities related to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation--CMMI--and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute--PCORI--as she uplifted the transformative effect alternative payment models could have in driving greater commitments to quality and value in healthcare. She also served--and continues to serve--as a mentor to early-career staff on the Committee and across Capitol Hill, offering professional guidance and networking opportunities for the next generation of female leaders.

At the Association of American Medical Colleges--AAMC--Karen has continued her commitment to improve healthcare through public policy. Throughout her nearly 6 years as chief public policy officer, the AAMC has been an important voice on the need to expand access to healthcare nationwide by strengthening coverage through both the Affordable Care Act and the Medicaid program and by addressing shortages of physicians and other health professionals.

Her more than 25 years of experience also have been an essential asset during the COVID pandemic, as she liaised between Federal policymakers and the academic medicine community to support the heroic efforts of the country's health professionals and scientists in treating patients, expanding access to telehealth, developing and administering COVID tests, advancing research on new countermeasures, developing and deploying vaccines, and enhancing health equity interventions.

I know that I speak for health policy professionals nationwide as I express my gratitude for Karen's dedication, talent, mentorship, leadership, and persistence in public service and in betterment of the Nation's health.

Thank you, Karen. I am wishing you and your family all the best for a very well-deserved retirement.