Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN. 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

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

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I do.

Mr. WYDEN. 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. WYDEN. Mr. President, 30 seconds?

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

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

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

Mr. WYDEN. 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.

Mr. WYDEN. 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.

Mr. WYDEN. 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. WYDEN. 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.

Mr. WYDEN. 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.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President.

Mr. WYDEN. Can I have 30 seconds to briefly respond?

Mr. WYDEN. 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. WYDEN. 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. WYDEN. 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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. 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.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. 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. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. 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.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. 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.