Floor Statements

Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote on the nomination of California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. Moving this nomination forward required an additional procedural step and more floor debate than others, so I will make just a few quick points this afternoon.

First, in our lifetime, America has never faced a greater public health challenge than the pandemic we face today. The Department of Health and Human Services is our point Agency, the leading Agency to coordinate the effort to end the pandemic as soon as possible. Right now, for example, it is coordinating the distribution of vaccines. It is working to get PPE, the critical protective equipment, into the hands of nurses and doctors and all those providers who desperately need more of it. The Department supports rural hospitals to keep them afloat so that rural patients have access to care.

The Department's work includes the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health, the National Guard, all 50 States and the District of Columbia, as well as private healthcare systems, doctors, and many individuals across the country.

The American people, we all know, are ready for this pandemic to end. They certainly understand that having a person to coordinate the critical efforts of the Department of Health and Human Services confirmed and on the job is part of that effort. There simply is no argument for delaying this confirmation any longer.

Attorney General Becerra has the right leadership experience and the right health policy experience to succeed in this critical job. He currently heads the Nation's second largest department of justice. He is in charge of a billion-dollar budget and more than 4,000 employees. He is the top law enforcement official in what would be the fifth largest economy in the world.

In terms of health policy, which is in the area I try to specialize in, I can tell Senators that Xavier Becerra has spent years and years on these issues at the Ways and Means Committee, the key committee in the other body with jurisdiction over healthcare. He has been through major policy debates, including the Affordable Care Act. As California's attorney general, he defended the act in court.

When the pandemic hit, he fought to protect the health and well-being of all Californians, particularly nurses and doctors and those workers who found themselves in harm's way.

Attorney General Becerra has the health policy savvy and the leadership savvy and the experience in both areas to run this Department, no question about it.

Attorney General Becerra made it clear to members of the Finance Committee that he will follow the law. Quaint idea. He said it again and again in response to a barrage of questions. He is going to be accessible to Senators. He is going to work to find common ground on key healthcare issues. I was glad he said it because that is heavy lifting. Most of the time, that is really all you can ask of nominees of the other party.

Healthcare is oftentimes a divisive subject. I think every Senator understands that. It is particularly true when it comes to women's healthcare. But it is clear to me that Attorney General Becerra wants to bring the two sides together. That is a great place to start after the last 4 years of knockdown, drag-out battles over healthcare issues that clearly took America in the wrong direction.

I am going to close with just one thought about why this position is so important. I don't know of any prospect more unifying among Americans than ending the pandemic and getting life back to normal as quickly as possible. Parents want their kids back in school. Grandparents want to hug their grandkids. Everybody wants to feel safe and get out in their communities.

Getting our country to that point is the essence of what this job is all about. Heading the Department of Health and Human Services focuses exactly on those things people want to have the country come together on. But we need to come together to beat the pandemic, and the Department needs its leader confirmed and on the job now.

I was pleased that there was bipartisan support for discharging Attorney General Becerra's nomination from the Finance Committee. I hope the Senate gives his nomination bipartisan support once again when it is time to vote on his confirmation.

I look forward to working with him in the months and years to come.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, reserving the right to object.

Madam President, today the Republicans are showing some real chutzpa.

On this issue, Republicans were for it before they were against it. Today, they claim to want to target prisoners. The real harm they are doing is to innocent children and families.

I object.

Madam President, I certainly share the good Senator's views with respect to Mrs. Guzman as well.

Madam President, the Senate will soon take a procedural vote on the nomination of Katherine C. Tai to serve as the next U.S. Trade Representative.

For Senators who watched any of Ms. Tai's nomination hearing before the committee, you will know that Ms. Tai has a whole lot of fans on both sides of the aisle here in the Senate. So I am just going to take a few minutes to discuss some of the reasons why I think Ms. Tai is a terrific choice for this job.

First, she knows that the name of the game when it comes to this country's trade policy is protecting and creating high-skill, high-wage jobs. Our country saw, for the past 4 years, that a strategy of sending mean tweets and acting on chaos does not translate into more good jobs. Under President Biden, and with Katherine Tai leading USTR, I am confident we will have a more effective approach

Ms. Tai also has exactly the right experience for the job. She led crackdowns against China's trade cheating and job rip-offs. As the top trade staffer on the Ways and Means Committee, she was at the forefront to improve the new NAFTA when the Trump administration handed to Congress a deal that just wasn't strong enough for American workers. She already has a long track record of achieving wins for America's workers, businesses, farmers, and ranchers.

Second, Ms. Tai has committed to the Finance Committee that she will work to bring more transparency to trade policy. Bringing more sunlight to the country's trade agreements ought to be a priority that every Senator shares. That is why I am glad that President Biden has chosen somebody with congressional experience for the role of USTR.

The Constitution gives the Congress authority over international trade. Unfortunately, Congress, over the years, has delegated some of its power to the executive branch. So what that means is, now, all sides need to work together as partners, with open channels of communication, accountability, and transparency. And when I talk about transparency, I am talking about transparency with the American people. I know that Ms. Tai will continue to raise the bar for transparency and communication with Congress because she has been on our side of policymaking, and she has already proved that that kind of openness and accountability is a key priority for her.

With a former Senator in the White House and a former House staffer at USTR, I believe there would be a productive partnership with Congress so we can get trade done right and make sure that trade policy creates those high-skill, high-wage jobs that are a priority for every elected official.

Finally, there is another Finance Committee priority that I will just mention. On Thursday, the committee will hold a hearing on the subject of stamping out forced labor around the world. Forced labor is evil, it is morally repugnant, and it is a direct attack on workers in our country because, when American workers have to compete against slave labor, everybody loses. It is truly a race to absolute rock bottom when it comes to labor rights.

Ms. Tai is committed to President Biden's Build Back Better agenda. A key part of that agenda is ensuring that our workers are competing on a level playing field with the rest of the world. It is certainly not a level playing field when other countries are producing goods with slave labor.

Our government has laws on the books that can crack down on countries using slave labor and keep those products out of our market, but it is going to require an unwavering commitment to tough trade enforcement. This will continue to be an area of special focus for the Finance Committee.

Our colleague Senator Brown and I have worked on this issue for a long, long time. I know Ms. Tai is committed to working with us on it, and I know that she will work with colleagues on the other side of the aisle on this and other issues. It is an opportunity to stand up for what is right around the world and protect American jobs and wages at the same time.

So Katherine Tai is qualified. She has the right diversity of experience. She has her priorities right, which is to get more American workers into the winner's circle of trade policy, and she is going to do it in a way that promotes openness, accountability, and transparency.

I believe Ms. Tai is going to have strong bipartisan support here in the Senate when we vote in just a few minutes. I want Senators on both sides of the aisle to know that Ms. Tai has consistently, throughout her time in public service, worked in a bipartisan way with respect to ensuring that, at a time when modern communications and transportation have, to some extent, shrunk the world and trade has gotten to be more and more important, she is going to be on the side of workers. She is going to be on the side of trade done right. I am with her 100 percent of the way.

I urge all Senators to support Katherine Tai for this crucial post at

Madam President, I would ask unanimous consent that the scheduled vote occur immediately.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, the Senate is now debating the motion to discharge from the Finance Committee the nomination of California Attorney

General Xavier Becerra to head the Department of Health and Human Services.

As chairman of the Finance Committee, I am going to begin with a simple message: Holding up the nomination of Attorney General Becerra has been blocking urgent anti-virus work that needs to get done now. So it is time for the Senate to act quickly, without politics getting in the way, to confirm this nominee.

I also believe moving quickly on this nomination will help to achieve something I heard a lot of Senators talk about over the last few days.

A few days ago, I spent almost 24 hours here at this desk while the Senate was debating a number of different issues. Over the course of that debate and in the weeks before it, many Senators talked about how important it was to get past some of the longstanding disagreements and find unity.

I will say to my colleagues: There could not be a more unifying prospect for America than ending this public health nightmare as quickly as possible, preventing as many COVID-19 deaths as possible, and helping the American people get back to the activities that they enjoy, that they consider part of their normal daily routine.

Having a confirmed Secretary leading the Department of Health and Human Services is a linchpin for accomplishing that task. The Department is right at the effort, at the forefront, to end this contagion. It is leading the distribution of vaccines. It is working to get PPE into the hands of nurses and doctors who still--still-- desperately need more of it. It is getting new resources to rural hospitals to keep them afloat and to keep their doors open to patients who literally had nowhere else to go during this crisis.

Health and Human Services is right in the center of the government- wide COVID response. They coordinate work at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, with the Centers for Disease Control, with the National Institutes of Health, with the National Guard, with all 50 States, with the District of Columbia, with private healthcare systems and doctors across the country and more individuals and organizations that are just too numerous to name. Now, that is what the job is all about and why it is so critical right now.

I want to turn to some of what I have heard discussed with respect to Attorney General Becerra. I have heard some say that, well, he doesn't have the right leadership experience. That is a comment being made about the head of America's second largest department of justice. This nominee is in charge of a billion-dollar budget. This nominee is in charge of more than 4,000 employees as the top law enforcement official in what would be the fifth largest economy in the world. This is the work of somebody who really knows how to run a mammoth government agency.

Then there have been suggestions about his healthcare background. This is one that, to me, is just bizarre, given the track record. He spent years and years on the House Ways and Means Committee, which is one of the key committees in the country with respect to jurisdiction over healthcare policy. He wrote and debated major pieces of healthcare legislation, including playing an important role in the development of the Affordable Care Act. As California's attorney general, he defended the Affordable Care Act in court. When the pandemic hit, he stepped up and fought to protect the health and well-being of millions of Californians, particularly nurses and doctors and other workers who found themselves in harm's way.

When one is in the Senate, you understand that Members of the opposing party are going to have disagreements on policy issues. That goes with the turf. Women's healthcare was obviously one of those issues that came up during the nomination hearing.

I will tell you that Attorney General Becerra's response is what we ought to expect of responsible public officials and of nominees. He made it clear to members of the Finance Committee. He said again and again and again that he will follow the law. He will be accessible to all Senators. He is going to work to find common ground on key healthcare issues.

I can tell you, having specialized in healthcare since my days with the Oregon Gray Panthers, that is heavy lifting. By the way, I think it is pretty refreshing after 4 years of just blather about repeal-and- replace and empty rhetoric and promises on pharmaceutical price-gouging and partisan policies that favor insurance companies over the typical American consumers.

In my view, Attorney General Becerra proved in his nomination hearing that he knows healthcare policy inside and out and that he is ready to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. I don't think anybody ought to be particularly surprised because he has a decades-long track record in healthcare leadership and policy experience that is going to help him succeed in the job.

We all understand the country's healthcare system is still under extraordinary pressure and strain. On Saturday, the Senate passed one of the largest public health packages in our country's history, designed to crush this pandemic. So we are starting to see some light. We are starting to see the end of the tunnel. The Biden administration is doing everything it can to acquire more vaccines, to get more shots into arms. I think we all understand it is not a task completed yet.

I will just close by way of saying that when our country faces a healthcare crisis, it needs a Secretary of Health and Human Services confirmed and on the job as soon as possible. It doesn't need more political games and delay that only sets back our effort to end the pandemic.

So we will be voting, I believe, in less than an hour, and I just want to say that I hope colleagues will support this nomination discharged from the Finance Committee. I have known the attorney general for a number of years. As I say, this is the area that I have specialized in over the years. And I know that Senators have differences of opinion with respect to healthcare. I get that. But those differences of opinion shouldn't stand in the way of a qualified public official who has managed thousands of people in his current job, for example, from having the opportunity to do what has to be done for this country, and that is to get a confirmed nominee for a critical position so that he can attack those challenges that are in front of us right now and help patients and speed up the efforts to end the pandemic.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, on Monday, the Senate will vote on the nomination of Congresswoman Deb Haaland to serve as Secretary of the Interior. I have had a chance to vote on a number of nominations over the years. I want to tell the Senate that, on Monday, the Senate can make history.

The Congresswoman--and she faced some strong questioning in the committee--understands that protecting public lands and boosting rural communities and jobs are two sides of the same coin. Too often, in the debates in Washington, DC, they really involve something resembling false choices. You can either be for jobs or you can be for protecting your treasures. The Congresswoman understands that those two are not mutually exclusive and that, in the West, particularly when you look at our exciting recreation economic engine, this is a chance to really generate more jobs, protect treasures, and enhance our quality of life.

Now, I recognize that there have been powerful interest groups that try, for example, to protect the interests of big oil companies at taxpayer expense, at the expense of clean air and clean water, and, as I say, at the expense of everybody who wants to get outside. I know that part of the debate is propping up a dirty environmental policy and declining industry that, mostly, adds to the current climate crisis.

In the long run, what we need to do is find fresh ways to bring Americans together around areas, particularly for rural communities, that are going to bridge the urban-rural divide, reduce

inequality in America, and be a long-term solution for rural economies. The Congresswoman, our nominee on Monday, knows that there is a better way to protect and create rural jobs, and I will give you just one example.

Congressman Neguse and I have introduced a major piece of legislation to create the 21st Century Civilian Conservation Corps. Our legislation would create thousands of jobs in rural America, and these workers would help to preserve public lands and prevent the kind of massive wildfires America has seen in recent years.

What I can say to colleagues is that a major effort like this will create scores and scores of jobs for local businesses and local vendors. Certainly, we are talking about the local hardware store, chainsaw outlets, and those who sell logging equipment. There are going to be lots of opportunities for private sector employment stemming from the arrival of the 21st Century Civilian Conservation Corps. We will also have a lot more opportunity for outdoor recreation, boosting tourism revenues, and fewer communities reduced to ash by wildfire--a win all around.

Now, the Congresswoman also talked to us about another priority for rural America, and that is helping Native American Tribes across the country build and repair drinking water infrastructure and that she would make it a priority to help Tribes where there is a lack of drinking water, threatening the health of those Tribal members. This is especially a problem in Oregon, wherein the Warm Springs Tribe has burst pipes and regular ``boil water'' notices, but I will tell you that Warm Springs is not alone in this country, and the Congresswoman understands. She said: Water is a basic human right.

The next point that I want to touch on with respect to this exceptional Member of Congress is that she really has a track record of bringing parties together with differing views. Now, I know some Members of the Senate have gone to great lengths to say: Oh, she is some kind of far-out radical.

Colleagues, that just doesn't pass the smell test. She has been a leader in generating bipartisan support for efforts in the House. She has one of the most conservative Members of the House singing her praises in coming before the committee, and I went several times just because I wanted to hear the Congresswoman address this crucial issue of how important rural jobs are, how rural jobs and protecting the environment are not mutually exclusive, and how you can bring people together. On each of these points, she conveyed the kinds of views that make her an ideal choice for serving as the Secretary of the Interior.

I was also interested in her thoughts on a major piece of legislation for rural Eastern Oregon. It is the Malheur County Owyhee legislation, which seeks to resolve differences in this extraordinary part of my State, the Owyhees--differences that have literally gone on for decades. We brought together ranchers and Tribes and environmental folks, and we said: Here again, what we can do is create rural employment. We can protect the ag economy and the farmer's way of life. We can also create great opportunities for recreation in that part of the State. The Congresswoman got it in a second. She said that is exactly what we need to do--build models that bring farmers and ranchers together with environmental folks and scientists who understand the nature of some of these challenges from a scientific and climate standpoint.

I will tell you that I have gone to more than my share of nomination hearings, but what I saw was a nominee with exceptional backbone and decency, who was being clear, being straightforward. At times, it was a little hard to take because the questioning, I thought, was not just strong but over the line. At the same time, the Congresswoman showed her calm, her knowledge, and her perseverance in the face of this.

I am just going to close with this.

Colleagues, I have tried to kind of make my calling card a public service of bringing people together, finding fresh ideas, and the very kinds of approaches that the Congresswoman talked about during two, I felt, very draining kinds of sessions. My view is that it is critical for the Senate to be able to recognize there are going to be disagreements. The Senate is made up of a lot of people with very strong views, and what I believe we ought to insist on of all candidates is a level of decency and respect for all concerned. The Congresswoman showed that in the face of some very strong questioning.

When I was done, I said: Not only am I going to support you because of your views on rural jobs and your recognizing that protecting jobs and the environment are not mutually exclusive--that we can do both-- but because of your track record of bipartisanship, featuring Congressman Young's coming here.

Also, I come to the floor of the U.S. Senate to say that I was there for both sessions, and I saw an elected official, a Congresswoman, handle a lot of very tough, strong questions, and at every level, she tried to stick to the facts. She tried to make the case for what she thought was a great opportunity, especially in the West, but that she would be in all of the communities that the Department of the Interior is responsible for and that everyone would get a fair shake. Every Democrat and every Republican would get a fair shake.

That is the kind of fundamental decency we want in a nominee.

And I will close with this: It sure stands in sharp contrast to what we saw over the last 4 years, two Secretaries, essentially, infamous rather than famous, who too often were willing to set aside the science and support the powerful and those who were going to walk away making quick dollars at the expense of the environment.

People of this country now have a chance, almost like you take a dilapidated stage out of an auditorium, and now we have got a chance to start anew. We have got a nominee who is qualified. She is fair. She is going to concentrate on bringing people together, and she is going to make history.

It is long, long, long past time, colleagues, that this country had a Native American leading the Interior Department.

So I pledge after that second hearing, I am going to come back on the floor and not just vote for her but speak for her because her decency, her thoughtfulness--I see my friend from New Mexico here--that sense of caring and that fairness in the face of some very, very aggressive questioning makes me feel that this is a very special sort of leader.

Congresswoman Haaland has my full, unqualified support, and westerners are looking forward very much to working with her, get her to Oregon, and see what our challenges are.

I urge all Members of the Senate on Monday to support the historic nomination of Congresswoman Haaland to head the Interior Department.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, right now, the Senate is debating, having been started by our colleague Senator Sanders, whether it is OK to pay starvation wages in the United States. You

heard that right, starvation wages. Receiving that starvation wage, single moms are skipping meals as they try to make rent and buy groceries for their family. These moms get paid $7.25 an hour, often work two jobs, and go to bed every night worried that the next morning is going to bring financial calamity.

Senators, is this OK in a country as rich and strong as ours? Here in the U.S. Senate, nobody has got to worry where their next meal is coming from, but that is an everyday struggle for too many families across the land.

Senators, let us think about those who are hurting as the vote on the Sanders minimum wage amendment approaches. It is time for that single mom to get a fair wage for a fair day's work, a living wage, not a starvation wage.

There has never been a stronger case for a $15 minimum wage than there is right now during the pandemic. I think about grocery store and pharmacy workers, home health aides, food processing and packing workers, restaurant employees interacting with maskless customers. So many workers in Oregon and across the country are going to work in a dangerous environment each day. Many of them are Black and Latino workers, people from the communities that have suffered the most from COVID-19. They have kept our country going through the last year.

I have heard a whole lot of Members of the Senate, Democratic and Republicans, talk about those workers as heroes of the pandemic. So the question is, Will the Senate stand up and give those heroes of the pandemic the raise they deserve, the raise they have waited for, for 12 years?

There are 30 million Americans who earn less than $15 an hour. It would be closer to 40 million if not for the fact that the coronavirus put so many Americans out of work. That is just immoral and unacceptable.

Now, if you want to see inequality baked into the law, just look at how the country treats its lowest income workers compared to those at the top. The minimum wage has been stuck for 12 long years, and a flat minimum is nothing but a slow-moving pay cut for those who make the least.

Minimum wage workers cannot afford the average rent in any State in America, not one. It doesn't account for utilities, food, gas, car payments, medical bills, school supplies. Here is a fact: Living is expensive for the poor in America. Meanwhile, the most well-to-do keep winning with their investments in the stock market. The entire Tax Code is rigged to favor the income of billionaires over the income of wage- earning families.

Republicans passed the $2 trillion Trump tax law promising trickle- down benefits. They have been talking about that for decades, even though those magical benefits never actually trickle down.

The Trump administration actually made it A-OK in the eyes of the law for corporations to steal from their employees' tipped wages. A country that aspires to be pro-work should not be this anti-worker.

Members of the Senate might forget it now, but minimum wage used to go up all the time. It happened 22 times since the minimum wage was enacted in 1938. Through the fifties, sixties, and into the seventies-- the post-war period that many looked as the boom years of the 20th century--the minimum wage went up all the time, and Congress expanded the range of workers it covered.

Now, colleagues, these increases did not lead to the end of Western civilization back then, and raising the minimum wage isn't going to do it today either. That is because--folks might want to sit down when I say this--it is good for everybody when there are fewer poor people in America. This is the longest the Congress has gone without raising the minimum wage since its origin.

In recent years, the grassroots movement has picked up the slack and made a lot of progress in cities and States all over the country, including my home State of Oregon. But the Congress cannot wait any longer. The powerful could pull the levers around here in a hurry, and they get more than their share of benefits and attention. Right now, the Congress has a chance to prove, to actually prove that it is looking after working people, and that means raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Every single Senator says they want to incentivize hard work, and, folks, a living wage does just that. The single mom skipping meals to feed her kids deserves better. The Senate can do better starting today.

I appreciate my colleague Senator Sanders leading the effort to raise the wage for years and years. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I am all in with Senator Sanders on this fight. Senators, support our amendment. Give tens of millions of America's hard-working people a raise. And before I yield the floor, I just briefly want to provide an update with respect to the issue of trying to make sure that folks who have been laid off, laid off from their jobs through no fault of their own, are going to be able to get an unemployment benefit where they can make rent and pay groceries.

We are having conversations now, bringing people together, I believe, around two core principles. One is avoiding a cliff in August where you would have something like 11 million people lose their benefits. We have to do that. It defies common sense to have a cliff in the middle of August when you have the Senate out of session.

Second, we are making a lot of progress on preventing an unemployment tax surprise. This is a matter that Senator Sanders and I have spoken about at length for weeks. A number of colleagues on both sides of the aisle have a great interest in this. I think we have made a lot of headway. We will have more to discuss with the Senate, but I am really hopeful that this can bring all sides of this debate together.

I have personally felt the benefit should be $400. It should certainly run into September, but I know some of my colleagues feel otherwise. So what we are looking at is making sure that we can get a benefit so that people can make rent and pay groceries, that we prevent that cliff, and, by God, we sure as hell shouldn't let folks who are unemployed pay taxes on those unemployment benefits that they secured in 2020.

Senator Sanders and I will continue to prosecute this question of tax forgiveness very strongly as well. I appreciate his leadership.

I see Senator Murray, the chair of another important committee with jurisdiction over this matter.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, later today the Senate will vote on an amendment put forward by Senator Carper and myself dealing with an extension of enhanced unemployment benefits.

Some Members of the Senate wanted to hold the enhanced weekly benefit at $300 per week. My preference would have been to set it at $400 per week on the longest extension possible and then later tie benefits to economic conditions on the ground with automatic triggers. With the amendment coming later today, I believe Members have reached a solution that accomplishes two key goals.

First, it is a longer extension of benefits than the House bill that avoids creating a new August cliff. It would extend the weekly benefit at $300 per week into early October, including pandemic benefits for gig workers and the self-employed. I have said time and again that having an expiration in the middle of August, when Senators are home, would be a prescription for trouble, and this option avoids the potential of benefits expiring for millions of Americans with no way to extend them.

Second, it would prevent a tax surprise for millions of Americans who received unemployment benefits in 2020. The first $10,200 of the unemployment benefits they received last year would be exempt from income tax. People who already filed their taxes and found out that they owed tax on their unemployment income would be able to file an amended return to get back the difference.

This will wipe out taxes owed on last year's unemployment income for most people who received it, saving them potentially thousands of dollars. That is a big economic benefit for the people hardest hit by the COVID crash, and jobless Americans will also have the certainty of enhanced benefits running into October. My understanding is, the Republican side will offer an amendment that will not prevent this tax surprise.

I am going to keep working on automatic triggers. In my view, that is the best way to manage this program going forward. But as for this debate, I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam President, yesterday, the Senate learned that there were 745,000 new unemployment claims--higher than the worst week of the great recession. Yet the Portman amendment is a double whammy on workers--a much faster cutoff of benefits and absolutely no help with the nasty tax surprise millions of working families will find when they file their taxes in the next few weeks.

For example, if you have been laid off from your job through no fault of your own and you are struggling to make ends meet, you do not have $1,000 to pay a surprise tax bill, and the party that claims to be for tax relief for working families offers you absolutely nothing.

Since the pandemic, Senate Republicans have been pushing working families deeper into an economic hole. We have an alternative that doesn't hang working families out to dry, and we will be offering it shortly.

Working families deserve better than the Portman amendment. Don't shortchange those working families tonight. I urge opposition to this very flawed amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 1092

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I do.

Mr. President and colleagues, the number of COVID-19 deaths among nursing home residents and staff is tragic. That is why President Biden's and the Democrats' plan goes forward with an investment in preventing nursing home infections and deaths, including more PPE strike teams to address infections, testing, contact tracing, and more.

We take a backseat to no one when it comes to timely and accurate reporting in COVID-19 cases, and deaths will continue to ensure such reporting. However, it would be a grave mistake to hold hostage this badly needed support for strike teams to ensure residents' and employees' safety in nursing home facilities. These funds are essential to helping ensure the safety of seniors and staff that are at the frontlines of the COVID-19 pandemic.

This amendment, colleagues, is punitive, and it doesn't further the goal of transparency. It would hurt the very people we seek to protect.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, 30 seconds?

Mr. President, on this side of the aisle, we have led the fight for transparency with respect to the kind of information my colleague is talking about. That is not what this amendment is about.

This amendment is about making sure that President Biden and Democrats can make these necessary investments in these strike teams that are going to ensure more safety in these long-term care facilities.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1378 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 6 minutes, evenly divided, to discuss this amendment.

Mr. President, on this side, our goal has been to secure the strongest possible protections for jobless Americans that could pass the Senate. This amendment has two essential features that make it far better for working families than the Portman amendment.

It ensures that millions of working families get their benefits at least through September 5. It protects unemployed workers from being hit with a big surprise tax bill with no way to pay for it.

Republicans have been standing in lockstep against tax relief for Americans with a few hundred dollars in the bank after demanding billions in write-offs for wealthy investors. On the other hand, Democrats have led the effort to add hundreds of dollars in weekly benefits and covering gig workers and the self-employed.

This is the boldest action the Congress has ever taken--ever taken-- to support jobless Americans during an economic crisis, and at every stage, as Democrats proposed that help for working families, Senate Republicans opposed us. This goes back, colleagues, to the CARES Act, when Republicans had just one amendment. That was to gut the jobless protections.

Finally, the whole process underscores the need to stop jumping from one economic cliff to another. There would be no need to predict the level of economic support needed 6 months from now if benefits were tailored to match economic conditions.

We look forward to discussing this idea of triggers for economic support

with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but tonight it is vital, as the pandemic continues, that the Senate pass this amendment, an economic lifeline for Americans who would strongly prefer to be back at work.

Instead of attacking Americans as lazy individuals who don't want to work, these are responsible adults with a strong work ethic who will help us build back better in the days to come.

I strongly urge support for our amendment.

I yield.

Mr. President, I am going to ask for 15 seconds.

Mr. President, first of all, with respect to the facts about unemployment, every week--every week since last March, unemployment claims have been higher than the worst week of the great recession. And the fact is, we have got millions of Americans who, every single week, are walking an economic tightrope. They are balancing the food bill against the fuel bill and the fuel bill against the rent bill. And we want to give them a modest amount of tax relief for the typical working person, and the party that claims to want to help workers on their taxes won't lift a finger. That is why it is so important that this amendment pass.

I yield.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, to speak in opposition, the Capito motion to commit the bill to the Finance Committee instructs the committee to do two things. The first is to dedicate funds to pay for bipartisan transportation legislation. The other is to cut the funding currently provided in our bill to provide relief to State and local governments.

I would like to say that the reason we oppose this is that this, colleagues, is a false choice. If we are talking about major legislation to improve our infrastructure, including roads, bridges, airports, broadband, and more, count us in. In fact, I think one of the first areas we ought to be focusing on, if we finish this bill, is infrastructure, but this does not have to be at the expense of relief to State and local governments. These two are not mutually exclusive, colleagues. We can do both. We can address infrastructure and help our State and local governments that have been hammered by COVID and a struggling economy. They have had to lay off police, teachers, EMTs, and many others.

I urge opposition to the Capito motion.

Madam President, I rise in opposition to the Romney amendment.

First, colleagues, this amendment would be a drastic cut to the relief in the bill. Specifically, it would limit the number of firefighters, municipal workers, and teachers who would actually get their jobs back in the coming weeks and months.

Second, the amendment doesn't take into account the full impact the pandemic has had on State budgets and the costs they are going to continue to incur in the months ahead.

Our view is, this is just the wrong time to start hacking away at State and local funding because the job losses are stacking up. As we have heard again and again from independent economists, those losses are going to continue if the Senate doesn't go big, as this bill does. Saving jobs and rehiring laid-off workers is what this portion of the bill is all about.

So, colleagues, I would strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the Romney amendment.

I yield.

Madam President.

Can I have 30 seconds to briefly respond?

First of all, we can't even really determine the formula that is used under the Romney amendment. It is clear to us there are going to be costs to States as a result of this legislation.

Colleagues, the reality is, the pandemic is a public health nightmare, and this provision is designed to specifically address the challenge of making sure that firefighters, municipal workers, and others who are responding day in and day out at risk to themselves are going to be able to get their jobs back in the coming weeks and months. The fact is, this amendment is going to reduce the money the States have to address those critical needs.

I urge colleagues to vote no.

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

Colleagues, the underlying bill has significant improvements in the child tax credit. All told, the bill cuts child poverty in half. But this amendment would set us back. True, it expands the child credit in some ways, but to pay for these expansions, it dramatically cuts back on what is known as refundability.

Here is the problem, colleagues: Refundability is what helps the families at the lower end of the income scale. So to expand the child tax credit in several ways, the Lee amendment reduces benefits to the working families who need them most.

I want to close by way of saying that I will be glad to work with my colleague from Utah and the Senator from Florida. I would also note that the other Senator from Utah has been interested in these issues.

This amendment sets us back because it reduces benefits to working families who need them most.

I yield back.

Vote on Amendment No. 1381

Mr. President, I rise in opposition.

Colleagues, this is what this amendment would do: It would deny premium assistance to many middle-class families, forcing them to pay more for healthcare--the last thing they need in the middle of a pandemic.

Now, in 2020, the average cost of health insurance was $17,244 for a family of 4. That is a hefty bill to pay without assistance for most middle-income families, especially those who live in higher cost areas. ACA premium tax credits can mean the difference between affordable health insurance and doing without coverage.

I urge colleagues to oppose the Lee amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 1331

Madam President, Section 605 of the State and Local section of the American Rescue Plan requires further explanation on its intent. Below is the salient language of Section 605, Local Assistance and Tribal Consistency Fund:

``(b) Authority to Make Payments.--

``(1) Payments to eligible revenue sharing counties.--For

each of fiscal years 2022 and 2023, the Secretary shall

reserve $750,000,000 of the total amount appropriated under

subsection (a) to allocate and pay to each eligible revenue

sharing county in amounts that are determined by the

Secretary taking into account economic conditions of each

eligible revenue sharing county, using measurements of

poverty rates, household income, land values, and

unemployment rates as well as other economic indicators, over

the 20-year period ending with September 30, 2021.

``(l) Eligible revenue sharing county.--The term `eligible

revenue sharing county' means--

``(A) a county, parish, or borough--

``(i) that is independent of any other unit of local

government; and

``(ii) that, as determined by the Secretary, is the

principal provider of government services for the area within

its jurisdiction; and

``(iii) for which, as determined by the Secretary, there is

a negative revenue impact due to implementation of a Federal

program or changes to such program; and

``(B) the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto

Rico, Guam, and the United States Virgin Islands. . . . ``

Folks may wonder: ``What are the revenue sharing counties?''; ``Why Treasury?''; and ``How is my new program different from existing county support programs?''

Let me explain my thinking in putting this language together. In every state, but especially the West, there are counties with tracts of federal lands that have unique impacts on the local economy. These counties are referred to in Section 605 as ``revenue sharing counties''--counties that have a direct fiscal relationship with public lands and public resources. These counties help pay for roads, schools, and other services that directly benefit and, in many cases, support federal lands. They get payments for the tax-

exempt status of those public lands, or payments intended to split the revenue from the commercial use of public lands. This relationship between the counties and those lands and extractive industries usually means they are boom-and-bust counties--falling faster into recession and slower to climb out of recession when changes occur to particular federal programs or when, for example, a massive global pandemic hits without warning.

I, and many of my colleagues, have worked for years on programs attempting to stabilize those local economies--primarily through two laws: the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act, which is largely administered by the Secretary of Agriculture through the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management; and the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program, administered through the Secretary of the Interior.

So, why implement a new and separate program assigned to the Secretary of Treasury? Treasury is the agency with the best and most complete knowledge of the economic workings of our nation. Therefore, it is right up its alley to ``tak[e] into account economic conditions of each eligible revenue sharing county, using measurements of poverty rates, household income, land values, and unemployment rates as well as other economic indicators, over the 20-year period ending with September 30, 2021.'' In addition, my 20 years of experience in this arena, combined with what I've heard from Oregonians in rural counties, adds up to the conclusion that it is time to try something new to stabilize the local economies of these revenue-sharing counties.

I am not expecting Treasury to do this work on its own. I will work with the Department, as will my colleague and long-time partner on this issue, Senator Crapo. I also fully expect Treasury to consult with others in government who have history in this arena on the creation of this new formula such as the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior, as well as the National Association of Counties, state county associations, including the Association of O&C Counties Oregon, and many other groups with a deep understanding of these impacts across the United States. These entities will help Treasury stand up this new program at Treasury because they provide historic context to the entirely new program in its analysis of the needs of the counties, for the first time taking into account economic conditions on the ground. The new program will include $1.5 billion for eligible counties and $500 million for Tribes over the next two years.

So, now that I have covered the questions of ``What are the revenue sharing counties?''; ``Why Treasury?''; and ``How is my new program different?''; I want to provide an answer to ``What has happened in the revenue sharing county to warrant a payment?''

Revenue sharing counties have suffered economic loss due to the implementation of, or changes in, a federal program. For example, necessary environmental and wildlife protection laws have reduced the revenue sharing payments to counties that host U.S. Forest Service lands and timberlands managed by the Bureau of Land Management.

Over the last half century, revenue sharing counties have seen their budgets fluctuate wildly based on inconsistent revenue sharing payments caused, in part, by the boom and bust nature of resource extraction industries. Additionally, current federal county payments laws meant to stabilize this cycle, such as PILT and SRS, are often inconsistently funded and leave counties on an economic roller coaster each year waiting for inconsistent reauthorizations.

The purpose of my new program is to help stabilize the budgets and economies of counties that have historically hosted extractive industry on private or public lands and where downturns in those extractive industries, caused by government action, affected the county economically and budgetarily.

Unfortunately, due to the nature of the reconciliation process in the Senate, the final language of the new county payments program did not make this perfectly clear. Instead, the final language referred simply to revenue sharing counties, but requires Treasury to establish a formula that helps both.

Let me touch on a couple of the other key provisions in the section. First, while the money provided is for a county to use as it sees fit, a county cannot use any of the funds to lobby anyone for any reason at any level of government. If a county does use the money in this unauthorized manner, the county must return the improperly used money to the treasury.

The county that takes money under this section must report to the Treasury Secretary about the use of that money. The Secretary has the discretion to make the reporting requirements more detailed. And lastly, if the county does not make a timely report, then the county must pay a penalty.

And lastly, let me talk about the $500,000,000 in this section destined for the Tribes. The section reads:

``(2) Payments to eligible tribal governments.--For each of

fiscal years 2022 and 2023, the Secretary shall reserve

$250,000,000 of the total amount appropriated under

subsection (a) to allocate and pay to eligible Tribal

governments in amounts that are determined by the Secretary

taking into account economic conditions of each eligible

Tribe.

``(2) Eligible tribal government.--The term 'eligible

Tribal government' means the recognized governing body of an

eligible Tribe.

``(3) Eligible tribe.--The term 'eligible Tribe' means any

Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village,

community, component band, or component reservation,

individually identified (including parenthetically) in the

list published most recently as of the date of enactment of

this section pursuant to section 104 of the Federally

Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 5131).''

This section of the bill would establish a new Tribal economic stabilization fund, which would allow the Department of Treasury to make payments to Tribal governments for any governmental purpose deemed necessary by the Tribe. This language is intended for the Department of Treasury to work with the Tribal Governments defined in the bill to determine a formula ensuring equitable distribution of the funding each year. This funding could be used to repair critical drinking water infrastructure, fund Tribal healthcare services, or other critical Tribal needs.

Madam President, I am thrilled to be on the new path of providing stabilized aid to these counties. I look forward to working with my colleagues in standing up this program.

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

Mr. President, 10 years ago Bahraini citizens joined many others across the Middle East in what became known as the Arab Spring, an eruption of popular protest and a call for reform and democracy that spread across the region.

In Bahrain, the Arab Spring took the form of peaceful protest. Families marched together and protestors gathered in Manama's Pearl Roundabout urging the King to grant greater economic and political rights, particularly for Bahrain's Shia majority.

The King could have responded to these peaceful protests with dialogue or discussion. He did not. The regime deployed state security forces against the demonstrators, unleashing a wave of violence and repression.

Journalists and human rights advocates documented the regime's use of tear gas and rubber bullets against the unarmed crowds. Security forces beat a number of protestors and arbitrarily detained many more, targeting even the physicians who volunteered to tend to the wounded. Security forces shot one young protestor, Ali Mushaima, in the back, killing him.

Bahrain's authorities made clear that day that they had no intention of conducting a meaningful dialogue or adopting significant reforms. They have held to that position for the last decade.

Even the Trump administration, which made no secret of its desire to downplay or overlook human rights abuses, documented in its most recent human rights report Bahrain's ongoing ``restrictions on freedom of expression, the press, and the internet, including censorship, site blocking, and criminal libel; substantial interference with the rights of peaceful assembly and freedom of association . . . restrictions on freedom of movement, including revocation of citizenship; and restrictions on political participation, including banning former members of al-Wifaq and Wa'ad from running as candidates in elections.''

Bahrain has long been a valued security partner in a volatile region of the world. In addition, Bahrain hosts the Navy's 5th Fleet. This is precisely why the United States needs to engage Bahrain on these issues and to encourage reforms.

If Bahrainis come to associate the United States with their government's cruelty and repression, this security partnership could become much less reliable. If the Monarchy were overrun by Bahrainis who had come to hate the United States due to our inaction in the face of gross human rights abuses, what would happen to our military base and the thousands of Americans who live in the country? It is a question I think we would all rather not have to answer.

Mr. President, the Arab Spring of 10 years ago has long since given way to an Arab Winter in Bahrain and across much of the Middle East. In 2011, tens of thousands of Bahrainis took to the streets with hopes of a more inclusive and representative society. They are sadly still waiting for those hopes to be realized.

I am heartened that President Biden and Secretary of State Blinken have already taken steps to reprioritize human rights as a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. That must include working to hold our adversaries accountable but also speaking hard truths when allies lose their way.

It is with this in mind that on the 10th anniversary of the Arab Spring, I call on the Biden-Harris administration to urge Bahrain's King to release political prisoners, including human rights defenders and members of the political opposition, and to engage them in a credible dialogue about a more inclusive future for all Bahrainis.

Mr. President the Committee on Finance has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 117th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying rules for the Senate Committee on Finance be printed in the Record.

On February 19, 2021, under the authority of the order of the Senate of February 13, 2021, the following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:

Mr. 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 a budget resolution, its adoption could jeopardize the privilege of this resolution, which would completely halt our efforts to provide urgent, critical pandemic relief.

Additionally, this amendment is not germane to the budget resolution, 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.

Mr. 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 a budget resolution, its adoption could jeopardize the privilege of this resolution, which would completely halt, again, efforts to provide this essential, critical pandemic relief.

Additionally, this amendment is not germane to the budget resolution 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.

Mr. President, this amendment would cut $20 billion from Finance to fund homeland security matters--probably a fence. I strongly oppose it. This amendment would cut funds for unemployment insurance, payments for families, for things like a border wall that have taken our immigration policy backward, not forward.

Colleagues, I would urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. President, this now will put the Senate on record as to what the Senate thinks about the 2017 Trump tax law--the $2 trillion bill that overwhelmingly benefited corporations and the wealthy. It opened new special interest loopholes, and it increased incentives to ship American jobs overseas.

The Senate needs to fix our broken Tax Code, starting with the proposition that everybody, including those at the top, pay their fair share. Locking in the Trump tax handouts to those at the top would take America in the wrong direction. This is not the vehicle to debate these tax changes. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote.

Vote on Amendment No. 55

Mr. President and colleagues, I strongly urge opposition to this amendment. It simply makes no sense to take any tool--any tool--off the table in the existential fight against climate change.

Obstructing the fight against climate change costs money due to cleanups from bigger storms, fires, and floods, and it costs America jobs.

Move over, this is a budget focused on COVID recovery. This is a separate issue, colleagues, and it deserves its own debate. I would urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This is an amendment, once again, that tries to stack the deck in terms of healthcare choices, and, in this case, the proponents want to make health savings accounts the driving force of the American healthcare system. I think that is a mistake.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Vote on Amendment No. 253