Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate

proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 405, which was submitted earlier today.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 406, which was submitted earlier today.

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

Mr. President, it is my understanding that the House is going to send the Senate a 30-day extension of the Surface Transportation Authorization Act. The Republicans cannot clear it tonight; therefore, we will come back tomorrow and try to pass it then.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 1:30 p.m., Saturday, October 2; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Adams-Allen nomination.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, all postcloture time on executive Calendar Nos. 264 and 159 be considered expired at 4:45 p.m. today; that the vote on confirmation of the Anderson nomination occur at 4:45 p.m. today; and that the vote on confirmation of the Meyer nomination occur at a time to be determined by the majority leader, following consultation with the Republican leader on Thursday, September 30.

Madam President, in a few minutes, I will put forward the unanimous consent request that the Senate take up and approve a highly qualified and unquestionably noncontroversial nominee. I am going to take just a few minutes to talk about Jonathan Davidson, nominated to be the next Deputy Under Secretary for Legislative Affairs at the Treasury Department.

To do this briefly, there are a few key points to make about this important nomination. To start, Jon isn't just a person off the street being nominated for a new job in the Biden administration. In fact, my guess is, virtually every Member of this body, Democrats and Republicans alike, have worked with Jon at one point or another.

From 2011 until he was nominated this past spring, Jon served as chief of staff to another Finance Committee colleague, Senator Bennet. He is known as somebody who is honest, who is hardworking, and who is committed, most importantly, to bringing people together to tackle big challenges, and he has been doing it a long time.

Before his work with Senator Bennet, Jon served as chief of staff to Senator Paul Sarbanes. He spent time in the office of Representative John Sarbanes, and he was later chief counsel to our friend and colleague, Senator Mark Warner. You don't have to take it from me that Jon knows his way around the Congress. All of those Members trusted Jon as a right-hand man.

The second issue: I can't find any controversy with respect to his nomination. He cleared the Senate's Finance Committee on a 28-to-0 vote.

Let me repeat that: 28-to-0 vote.

In fact, the Finance Committee reported out several nominees this Congress without any Republican opposition, none at all. Normally, that would be enough to pave the way for prompt and full Senate consideration, but I think we all understand these are not normal times here in the U.S. Senate.

It used to be the case, at the end of July, the two sides would come together and look to pass a package of noncontroversial nominees by unanimous consent. My Finance Committee team thought this would be the case this year. Unfortunately, that did not take place. Senate Republicans were just in no mood to clear even the most uncontroversial nominees.

This is an extraordinary level of obstruction beyond what you saw when the previous administration was staffing up. For example, let's take the previous two nominees for the same position Jon is up for.

Drew Maloney was the first Trump nominee for Legislative Affairs at Treasury. The Finance Committee held a hearing on this nomination on June 7, 2017. The committee voted on his nomination a week later, favorably reported by a vote of 25 to 1. A few weeks after that, the full Senate passed his nomination by unanimous consent, along with several other nominations for roles in the Trump Treasury Department. That is how the process generally unfolds.

Two years later, Brian McGuire was nominated to replace Mr. Maloney. His hearing was held July 24, 2019. The Finance Committee approved his nomination a week later. He was confirmed to serve in the Trump administration on September 24.

In both cases, these two nominees, colleagues, were confirmed 2 months after their hearings.

Jon Davidson has been waiting 4 months since his hearing on May 25-- nearly twice as long as Trump nominees waited for the same job.

I think we all understand that it is essential to have qualified individuals heading up offices of Legislative Affairs. They help to make sure administrations follow the laws, just as the Senate passes as intended. They help Members write legislation. They make sure that all Members get responses to their questions with respect to oversight.

Setting everything else aside, you would think Senate Republicans would be especially interested now in making sure the Senate can perform that essential oversight. I myself am looking for some straight answers to a number of oversight requests I had posed to the Treasury Department, and having Jon installed in his new role as Treasury would sure help to move that process along. Federal Agencies and the Congress need these legislative point guards in order for Agencies to run as smoothly as possible.

This isn't a policy position, nor is Jon Davidson a nominee who raises any major concern from anybody. I have yet to hear even anything resembling a substantive reason from Senate Republicans for opposing a nominee like Jon Davidson, who got a 28-to-nothing vote out of committee to lead this office. There is no reason for delaying any longer.

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the following nomination: Calendar No. 168, Jonathan Davidson, to be Deputy Under Secretary of the Treasury; 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 to the nomination; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.

Mr. President, let's understand exactly what is at issue here. Jonathan Davidson has been nominated to be the Deputy Under Secretary for Legislative Affairs. In that particular role, he would not be directly involved in decisions over sanctions, No. 1.

No. 2, when it comes to Nord Stream 2, the Biden administration, to their credit, has recognized the threat from Russia, but also that the pipeline is nearly complete and the Trump administration failed to stop the construction.

Everything my colleague from Texas is raising in his concerns about Nord Stream 2 is already happening with another pipeline--Turk Stream 2--and my colleague is aware of this. He has been briefed repeatedly.

Now, for those who don't have access to the same kind of information that my colleague has, gas is already being diverted from Ukraine into Europe through Turk Stream 2 because the past administration did nothing about that pipeline either.

The Biden administration has actually put a plan forward to mitigate the effects of Nord Stream 2 and has received concrete agreements from the Germans to move Ukraine toward energy independence and address Russian threats.

I am just going to close with just another dose of good government. The 9/11 Commission specifically warned about the need to have senior, confirmed individuals in place to avoid a threat to the homeland. And, by the way, we did that during the Trump administration. We have far less people confirmed today than we did in 2001, before 9/11.

In my view, this has got to end. For these reasons, I object to the

Mr. President, I am going to be very brief and then make a unanimous consent request.

Again, we have a difference of opinion with respect to the facts. That is what the Senate is all about--real debate. In a moment, I am going to ask unanimous consent to put into the Record at this point an article from just a few days ago from the Wall Street Journal that makes the truth about Nord Stream 2 AG very clear.

In effect, in the Wall Street Journal article that we are going to put into the Record, the pipeline owner said last week that construction on the pipeline has been completed.

There is no reason to object to this very talented individual, John Davidson, to head this important post after he got a 28-to-0 vote in the Senate Finance Committee.

I think this article in the Wall Street Journal that I have just asked to be printed in the Record at this point in the debate, so we can make sure the facts are correct, supports our basic proposition on this side of the aisle.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate confirmed the nomination of Jayme White to serve as a Deputy U.S. Trade Representative. Today, the Senate has an opportunity to fill another important position following a debate on President Biden's nomination, Sarah Bianchi, for that role.

I am just going to speak briefly and outline a few key reasons why Ms. Bianchi is the right person for this important job and why the Senate should confirm her nomination today.

She is a longtime, accomplished member of the Biden economic team. She has worked in a host of settings during her time in public service: the Office of the Vice President, the Domestic Policy Council, the Office of Management and Budget, and as a staff member here in the Senate. She brings valuable experience in the private sector to her nomination as well. She has helped build a strong Biden economic agenda that is focused on making sure that all Americans have the opportunity to get ahead.

With respect to the key issue of trade, which is under the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee, that means fighting for American workers and American businesses and cracking down on the trade cheats that will flagrantly try to rip off jobs and economic growth.

The variety and the depth of Ms. Bianchi's experience in public service will be a big asset to Ambassador Tai and the team at USTR.

When the Finance Committee voted on Ms. Bianchi's nomination, she was approved by a vote of 27 to 1. I often say that it is a struggle to get a bipartisan group of 27 Senators to even agree on buying a 7UP, but supporting the Bianchi nomination is clearly a bipartisan proposition on a vital economic position.

In fact, all of President Biden's USTR nominees that have come before the Finance Committee, I am pleased to say, have gotten strong support from both sides of the aisle; for example, a longtime staffer of mine, Jayme White--80 votes yesterday, 80 votes, with strong support, I might add, from business and labor. It is because these individuals are focused on getting beyond some of the old theories about trade--free trade, fair trade, and the like. What really brings Democrats and Republicans together is trade done right.

That is what Ms. Bianchi is all about. When she is confirmed, she will take on a challenging portfolio at USTR, which includes Asia, Africa, investment, services, textiles, and industrial competitiveness.

The headline in that list, of course, is taking on China. The Finance Committee has worked hard on policies designed to take on China's many trade rip-offs. There is China's use of forced labor, for example, massive unfair subsidies that destroy any semblance of a level playing field, theft of intellectual property, and the Great Firewall and censorship of the internet extending beyond China's borders. These abuses, these rip-offs, directly threaten American jobs, innovations, and values from sea to shining sea.

For the U.S. Senate, part of how Members must address these issues is confirming highly qualified and experienced nominees like Sarah Bianchi, whose job will include confronting China directly. The Senate simply can't afford to leave this important Deputy USTR role open any longer. Now the Senate has a top-notch nominee before us.

I support Sarah Bianchi fully. Twenty-seven members of the Finance Committee supported her earlier this year during our committee's markup. I urge Senators to vote yes on the Bianchi nomination.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, today, the Senate is debating Professor Lily Batchelder's nomination by President Biden to serve as Assistant Treasury Secretary for Tax Policy.

I am going to be brief, but I just want the Senate to know that Ms. Batchelder is an extraordinary individual, and I think she will serve in an extraordinary way when she is confirmed.

She is not a stranger to the Senate, particularly for those of us who serve on the Finance Committee. From 2010 until 2014, she was chief tax counsel to then Chairman Max Baucus. Members were working hard, looking at ways to drive a broader economic recovery following a recession. It was also a time when Members were interested in trying to drive a little bit of common sense--and I will talk about this more in a minute--into America's broken Tax Code.

Lily excelled in working with Democrats and Republicans to try to find common ground. She understood, from the time she arrived at the Finance Committee, that if you really want to tackle big challenges, if you want to come up with big solutions and make them sustainable, you have to find common ground.

After her service on the Finance Committee, Lily became the Deputy Director of the National Economic Council under President Obama. She now serves as the Robert C. Kopple Family Professor of Taxation at the NYU School of Law. And one of the aspects of her scholarship that I particularly admire is her efforts to craft tax policies that bring more American workers into the economic winners circle.

She understands the Tax Code inside and out. She knows the Congress. She knows how the Congress and the administration work. And that is the reason why the Finance Committee approved her nomination with such a strong bipartisan margin, a 22-to-6 margin. Members of both sides thought that she would be a great addition to Treasury. The Senate ought to vote the same way.

Second, Lily's nomination has waited long enough for consideration on the Senate floor. Secretary Yellen needs a full team in place at Treasury. The country is going to be dealing with the aftereffects of the pandemic economic crash for years to come. There is a long way to go--a long way to go--before full recovery.

And when we confirm her, she is going to have a chance to really bring real insight into some big areas, like dealing with the climate crisis, the nationwide lack of affordable housing, and an increasingly unfair Tax Code.

And I just want to give you an example of the kind of issues she is going to have to take on. My colleagues here in the Senate have heard me talk about how it is that they are reading news stories about how billionaires all across America end up paying little or no income tax for years on end. Well, there is a little secret to how this happens, and it is because these billionaires are advised, in many instances: Don't take a wage; don't have taxable income; put your money into stocks.

That was what we did see during the pandemic, and they ended up with even more financial resources than anyone imagined, while we read the news articles describing how they paid little or no income tax for years on end.

As the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, a top priority of mine--and I don't see how anybody can oppose this idea--is to say that when nurses and firefighters pay taxes with every paycheck every year, that we should say that the billionaires--we are glad they are so successful--should pay their fair share every year.

So I have proposed a billionaire's tax to close this loophole of unfairness. It just seems to me to be a basic question of fairness, for people in Nevada or Oregon or anywhere else, that we all pay our fair share--we all pay our fair share. And that is just one example of what Ms. Batchelder is going to be dealing with.

For example, on clean energy, again, the Finance Committee wants to break some new ground. We said: Take the 44 energy tax breaks that are on the books--most of them are relics from yesteryear--and put them in the dustbin of history, and in the future have one for clean energy, one for clean transportation fuel, and one for energy efficiency.

And then, going forward, we will have tech neutrality. And we will say to every company: Everybody involved in the energy area, the more you reduce carbon emissions, the bigger your savings. The Senate Finance Committee never did anything like this in 100 years. But to really carry this out, you are going to have to have really talented people like Lily Batchelder there.

So she is going to understand what it means to make sure everybody pays their fair share, and that means billionaires are no longer exempt from paying their fair share.

She is going to be a huge asset as we deal with climate change. And, my God, if people think about the last 6 weeks--the Bootleg Fire in Oregon, and I know my colleague in Nevada has been clobbered by these fires; the storms in the South; and what we saw in the east coast of the United States--climate change has hit this country like a wrecking ball.

We are going to have Lily Batchelder confirmed, I hope, here very shortly.

Those are the kinds of policy ideas she is going to be able to pursue.

The Treasury Department needs a tax policy point guard, somebody who, in effect--and everybody knows I went to school on a basketball scholarship dreaming of playing in the NBA. You always admired the person who ran the floor, who was the point guard, who really made sure the work got done and didn't really care who got the credit. That is Lily Batchelder. And if ever there was a person who could really help chip away at the polarization between Democrats and Republicans, it is Lily Batchelder.

I support her nomination fully. I urge my colleagues to do the same, and I yield the floor.

Madam President, I have one more nomination to discuss, and I would ask unanimous consent that I could complete my remarks--and I will be brief on this nomination--before we vote.

Madam President, next, the Senate is considering the nomination of Jayme White for the position of Deputy U.S. Trade Representative.

Now, Senators know that Jayme has been a longtime member of my Finance Committee staff. So I won't bury that lede today. We feel, all of us who have had a chance to work with him in the Finance Committee-- and he has been supported by business and labor and Senators who worked together with him repeatedly over the years on complicated trade issues. We all come together to make the case that Jayme will be an exemplary Deputy USTR representative.

He is a topnotch advocate for our workers, our businesses, our farmers, and our ranchers. His confirmation will be a loss for the Senate Finance Committee--I can tell you that--but it is going to be the American people's gain.

For a little bit on Jayme's background, he is from our part of the world, the Pacific Northwest. He is a son of union workers near Seattle. He has worked on trade policy for more than 20 years on Capitol Hill. We kind of lured him away from his old job, working for his hometown representative, Congressman Jim McDermott. And since 2014, he has been the top trade and competitiveness adviser for the Finance Committee Democrats.

I have had a front-row seat watching Jayme for over a decade, and what he has always tried to do is reach across the aisle and say: Look, we know that to create more high-skilled, high-wage jobs in the private sector--and in our part of the world that is crucial. One out of four jobs depends on trade, and trade jobs pay better, often, than the nontrade jobs. You have to think about workers and the environment and good governance. And Jayme brings Members together from both sides of the aisle to make sure our trade policies in those areas are durable for the long term.

He has been way ahead of the pack on the need for more aggressive trade enforcement. Years ago, when I was chairman of the Finance Trade Subcommittee--our colleague Max Baucus was chairman of the full committee--Jayme set up a sting operation, an actual sting operation, with a dummy website to show how the trade cheats, the rip-off artists, were able to launder merchandise and avoid paying customs duties. They would ship goods through other countries, slap a new label on something with different information on their products, and managed to slip them into the American market. That experience helped us write and build momentum for trade enforcement, came to be known as the ENFORCE Act, passed a few years later.

When the Trump administration's new NAFTA was weak on enforcement, Jayme and Ambassador Tai worked to make huge improvements. And we all worked together in our committee. There were many of us. And, certainly, our colleague Senator Brown of Ohio, who has championed this for so many years, this effort, this bipartisan effort to strengthen enforcement, made sure that USMCA raised the bar over any other trade agreement in history in terms of enforceable commitments on labor rights and the environment. He has been a champion of transparency and accountability.

And I can tell you, when I came into public life, people hardly knew anything about trade agreements that were getting ready to be voted on. I mean, you would go home for a meeting and people would ask you about some trade proposal, and you would be kind of in the dark. Jayme wanted to make sure that the days when well-connected reporters and insiders in the industry knew more than Members of Congress and the public about what was being negotiated--Jayme said: We are going to change that. And we did. There are now concrete rules giving Members access to negotiating text while the negotiations happen. Final text-to-trade agreements have to be public for anybody to see for a minimum of 60 days before the Congress can consider approving it. Those commitments to transparency, new accountability, which we had nothing like when I came into public life, come about because of Jayme's hard work.

So I will sum it all up. I know we are waiting for our vote. What I have come to say--and we have all listened to the debates about free trade and fair trade and the like--Jayme understands that our challenge, for all of us, for our workers and our small businesses and to protect the rights of all concerned, we have got to have trade done right--trade done right: rigorously enforce the trade laws on the books, make sure that there is more transparency and accountability, and, particularly, make sure that foreign markets--foreign markets--are open to American products and American workers.

I will just tell you, I am sorry to lose him after 12 years on my staff. I always knew that he would be going off to big things. I wasn't sure it was going to be this soon.

Twenty-five members of the Finance Committee agreed with me when they voted to send his nomination to the floor. He has got 110 percent of my support. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the White nomination.

My understanding is we will vote first on the Batchelder nomination that I spoke about earlier and that a bit later in the evening, we will vote on Mr. White. I strongly urge colleagues to vote for both.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, Senate Democrats take a backseat to no one in standing up for family farmers, ranchers, and small businesses. In fact, President Biden has made it clear that any changes to stepped- up basis will provide durable protection for family farmers, ranchers, and small businesses.

Speaking for myself, Senator Cortez Masto and Senator Tester, we are following through on that Biden pledge because it is both fair and common sense.

Now, capital gains reform is about ensuring that the wealthiest pay their fair share. On our watch, multibillionaires cannot plant a few tomatoes and call themselves a family farmer.

I will vote for the Thune amendment as well as the important Cortez Masto-Tester-Wyden amendment that will be taken up next.

Vote on Amendment No. 3106

Colleagues, a decade of Republican budget cuts to the IRS has resulted in rampant tax cheating at the top. Tax enforcement is going to require new resources and new tools to crack down on the high- flying tax cheats.

The Crapo amendment would, for all practical purposes, preserve the status quo--the status quo that has contributed to the trillion-dollar tax cap mushrooming and growing bigger.

This amendment would make it harder to root out tax cheating, and it is unfair to working Americans who pay their taxes automatically out of each paycheck.

Shortly--and we are going to reject the Crapo amendment--I will offer an alternative that will protect the little guy without forfeiting the chance to go after the big tax cheats, the wealthiest.

I urge the vote.

Vote on Amendment No. 3099

I call up my amendment No. 3365 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, the IRS Commissioner told the Senate Finance Committee that, in his judgment, the tax gap--the difference between taxes paid and taxes owed--is as much as $1 trillion a year. Current tax gap estimates likely miss a large number of the high flyers who clearly are driving this tax gap up and up.

Taxpayers acting to conceal this income from tax authorities are going to have a much tougher time if the Congress requires that financial institutions take practical and reasonable steps to require that financial institutions report on financial accounts.

Our interest on our side is to go after the big guys who generate significant inflows and outflows of cash and other assets, and we do it in a way that protects privacy and sensitive taxpayer and small business tax information. And this privacy issue has been one of the most important issues in my time in public service. And we are going to make sure that you can get the high flyers, the wealthy tax cheats, without forfeiting the rights of the little guy.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President.

Mr. President, colleagues, our tax bill will be progressive, even though my friend from Iowa told you just the opposite.

Now, the 2017 Trump tax laws specifically targeted families in the middle with tax hikes to pay for some of the handouts that Republican colleagues wanted to give corporations and the megawealthy.

Over here, on our side, we want to fix that mistake, but my friend from Iowa is offering an amendment to lock in those tax hikes on families in the middle.

Democrats are proposing very substantial tax cuts for working-class folks, for the middle class, and what we are going to be doing in our tax bill is working to make the Tax Code more progressive by ensuring that the megawealthy pay their fair share.

I mean, we have all seen--and this has been documented for quite some time--and my colleague from Iowa knows that we have exposed these mega- IRAs that billionaires have.

So I just hope my colleagues will reject the Grassley amendment, and when we do, I will offer what is truly a progressive alternative.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3569 and ask it be reported by number.

Mr. President, it takes extraordinary chutzpah for Senate Republicans to claim the Democrats want to make the Federal Tax Code less progressive. The Trump 2017 tax law was a huge giveaway to the biggest corporations and the wealthiest individuals.

Senate Democrats are going to fix that in our tax bill. We are going to have tax cuts for working people. For example, we are going to have tax cuts for middle-income people with kids, and we are going to make sure that those at the top, those multinational corporations and the wealthiest individuals, are going to pay their fair share.

That is going to make the Tax Code more progressive and fairer. To vote for a progressive fair tax system, you have got to support our amendment 3569.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I will be very brief.

Democratic and Republican Governors want this. Certainly, on the Democratic side, they have expressed an interest in expanding tax cuts for working families and vulnerable people who are still feeling the economic pain. Some are interested in expanding low-income housing. This helps accomplish the goals.

I support this, and if it is acceptable, maybe we can even do it by voice vote.

(Chorus of ``No''.)

Mr. President, we are strongly opposed. Senator Stabenow will speak for us.

Madam President, President Biden did, in fact, make it clear there would be no tax increase for anybody who makes up to $400,000 a year, and Democrats are going to stand by that commitment. In fact, Democrats are proposing tax cuts for working-class and middle- class families, along with changes to make sure that corporations and the very wealthy finally pay their fair share. This amendment is in line with that approach.

I am voting aye.

(Chorus of ``voice vote.'')

Vote on Amendment No. 3444

Mr. President, this is a challenging amendment that deals with unfair competition from China.

I am going to vote yes, and when we are done with this amendment, I will offer a more targeted approach to restrict the purchase with Federal funds from any country of products produced with forced labor.

Vote on Amendment No. 3627

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3805 and ask that it be reported by number.

Colleagues, I am going to be very brief.

This amendment prohibits the use of Federal funds to purchase materials, technology, and critical minerals produced, manufactured, or mined with forced labor from any country.

All supply chains need to be robust, secure, and free from these horrendous labor practices, like the genocidal forced labor practices in the Uighur region of China.

It is not enough, colleagues, to ban China alone, while forced labor continues to be a problem in many nations around the world. For this reason, I urge the support of this amendment to ensure that our supply chains align with these American values.

And I am willing to do a voice vote, Mr. President.

This amendment strikes the Finance Committee's entire reconciliation instructions from the budget resolution.

Colleagues, this would prevent the Senate from lowering the cost of prescription medicine for all Americans. It would prevent fighting the climate crisis with clean energy tax cuts, providing home and community-based services for the elderly and disabled, prevent us from creating a national paid leave program, and cutting taxes for working families. It would also make it impossible for the subsequent reconciliation bill to be paid for.

I will just wrap up. I urge strongly that we oppose this measure because it would stop cold the effort to support policies crucial to the American family, and I urge its rejection.

Vote on Amendment No. 3652

Mr. President, our core belief is that taxes should not be raised on small businesses and that the wealthiest and the biggest corporations should pay their fair share.

This amendment is consistent with that. I am going to support it.

I hope we can do this on a voice vote.

Vote on Amendment No. 3292

Madam President, I have been advised that inclusion of this amendment in the budget resolution would be corrosive to the privileged status of the resolution. Since this amendment contains material inappropriate for inclusion in the budget resolution, its adoption could jeopardize the privilege of this resolution, which would completely halt our efforts to consider a reconciliation bill later this year.

Additionally, this amendment is not germane as required by law. Accordingly, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and I would urge a vote against a motion to waive.

Madam President, it is my understanding that, after 15 hours or so, this is the last amendment of the night, and I recommend we do it by voice vote.

(Chorus of ``ayes.'')

Vote on Amendment No. 3753

Madam President, as we have just heard, thankfully, instruction is almost complete on the infrastructure bill. Once infrastructure passes, it is on to the budget resolution, which lays the foundation to pass Build Back Better this fall.

The Senate Finance Committee is immersed in this effort. For several months, we have been working with members of the committee on a host of proposals that are included in the resolution. These proposals stem from essential American priorities, making it easier to support a middle-class family, lowering the cost of healthcare, and addressing the climate crisis.

When you focus on those key priorities, you build a stronger, more fair economy and create good-paying jobs. There is going to be a lot to say about these issues in the hours and days ahead. Tonight, I will take just a few minutes to discuss the Finance Committee's work and why the policies are so important. I will begin with support for American families.

For decades, typical working families in Oregon and across the land have felt that it has gotten harder and harder for them to climb the economic ladder. The cost of housing and education have shot into the stratosphere. Yet wages have largely been stuck on the launch pad.

Despite being the best-educated generation in history, young people working in America today earn less on average than their parents did at the same age. It ought to be easier to raise a family in America. That is why Democrats created the monthly child tax credit expansion as part of the American Rescue Plan.

The new program, as our colleague from Ohio, Senator Brown, has said, is Social Security for America's children. Too many kids have been growing up in poverty--or very, very close to it. The expanded child tax credit is cutting child poverty by more than half. But so far, it has only been funded for a year. With this resolution, Democrats are going to lock in the longest extension possible. Children and parents need help, and they need the certainty and predictability of a long- term extension.

Together with the help of the HELP Committee, the Finance Committee is also leading the way for a comprehensive national paid leave program. This sort of program is long overdue, and there will be a special focus on our efforts--the HELP Committee and the Finance Committee--on making sure that it is equitable so that workers of modest incomes can afford to take paid leave, too.

Every family in American needs reliable income and a roof over their

heads. Tragically, affordable housing is in short supply, and as the pandemic proved, it takes just one big economic jolt to put millions and millions of Americans out of work.

As part of this resolution, the Finance Committee is working on financial support for America's renters, as well as funding for new affordable housing. The challenge of affordable housing is no longer just an issue for a handful of big cities. It is a nationwide concern that needs creative big solutions.

The Finance Committee is also zeroing in on worker training and making America's unemployment insurance more reliable and resilient for those in America who are laid off through no fault of their own.

Having enough affordable housing, job training, and support for those workers is an economic win-win--good for families, good for businesses who rely on the strength of the American workforce.

I am going to turn now to healthcare. Democrats have promised to allow Medicare to negotiate a fair price with Big Pharma. As the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I intend to make good on that promise. Americans have been getting clobbered at the pharmacy window because Big Pharma holds all the power over drug costs.

With the help of Republicans, Big Pharma is now engaged in classic hostage taking. They say, We decide the prices you pay or the pipeline for innovation gets shut down

That is just not a reasonable proposition. Big Pharma doesn't need to treat Medicare and American taxpayers like their own private ATM, and we don't need that in order to develop the next blockbuster drug.

We also intend to build on the bipartisan work the Finance Committee has already done in the last Congress: fighting back against drug company price gouging, strengthening the Medicare prescription drug benefit, protecting seniors with an out-of-pocket maximum for their medications. Lifesaving medications shouldn't be sending anybody in America into bankruptcy.

We are also going to be updating the Medicare guarantee for the modern era. The Finance Committee has already put a lot of work into updating the program, particularly to helping seniors with chronic conditions. That now makes up the bulk of the program--cancer, diabetes, heart disease, strokes, COPD. We have made a lot of headway there.

The next update is giving seniors access to a dental, vision, and hearing benefit because those also are crucial to the health of America's elderly.

Back in the days when I was a codirector of the Oregon Gray Panthers, we said Medicare was just half a loaf. It didn't address those concerns. Now we have the opportunity to make sure those essential benefits are available for seniors.

Now, President Biden has called for major investment in home- and community-based care. And this is another priority for the Senate Finance Committee. We have been led in this effort by our colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Casey, and I have been pleased to assist him with that effort.

And I believe the distinguished Senate majority leader has a question that he would like to pose.

Order of Business

I thank my colleague for that timely information.

Madam President, as I was saying, the Better Care Better Jobs Act, led by Senator Casey, really fulfills another dream that goes back to those Gray Panthers days. We know that America's most vulnerable would always prefer to get quality care at home, where they can be with loved ones. And yet this country really hasn't fulfilled that dream. Our legislation for seniors and for those with disabilities will give those individuals a long overdue opportunity to get good quality care at home and raise the work wages for the crucial workers who provide this frontline care.

In this resolution, Democrats will also push to expand on the success of the Affordable Care Act. Already this year, the Congress expanded middle-class tax credits for health insurance on a temporary basis. We wish to make that permanent.

Finally, more than a decade after the Affordable Care Act became law, there are still holdout Governors who have chosen to deprive vulnerable people in their States of access to Medicaid. Finance Committee Democrats are leading the effort to close that coverage gap.

Climate Change

I want to briefly touch on our work on energy and climate. Life for Oregonians this summer--and virtually every summer--has become about record-high temperatures and recordbreaking wildfires. Over one weekend last month, temperatures outside my house in Southeast Portland were at 108, 110, and then up to 116. And, unfortunately, I just learned that we are headed for another big, severe hit in terms of weather starting tomorrow and going through Saturday.

It has gotten so bad that I have been spending time on the phone over the last few days trying to use a section of our CHRONIC Care Act, which allows Medicare Advantage plans to cover services essential for the elderly that didn't used to be considered healthcare, like air conditioners. And we are getting a good response from the plans. They know because we are seeing story after story--just another one yesterday--about seniors, often seniors who own their own homes but haven't been able to get the air filters and the air conditioners and the like.

That is what we are faced with now this week in my home State. That is on top of the severe drought. And that kind of heat adds fuel to the mega-infernos that we have been seeing.

Now, the Congress has to act to prevent the worst most catastrophic outcomes of climate change, and the linchpin of the Finance Committee's effort to tackle climate is the Clean Energy for America Act.

The Finance Committee passed this earlier this year, and for the Finance Committee, this is the most dramatic proposal passed from the committee in more than 100 years--more than 100 years. And I am pleased to see climate's most vigorous champion on the floor here, our friend from Rhode Island. What we did, with the Senator from Rhode Island's help, is we took the 44 tax breaks in the Federal Tax Code for energy and we put them in the dustbin of history--gone, over, lights out--and we substituted, instead, one for clean energy, one for clean transportation fuel, and one for energy efficiency.

And then we said for America going forward, we will have a tech- neutral free-market system for energy tied to one very clear measure; and that is, if you are a renewable energy program or you are a fossil fuel program, if you reduce carbon emissions--that one standard, reducing carbon emissions--you are eligible for the tax reductions in the Senate Finance Committee's proposal.

The proposal also makes electric vehicles more affordable to middle- class families and boosts clean energy manufacturing in everything from semiconductors to solar components.

An independent analysis of the Finance Committee's energy plan said it would help create more than 600,000 jobs, and I just believe it would be a catastrophic mistake to pass that up in order to protect the status quo. The status quo is an outdated system that basically cuts special taxpayer-funded checks every year to these powerful interests-- these oil and gas firms. So we are going to talk a lot more about climate in the days ahead, and I think it is very fitting that Senator Whitehouse is here.

I will close by way of saying that the proposals that I have just outlined would be paid for under what we have focused on by restoring fairness to the Tax Code. I know there has already been some discussion on the floor of the Senate about how these proposals will be paid for. We will have a lot of discussion about it, but it sure takes chutzpah for the Members who spent $2 trillion on the Trump tax handouts to

the megacorporations and wealthy to come over to the Senate floor and say it is the Democrats who are fiscally irresponsible.

Senate Democrats in the Biden administration have been working on a number of changes that can help pay for the proposals in this resolution. That includes making sure megacorporations, which are paying less today than they have in decades--are required to pay a fair share. It includes legislation to close the carried interest loophole for private equity executives and legislation to close other loopholes abused by wealthy investors. And Democrats made a promise that nobody who earns less than $400,000 per year pay more in taxes, and we are going to stand by that. In fact, the expanded child tax credit is the largest tax cut for working-class and middle-class families in decades. And we have proposed as well to cut taxes for Main Street small businesses from one end of the country to another.

Now, the Republican position has been something else. Their position is that megacorporations and those at the very, very, very top of the economic system, basically, shouldn't pay one penny in taxes. That is unfair. It is wrong. And the American people know it.

We are going to have a lively debate on the resolution, and I am pleased to be able to stand up with colleagues to make the push, to make the fight for making it easier to support a middle-class family, lowering the cost of healthcare, addressing the climate crisis, and building a stronger, more fair economy.

I yield the floor.

I thank my colleague, and I will be brief.

As Senator Toomey has indicated, he and Senator Lummis and I have an amendment to the infrastructure bill dealing with cryptocurrency and taxes. And I am going to go into some of the philosophical underpinnings of what we are doing, but I want to note something at the outset.

Our amendment, this bipartisan amendment, ought to be accepted when the author of the underlying provision has said publicly he will vote for it if the Senate gets a chance to vote, as Senator Toomey and I have indicated.

So let me just outline a couple of fundamental propositions about our proposal and start with one that ought to bring the U.S. Senate together. People avoiding taxes they owe on money through cryptocurrencies is a serious issue. It is fundamentally unfair to every working person whose taxes come straight out of their paycheck.

Now, my view is the Senate needs to make sure that new rules addressing this tax avoidance ensure that it is possible to run down the crooks, have strong tax enforcement, while leaving a clear field for an innovation here at home.

We want that innovation here. The fact is, when you don't innovate someplace, it goes somewhere else. We want it here at home.

Without our amendment, this bipartisan amendment, it seems to us that essentially the whole notion of dealing with tax avoidance somehow is going to get lost in approaches for the brick-and-mortar rule. And, as I said, those rules run the very real risk of chilling innovation in the digital economy and driving the core innovations in crypto to places far beyond the reach of the U.S. Treasury and other law enforcement.

So two sentences about what we do in our amendment: We want it stated the tax enforcement rules should focus on the companies that deal with buying, selling, and trading cryptocurrencies. These rules don't need to sweep up other uses of blockchain technologies that have nothing to do with tax avoidance.

Senator Toomey and I serve on the Senate Finance Committee. I am the chair; Senator Toomey, a senior member. We have been struck by how many people in that space--the various aspects of blockchain technologies-- don't even have the tax documents that they would have to file, normally, if they were one of these big crypto exchanges.

Now, the fact is, making changes in both tech and tax policy is hard work that takes time. When I wrote the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act that ensured that the rules online and the rules offline would be the same, we had hearings; we had debates; we focused on the issues and produced bipartisan legislation.

The Senate is going to debate these issues further in the months and years ahead. As the chairman of this committee, I am open to working with anybody who wants to show that tough, effective tax enforcement and promoting innovation is not mutually exclusive. Smart policy--smart targeted policy--will get you both.

Our amendment simply says that nobody can use crypto to avoid paying the taxes they owe, and anybody acting as a broker in the cryptocurrency industry must comply with reporting requirements, the same as brokers in every other industry. That is because they are brokers. They are not the people who Senator Toomey and I have been concerned about with going to be swept up in this treatment of crypto exchanges and the like.

We advocate a smart, targeted approach and we make sure that reporting requirements, just like brokers in every other industry, are complied with. That is the kind of policy in the crypto area that lays the foundation for future debates.

What Senator Toomey and I are doing is very focused in one specific area: Making sure we come down hard on tax avoidance by brokers and people in crypto exchanges, but we also make sure we are not discouraging innovation in other areas.

This is going to be a debate that is going to play out over the years, but when the author of the provision in the bipartisan proposal on crypto, the author of the underlying provision in the legislation in front of us today, has publicly said in the last few hours he will vote for what Senator Toomey, Senator Lummis, and I have developed, we certainly ought to get a vote. My own view is it ought to be accepted by this body.

I yield the floor.