Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, colleagues, our tax bill will be progressive, even though my friend from Iowa told you just the opposite. Now, the 2017 Trump tax laws specifically targeted families in the middle with tax hikes to pay for some of the handouts that Republican colleagues wanted to give corporations and the megawealthy. Over here, on our side, we want to fix that mistake, but my friend from Iowa is offering an amendment to lock in those tax hikes on families in the middle. Democrats are proposing very substantial tax cuts for working-class folks, for the middle class, and what we are going to be doing in our tax bill is working to make the Tax Code more progressive by ensuring that the megawealthy pay their fair share. I mean, we have all seen--and this has been documented for quite some time--and my colleague from Iowa knows that we have exposed these mega- IRAs that billionaires have. So I just hope my colleagues will reject the Grassley amendment, and when we do, I will offer what is truly a progressive alternative.

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

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it takes extraordinary chutzpah for Senate Republicans to claim the Democrats want to make the Federal Tax Code less progressive. The Trump 2017 tax law was a huge giveaway to the biggest corporations and the wealthiest individuals. Senate Democrats are going to fix that in our tax bill. We are going to have tax cuts for working people. For example, we are going to have tax cuts for middle-income people with kids, and we are going to make sure that those at the top, those multinational corporations and the wealthiest individuals, are going to pay their fair share. That is going to make the Tax Code more progressive and fairer. To vote for a progressive fair tax system, you have got to support our amendment 3569.

Mr. WYDEN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. Democratic and Republican Governors want this. Certainly, on the Democratic side, they have expressed an interest in expanding tax cuts for working families and vulnerable people who are still feeling the economic pain. Some are interested in expanding low-income housing. This helps accomplish the goals. I support this, and if it is acceptable, maybe we can even do it by voice vote. (Chorus of ``No''.)

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

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, President Biden did, in fact, make it clear there would be no tax increase for anybody who makes up to $400,000 a year, and Democrats are going to stand by that commitment. In fact, Democrats are proposing tax cuts for working-class and middle- class families, along with changes to make sure that corporations and the very wealthy finally pay their fair share. This amendment is in line with that approach. I am voting aye. (Chorus of ``voice vote.'') Vote on Amendment No. 3444

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this is a challenging amendment that deals with unfair competition from China. I am going to vote yes, and when we are done with this amendment, I will offer a more targeted approach to restrict the purchase with Federal funds from any country of products produced with forced labor. Vote on Amendment No. 3627

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

Mr. WYDEN. Colleagues, I am going to be very brief. This amendment prohibits the use of Federal funds to purchase materials, technology, and critical minerals produced, manufactured, or mined with forced labor from any country. All supply chains need to be robust, secure, and free from these horrendous labor practices, like the genocidal forced labor practices in the Uighur region of China. It is not enough, colleagues, to ban China alone, while forced labor continues to be a problem in many nations around the world. For this reason, I urge the support of this amendment to ensure that our supply chains align with these American values. And I am willing to do a voice vote, Mr. President.

Mr. WYDEN. This amendment strikes the Finance Committee's entire reconciliation instructions from the budget resolution. Colleagues, this would prevent the Senate from lowering the cost of prescription medicine for all Americans. It would prevent fighting the climate crisis with clean energy tax cuts, providing home and community-based services for the elderly and disabled, prevent us from creating a national paid leave program, and cutting taxes for working families. It would also make it impossible for the subsequent reconciliation bill to be paid for. I will just wrap up. I urge strongly that we oppose this measure because it would stop cold the effort to support policies crucial to the American family, and I urge its rejection. Vote on Amendment No. 3652

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, our core belief is that taxes should not be raised on small businesses and that the wealthiest and the biggest corporations should pay their fair share. This amendment is consistent with that. I am going to support it. I hope we can do this on a voice vote. Vote on Amendment No. 3292

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I have been advised that inclusion of this amendment in the budget resolution would be corrosive to the privileged status of the resolution. Since this amendment contains material inappropriate for inclusion in the budget resolution, its adoption could jeopardize the privilege of this resolution, which would completely halt our efforts to consider a reconciliation bill later this year. Additionally, this amendment is not germane as required by law. Accordingly, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and I would urge a vote against a motion to waive.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, it is my understanding that, after 15 hours or so, this is the last amendment of the night, and I recommend we do it by voice vote. (Chorus of ``ayes.'') Vote on Amendment No. 3753

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague for that timely information. Madam President, as I was saying, the Better Care Better Jobs Act, led by Senator Casey, really fulfills another dream that goes back to those Gray Panthers days. We know that America's most vulnerable would always prefer to get quality care at home, where they can be with loved ones. And yet this country really hasn't fulfilled that dream. Our legislation for seniors and for those with disabilities will give those individuals a long overdue opportunity to get good quality care at home and raise the work wages for the crucial workers who provide this frontline care. In this resolution, Democrats will also push to expand on the success of the Affordable Care Act. Already this year, the Congress expanded middle-class tax credits for health insurance on a temporary basis. We wish to make that permanent. Finally, more than a decade after the Affordable Care Act became law, there are still holdout Governors who have chosen to deprive vulnerable people in their States of access to Medicaid. Finance Committee Democrats are leading the effort to close that coverage gap. Climate Change I want to briefly touch on our work on energy and climate. Life for Oregonians this summer--and virtually every summer--has become about record-high temperatures and recordbreaking wildfires. Over one weekend last month, temperatures outside my house in Southeast Portland were at 108, 110, and then up to 116. And, unfortunately, I just learned that we are headed for another big, severe hit in terms of weather starting tomorrow and going through Saturday. It has gotten so bad that I have been spending time on the phone over the last few days trying to use a section of our CHRONIC Care Act, which allows Medicare Advantage plans to cover services essential for the elderly that didn't used to be considered healthcare, like air conditioners. And we are getting a good response from the plans. They know because we are seeing story after story--just another one yesterday--about seniors, often seniors who own their own homes but haven't been able to get the air filters and the air conditioners and the like. That is what we are faced with now this week in my home State. That is on top of the severe drought. And that kind of heat adds fuel to the mega-infernos that we have been seeing. Now, the Congress has to act to prevent the worst most catastrophic outcomes of climate change, and the linchpin of the Finance Committee's effort to tackle climate is the Clean Energy for America Act. The Finance Committee passed this earlier this year, and for the Finance Committee, this is the most dramatic proposal passed from the committee in more than 100 years--more than 100 years. And I am pleased to see climate's most vigorous champion on the floor here, our friend from Rhode Island. What we did, with the Senator from Rhode Island's help, is we took the 44 tax breaks in the Federal Tax Code for energy and we put them in the dustbin of history--gone, over, lights out--and we substituted, instead, one for clean energy, one for clean transportation fuel, and one for energy efficiency. And then we said for America going forward, we will have a tech- neutral free-market system for energy tied to one very clear measure; and that is, if you are a renewable energy program or you are a fossil fuel program, if you reduce carbon emissions--that one standard, reducing carbon emissions--you are eligible for the tax reductions in the Senate Finance Committee's proposal. The proposal also makes electric vehicles more affordable to middle- class families and boosts clean energy manufacturing in everything from semiconductors to solar components. An independent analysis of the Finance Committee's energy plan said it would help create more than 600,000 jobs, and I just believe it would be a catastrophic mistake to pass that up in order to protect the status quo. The status quo is an outdated system that basically cuts special taxpayer-funded checks every year to these powerful interests-- these oil and gas firms. So we are going to talk a lot more about climate in the days ahead, and I think it is very fitting that Senator Whitehouse is here. I will close by way of saying that the proposals that I have just outlined would be paid for under what we have focused on by restoring fairness to the Tax Code. I know there has already been some discussion on the floor of the Senate about how these proposals will be paid for. We will have a lot of discussion about it, but it sure takes chutzpah for the Members who spent $2 trillion on the Trump tax handouts to the megacorporations and wealthy to come over to the Senate floor and say it is the Democrats who are fiscally irresponsible. Senate Democrats in the Biden administration have been working on a number of changes that can help pay for the proposals in this resolution. That includes making sure megacorporations, which are paying less today than they have in decades--are required to pay a fair share. It includes legislation to close the carried interest loophole for private equity executives and legislation to close other loopholes abused by wealthy investors. And Democrats made a promise that nobody who earns less than $400,000 per year pay more in taxes, and we are going to stand by that. In fact, the expanded child tax credit is the largest tax cut for working-class and middle-class families in decades. And we have proposed as well to cut taxes for Main Street small businesses from one end of the country to another. Now, the Republican position has been something else. Their position is that megacorporations and those at the very, very, very top of the economic system, basically, shouldn't pay one penny in taxes. That is unfair. It is wrong. And the American people know it. We are going to have a lively debate on the resolution, and I am pleased to be able to stand up with colleagues to make the push, to make the fight for making it easier to support a middle-class family, lowering the cost of healthcare, addressing the climate crisis, and building a stronger, more fair economy. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, as we have just heard, thankfully, instruction is almost complete on the infrastructure bill. Once infrastructure passes, it is on to the budget resolution, which lays the foundation to pass Build Back Better this fall. The Senate Finance Committee is immersed in this effort. For several months, we have been working with members of the committee on a host of proposals that are included in the resolution. These proposals stem from essential American priorities, making it easier to support a middle-class family, lowering the cost of healthcare, and addressing the climate crisis. When you focus on those key priorities, you build a stronger, more fair economy and create good-paying jobs. There is going to be a lot to say about these issues in the hours and days ahead. Tonight, I will take just a few minutes to discuss the Finance Committee's work and why the policies are so important. I will begin with support for American families. For decades, typical working families in Oregon and across the land have felt that it has gotten harder and harder for them to climb the economic ladder. The cost of housing and education have shot into the stratosphere. Yet wages have largely been stuck on the launch pad. Despite being the best-educated generation in history, young people working in America today earn less on average than their parents did at the same age. It ought to be easier to raise a family in America. That is why Democrats created the monthly child tax credit expansion as part of the American Rescue Plan. The new program, as our colleague from Ohio, Senator Brown, has said, is Social Security for America's children. Too many kids have been growing up in poverty--or very, very close to it. The expanded child tax credit is cutting child poverty by more than half. But so far, it has only been funded for a year. With this resolution, Democrats are going to lock in the longest extension possible. Children and parents need help, and they need the certainty and predictability of a long- term extension. Together with the help of the HELP Committee, the Finance Committee is also leading the way for a comprehensive national paid leave program. This sort of program is long overdue, and there will be a special focus on our efforts--the HELP Committee and the Finance Committee--on making sure that it is equitable so that workers of modest incomes can afford to take paid leave, too. Every family in American needs reliable income and a roof over their heads. Tragically, affordable housing is in short supply, and as the pandemic proved, it takes just one big economic jolt to put millions and millions of Americans out of work. As part of this resolution, the Finance Committee is working on financial support for America's renters, as well as funding for new affordable housing. The challenge of affordable housing is no longer just an issue for a handful of big cities. It is a nationwide concern that needs creative big solutions. The Finance Committee is also zeroing in on worker training and making America's unemployment insurance more reliable and resilient for those in America who are laid off through no fault of their own. Having enough affordable housing, job training, and support for those workers is an economic win-win--good for families, good for businesses who rely on the strength of the American workforce. I am going to turn now to healthcare. Democrats have promised to allow Medicare to negotiate a fair price with Big Pharma. As the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I intend to make good on that promise. Americans have been getting clobbered at the pharmacy window because Big Pharma holds all the power over drug costs. With the help of Republicans, Big Pharma is now engaged in classic hostage taking. They say, We decide the prices you pay or the pipeline for innovation gets shut down That is just not a reasonable proposition. Big Pharma doesn't need to treat Medicare and American taxpayers like their own private ATM, and we don't need that in order to develop the next blockbuster drug. We also intend to build on the bipartisan work the Finance Committee has already done in the last Congress: fighting back against drug company price gouging, strengthening the Medicare prescription drug benefit, protecting seniors with an out-of-pocket maximum for their medications. Lifesaving medications shouldn't be sending anybody in America into bankruptcy. We are also going to be updating the Medicare guarantee for the modern era. The Finance Committee has already put a lot of work into updating the program, particularly to helping seniors with chronic conditions. That now makes up the bulk of the program--cancer, diabetes, heart disease, strokes, COPD. We have made a lot of headway there. The next update is giving seniors access to a dental, vision, and hearing benefit because those also are crucial to the health of America's elderly. Back in the days when I was a codirector of the Oregon Gray Panthers, we said Medicare was just half a loaf. It didn't address those concerns. Now we have the opportunity to make sure those essential benefits are available for seniors. Now, President Biden has called for major investment in home- and community-based care. And this is another priority for the Senate Finance Committee. We have been led in this effort by our colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Casey, and I have been pleased to assist him with that effort. And I believe the distinguished Senate majority leader has a question that he would like to pose. Order of Business

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague, and I will be brief. As Senator Toomey has indicated, he and Senator Lummis and I have an amendment to the infrastructure bill dealing with cryptocurrency and taxes. And I am going to go into some of the philosophical underpinnings of what we are doing, but I want to note something at the outset. Our amendment, this bipartisan amendment, ought to be accepted when the author of the underlying provision has said publicly he will vote for it if the Senate gets a chance to vote, as Senator Toomey and I have indicated. So let me just outline a couple of fundamental propositions about our proposal and start with one that ought to bring the U.S. Senate together. People avoiding taxes they owe on money through cryptocurrencies is a serious issue. It is fundamentally unfair to every working person whose taxes come straight out of their paycheck. Now, my view is the Senate needs to make sure that new rules addressing this tax avoidance ensure that it is possible to run down the crooks, have strong tax enforcement, while leaving a clear field for an innovation here at home. We want that innovation here. The fact is, when you don't innovate someplace, it goes somewhere else. We want it here at home. Without our amendment, this bipartisan amendment, it seems to us that essentially the whole notion of dealing with tax avoidance somehow is going to get lost in approaches for the brick-and-mortar rule. And, as I said, those rules run the very real risk of chilling innovation in the digital economy and driving the core innovations in crypto to places far beyond the reach of the U.S. Treasury and other law enforcement. So two sentences about what we do in our amendment: We want it stated the tax enforcement rules should focus on the companies that deal with buying, selling, and trading cryptocurrencies. These rules don't need to sweep up other uses of blockchain technologies that have nothing to do with tax avoidance. Senator Toomey and I serve on the Senate Finance Committee. I am the chair; Senator Toomey, a senior member. We have been struck by how many people in that space--the various aspects of blockchain technologies-- don't even have the tax documents that they would have to file, normally, if they were one of these big crypto exchanges. Now, the fact is, making changes in both tech and tax policy is hard work that takes time. When I wrote the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act that ensured that the rules online and the rules offline would be the same, we had hearings; we had debates; we focused on the issues and produced bipartisan legislation. The Senate is going to debate these issues further in the months and years ahead. As the chairman of this committee, I am open to working with anybody who wants to show that tough, effective tax enforcement and promoting innovation is not mutually exclusive. Smart policy--smart targeted policy--will get you both. Our amendment simply says that nobody can use crypto to avoid paying the taxes they owe, and anybody acting as a broker in the cryptocurrency industry must comply with reporting requirements, the same as brokers in every other industry. That is because they are brokers. They are not the people who Senator Toomey and I have been concerned about with going to be swept up in this treatment of crypto exchanges and the like. We advocate a smart, targeted approach and we make sure that reporting requirements, just like brokers in every other industry, are complied with. That is the kind of policy in the crypto area that lays the foundation for future debates. What Senator Toomey and I are doing is very focused in one specific area: Making sure we come down hard on tax avoidance by brokers and people in crypto exchanges, but we also make sure we are not discouraging innovation in other areas. This is going to be a debate that is going to play out over the years, but when the author of the provision in the bipartisan proposal on crypto, the author of the underlying provision in the legislation in front of us today, has publicly said in the last few hours he will vote for what Senator Toomey, Senator Lummis, and I have developed, we certainly ought to get a vote. My own view is it ought to be accepted by this body. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. 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. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. 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. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. 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. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. WYDEN. 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. WYDEN

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