Floor Statements

Madam President, I also rise today to recognize the service of Ian Fergusson and his contribution to a deeper understanding of trade law and policy.

For decades, Ian provided comprehensive and detailed reports on economic history, trade policy, and key legislative authorities. He worked on everything from Canada to the World Trade Organization to access to medicine. Ian was instrumental in assisting me and my staff on numerous occasions as we examined congressional delegation of trade authorities, such as TPA, and the workings of multilateral institutions, such as the WTO. He also provided clear and concise information to support debates on the merits and implementation of U.S. trade agreements, including the South Korea--U.S. Free Trade Agreement and USMCA and the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership--TPP--agreement.

I join my colleague in offering my sincere condolences to Ian's family, friends, and his colleagues at CRS and will continue to think of them during this difficult time.

Mr. President, today I have introduced the Encouraging Americans to Save Act (EASA). This legislation makes common sense reforms to the saver's tax credit by making the credit refundable and restructuring it as a government matching contribution that is directly deposited into a taxpayer's retirement savings account. This bill would offer matching contributions for the first time to millions of middle and low income individuals not covered by an employer-sponsored retirement plan, including those who save through an IRA under a state or local government savings program--such as workers in my home State of Oregon under the OregonSaves program. The government match is also available to middle and lower income savers who participate in an employer-sponsored plan. The government match provided by the bill would both encourage saving and help middle and low income earners build assets by providing an immediate, meaningful return on their personal contributions. The legislation would also establish a coronavirus bonus recovery credit that would provide an additional government match of up to $5,000 to workers on their retirement saving for a five year period. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, today I have introduced the Encouraging Americans to Save Act (EASA). This legislation makes common sense reforms to the saver's tax credit by making the credit refundable and restructuring it as a government matching contribution that is directly deposited into a taxpayer's retirement savings account. This bill would offer matching contributions for the first time to millions of middle and low income individuals not covered by an employer-sponsored retirement plan, including those who save through an IRA under a state or local government savings program--such as workers in my home State of Oregon under the OregonSaves program. The government match is also available to middle and lower income savers who participate in an employer-sponsored plan. The government match provided by the bill would both encourage saving and help middle and low income earners build assets by providing an immediate, meaningful return on their personal contributions. The legislation would also establish a coronavirus bonus recovery credit that would provide an additional government match of up to $5,000 to workers on their retirement saving for a five year period. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, first of all, I want to say about my two colleagues, I have very much enjoyed talking healthcare with the Senator from Indiana, the lead sponsor of this. We have had a lot of very productive discussions about the role of healthcare in America.

I strongly support the proposition that the Federal Government doesn't know all the answers here. Sometimes my friends say I am the Senator from innovation because I am always trying to promote innovation. That is what section 1332 is all about.

My other colleague from Indiana is a very valued member of the Finance Committee. So I want it understood that I think Indiana Senators, they are 100 percent straight shooters who I enjoy talking healthcare with.

Let me say, respectfully, why I have a difference of opinion with respect to this issue.

My sense is that what my colleagues from Indiana want to do is based on a premise that comes from the Trump administration, which I think is flawed. The premise is that those on Medicaid really don't work and don't want to work.

Having run the legal aid program for the elderly before I came to the Senate and was codirector of the Oregon Gray Panthers--and, again, it is a good discussion. People have differences of opinion. I think those on Medicaid overwhelmingly--overwhelmingly would like to be able to work and do work, and that is what the difference of opinion is here.

As I understand it, Senator Braun wants States to have the authority to condition access to Medicaid on work. Now, his colleague from Indiana noted some exceptions and the like, which sounds like it is of some value, but the basic proposition is conditioning access to Medicaid on work.

It has been my experience--and I have made a practice of it over the years, having been in public life, to go back and talk to people on Medicaid. I think overwhelmingly they want to and do work.

It seems to me, as we emerge from the economic effects of the COVID crisis--and my colleague and I are going to work, for example, on unemployment insurance, where I hope, again, to bring flexibility to the States. For example, my colleague on the Finance Committee knows that we certainly had a lot of serious technology issues with respect to the unemployment insurance programs of the States. So one of the areas I will propose, as we continue our work this year, is that the 53 systems should have a uniform baseline. And I think we are going to have good support, Democrats and Republicans, on it. The key feature will be, of course, giving States the flexibility to innovate, consistent with having a uniform baseline.

So I want my colleagues, both of them, to understand--Senator Braun, who I have had some good conversations with, with respect to healthcare; and Senator Young, who is on the Finance Committee--I very much look forward to working with both of them on these healthcare issues.

For the reasons that I am describing today, I am objecting at this time. But I think there are a lot of areas where both parties can come together with respect to healthcare. For these reasons, I object.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madame President, Senator Cassidy and I are reintroducing a simple bill that can have a big impact: the Know Your Social Security Act. The bill clarifies the law about Congressional intent so that every worker over 25 receives a paper Social Security statement in the mail each year, unless the worker has accessed their statement online or declined to receive the statement in the mail.

The story is well known in Social Security circles, but it bears repeating: the origin story of the Social Security statement all started with the ``powerful'' Committee on Finance. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan spelled out the reasoning: ``All of us pay into Social Security but rarely, until we become beneficiaries, do we ever hear from Social Security . . . in every paycheck, we see money withheld for Social Security, but we hear nary a word from the Social Security Administration. Let us take this simple step [ sending statements] to reassure Americans that Social Security will be there for them.''

After enactment and once fully phased in, every worker aged 25 and

older received an annual statement from Social Security starting in the year 2000. After a few years, Social Security's website allowed workers to access their statement online. At the time, that was a nice feature--and did not impact the mailing of statements. Later--to fund more pressing needs--SSA viewed the online option as ``providing'' the worker with a statement and fulfilling the requirements of the law. SSA stopped mailing the statements in 2011 to everyone over 25. Currently, only individuals over the age of 60 who are not receiving benefits receive statements automatically through the mail.

Paper statements delivered through the mail are desirable because no action is necessary by the worker and the statement is a yearly reminder to the worker to think about the future. Research has shown that workers provided with statements are significantly more likely to save, more certain about their retirement income, and have higher satisfaction with their finances relative to those who are not provided with any type of financial planning materials. Providing Social Security statement through the mail is a simple policy that could help many workers, hopefully leading to better decisions about their financial future.

Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Chairman John Larson and Ways and Means Committee Member Vern Buchanan are reintroducing the companion bill in the House of Representatives. The bill is endorsed by AARP, Alliance for Retired Americans, Envelope Manufacturers Association (EMA), Justice in Aging, NAACP, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Social Security Works, Strengthen Social Security Coalition, The Arc of the United States, and The Senior Citizens League. I hope our colleagues in the Senate will join us and cosponsor the Know Your Social Security Act. Together, we can work towards better retirement outcomes for all workers.

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

Let me explain the problem. Under current law, a child with a disability that began before age 22 may receive a Social Security benefit based on the work of a disabled, retired or deceased parent. Often the child receives this benefit for the rest of their life. Social Security provides the benefit because the child is usually dependent on their parents for financial support. The problem is that the law regards earnings by the child above $1,310 a month as ending that dependency--even if the child is no longer able to maintain that level of work in the future. When that dependency ends, the child ceases to be eligible for the benefit from the parent. Instead, the child would receive a benefit based on their work. The benefit from the parent's work is often significantly larger than the child's own benefit. Because of this policy, parents of children with disabilities may prevent their child from working at their full potential, fearing that the work will cause the child to lose out on the larger benefit. We need to change Social Security to ensure parents and their children that working will not cause them to be worse off in the future.

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

I want to thank Kathy Holmquist, President of Pathways to Independence, Inc. in Portland, Oregon, who has been a leader in my state helping people with disabilities live and work with dignity. Kathy contacted me about the need for this legislation and I appreciate her advocacy and support. Additional thanks to The Arc for the technical assistance and endorsement of the bill. The bill is also endorsed by the American Network of Community Options and Resources (ANCOR), Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) Social Security Task Force, National Down Syndrome Congress, and The Association of University Centers on Disabilities. I am grateful that Social Security Subcommittee Chairman John Larson is introducing the companion bill in the House of Representatives. The Senate bill is cosponsored by Senators Cassidy, Brown, Klobuchar, Sanders, Leahy, Merkley and Casey.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

So ordered

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, first, this resolution--and I am just going to make a few key points here--is on the trade agreement with the UK, and it is a question of international trade, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee.

The committee has not been consulted on the resolution so Senators have not had adequate time to consider it. Needless to say, the prospect of reshaping the American economy with sweeping trade deals is not something that should just rocket past the committee of jurisdiction.

Second, I have serious concerns about blessing a potential trade agreement with the United Kingdom when the contents of such an agreement are still unknown. I stated a number of times that there are serious issues that need consideration with respect to our economic relationship with the United Kingdom. That cannot happen if the debates play out in a slapdash process on the floor of the Senate.

For example, the United Kingdom has not only proposed but implemented a discriminatory digital service tax since entering negotiations with the United States. What they are doing is opportunistically looting American technology companies before these measures are shut down by an FTA or another agreement. The UK is also considering other discriminatory policies.

The UK must commit to abandoning these unfair policies, which are serious barriers to trade, a detriment to the special relationship, harmful to American workers, as a precondition of honest and worthwhile negotiations.

Otherwise, if Senators are going to rush to hand out big promises on trade talks, they risk surrendering America's negotiating position on these key issues without getting anything in return.

So I don't see the wisdom in undermining good-paying American jobs and American businesses with a trading partner that has thus far seen no reason to back away from discriminatory measures. For those reasons, I object.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:30 a.m., Wednesday, June 16; 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; further, that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Fox nomination; further, that the cloture vote on the Griggsby nomination occur immediately following the cloture vote on the Fox nomination, and that if cloture is invoked on either nomination, the confirmation votes occur at 3:15 p.m. in the order that cloture was invoked; finally, that if any of the nominations are confirmed, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

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.

Mr. President, I would like to recognize an Oregonian who was a champion for children and families in my home State. Sarah Cohen-Doherty was a young Oregonian with a passion for helping those most vulnerable; she left us far too soon. Sarah was known in the Portland community to be a fierce advocate with a generous heart, and she followed that heart into a career in public service.

After getting her master of arts in teaching from Willamette University, Sarah worked as a community impact manager for Social Venture Partners Portland, an organization that invests in local nonprofit organizations and community causes. Every day, she worked tirelessly to put needy people in touch with the organizations that could solve their problems and improve their lives.

Sarah's public service extended outside of work hours. She was instrumental in the effort to pass a county ballot initiative that would go on to fund universal preschool in Multnomah County. In November 2020, several months after her tragic, unexpected passing, that county ballot measure passed thanks to her efforts. If that wasn't enough, somewhere in what I can only assume was the 25th hour of the day, Sarah also volunteered in Portland-area high schools to teach about the Holocaust. Sarah was committed to Oregon's statewide effort to preserve the memories of those lost in the horrific genocide and prevent something so awful from occurring in the future. I am incredibly proud to have known Sarah and was moved by her commitment to equity for all children, especially Portland's youngest.

Sarah is survived by her husband Brian, stepdaughter Maysa, mother Ruth and father Jerry. Her life will be celebrated by a community made better by her service and incredible compassion. The impact she had during her time here with us will be felt for generations by the children and families she worked so incredibly hard to support and protect. We celebrate her life and the legacy she leaves behind.

Madam President, I, too, want to express my appreciation to Senator Crapo. We are partners in the Senate Finance Committee. As Senator Crapo really touched on, we know that sometimes around here in the Senate, it is hard to get Senators to agree on the proper way to butter a piece of toast. But what Senator Crapo and I have tried to show--and I believe this amendment does it--is that the Senate is going to come together on the urgency of outcompeting China, and that is what our legislation is all about.

Senator Crapo ticked off a number of the key measures. Obviously we feel very strongly. We spent weeks looking at it in hearings and in discussions--at how China rips off our intellectual properties, steals technology, sends dangerous counterfeits to our market, and how it undercuts manufacturers with overproduction and unfair subsidies. The fact is, the Chinese have deployed massive subsidies, incentivized overproduction in key manufacturing sectors like steel, aluminum, and solar panels, that undercuts our competitors. They have shaken down American firms for intellectual property and stolen cutting-edge technology.

Worst of all, colleagues, is the practice of forced labor, which we looked at in the Senate Finance Committee. It is morally repugnant on its own, and it is also a very substantial threat to American jobs.

I do want to spend a moment on an area where we are going to be doing a lot more work, and I am going to have plenty to say about it before this bill becomes law; and that is, as my friend from Idaho just talked about, the Chinese Government's great firewall. It blocks more than 10,000 American websites and digital platforms, and others are subjected to extreme censorship. Americans who are blocked can only watch as Chinese homegrown competitors then rip off their very best ideas, thrive in the absence of real competition, and then grow into tech behemoths themselves.

The catch is, as those Chinese-grown tech giants get bigger and bigger, using ripped-off American tech and ideas, they are also exporting their government's intolerance of free speech.

So in the case of the great firewall, we now have trade enforcement tools that really go back to the Dark Ages. Literally, some of them date back to some cases in the middle of the last century, and that, in no way, leaves us in a good position.

As Senator Crapo and I have found--and we agreed in a bipartisan manner on this--it leaves us ill-prepared to handle the fast-moving world of digital trade, where there are a lot of high-skill, high-wage jobs on the line.

So, for now, I hope Members of the Senate will strongly support this bipartisan amendment.

As Senator Crapo said, we have a lot of other things we are going to tackle. As the Presiding Officer knows, I think what we talked about yesterday, in terms of clean energy, can build on ideas of both political parties. Senator Crapo has a very good idea for tech-neutral, private sector competition for clean energy. That is his idea. I am a Democrat, and I am acknowledging my colleague's good ideas. So we have a lot to work with.

But for today, when we pass this amendment, the Crapo-Wyden amendment, we are signaling that the entire Senate is coming together on a straightforward proposition, that we want to tell our constituents that we understand the urgency of outcompeting China, and that it is going to take key tools, which is what we have developed in the Senate Finance Committee.

I urge all Senators to vote for this bipartisan amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President and colleagues, Senator Crapo has brought forward an amendment to the competition bill. It deals with the Biden administration's announcement that it

would participate in negotiations on intellectual property and the coronavirus vaccines.

Unfortunately, my friend's amendment also goes far beyond the current pandemic and adds roadblocks to any improvements to any other trade agreements into the future. So I must oppose Senator Crapo's amendment.

I am offering an alternative, which the Senate will also vote on shortly. The fact is that even though COVID is receding in many American communities, the virus will still be a danger to Americans as long as there are outbreaks and mutations around the world.

That is a big reason why the Biden administration is working overtime to increase vaccine production and distribution as quickly as possible in our country and around the world. It is also why the administration announced its intention to participate in negotiations over the vaccine IP waivers. The U.S. Trade Representative will be in charge of our participation in those negotiations.

Again, unfortunately, the Crapo amendment would tie up our U.S. Trade Representative in bureaucratic redtape and reporting for many months before she could speak to any of our trading partners about the issue.

Ambassador Tai and the Biden administration recognize that the TRIPS waiver is not going to end the pandemic overnight. However, the American people and countries around the world cannot afford the delay that the Crapo amendment would cause.

The Crapo amendment puts the U.S. Trade Representative into what amounts to a straitjacket, making it hard--if not impossible--to negotiate fixes or modifications to any trade agreement, for any reason. It would make the process for modifying an agreement more difficult than getting into that agreement in the first place. That is a big roadblock to improvements that could raise standards for workers and the environment.

I will close by mentioning that I have filed an alternative, amendment 1975. My amendment guarantees transparency and consultations throughout the negotiations. It makes clear that the United States must promote global access to vaccines, all while safeguarding our IP from hostile foreign powers and protecting American innovation.

So here is the bottom line: It is not only possible, it is absolutely essential for our system to include strong intellectual property protections, as well as exceptions to promote the common good at the same time.

My amendment strikes the right balance. The Crapo amendment just goes too far in the direction of blocking the administration from using all available tools to fight the pandemic and to make improvements to any other trade agreements.

For that reason, I urge Senators to support my amendment, 1975. I urge my colleagues to oppose my friend's amendment, the Crapo amendment, and that will be the next vote.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield back.

I yield back.

Madam President, the Senate is now debating the nomination of Chiquita Brooks-LaSure to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

This is clearly one of the most important healthcare jobs in America. Ms. Brooks-LaSure brings decades of health policy experience to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and I think it would be fair to say that she has worked on healthcare from just about every angle short of scrubbing into the operating room herself. I am going to talk, in a minute, about her qualifications, but I also want, as we start this discussion, to recognize that this is a job that requires urgent, hands-on professionalism--exactly the kind Ms. Brooks-LaSure brings to this.

We are, obviously, still working through enormous challenges on the COVID-19 pandemic. There are efforts by colleagues on both sides of the aisle on healthcare, and we, in particular, on this side want to expand healthcare coverage, bring down the cost of prescription medicine, and bring the Medicare guarantee into the 21st century. The American people need a chief of Medicare and Medicaid as soon as possible, and blocking this nomination slows down important work that needs to be done. Senators on the other side have objected to moving forward with the nomination. So I am going to talk for just a few minutes about these concerns--but, first, a little bit more about Ms. Brooks-LaSure.

Starting out, she worked at the Office of Management and Budget on Medicaid policy and the CHIP program, the Children's Health Insurance Program. So she was, long ago, focused on trying to improve healthcare for the millions of Americans who every single day walk an economic tightrope in balancing the food bill against the fuel bill and the fuel bill against healthcare costs. She was there for them.

She then moved to the House Ways and Means Committee as a senior staff member. She helped to write portions of the Affordable Care Act dealing with expanding coverage and updating the Medicare guarantee.

When the Affordable Care Act became law, she went to Health and Human Services, and there she played an important role in implementing the law. She was the leader in the effort to create marketplaces for health insurance with strong, built-in consumer protections. She has been a leader when it comes to defending and expanding women's healthcare under the Affordable Care Act and other essential programs. After leaving HHS, she went to the private sector and continued to work on policies that expanded coverage and made healthcare more affordable.

Ms. Brooks-LaSure has the qualifications, the experience, and the know-how to run Medicare and Medicaid, and there are absolutely no questions about it.

Now, our colleague from Texas, Senator Cornyn, has raised objections to moving the nomination forward. His objections relate to a decision by the Biden administration to rescind a Medicaid policy waiver that the Trump administration rushed to grant the State of Texas in mid- January. There are a few key points Members ought to understand about this issue.

First, nothing is going to change for health providers and patients in Texas for more than a year as a result of this decision. That means there is plenty of time to work out a solution that doesn't get rushed and follows the right process with public comment.

Second, Ms. Brooks-LaSure had nothing to do with the decision that Senator Cornyn is unhappy about. She wasn't on the job when it was made.

Third, she made clear in her Finance Committee hearing that she is committed to working on a bipartisan basis with State officials, and she said that to Senator Cornyn and to other Republican members on this issue as well. She has the track record and the experience to get that done.

I want to state again to our colleague from Texas and to every Member of the Senate: I probably spent as much time as any Member of the Senate working on the issue that the Senator from Texas is concerned about, and that is the process for granting waivers. I authored what is called section 1332 of the Affordable Care Act that was designed to say that progressive States that, for example, wanted to pursue a public option or aggregate Medicare and Medicaid money would have a chance to do it as long as they would adhere to the guardrails. Conservative States that sought to try their own approaches based on their ideas of a conservative approach to healthcare could do it as long as they met the coverage requirements of the Affordable Care Act.

I want to state again to Senator Cornyn, as I did in the Senate Finance Committee, that I am going to work very closely with him, after we confirm this nominee, to address the issues that he discussed in the committee that have concerned him.

To every Member who has issues with respect to waivers, I want each to know that there will be bipartisan interest in trying to bring people in their States together and adhering to the ideas in the Affordable Care Act, which states that States are free to pursue their own ideas for expanding coverage as long as they stay within the guardrails of the program.

We understand that Democrats and Republicans aren't going to agree on every health policy question. What I do know is that Ms. Brooks-LaSure is going to be the kind of CMS Administrator who can bring two sides together exactly as we envisioned in the Affordable Care Act with the waiver law and exactly as I have committed to working with Senator Cornyn on.

The Finance Committee has demonstrated that it can work together on big issues. In 2017, the committee passed the CHRONIC Care Act, which was a fundamental transformation of Medicare.

I have told my colleagues that back when I was director of the Gray Panthers, Medicare was about acute care. There was Part A, which was for hospitals, and Part B, which was for doctors. That was it. That was Medicare. When I taught gerontology, the first question on an exam was, What is the difference between Part A and Part B? That isn't Medicare anymore. Medicare, today, is primarily about chronic disease: cancer and diabetes and heart disease and stroke and chronic pulmonary disease.

The Finance Committee wrote the CHRONIC Care Act on a bipartisan basis. At that point, Chairman Hatch was chairman of the committee, and I was the ranking Democrat. We worked in a bipartisan way, but the Trump administration, after the retirement of Chairman Hatch, basically put everything on the back burner.

When we confirm Ms. Brooks-LaSure--and I am convinced that she is going to be confirmed--she will work with Democrats and Republicans to

make sure we are updating the Medicare guarantee for this century. In particular, what that involves is making sure that there are more opportunities for those who receive traditional Medicare to get the benefits of the CHRONIC Care Act. Already, the CHRONIC Care Act works well for what is called Medicare Advantage. We need to do more to make sure it is available for those who receive traditional Medicare.

Now, there are other issues the Finance Committee is working on that Ms. Brooks-LaSure will play an important role in--one being improving mental healthcare because mental healthcare has gotten short shrift in America for far too long. We know that Americans feel like they are getting mugged when they walk into a pharmacy and go to the window to get their prescription medicines. Look, for example, at insulin. Insulin prices have gone up twelvefold in recent years. The drug is not 12 times better. It is the same drug, but they are getting clobbered because the pharmaceutical companies can get away with it. So those are the kinds of practices that Ms. Brooks-LaSure is going to take on, and she is going to do it in a bipartisan way.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is right at the center of taking on these and other important healthcare challenges. This critical Agency--one of the most important places in American healthcare--needs a leader, and it needs one now. She is, in my view, an excellent nominee. She is going to work with both sides here in the Senate, including on the issue our colleague Senator Cornyn has raised. I want to restate my interest in working with both Ms. Brooks-LaSure and Senator Cornyn on this matter my colleague from Texas has raised.

We are going to be voting in a couple of minutes, colleagues, and I urge a strong vote for an eminently qualified nominee, Ms. Chiquita Brooks-LaSure.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following members from my personal office and Committee on Finance teams be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Congress: Jake Pasner, Jonathan Beier, Erik Schnotala, Raghav Aggarwal, and Marisa Dowling.