Floor Statements

Madam President and colleagues, I am going to talk for just

a few minutes about vote-by-mail. I think Senator Klobuchar will probably be joining me.

Madam President and colleagues, I am the first U.S. Senator to be elected completely by mail. The second U.S. Senator elected completely by mail was my friend, Republican Gordon Smith, a Senator well known to many here in this body.

The country looked up and its first experience, colleagues, with vote-by-mail was thoroughly bipartisan--one Democrat, one Republican, who, as it happened, after running against each other, got along very well and did a lot together.

As the country began to get its arms around vote-by-mail, it was bipartisan and the bipartisan efforts to build on it really took off. They took off all across the country until President Donald Trump got elected and began to spew all these lies about vote-by-mail. So then something that was completely bipartisan suddenly became very partisan. What I want to do is rebuild that bipartisanship. My colleagues seem to say that is what they want. And the fact is, vote-by-mail is the gold standard for casting an informed vote, particularly for working people, seniors, and others, who would like the time, the opportunity in their living rooms and their kitchens, to look at the ballot and consider the various alternatives.

And in that effort now to undo the damage done by Donald Trump to vote-by-mail and in the name of restoring bipartisanship, which is what it is all about--and I can just tell my colleagues, our late secretary of state, Dennis Richardson, used to say he was about the most conservative person who ever lived. He basically told Donald Trump to go fly a kite when it came to vote-by-mail. Dennis Richardson, our late secretary of state, a staunch conservative, said the reality is there hadn't been fraud; it worked very effectively. You are off base.

So in the hope of being able to restore that bipartisanship, I want to ask a question of the distinguished chair of the Rules Committee. Then, I will wrap up very quickly, and we can move on. But we have had an awful lot of revisionist history with respect to vote-by-mail.

Senator Klobuchar, I know the Rules Committee, under your leadership, has dug into the history. Utah--bright red Utah--votes by mail. Senator Klobuchar, take us through that history and then I will close.

Madam President, let me close very quickly.

The fact is, we can bring about the bipartisanship that many of my Republican colleagues have been talking about over the last 4\1/2\ hours. It is doable. It is possible to do it in a way that builds on a practical gold standard for informed voting used in Oregon, used in bright-red Utah, and it is what we had until 2020, when Donald Trump tried to preempt the progress we were making because, in every rally, he would talk about all this fraud, for example. Fraud, Madam President--the last analysis of fraud in Oregon is 0.00001 percent of all votes cast.

So we can get back to what the Republicans have been talking about over the last 4\1/2\ hours, but the way you are going to have to do it is they are going to have to go to Donald Trump and tell him: Look, we just don't agree with you on this.

And that is the kind of leadership that we need. We saw it in Oregon. We saw it in Utah. We have seen it now from sea to shining sea. That is what it is going to take.

I want my Republican colleagues to know that we will meet them more than half way, but they are going to have to start taking on Donald Trump's lies on these issues if we are going to have that bipartisanship that my colleagues have been talking about this morning.

Mr. President, I wish to honor a dedicated and creative organization serving communities throughout Oregon and the Nation, celebrating 20 years of allowing senior citizens to stay in their homes while providing access to affordable care and community. The Village Movement is founded on the principle of neighborliness and provides comfort, care, and affordability while maintaining dignity.

This wonderful movement started in 2002 with a group of community- dedicated friends who did not want to leave their community in retirement. Intent upon staying, the friends launched the Beacon Hill Village in Massachusetts to provide residents who were 50 and older practical support and confidence to stay in their homes and live their lives independently.

This idea soon caught on, with similar villages springing up all over the country, including in Oregon. There are now 14 villages throughout Oregon bringing services to senior citizens in the comfort of their own homes. The Movement supports what is often called ``aging in place'' by developing a nurturing network of volunteers and access to services and social opportunities that are both sustainable and community-based.

Every village is member-driven and self-governing, allowing them to respond to the needs of each community. The Movement has also expanded to include adults of all ages living with disabilities, preserving the humanity and dignity that is so important in every stage of life.

I have long viewed aging in place as a bedrock principle for improving quality of life for seniors and those with disabilities. Years ago, I started the Independence at Home Program, which helped primary care providers visit frail seniors in their homes. This helped them avoid unnecessary and potentially dangerous travel and remain in their homes longer than they would have otherwise.

I have also been proud to lead legislation as a part of the Build Back Better agenda that would put home care on a more even playing field with institutional care. These important efforts can build on one another, alongside organizations like the Village Movement, to create a rich tapestry of health and social supports for Americans as they age.

Without a doubt, the Village Movement has set a fine example of how communities can help support their neighbors. It is an honor to recognize the Village Movement for its service to the United States-- and Oregon in particular.

Mr. President, before he leaves, I want to thank my colleague from Massachusetts. We have worked often together on these democracy issues, and I look forward to doing that in the days ahead.

I also want to commend Senator Klobuchar from Minnesota because she has been our point person on the Rules Committee, which is central to this whole debate. I think we all understand what is at stake. That is what my colleagues have been outlining. And I think we have been very fortunate to have Senator Klobuchar at the helm. She and I have worked together on one of the issues I am going to talk about, vote by mail, but I just want people to understand how valuable she has been.

Mr. President and colleagues, a year ago today, not far from where we stand this afternoon, domestic terrorists tried to beat our democracy to the ground. They might have been successful were it not for the police officers who defended our democracy as they were viciously attacked and beaten. Before anything else is said, in my view, by an elected official, we need to salute these officers and all those who work day in and day out alongside them here in the Capitol. For their courage, we ought to be internally grateful.

The insurrection on January 6 was instigated by the former President, who wanted to undo the results of a democratic election. Let's also understand that, unfortunately, inciting the mob wasn't the end of it. Donald Trump didn't exactly walk quietly off into the sunset after the Biden inauguration. The effort to undermine our democracy, to end free and fair elections in America, goes on as we speak.

Support for the Big Lie is essentially unchanged from where it was a year ago. An awful lot of Republicans who said after January 6 that they were done with the former President have cozied back up to him just 12 months later. The only reason the mob is not here today is Donald Trump didn't summon them back.

Now, in my view, it is our job to ensure that another attack like this, or by any other means, never succeeds. We will have more to say about those issues in the days ahead.

In my view, protecting the vote has got to be step one in protecting democracy. A guiding principle for the Senate must be that while politics may guide a citizen's vote, it should never determine whether they are allowed to vote. To act otherwise would undermine the very foundations of a representative democracy, empowering voters with a system built on integrity and accountability, a system that promotes participation rather than discourages it, a system with a real history of bipartisanship.

I say to the Presiding Officer and colleagues, that is the kind we have in my home State of Oregon. Oregon believes so strongly in the right to vote that everybody gets a ballot sent straight to their home.

I am honored to say that I was the first U.S. Senator elected in an all vote-by-mail election. Back then, it was Oregon Republicans who were pushing to expand vote-by-mail. A Democratic Governor even vetoed a vote-by-mail bill in 1995. Right after my election, the Oregon Republicans flipped back, and vote-by-mail was suddenly, oh, so bad.

Everything flipped a few months later, when my friend, Gordon Smith, a Republican from eastern Oregon, became the second U.S. Senator to be elected by mail. At this point, Oregon voters said: We have just had it with everybody looking for some kind of partisan slant here. We just think vote-by-mail is a really terrific idea. They went out to vote on a ballot measure, and they chose to make Oregon's elections all vote- by-mail, passing it with 70 percent of the vote in 1998.

This, in my view, was the culmination of a process that started 40 years ago with some local elections in Linn County, a small county in the western part of our State. It grew and grew from there. Election officials learned that when you let people vote at home, participation goes up, and the costs go down.

One of the biggest defenders of Oregon's vote-at-home system was the late Dennis Richardson. He was our secretary of state. And by his characterization, he was about as conservative--a Republican as you could get.

But when the Trump era came along and people criticized our elections and said, ``Oh, there is all this fraud,'' spouting lies about it, the late Dennis Richardson stood up and said: I am a conservative Republican. They are wrong. They are wrong in what they are saying about Oregon.

He even wrote to Donald Trump in 2017: ``We are confident that voter fraud in last November's election did not occur in Oregon.''

Every election now, young Oregonians watch their parents voting around their kitchen table, and it is a real inspiration to the next generation to make sure they are committed voters. Voting at home gives you the opportunity to be more informed. If there is a particular measure, initiative, or a race that you haven't researched, you get time to look into the options.

When you are done, your ballot goes into a security envelope, you sign the outside, and off it goes. For me, that is when I head from our home in Southeast Portland to the Sellwood branch of the Multnomah County Public Library, drop my ballot in the collection box, and head home--no long lines, no glitchy touchscreen systems, just hassle-free voting.

A recent analysis in the Election Law Journal said that of all 50 States, voting is easiest in Oregon. And Senator Klobuchar, I have heard colleagues go back and forth to say who is No. 1 in participation and who is No. 1 in all of these aspects. And I think, like a number of other States, we are all kind of competing for the highest turnout rates. We get some of the highest in the country. We have been a leader in terms of increasing turnout among Black and Latino voters. Voter registration is automatic. It is as easy as a trip to the Department of Motor Vehicles.

For myself--and Senator Klobuchar and I have talked about this so often over the years--I have been proposing legislation to have universal at-home voting since 2002. That is what my Vote at Home Act would do. It would give every American the right to vote the Oregon way, the vote that my neighbors and I can do. I will say here on the Senate floor that I guarantee that, if you do it the Oregon way, it will be a nationwide hit immediately.

Letting people vote at home is also the best defense against some of the really horrendous methods of suppressing the vote; for example, what we have seen over the last few years with State and local governments shutting polling places, particularly ones that serve Black and Latino voters--what unforgivable actions.

These days, in some areas, Republicans are making it illegal to give food and water to people standing in line to vote. It shouldn't be a test of physical stamina to be able to vote. Nobody should have to wonder if they will be able to vote if they step out of line to go to a bathroom. Nobody should have to sacrifice an entire day to participate in this incredible, incredible democratic system that is America.

That is why I proposed the People Over Long Lines Act, called the POLL Act. The bill says State governments have to guarantee that everybody who votes in person can do so within 30 minutes. Anybody who is forced to wait longer has a legal action they can bring. If they sue and win, it is 50 bucks for waiting longer than 30 minutes and 50 bucks more for every hour after that.

A free bit of advice to States: Get ready. Make sure people don't have to wait in lines. One of the best ways to make sure they don't have to wait in lines is to let them vote at home.

It is not just Oregon, by the way, that votes by mail. And I think, Senator Klobuchar, we heard some of our colleagues talk about their States and voting by mail. If you need another example, let's think about the U.S. Armed Forces. Most servicemembers and their families vote by mail in every election. All of the people who wear the uniform of the United States can vote by mail in every Federal election. It has been that way for decades.

So the bottom line is that we think it is time to get the Oregon system into every nook and cranny in America. We feel that way because it works. It raises voter participation, it lowers the cost of running elections, it helps voters be more informed, and it is safe and secure. And if you are resisting safe and efficient elections with higher voter turnout, then you are suppressing democracy in America.

My home State of Oregon shows the way to preserve America.

I am going to close my remarks, but I think we will have Senator Klobuchar speak for all of us here in a moment. But, in my closing, I want to touch just for a moment on my family that I am so proud of.

My German family fled their homeland, a place where they were deeply rooted in that nation's society, as my grandfather was a Member of Parliament and served on the Berlin city council.

My family was forced, as Jews, to flee the fascists who had taken over their democracy. They fled to America as the last remaining beacon of freedom. With that freedom, my dad chose to serve in our Army, which fought against German fascism, and my dad has been recognized for his unique contributions.

We were so thrilled, for example, to have the Senators from Maryland talk about the Ritchie Boys. My dad was one of the Ritchie Boys, a German kid who taught himself English so he could be out there fighting the Nazis. And I remember the good work of the Senators from Maryland and how thrilled our family was about that.

My dad was about the greatest patriot around. He felt he was so lucky to be an American, to be in our Army, to stand up for American values. And my final remark here today is about my dad. If my dad were alive today, he would tell us: Senators, make sure that the light in America's beacon of freedom never goes out.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, in a few minutes, I will be putting forward a unanimous consent request asking the Senate to take up and approve a highly qualified and noncontroversial nominee.

I will just take a couple of minutes to talk about Maria Pagan, nominated to be the next Deputy U.S. Trade Representative in Geneva. There are a few key points to make about the nominee, as well as the critical role she will serve representing the United States at the World Trade Organization to get a better deal for American workers, farmers, and businesses.

To start, Ms. Pagan isn't new to high-pressure, high-profile negotiations. She is currently deputy general counsel at the U.S. Trade Representative's Office, the person called in when issues are particularly challenging. She has taken on these difficult issues during numerous trade agreement negotiations, including the U.S.- Mexico-Canada Agreement. She was in lockstep with Members of Congress who pushed hard to guarantee that the commitments laid out in the USMCA were fully and quickly enforceable, a key priority for protecting American jobs.

She has been a longtime public servant, spending 30 years in government. She has served both Republican and Democratic administrations at the Department of Commerce and at USTR. She is an expert on a host of issues from trade in services to government procurement, and she has litigated several disputes before the WTO.

She is highly qualified. She is a nominee who brings the two sides of the Senate together. The Finance Committee vote on her nomination was 27 to 1.

I would just say, at this point in time, that is about as good as it gets.

Colleagues, I have said before that it is crucial to get qualified people to the office representing the United States around the world. It is important to have these skilled individuals working on behalf of our workers, our businesses, and our interests. This nomination is particularly important to me.

It is no secret that the World Trade Organization, which can be a valuable institution, is not today functioning as it needs to. The rules that underpin the WTO were crafted more than two decades ago. These 20th century rules have simply not kept up with 21st century technology.

Meanwhile, the Chinese Government has learned to game the system. It does so routinely at the expense of hard-working American families.

As a result, the process of leveling the playing field with trade rules based on fairness have been overtaken by the exploitation of loopholes and rip-offs. In many cases, that comes at the direct expense of American workers and American businesses.

With her decades of experience, Ms. Pagan understands these challenges as well as anyone. From day one after her confirmation, she will hit the ground running to lead our allies in fighting back.

For example, one area that I feel particularly strongly about is that new rules are desperately needed to deal with subsidized fisheries. Harmful subsidies are allowing fleets to reach distant shores of less developed countries like Ecuador and Ghana. They are stripping the ocean of fish without regard to species or regulations or basic decency. These highly subsidized, poorly regulated fleets rely on abhorrent labor practices--including forced labor. Worst of all, their catch ends up in American supermarkets and on American tables.

Oregon fishing families who trade in fairly and sustainably caught U.S. salmon, pollack, and other fish simply should not be asked to compete against that kind of horrendous cheating.

Negotiations on this issue have been dragging on for over 20 years, and I can tell you, the 20 years have not improved the situation for our oceans and for our families.

The 12th Ministerial Conference, which was delayed last week due to the new COVID variant, is another really important chance to get these negotiations finally done. The outcome has to be strong. It can't open, once again, harmful new loopholes.

These meetings have been rescheduled to the spring. The United States needs tough, smart leadership at the table. Ms. Pagan, with her years of negotiation, is just the closer, just the kind of person the United States needs.

There are no shortages of other issues that Ms. Pagan will have to tackle at the World Trade Organization, from institutional reform to dispute settlement, to e-commerce. The United States needs a leader who can work with our allies to get it all done. She is the right woman for the job.

Maria Pagan is a highly qualified, experienced nominee. She is a proven negotiator, a strong advocate for workers, farmers, and businesses. She comes, as I have indicated, with strong, 27-to-1, bipartisan support in the Senate Finance Committee. There is just no justification for any delay in moving this nomination forward.

I will have more to say when I ask unanimous consent, briefly, in a bit.

And, at this moment, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent, notwithstanding rule XXII, if applicable, at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Republican leader, that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar No. 547, Maria L. Pagan, of Puerto Rico, to be a Deputy United States Trade Representative (Geneva Office), with the rank of Ambassador; that there be 10 minutes of debate, equally divided in the usual form on the nomination; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination; that if the nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with to intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Madam President, there has been an objection. Let me be very brief. We have a lot to do still tonight.

As the new COVID variant surges around the globe and threatens Americans here at home and millions around the world, the United States needs to do everything possible to get shots in arms, including having the right people in Geneva to find solutions to the availability and distribution of vaccines.

COVID continues to be a deadly crisis, and we should be working in every way possible to make sure that the Biden team has a group that can reach agreement on a TRIPS waiver and any other trade-based solutions.

I look forward to continuing efforts to talk with my colleague from Utah. This is urgent business. We have to get it worked out.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, reserving the right to object.

Madam President, let me just say at the outset, I strongly, strongly, strongly agree with my colleagues--Senator Rubio and my friend from Oregon Senator Merkley--that the United States has to fight genocide and the scourge of forced labor taking place in Western China and elsewhere around the world.

As the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, one of my special priorities--one that we worked on for quite some time--has been to tackle this issue of forced labor. It goes back to work that Senator Brown and I did in 2015 to close an unjustifiable loophole that allowed an exception to the ban on products made with forced labor. Not only is it morally abhorrent, it is also a major trade rip-off that undermines American workers.

On the Finance Committee, we believe that the Senate needs to look at every opportunity to protect good-paying American jobs and help workers and their families get ahead. That means that the Senate has got to be prepared to tackle multiple challenges at once.

Right now, the urgent issue for so many American families is the potential expiration of child tax credit payments on January 1. Families received their sixth child tax credit payment today. It could be the last if this body does not act.

Families have come to depend on these payments to cover the essentials like rent, groceries, heat, and clothing for their kids.

Just recently, I was home in Oregon, and I asked people what they spend the child tax credit on, and they said: ``Ron, we spend it on things like shoes.''

And in our part of the world, it gets cold; it gets wet. We are not talking about luxury; we are talking about shoes for children.

Food insecurity among families dropped by about 25 percent since these child tax credit payments began. Child poverty has been cut nearly in half.

This program, in my view, is like Social Security for kids and vulnerable families. We never let Social Security checks for vulnerable seniors lapse.

For anybody who questions how valuable this program has been to American families, I want to just very briefly touch on a few messages that we have gotten from parents in a cross-section of communities across the country about how the child tax credit has helped them:

A parent in Kentucky: ``It helped me with fuel for my car and provided me enough to buy my daughter a few things she needed.''

A parent in New York: ``It's helped take the burden off our family. My husband lost his job during COVID but since found another job, but the gap of the job loss was heavy.''

A parent in Alabama: ``I was able to buy my daughter her school clothes.''

A parent in New Hampshire: ``It has helped me tremendously especially when school was starting.''

So the message from American parents, from sea to shining sea, is the child tax credit has been vital to so many American families and lowering the cost of raising a family, ensuring they can provide that basic level of security all children deserve.

So at this point, I would ask, would the Senator from Florida modify his request to include the adoption of my amendment that is at the desk to extend the child tax credit for 1 year and pass the bill as amended?

Madam President, reserving the right to object.

Madam President, I listened carefully to my colleague from Florida, and because of his objection, there isn't going to be an opportunity for the Senate to take two bold steps tonight.

I already indicated--made it very clear--that I am completely sympathetic to my colleague from Florida, my colleague from Oregon, to the fight against genocide and forced labor. They got me at ``hello'' on their proposition.

I also feel incredibly strongly--incredibly strongly--about our vulnerable children and our vulnerable families who are going to be cut off from an essential lifeline unless the U.S. Senate acts.

And, unfortunately, because of the objection from my colleague from Florida, we are not going to have a chance to take two bold steps tonight. That is what I am for. That is what I believe the American people are for.

You bet we are against forced labor. You bet we are against genocide. But we also have had a long tradition of standing up for vulnerable kids, vulnerable families, and tonight we could have obtained two bold objectives here in the U.S. Senate.

I think it is unfortunate that my colleague from Florida is unwilling to do that. Vulnerable families are going to be hurt as a result of the objection. I just want the Senate to know there was another way. There was another way we could have stood with the effort to deal with genocide and forced labor and protected families. They weren't mutually exclusive. We could have done both. I think it is unfortunate the Senate is not doing it.

I object.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote on President Biden's nomination of my neighbor and fellow Oregonian, Jennifer Sung, to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

I guess I ought to save everybody some suspense. I am proud to support her nomination, and I just want to take a few minutes to talk about why she deserves the support of all Senators.

First, with respect to her qualifications, Ms. Sung is a graduate of Oberlin College and Yale Law School. As a student, she volunteered to represent low-income patients at a local hospital. As a legal fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, she fought on behalf of workers who toiled in poor conditions for little pay. In private practice, she defended the rights of all people in our country to work in safe and fair conditions, to get the healthcare they need, and to freely exercise their constitutional rights.

Currently, Ms. Sung serves as a member of Oregon's Employment Relations Board. That is the board that adjudicates disputes over labor practices and employment law. She has decided more than 200 cases in that role. She has proven her impartiality, which I think we all understand is fundamental to what we need in a justice. And she has certainly shown her diligence and her commitment to justice. Her qualifications, in my view, simply cannot be questioned.

Second, I have had the chance to get to know Ms. Sung personally since her nomination, and what struck me is we both have a family story that is only possible here in our great country. Members of her family fled political persecution and violence in China in the 1940s--the Wydens fled the terror or Nazis just a few years earlier--and they barely spoke any English when they arrived here in their new home.

Our country provided safety and opportunity for my family and for Ms. Sung's family. And I have always found that so many who have that family story take a special interest in protecting the rights and the freedoms Americans enjoy. That has been a hallmark of Ms. Sung's legal career, and it is something, in my view, that all Senators ought to support.

So I am proud to describe my Southeast Portland neighbor, Jennifer Sung, as a talented, committed individual who will be a great asset on the bench. She is going to be a superb judge.

I urge all my colleagues to support Jennifer Sung when we vote soon on President Biden's nomination, Oregonian Jennifer Sung, to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Reserving the right to object, Madam President.

Madam President and colleagues, I yield to no Senator in my support of this country's senior citizens. My background, colleagues, I was codirector of the Oregon Gray Panthers, the senior citizens group, for almost 7 years before I went into public life.

And I know that there is no Senator here who doesn't support senior citizens, farmers, the extraordinarily important Americans that my colleagues have been talking about.

But what really has not been explained here--because we all kind of talk this special lingo around here--is what my colleagues really seek to do in the Kennedy amendment.

What my colleague from Louisiana wishes to do is rip up an agreement reached between Democrats and Republicans. Specifically, colleagues, Senators Schumer and McConnell. So what they did is reach a bipartisan agreement to defuse an economic timebomb by creating a process to avoid default.

Senator Kennedy's proposal sticks a flame right back under that fuse. Now,

the two parties obviously have different approaches when it comes to gamesmanship around this country's financial commitments. Setting all of that aside, the fact is our country is now way too close to default for the Senate to be playing games.

This debate is almost entirely about financial commitments made under past Presidents. It doesn't have anything to do with legislation that is still in the works. That is a fact. The reality is my colleague from Louisiana seeks to bring the country closer to default. The Senate ought to be clear on the consequences if that were to come to pass.

Default would be an economic disaster for our country as well as for individual families and businesses. And, again, colleagues, since senior citizens came up so frequently, this has been my particular passion. It is why I went into public service. Social Security stops going out. Military could stop getting paid. Interest rates go into the stratosphere, making existing Federal debt even more expensive, if you go forward with this proposal.

Costs go up for families who want to buy homes or buy cars. Getting a small business loan becomes more expensive. Jobs across the country are wiped out amid this turmoil. And all of that would happen right in the middle of the holidays, when Americans are simply trying to enjoy their time with families, go out and shop for presents, and enjoy their time together.

My view is, after almost 2 years of pandemic and economic chaos, people have had it hard enough. And two leaders--a Democrat and a Republican--have come together because they understand the Senate doesn't need to add another catastrophe to their financial challenges, the challenges I just described--one, by the way, that would be entirely self-made.

There is an agreement before the Senate, colleagues; an agreement between the Republican leader and the Democratic leader. That agreement brought the two sides together. My colleagues must not throw that agreement away. And I respect all my colleagues--all of them--but I just believe that this proposal from the Senator from Louisiana is misguided. It brings our country closer to default.

Therefore, I object.

Reserving the right to object.

Madam President, now, my colleague from South Carolina began his remarks with two of my very favorite subjects: supporting America's senior citizens and playing in the NBA, a lifetime dream of mine.

But the fact is, this unanimous consent request from my colleague is essentially a different way to do the same thing as the Kennedy request. And, colleagues, it is wrong for exactly the same reason.

The prospect of default is not simply a matter of the two sides squaring off over who has got the best talking points. The fact is, default would just be an economic disaster.

I just laid out what it would mean for our small businesses and our folks who depend on keeping interest rates from shooting into the stratosphere, and the military would have difficulty getting paid. That is not what America wants.

Colleagues, I was just home this weekend. I got around my State, and what people said overwhelmingly is--they said: ``Hey, I heard you guys just got together''--I say to my friend from South Carolina--``and you guys got an agreement on keeping the government open. Heard that wasn't going to happen.''

And then they said: ``Ron, what you have always tried to do since those Gray Panther days''--and my colleague from South Carolina knows I always try to be bipartisan.

They said: ``Keep it going. Keep going with that bipartisan effort.''

Now, they are listening to a debate about my colleagues trying to bust up an agreement between the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer, and the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, to make sure we pay the bills for costs that have been incurred.

So my colleague from South Carolina has asked for consent, and I think it would be a mistake for this country and be a mistake particularly for our country's senior citizens that I have devoted so much time to. For that reason, I object.

Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote on the nomination of Chief Chris Magnus to lead the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office, and I was very pleased that the Senate Finance Committee could advance this important nomination.

I want to give the Senate a brief assessment of why I think Chief Magnus is going to handle his job very well.

He brings a unique combination of smarts, common sense, and fairness, and that is really what this job is all about. For example, having talked to the chief at some length, he understands that strongly enforcing our immigration laws and treating immigrants and asylum seekers humanely are not mutually exclusive. You can do both. They are not incompatible. It is a perspective, in my view, on immigration that is going to help our communities, help public safety, and help our economy all at the same time.

Now, there is no doubt in my mind that Chief Magnus has the right qualifications for this position. He is highly experienced. He started out in Lansing, MI, and has headed up law enforcement agencies across the country--East, West, North, and South.

Currently, he serves as the chief of police in Tucson, AZ. That means we will have an individual leading Customs and Border Protection who starts on day 1--day 1--with firsthand knowledge about the challenges law enforcement on the southern border.

Even beyond that specific element of Customs and Border Protection's work, his range of experience in law enforcement all over the country makes him an ideal pick to lead an Agency with tens of thousands of employees, staffing more than 300 points of entry to our country.

So I think that is the heart of why he is going to be such a positive force with respect to border security, but I also want to note that on the Finance Committee, we are acutely aware that Customs and Border Protection is not just in the business of immigration; it is also on the frontlines of enforcing American trade laws. And too often in the past, that part of the mission has just gotten short shrift.

Today, Customs and Border Protection is the heart of the effort to fight against immoral and unfair trade practices, including the use of forced labor in China and elsewhere. Customs and Border Protection not only investigates forced labor and demands remediation where appropriate, it also enforces the ban on forced labor products entering our country.

Staying a step ahead of trade cheats, whether they are involved in forced labor or not, is key to protecting American jobs, our businesses, and innovation. Workers and businesses depend on healthy, functioning supply chains. We have certainly seen, since the beginning of the pandemic, that when the supply chains break down, you have enormous headaches throughout the economy, from the biggest businesses right down to individual families who are shopping this holiday season for typical holiday goods.

During his nomination hearing, Chief Magnus assured the Finance Committee that Customs and Border Protection's trade mission is going to get the focus and the resources it needs if he is confirmed. He has committed to ensuring that there is adequate staffing at our ports, and he is interested in improving the efficiency of our customs operations in a way that maintains key protections for consumer safety.

He is a first-rate nominee. It is clear he has got the right priorities when it comes to Customs and Border Protection challenges that many of our Senators care about most--securing the border and helping to get supply chains back to normal.

I believe that he is going to work with all of the Members of this body on

immigration and trade-related issues going forward in a way that brings Democrats and Republicans together. I am very happy to support him today.

And as our committee has spent the most time with the chief, I would like to say, as chairman of the committee, that I think he will reflect great credit on our country in a vital position, a position that comes up every day in activities across the land. He is the right person for this important job at the right time.

I urge all Senators to vote for Chief Magnus later today.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have 7 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Madam President, before my colleague leaves, let me just tell him what a wonderful speech he gave. That was the kind of talk we dreamed of back in the days when I was the director of the Oregon Gray Panthers. What Senator King has basically laid out--much more eloquently than I could have--is that what Senator Casey's legislation is doing is giving older Americans the opportunity to get more of what they want--good quality care at home at a price that doesn't begin to approach the alternative that Senator King is talking about with institutional care. So I want to commend him for it. It reminds me of my Gray Panther days. It was a great speech.

To my friend Senator Casey, I have been so proud to be a part of this effort because, as you and I have talked about, this is what we always hoped for. This was always the long-term agenda of advocates for seniors.

I just want to tell the Presiding Officer and colleagues who are following this that Senator Casey has been everywhere on behalf of this cause.

You have shown up at virtually every caucus meeting to say how important it is. You have come to our Finance Committee to stress it to colleagues on a bipartisan basis. We go together to rallies. You have been, basically, everywhere on this, and that, of course, is one of the reasons we are here on the floor--because it was your effort that did so much to get it into our bill.

Now, I am going to turn to the legislation in just a quick moment, but I want to respond to one question I have been asked nonstop over the last couple of days, and that is, Why is it so important for the U.S. Senate to pass the Build Back Better legislation before the end of the year?

I am just going to respond with one sentence: With the Omicron COVID variant now in our country, it is urgent business to strengthen America's economic foundation. That is what Build Back Better is all about. That is what Senator Casey's provisions are doing.

Now I am going to kind of turn to some of the aspects of what our effort has been all about. Obviously, Oregonians and Americans from sea to shining sea have their hands full these days with school, work, family, with probably trying to get in a little Christmas shopping as well, and it is hard to follow day-to-day policy debates on the floor of the Senate. So I am just going to touch on some of the big picture issues that Senate Democrats are focusing on here.

First, we are all about breaking down barriers to good jobs that support American families. That is what this is about--more support for families. That is how everybody in America gets the opportunity to get ahead. Now, this is the second time in a decade that Democrats have had to rebuild the economy after a Republican President has crashed it like a kid on a joyride. This time, families and businesses are still dealing with a pandemic. That is a lot of upheaval to deal with, and it is why we have said breaking down the barriers to good jobs that support American families is the one-sentence description of our effort.

We want to create opportunity for good jobs and infrastructure; we want to create opportunity for good jobs and clean energy; we want to create opportunity for good jobs in manufacturing here at home; and we want to create the conditions for small businesses and entrepreneurs to succeed. The key to unlocking those opportunities for working people in America is to make sure that families start in a position to succeed.

This afternoon, my colleagues were on the floor to talk about the importance of investing in childcare and home-based care for seniors and those with disabilities. For me, this brings to mind a conversation, a recent one, with a neighbor of mine at home in Oregon. She and I sat down in Portland for a socially distant chat in her backyard. We talked about what it has been like for families like hers, not just during the pandemic but over the last several years, as costs for education and housing and childcare have just soared into the stratosphere.

Megan is about as impressive as anybody I have met. She is smart; she works hard; she has got a good job. But even people who seem to have the world by the tail come up against real challenges.

For example, Megan told me about the decision she made when her mom came down with a cancer diagnosis in 2015. She decided she had to set aside her career and move home to the Midwest to help out her mom with treatment. Caring for a loved one who is in a fight for their life is just about the most important work you can do. But, as Megan said, there is no paycheck--no paycheck, I would say to the Presiding Officer--that comes with that gig, and you have still got to find a way to pay the bills. Fortunately, Megan's mom got better. The two of them made the decision--we happen to think it was a no-brainer--to move back to Portland. They wanted to make sure that their family would have a chance to get ahead.

Megan has now got two kids of her own. One of her kids is a wonderful little guy who has got special needs. Childcare is another major challenge. In Oregon, this is the case of so many places. It is a struggle to find childcare at all and even harder to find childcare that is affordable.

Megan told me about all of the people she knows--just about all of them women who were forced to make the hard decision of leaving their jobs in the last few years to provide daycare for their kids or to care for an elderly parent. That has been happening all over the country because families don't have enough support. They don't have enough support tonight.

Now, people always talk about motivation. What is motivating people?

I will tell you, in Oregon--what I hear at home--people tell me what they want to do is to work hard. They want to contribute. They want to make sure that their kids are growing up happy and healthy, and they want their elderly family members to be happy and healthy too. They would also like to be able to look forward to a vacation once in a while in the summer and a dignified retirement down the road. Who doesn't want all of that?

The reality is, for so many people, the sky-high cost of raising kids and taking care of older family members just holds them back. So that is why Senate Democrats want to help with childcare, why we want to invest in home-based care, why we believe in paid leave. That is what the new child tax credit is that so many on the Senate Finance Committee, on the Democratic side, have worked for. It is that basic level of support that helps families get ahead.

People ought to be able to stay in their careers, if that is what they want to do, instead of handling childcare themselves. They ought to have the financial security at home to seek out a new job with higher pay or better benefits. People shouldn't have to choose between taking care of family and starting that small business--that small business that their entrepreneurial eye always was dreaming of. These priorities that need addressing on childcare and home-based care aren't just morally right, but as Senator King pointed out--pointed out just now--they are commonsense economics.

Since when, Senator King, did it become, somehow, a partisan issue to say that you ought to work for people to get more of what they want-- good care at home at a lower price? That is, obviously, not partisan. That is commonsense economics. It is what you laid out, and it is what Senator Casey has been leading us on over these last few months.

It is disappointing to me that colleagues on the other side aren't interested in working with us on these issues. By the way, it didn't used to be that way.

I would say to my friend from Maine that Senator Olympia Snowe, when she was on the Senate Finance Committee, always worked with us. My staff used to joke about bipartisan bills. They were called Snowe-Wyden or Wyden-Snowe or one or the other, but you could almost set your clock by it. It was a constant. Unfortunately, we are missing that on this legislation. What we are hearing from colleagues on the other side is of tax cuts for those at the top. They don't do much for people like me. We can do better.

There are signs that the economy is ready to take off. COVID-19 caused the biggest economic crash and jobs collapse in a century, but the unemployment rate is now 4.6 percent. Wages are going up. The economy added over 440,000 jobs per month over the fall.

There is no questioning the work ethic and productivity of the American people. Our job in the Congress is to make sure they have the support so they can seize those opportunities to get ahead. That is what we are going to be working on in the weeks ahead. That is what Senate Democrats are doing on the Finance Committee. That is what we are doing in our caucus.

I just want to thank my friend and colleague Senator Casey for being the spark of the cause here. He and his persistence are the reason we are here and why this legislation has passed the other body.

I am telling you, I think this is a really big moment for all those seniors and all those families who are basically saying, are we ever going to see these kinds of opportunities for healthcare, as Senator King talked about, better care at a price that gerontologists, for example--you don't have to take the word of a bunch of Senators; people in the field--I taught gerontology. When I saw those experts you lined up, I said: Senator Casey is really getting it right. So I just want to thank him.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Oregon is mourning a Portland treasure, Dave Frishberg, who passed away on November 17.

While perhaps best known for writing the song ``I'm Just a Bill'' for the iconic Schoolhouse Rock television series, Dave was also a virtuoso pianist with a songwriting gift that reached far beyond his work for that classic series. During his career, Dave worked with a wide array of talented musicians, including Rosemary Clooney, Gene Krupa, and Zoot Sims. A versatile composer, his compositions ranged from melancholy ballads to satirical ditties, and his wry wit was well known as one of the sharpest in the business.

Dave has left an indelible mark not only on Capitol Hill, where one frequently sees references to ``I'm Just A Bill'' on floor charts and in press releases, but also in the minds of generations of young Americans lucky enough to grow up watching Schoolhouse Rock with the lyrics still etched in their memories decades later.

David Lee Frishberg was born on March 23, 1933, in Saint Paul, MN. He took an early interest in jazz, bebop, and boogie woogie as a teen, while playing as a house musician in Saint Paul. Noting in his memoir, ``Jazz musicians were hip, they were funny, they were sensitive, they were clannish, and they seemed to have the best girlfriends.'' In 1957, Dave moved to New York City, where he established himself as a pianist in the vibrant music scene of Greenwich Village. While in New York, he wrote and performed other well-known songs such as ``My Attorney Bernie'' and ``Peel Me a Grape.'' He moved to Los Angeles in 1971, where he earned acclaim in the jazz and comedy scenes through his work with Schoolhouse Rock and his ``Dave Frishberg Songbook'' series. An unassuming vocalist with a reedy voice, Frishberg was nominated four times during his career for Grammy awards, all for Best Jazz Vocals.

Dave, who called Portland his home for the past 35 years and is survived by his wife April Magnusson and two sons from a previous marriage, inspired millions of schoolchildren and music lovers across Oregon and the entire country. He will be greatly missed, even as his legacy lives on for generations to come.

Mr. President, in a few moments, I intend to put forward a request for the Senate to take up and approve the nomination of a very special Oregonian; that is, my friend Chuck Sams, President Biden's choice to lead the extraordinarily important National Park Service. I am just going to take a few minutes to talk about Chuck Sams and make sure the Senate understands why this is the right person for this very important job.

First of all, I would say to the Senate, we have heard the national parks described as America's best idea. That is because they form a network of treasures that no other country can match. But the fact is, the National Park Service is not only about the views and the photo- ops; the Director of the National Park Service is in charge of an organization of over 22,000 employees and almost a quarter-million volunteers. The Park Service generates tens of billions of dollars of economic activity. The people of my State, Oregonians from one corner of the State to the other, particularly understand how critical outdoor treasures are for rural economies and rural jobs.

There are park units in every State in the Nation--urban parks, rural parks, historic American buildings, ancient archeological sites. And the personnel at the Park Service--what incredible people. They do it all, from education to preservation to maintenance, and they are also now doing more resilience against wildfires.

That is why it is so important we have strong leadership at the National Park Service, because when you have employees taking on such diversified challenges and you have the Park Service woven into the fabric of every State and so many communities, you need somebody at the top, the leader, to be capable and ready to take on these enormous challenges. Chuck Sams is that person, there is no question about it.

I want the Senate to know that I have known Chuck Sams for years, and I have personally seen in action his dedication to communities and to the outdoors. He has been a longtime Umatilla Tribal leader and a key member of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, working with officials from across our region. He is also a veteran of the U.S. Navy. I know Chuck Sams to be a role model in the stewardship of America's lands, our waters, our wildlife, and our history.

The Congress and parkgoers are going to be able to count on him in the months and years ahead, after he is confirmed, because we know the Park Service faces some very big challenges. There is, for example, a multibillion-dollar maintenance backlog. The parks are often very crowded. They are confronting the effects of the climate crisis, whether it is wildfire, floods, or droughts. The list goes on and on. There has been for too long--too long--a workforce culture fraught with gender discrimination and harassment.

For almost 5 years, the Park Service has been without a Senate- confirmed Director. The reason why I am here is, I would say to the Presiding Officer and to my colleagues, I am here to make sure that the Senate doesn't wait another single day after 5 years to confirm a capable leader, Chuck Sams, as the Director to address these challenges I have described. He is the right nominee at the right time. I want Senators to know I base this not on reading a bunch of resumes or bios about Chuck Sams. I have seen it myself. I have seen Chuck at work in our State. He is committed. I support him 110 percent.

Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 508,

Charles F. Sams III, of Oregon, to be Director of the National Park Service; that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order with respect to this nomination; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I just want to tell the Senate where we are now and what is ahead.

I have asked unanimous consent to confirm an Oregonian whom I have watched in action, Chuck Sams, to head the National Park Service, which has gone leaderless for 5 full years.

Now, my colleague has said, to his credit, that Chuck Sams is very well qualified, that he is a good man, that he had good discussions with him. And I would just say to the Senate and my colleague--my colleague and I have worked together often here in the Senate. I remember, as chairman of the Finance Committee, we had some issues on the budget. And we got together, and within 20 minutes we had it worked out.

So I would just say to my colleague, I am ready from this minute on to get together with you, to get together with Mr. Sams. We are going to be here, it sounds like, at least today, and then we will have to see.

But I just hope we can work this out because I listened to the Senator very carefully. And I have been to Alaska. I went with your colleague Senator Murkowski when I was chairman of the Energy Committee. And I heard my colleague's concerns.

Well, to get those kind of concerns addressed--many of them--you have got to have a Director; you have got to have somebody you can hold accountable, somebody you can get on the phone and you can talk to about issues. Chuck Sams is exactly that kind of person.

So I want my colleague to know we are going to be here the rest of today and, it sounds like, some of tomorrow, but we will have to see. I hope that we can get this worked out, and I want to pledge to my colleague that I will, myself, be willing to work with him on issues he has with the State, just the way we did on those tax concerns with respect to the budget. And let's see if we can get this done before we leave this week because the longer we wait--I mean, just think of the Park Service here over the holiday. There are going to be a lot of people--because the Park Service is part of the treasures of America-- who are going to want to enjoy those facilities.

So this has real-world consequences. I look forward to working with my colleague, and I hope--I hope--we can get this done before we leave, and I pledge to my colleague that I will work with him to respond to his concerns not just about this nominee in the context of this nominee but in the context of the concerns he has for his State.

I yield the floor.