actually believe that. most americans and then wondering how to get ahead. one thing we can start focusing on how do you lift up those who present better opportunity in the way to describe either chairman and senator scott who is focused on enterprise opportunity zones and blighted neighborhoods to make sure they are tax advantages for businesses like amazon and others to go into the neighborhood to increase wages to have better business opportunity. that we have good education. if you want to level the playing field for america make

sure every kid have adequate opportunity to be well-educated. what happens when a public school fails time and time again? what are the things we can do to level the playing field? here's what the census bureau said at an all-time low in 2019 and 2017 and 2019 with income inequality declined and the unemployment rate was at a 50 year low and rates for african-americans hispanic and people with disabilities hit the lowest levels on record and the blue-collar workers. there's two different models that were suggested in the model we are suggesting is

accumulation of wealth and then we should all be event line - - against that and what what a lot of people want and then to get the products that you want with online shopping they put brick-and-mortar businesses some of the things i haven't focused on his to make sure sales taxes are collected from online vendors like a brick-and-mortar business like my family had to create a tax advantage. so one level playing field with taxes and educational opportunities.

and what is too much money if the government gets in that business it will do more harm than good looking forward to working with you and many others and quite frankly i enjoy this committee talking about things that matter. we have some great witnesses this morning i think all of them for their willingness to be with us. first we have robert, many of you will remember he is the former labor secretary under president clinton. and the system who begged and how we fix it currently

professor of the policy at university of california berkeley. professor, thank you so much for being with us this morning. >> thank you very much mr. chairman and members of the committee. with your permission, i will simply provide my testimony and submitted to the committee that the committee would think very useful. i will summarize very quickly even before the pandemic america had the widest inequality of wealth we have had in a century wider than any other developed nation the median wage has barely badged for 40 years adjusted for inflation even with the economy of the united states is almost three times larger. and more than half of americans earned so little

they have to live paycheck to paycheck this is something new in the history of at least post-world war ii america. we have never seen the degree of inequality. increasingly the economies gains have gone to the top. the richest one tenth of 1 percent, mr. chairman, what you said, to underscore this has almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent put together. the compensation packages of top executives and ceos have soared from an average of 20 times of the worker 40 years ago or 60 times and i was labor secretary at 320 times today. the pandemic has made all of this much more stark. 660 billionaires in america together one.$3 trillion richer. this would be enough, by the way that they have gained

during the past year would be enough for them to give every american a 3900-dollar check and still be as rich as they were before the pandemic. the american rescue plan just enacted is hopeful in this regard and to look at the underlying structure if there is a huge stiff shift of power and senator graham is right there will be much more emphasis on fighting monopolies both in terms of high-tech companies and monopolies in terms of finance, big pharma, if you see more economic concentration and we have seen anytime in the last 60 years. and that translates into

political power. we have an unbalanced economy fewer than 7 percent of the workers are unions today but 50 years ago giant corporations didn't have the power to suppress prevailing wages or have washington lobbyist which they have today. another very important indication of what is happening is before the 1980s, the main driver of profits and the stock market was economic growth. but research has shown and i included in my testimony , since the late eighties corporations have increased profits and stock prices has been keeping people down.

that has hurt the working class. the working class in this country has taken it on the chin. they need to understand. there is an to market someplace in the atmosphere, in nature. the market is a human creation. as power has shifted dramatically against workers because they don't have unions to represent them, you have a change in the structure of the markets, a dramatic change to rebalance what is necessary of antitrust and substantially higher taxes stronger labor protections to enable workers to join together and gain higher wages and benefits, and also greater restrictions on the use of private and

corporate wealth to influence political decisions. i have much more to say but i just want to say i am eagerly awaiting your questions mr. chairman and members of the committee. >> mr. secretary, thank you very much. our second witness is director of global economy project at the institute of policy studies. ms. anderson has studied income wealth inequality four years and is a well-known expert on compensation. thank you for being with us. >> thank you very much for this opportunity. with the institute for policy studies and for more than 25 years. concentrating on the most dramatic driver the growing gap between co and worker pay. this is a systemic problem and

in 1980 the average gap of the worker pay is 42 / one over the past 20 years the gap averages 350 / one. the growing divide is a driver of gender and racial disparity. nearly 90 percent of fortune 500 ceos are white man while people of color and women are disproportionately large share of low-wage workers. we all pay a price. in 2008 executives had huge bonuses to crash our economy leaving millions without jobs in the wake of that disaster senator mccain and many other lawmakers call for a $400,000 cap on pay and all companies receiving taxpayer assistance. corporations and walk-through

banks design compensation packages to help rebound more quickly than ordinary americans. today there's a greater national suffering when front-line workers have proved how essential they are to our economy and health but yet once again many leaders are focused on bending the rules to protect massive ceo paychecks. at coca-cola the board gave them all bonuses last year the ceo wound up with 18 million of total compensation, over 1600 jobs from the typical pay. you know how carnival stranded the employees on the crew ships for months without pay? meanwhile the board gave the ceo a special retention and incentive award lifted his overall pay to more than $13,000,000.22 percent increase over 201,912,000

front-line workers contracted covid last year but that didn't stop the board and that they met their bonus targets. one of those is company chair see his personal wealth increase 62 percent during the pandemic at two.$4 million. researcher policy institute studies show that the combined wealth of all 668 billionaires one.3 trillion during the pandemic now corporate executives in the direct way of behavior from the 2008 crash many ceos did make working families much more vulnerable to the current crisis too many of the jobs that remained into low-wage part-time work without

benefits. we can and must do better as a nation with a model that creates prosperity for the few for the many. not just bad for workers but business. research shows by having his extreme gaps will lower productivity. in this time of crisis and we have common ground with ceo pay in fact the stanford survey found 53 percent of republican voters actually went to cap ceo pay relative to worker pay. and those that are far more moderate from republican support and with that ceo pay act to increase taxes on corporation with huge gaps for worker pay to create incentive to rain and pay at the top and worker wages with an estimated

150 billion in revenue over ten years. companies less than 50 / 100 this proposal and then to generate with executive access with a financial transaction tax with a short-term speculation that has inflated wall street executive bonuses while doing nothing for mainstreet. we can also leverage the power by giving corporations away gap in government contracting it has shown us after the financial crescents crashing during the pandemic we cannot rely on them to do the right thing when it comes to ceo pay. we need responsible policy solutions. thank you very much. look forward to your questions. >>. >> the next panelist and amazon worker at the amazon

settlement center trying to form a union at the department store union i invited both ms. bates and chairman mr. bezos a very happy ms. bates agreed to testify unlike mr. bezos. thank you for being with us. >> thank you chairman sanders. ranking members and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. paying workers above the minimum wage with those jobs are really like and that they can afford to do much better. working at the amazon warehouse is not easy the shift alone is superfast

you're constantly being watched and monitored. they seem to thank you are a machine. started to work at amazon may of 2020 not too long after they opened. by the third day i was hurting, looked around and it wasn't just me. i mentioned it to my sister who also worked there at the time and she just told me it only gets worse. at amazon you are on your feet all the time and climbing stairs. we only have 30 minute break spread ten hour shift to 30 minute breaks which is not long enough to give you time to rest with the size of a few football fields just the walk to the bathroom and back eats up your personal break time. coworkers and i

are older middle-age people who have to climb up and down the stairs. when i first came to amazon to work there was one elevator. i tried to use it a coworker stopped me and told me we are not allowed to use it. then i noticed there were elevators around the facility but it was materials only. i can this beautiful facility was so many elevators that the work itself you have to keep up with the pace that feels like a nine-hour intense workout everyday and then inspect our every move you can be charge with time not being on task i learned if i were to slow like be disciplined or even fired. it was too much for my sister and she ended up quitting. i thought there should be

another way. why can't large and while the company do better for their workers? amazon has made tons of money during the pandemic the richest man in the world then they expect is not to expect anything we didn't have before we started working do not deserve better amazon claims they went to help that economic growth and to pay a living wage and chile met for the cost of living working and in healthy conditions because we are not robots we deserve to live and laugh and love. we are the workers deserve to be treated with dignity and respect to be given the same

commitment that we give to the job every day we go home. it feels like are given only 30 percent. he was looking out for us. and i have to say we're the billionaires we don't get to spend any of it. we first are to talk about unionizing on one break and said they wouldn't do these things to us. people were upset about brakes being too short not having enough time for rest are being humiliated to go through random security checks going to the break to make sure we are not stealing merchandise

and then they don't even give us the time back for breaks. and then other times that even speak to a manager just get a message by an app or a text. sometimes is plain weird and then talk about job security. people were fired for no real reason and not being given the opportunity to speak to amazon about it. they claim we should be happy with what we have and they spend millions to tell us we don't need a union person is amazon found out they started to go hard to stop us we were forced into union education meetings. we had no choice but to attend them out given the opportunity to decline. they would last for an hour sometimes we have to go several times a week. it was different reasons and we had to listen to someone spoke up and disagreed they

would shut the meeting down and then follow up with us and a lot of what they said in that meeting was not true. and if they joined a union to get confused with what was said in the meeting. in the workplace was off-limits. despite all that or because of it to organize and build support. we will hope we hope you have a level playing field we hope it could rest more and then to

take some of the stress off of our bodies we hope we get a living wage not just amazon minimum wage and then to provide better for our families. we hope they will start to hear us and csn treatise like human beings. it is frustrating all we want is to make amazon a better place to work yet amazon is acting like maybe they spent less time and money trying to stop a union they would hear what we are saying. and maybe they would create a company that is as good for workers in our community as it is for shareholders and executives. thank you for giving me the time to share my story. >> thank you ms. bates very much. the next witness is president and ceo of economic innovation

group. prior to his work there he was the vice president of public policy and government affairs for leading business association the organization for international investment. thank you for being with us. >> thank you chairman sanders and ranking member graham and members of the committee great appreciate the privilege of testifying on inequality in the united states. there's many ways for congress to work in a bipartisan basis to a tackle inequality and with disadvantage people. several such areas american testimony including promoting dynamism pursuing an aggressive policy to boost wages and labor participation with an agenda to support distressed communities. and interest of time to focus my opening comments to help

low and moderate income americans build healthy long-term retirement savings. the us economy is most engine mouth but the lack of wealth is startling. the median net worth for the bottom 25 percent is $310. 50 percent of families have less than 2 percent of total wealth. on this central reasons for persistent lack of wealth is lack of retirement savings. that is the bottom 50 percent of american families is zero dollars the median for the top 10 percent is $810,000. the problem is that americans are not doing well of saving that the current poly so poorly designed for those to build wealth. retirement savings policy with deductions from taxable income at the bottom 50 percent of

the income distribution as well as result summer making $20000 gets nothing from federal and state taxes someone making 200,000 get 7000 and federal state aid. those who need help the most excluded by current policy. and that participation retirement savings perpetuates the racial wealth gap only 35 percent of hispanic families and 41 percent of black families hold any retirement accounts savings compared to 60 percent of white families. those that do have some retirement savings the white is the double than the black family. i can be done? and with the elegant and transforming them and went to be transformative to every member of congress to make all

low and moderate income workers eligible for program modeled after the federal savings plan. with contributions up to percentage of income. and in a paper and with the white house council of economic advisers make a case for expanding to tens of millions americans in employer-sponsored plan but they argue the design makes an ideal model for low and moderate income workers then to be passed on to future generations it is a well-designed program they enjoy the automatic enrollment an easy user interface with a 5 percent of income with those when combined have remarkably strong participation among

workers. it is a studied model that performs exceedingly well of traditionally marginalized workers from us retirement policy. the rates of high school degree or less in the bottom one third reach as high as 95 percent. workers on average contribute a significant share of their earnings to their kids accounts. and doherty provides compelling evidence they would avidly actively participate if made available to them creating such pathway through a widely available program modeled on tsp would be a chance for me to step to ensure everyone in this country has an equal state of national economic growth and prosperity. and with the current policy of tens of millions of workers including part-time and gig workers. early estimate suggests the social and economic benefits

could be achieved at relatively little cost was subsequent analysis would demonstrate. wealth and well-being is a worthy policy goal. i believe this is one of the most important. i look forward to taking your question. >> the last witnesses director poverty study on the studies aei serving as executive director of the joint economic committee thank you for being with us. >> thank you mr. chairman. chairman, ranking member and members of the committee thank you for appearing today policymakers confront those challenges facing the nation to the extent to command the

highest levels of attention based on wealth and the quality the conventional wisdom has risen dramatically and turns out to have suffered and even if it has risen over the same period that have significantly with all-time highs and it has fallen sharply 20 years ago this september the first estimates of income concentration in the united states were published as i say my written testimony there were important files. that these in indicate the top 1 percent was 14 percentage point between 1979 and improved estimates and the likely increase not taking

into account and ignore the way policy and after taxes and trade with the top 1 percent share goes from seven.2 percent in 19798.7 percent income measurements has improved that the perception of a crisis stems from the statistics the wealth concentration has also been influential calling for taxation. . . . . 0.1% around 9o

14% in 2016. but after adding the value of the increase with only 8% to 10% even if income or wealth concentration had risen more sharply at what it would matter. the fact of the matter that income below had risen significantly the congressional budget office finds the household income rose between 32 to 41% for 1979 to 2017. in increase was 54 to 61% after.

according to the official measure of the poverty rate was lower than ever before among all american families, families headed by a single woman, non-hispanic whites, blacks, hispanics and asians. as i discussed in my written testimony, zero official statistics had a way that understate the progress reducing poverty. poverty among the children of single mothers jumped in 1982 to 18% in 2014 and is lower today. before closing i want to redirect your attention to the two issues. first the problem of limited upward mobility out of poverty. even as we have proven it hasn't resulted in a greater chance the children raised in low income families will make it to the middle class. the progress with upward mobility is even more worrisome because it prevents us from narrowing that disparity end mobility between black and white children.

a second crisis involves the deterioration of the association relative to 40 or 50 years ago, americans married less often with family members doing fewer things together with their neighbors, attending religious services, fewer groups and spending time with coworkers out of the workplace. residential segregation worsened. single parents were increased. since these problems predate the increase and had occurred as the poverty rates had fallen, addressing them as likely required that would be considered if the goal to reduce inequality. indeed many policies that would reduce inequality were short-term poverty might be counterproductive in terms of increasing upward mobility or the declines. policymakers should take care of labeling the challenge. people of course will see how serious an issue is but a crisis

that is declared on the basis of the data and questionable claims about why the data is important from the risk of crowding out more pressing national problems. it's difficult to identify solutions to the problems but we cannot let ourselves be led astray in prioritizing them. thank you very much. >> thank you for your testimony. now we are going to begin the questions. let me begin my questioning with the former secretary of labor. mr. secretary, according to your testimony, 50 years ago, general motors was the largest employer in america with a typical work belonging to the union it made $35 an hour after adjusting for inflation. today america's largest employer is walmart where over half the workforce makes less than $15 an hour and none of the workers

belong to a union. how has the decline in the union membership contributed to the increase in income inequality? >> mr. chairman, one of the most dramatic changes in the united states over the past 60 years has been the decline in the percentage of private sector workers that are unionized. sixty years ago in fact even 50 years ago, one third of all private sector workers belong to a union. that gave them bargaining power at the front level and it gave them a voice at the level and political power because when you consider a third of all workers unionized, the unionized segment of the workforce had a political voice. today by contrast to 50 years ago, only 6.4% of private sector workers are unionized which

means that the level there's there isalmost no union presenct firms, at the level of national politics, the union voice is far less. the working-class voices far less and so in both respects in both levels, you get a severe imbalance. in the 1950s, we talked about the countervailing power represented by american labor unions, to the great powers of american corporations. countervailing power is now gone. there's almost no countervailing power left. so it is and that the worker was that much more brilliant or productive or the gm worker was so much better prepared than the walmart worker. the difference was the gm worker had a union behind him or her and walmart worker does not. >> i will have to interrupt you and i apologize but i want to ask some of the other panelists

a question. let me go to jennifer. let me ask you a very simple question. why do you believe it is so important for you and your coworkers to have a union at the amazon facility in alabama. why is that so important? >> it's important because we need and even playing field. people have been walking away from jobs because of the disrespect and inequality and nobody has actually stood up to say you know what, it's time for someone to be held accountable for what they are doing. amazon has decided if you see something say something. so we decided to stand up and say something. we need a better working conditions, we need better wages for living.

we need job security, so it is important for us the you union come in so that amazon will have the opportunity then to sit down and talk to us and with us to get these issues resolved. >> thank you very, very much. let me ask ms. anderson a question. according to your testimony, in 1980, ceos of large corporations made about 42 times more than the average worker. today they make over 300 times more than their average worker. very briefly, how did that happen? >> it didn't happen because ceos just got a lot smarter during that time period. on the worker and it happened because we've stagnated as the unions have declined as we have already discussed. it's happened because they've come to dominate the ceo pay

packages and the argument was that the shifting and sure the pay-for-performance and that has turned into a joke. study after study shows there is no connection between the pay levels and their performance. one of the most obvious examples after the 2008 financial crash when companies gave boatloads of stock options either executives when the market was at the bottom and very quickly the stock options ballooned in value as a result of the taxpayers recovery not because of an executive performance. >> thank you very much. my time is expired. senator graham. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to start with secretary rice. can you hear me? >> i can hear you perfectly sign.

>> what should the top individual tax rate to be in your view? >> under president eisenhower, dwight eisenhower you may recall the top rate -- it was 91% in the top effective rate was 43%. i don't think that we need to go back to the eisenhower years. he was a great president in many respects but i think that we do need to substantially increase the top rate from what it is today. >> just generally speaking what would that look like? you don't have to give an exact number. >> i would say in the range of 40 to 50%. >> what should the corporate tax rate be? >> are you asking me again,

senator? >> i would say that the corporate rate probably ought to be and again we are talking about income taxes, corporate income taxes i think the top corporate income tax rate ought to be around 30%, maybe 35% of where it was before, but the question with corporate taxes is always interesting because the question is who ultimately pays. i'm one of the people who thinks maybe we ought to reduce the corporate income tax and increase capital gains taxes because it is the shareholders who should bear the most of the burden of the corporate income tax. >> what should the capital gains rate to be? >> i think the capital gains rate should be between around 25 or 28%. warren buffett things there ought to be a minimum income tax

that would be including capital gains. i think he may be right. >> okay. do you support school choice for neighborhoods who have poor performing public schools? >> again if you're asking me, senator, i support school choice in the sense that i think that poor performing schools do need to be held accountable. the question is what the choice is. i think that any organization whether it is a charter school or public school ought to be in the position of offering a good education, and i've offered a proposal years ago. nobody supported it except governor bush who liked this idea which was a voucher that would be universally related to family income.

>> that's very helpful. thank you. >> do you support school choice for the poor performing schools for parents to have a choice? >> senator graham, it's an important question but it falls outside of the scope of my organization's work. i'm happy to offer my personal opinion but i want to make it clear it isn't an issue that we've studied. >> that's okay. about the tax rate i just talked about, what is your view on the tax rate? >> the question of where they should be set is a complicated one because it depends what other aspects are a factor. i think what we know about the corporate tax rate for example is -- >> would you support a flat tax? >> no. >> do you support tax reform to

eliminate the deductions and exemptions? >> yes because as a general matter the progressive tax code is good and so the answer is yes. >> my point is if you wanted to improve the life of the average american worker, at what point does regulation and taxation in business trickle-down to the inability to get good paying jobs in a growing economy, how much does tax and regulation impact the american economy and the ability of people to participate at a higher level? >> one of the things that is often misunderstood as the complexity as a subsidy to the larger incumbent stakeholders so the more complex the economy is, the more complex the regulatory system for the tax code the more likely it is to be gained by those at the top and the more likely to disadvantage those at the bottom. so, as the policymakers think

about these questions which are important, i think the implicit entry created by complexity is something with that we should keep in mind because it is something that plays into the theme of the robust competition and holding larger stakeholders. >> one last question. do you worry that if the tax rates are out of line on the corporate side with the rest of the world that will incentivize american companies may be to leave? >> i think certainly that tax rates can be a disincentive. it's not the only factor they consider when looking at the positions. trade plays a large role but certainly if the u.s. were to get way out of, i think that would be a huge problem. >> thank you. senator whitehouse. >> thank you, chairman. my questions are for mr. reisch.

first of all, thank you for your testimony. you document unprecedented income inequality in the country basically since the gilded age, which on its own is a problem. but the question i want to raise with you is what do the new age robber barons do with that 1% are billionaires? we know some of them start big famous foundations and they do charitable work, and good for them, but some of them set up faux foundations and fund fake think tanks and go to work in politics from hiding. many of them are billionaires who made billions in the fossil fuel industry and the operation that they run the billions can best be compared in my view to hostile covert operations like

intelligence services. so, the question is what happens when income inequality at virtually unprecedented levels spawns political inequality? what happens when you have a quiet believe ruling political class hiding behind dark money outlets to control political parties, to control public debates, to control elections through sponsored think tanks through captive paid for media outlets and through dark money funded super pacs and independent expenditure political operations? can you comment on the line and tv advertising but wait there's more, can you comment on the wait there's more of the political inequality that the political hidden youth of all of this massive fortune that they have aggregated has brought to

bear? >> yes, senator and this is one of the most important negative consequences of why the degree we have today that is people at the top of the huge amounts of assets can and do use a lot of that money to influence political decisions not only at the federal level but also at the state and local level that increases their wealth. it's a vicious cycle. we see for example amazon in seattle has spent a great deal of money on the city council elections. council elections. amazon around the country is large enough than can have an option that extorts money from states and cities around the country or where the second

headquarters are going to be. the whole roll of money and our system and the overwhelming dominance of money from big corporations as well as very wealthy individuals polluting american politics is one of the worst aspects of inequality and as the great louis brandeis, the justice once said we have a choice in this country. we can either have a great deal of money in the hands of a few people or we can have a democracy, but we cannot have both. >> so, what happens to citizenship and to the citizenry when a citizen can't tell who the actor is on the political stage, when the ad doesn't say i am exxon and i approve this

message, i'm coke industries and i approve this message but instead it says behind a phony front group americans for peace and puppies and prosperity approve this message and you go and look up americans for peace and peace and prosperity and it is a drop. what is the citizen left with? >> the citizen is left with no ability to sift through the messages that the citizen receives as to the veracity and reliability. >> motive sometimes matters, doesn't it, and if you hide the identity you also hide the motive and the ability as a citizen to evaluate the motive and therefore the veracity. >> indeed. and the supreme court has repeatedly said as recently as in citizens united, as you know, that transparency will cure all of the negative aspects of great

wealth and corporate wealth in our political system but that hasn't happened. we don't have the transparency. congress hasn't demanded it and a lot of dark money and dark money groups have 501 c4 groups making it possible for the citizens to know who is actually providing what messages. and i will point out a great number are in the supreme court right now trying to undo that transparency part of the supreme court citizens united holding thank you, secretary and mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. chair man and for holding this hearing. the title of which is the income and wealth inequality crisis in america. i think we ought to start with asking ourselves is this really a crisis, is that how we should think about especially the most recent trends in income and wealth inequality. i want to start with a chart

that's been provided to us. he refers to as the wage and salary income that has dropped as a percentage of. you could argue that it goes back further but it looks like it's declining. what is really interesting is he chose not to provide all of the data that is available. he cuts off the data in 2018. the data for 2019 and 2020 are available and so let's take a look at what the picture looks like if you include all of the available data, if you include all of the available data, what you notice is it's the same graph except we have a very significant uptick. in fact it's an upward trend

from 2011, clearly an upward trend. in fact, in 2018 and 2019, the upward trend -- mind you we are talking about wages and salaries as a percentage of the total economy, the upward trend that has been underway for ten years now was accelerating in 2018, 2019, further in 2020. so, should we consider that we are in a crisis of income inequality when the situation has been trending better for ten years and most recently at an accelerating pace. we have recaptured that from where we were in 2003. i think when you've got more available, you really ought to use it. let's take a look at another chart that we have here. this is from the atlanta and it compares wage growth for the

lowest 25% of the wage earners to the wage growth from the highest 25% of earners. now, the lowest 25% is in blue and the highest 25% is in this gold color. what does the chart to show? show? it shows sometime around 2014, the wages started growing more rapidly for low income workers and the wages had been growing for high income workers and what does that mean? that means the income gap is getting narrower. if the higher income people's raises are occurring at a lower pace than the low raises then the income differential is narrowing and that is what is happening and once again, not only is that happening, but it's happening at an accelerated pace because you see the gap by which low income earners are

outperforming high income earners in terms of their wage growth. that gap has. so the acceleration at the rate in which lower income earners are gaining ground relative to high income workers when that's happening and accelerating, should we think of that as a crisis? the reason i'm concerned, let's go to one more chart. we've got another one provided by the st. louis fed and it's from the u.s. bureau of labor statistics. this is a depiction of the average hourly earnings of production and nonsupervisory employees. so, these are not managers, they are not executives. and what's happening is wages have been rising and prior to 2015, not at a very spectacular place that's for sure, but it's certainly been accelerating to the point where in the recent years, these wage gains have been well above the rate of

inflation. so, my point is this is very good news. i know some would like to suggest that we have a crisis so as to justify various socialist policies and even more redistribution of wealth, but the fact is the income gap has been narrowing at an accelerating pace. a quick word about the wealth gap. one of the ironies of this is a big source of the increase in the wealth gap has been the inflated value of the financial assets. why have the financial assets gone up so much in value? a big part of it i think is ultra easy money by the federal reserve. our democratic colleagues have long been huge advocates of the ultra easy money by the federal reserve. you should be careful what you wish for because this is one of the consequences but even here there is good news and the good news is that while investing in financial assets used to be the

domain of just the wealthy, that is increasingly becoming an activity of middle income and even people of modest means and in 1989 fewer than one third of american households own stocks and in 2019 a majority almost 53% of american households own stocks. this is going to help narrow the gap and i see that i've consumed my time. thank you for indulging me mr. chairman. >> senator van holland should be with us on video. >> thank you mr. chairman and ranking members and all the witnesses for your testimony. we have seen another explosion in terms of the gaps between the ceo compensation and the compensation that they provide to their workers that's why i

joined senators sanders and introducing the bill but i would like to start with you with the danger of using sort of economic average measures to measure how the overall economy is performing or for working people, so for example if jeff moved to baltimore city last year, you would have seen a tripling of the per capita income in baltimore city. the current per capita income is roughly $53,000. jeff moved there last year more than triple, that is roughly $175,000 per person and of course the situation of any individual in baltimore city would not have changed at all and so looking from the outside

of the average is, you would say what's going on in baltimore city, a huge increase. can you talk about why we need to be drilling down on different economic measures to gauge the success of the policies for most americans? >> i look at the measures that simply look at the average as you get more and more unequal it doesn't tell you what you need to know about what is happening at the bottom half. the biggest story over the last

50 years has been the fact that the bottom half what we used to call the middle-class and working-class their situation have become so similar and the insecurities and the degree to which they are living paycheck to paycheck have become central to our political economy. ..

>> coming to work understanding that things are being said. and to get the's issues resolved. and then to just get worried you have no idea and to negotiate a living wage not just a minimum-wage one of my coworkers the other day try to

apply for an apartment and they said she did not make enough you have to make at least $39000 average to afford an apartment is would open the eyes not just in alabama that all over the corporations don't pay attention to the working class people that we are living paycheck to paycheck not just to pay the rent or mortgage but we also have to live. and that opens the door to a lot of things. >> thank you mr. chairman it was chairman sanders was here because they wanted to second what lindsay was talking about. these are very interesting and

important there are areas of potential agreement here and a big is the accumulation of wealth but the accumulation of power. i think lindsay was referring to that. we went to eastern europe and senator white house was at the conference when you go to eastern europe they always talk about the corruption of the media oligarchs. we have something similar here as well. you can measure the income disparity but asset disparity. but here is one way to look at income disparity. did for the cameras. this is simply the five quintile's the income earners

broke up just looking income it is 26 times difference between the lowest quintile and the upper quintile. but it completely changes when you take away taxes from the upper quintile and add benefits. that is only a three times differential. we can all talk about statistics and use them to support the arguments and we do recognize it. and we have to diagnose what caused it. senator kane is back and i talked with him with a republican tax plan. we did need to make the system more competitive but at the time i was promoting something i thought would be a better approach of tax simplification and tax rationalization. to me income is income with the fact so many different

types we just arbitrarily assigned different tax rates distorts economic activity. and to create so many incentives for the c corporation so they don't flow out to the shareholders and then to reallocate into the economy. with a true warren buffett tax. but when i do that 100 percent of corporations tax all corporate income at the individual rates. working out the complications it is quite easy to do. i know it is a departure but i

would love to work with my colleagues across the aisle and my republican colleagues to rationalize the tax system. capital gains there are lower capital gains rates to make some sense you don't want to tax weird inflationary gains. from a standpoint taxed at the same rate but we move the inflationary gain by a indexing the asset. to simplify and rationalize the tax system. billy go to professor reich first you disagree with this chart where i show income income taxes and benefits, 26 times differential if you add in income taxes and add benefits which by the way, according to phil gramm, $45000 average benefits from different welfare programs the lowest 20 percent in 2020 alone. income went up five.5 percent. total savings one.$6 trillion.

the economy will take off with the pent-up demand. >> and out of the wan you add intent taxes and transfers inequality of income is far less dramatic and that is an argument i assume four more taxes and transfers. but the wealth inequality one of the biggest problems we have in this country in terms from political influence to the distortions that occur when great wealth is transferred from family to family and generation to generation has to do with wealth inequality and not only income inequality. >> now it is senator keynes time.

>> thank you income is income is something i really believe in so maybe there is some discussions they are. i have a chart with me i hope that might be visible depending on the camera angle. it is not right now. and this chart is interesting because it shows the different values of the two parties right now. it also shows potentially a different economic philosophy we can operate a real-time experiment on. this takes a look at how the benefits in the trump 2017 tax

cut and jobs acts were allocated with the quintiles of the american public and how the benefits of the american rescue plan passed in february my democrats were allocated among the american public. if you look at the chart the quintile that topped benefited was the top quintile by the democratic american rescue plan was the lowest. 65 percent of the benefit is 65 or more than 65 of the benefit went to the bottom three quintiles. and was relatively even in distribution benefits across the first four quintiles of american income where you can see a dramatic and waiting for the republican tax cuts and jobs act. >> given the republican and tax act was passed with republican support in the american rescue plan was passed with unanimous democratic support, i think these two plans are an interesting window into the

values of the two parties. and the price tag was essentially the same of one.9,000,000,000,001.75. so i think this is a great chart and the coincidence but it's a great chart to show the different philosophy in the two parties how you want to allocate benefits. if the government does something like this and then to spread more evenly with a focus with that philosophy to concentrate benefits at the top. what i'm interested is a question i like to post to the panelist is the values of the parties i also think we will now set up a real interesting two-year study of the effect of effectiveness legislation

on the american economy. the republican tax cut done december 2017 with a two-year experiment through december 2019 and you wouldn't want to get into 2020 because covid is a shots he wanted to your study on the american rescue plan for february 2021 and what you do i would encourage my friends to do this is look at every economic data point you think is significant employment and poverty rates and stock market and business startup activity gdp wealth inequality deficit. the economic measure for the tax cut and jobs act starting december 2017. and for the american rescue plan february 2021 and the kenwood affected the economy in the next two years and you will see not only the values of the party but which

economic philosophy produces more good for american society. it is a working hypothesis i would put on the table to our experts never love anyone on the panel to address whether my hypothesis is worthy of study. >> i can jump in from the posse is studies i appreciate your carl for more analysis. these policies of inequality. and a whole range of income levels. i would suggest an additional indicator. that 40 percent of americans could not afford a 400-dollar emergency meaning they were just one medical problem and one step away from financial ruin the most powerful

indicator it's about the cost of living in the cost of healthcare just skyrocketed so it's a concrete way to look at how that level of economic security with a growing number of billionaires at the top. >>. >> we are waiting for senator braun who was on his way here so on the spirit of equivalent as have senator johnson ask a question well here he is saving the day just in the neck of time for his time. i will recognize senator braun if you want to take a moment to get yourself squared away. very good.

and then he can resume the gavel. >> listening to the opening remarks and what happens with minimum wage, income inequality, and when it comes to how you tackle it the difference between main street usa, small businesses and family-owned or even midsize businesses and public

corporations if you have a different dynamic and play. you have to be careful. the opposite of that ends up that is too overbearing. it has to do with the other major sectors of the economy and dominated by a system with no transparency and doesn't have the engage consumer the consumer makes the markets work. and while amazon pays $15 an hour and the wherewithal should be more than that.

that something needs to be done with the minimum wage but then as a regional point of view you don't want to disrupt places like indiana where it's working with a great business climate and a low cost of living so if you do anything with minimum wage places like new york city seattle should be over $20 an hour because of the cost of living is so high. and what has been talked about here, may be hurting in the long run to bring the federal government in to moderate the situation and sadly where

corporations rule do not have that. the other thing is the structural deficits we run in this country with close at $1 trillion per year then how do you without upsetting and economy raising wages the old-fashioned way, pre- covid, how do you bridge a structural deficit associated with programs like social security, medicare, medicaid, tt we need that are not self-sustaining? i love your explanation. can you raise revenues in any way that will not upset the economy that there is a sweet spot of corporate rates with

effective corporate tax rates 18 percent and then you talk main street employers actually got a tax break that was driving the economy when you take the qualified income reduction and took that rate. love to your comments and then without upsetting the economy. >> we have learned to the deficit and the level of debt is less than me thought it was as recently as even 20 years ago in terms of inflationary expectations. but at some point we do need to raise revenue and the question obviously becomes where and how and who would

pay. the subject of the hearings is income and wealth it seems if we are looking for places to raise revenue assuming they come to the point, given the need of this country we do have to raise revenue

is certainly at the top and i think the proposals for a wealth tax merit a great deal of attention. we have property taxes at the local level a form of wealth tax and given the extraordinary wealth come in the hands of certain people in this country a wealth tax is appropriate. and also the loopholes we have been talking about for years like the carried interest loophole. there's no reason for it. and many other loopholes as well put into the tax code because there are companies and industries that are hiring, lobbyist the spend all their time looking for ways to

create a message with tax liability. let's get rid of those loopholes and make sure the base is wide as possible. >> if it's very brief. >> a quick follow-up question. where the spending fit into the formula with record revenues and how much of a deficit are you willing to tolerate with monetary theory? >> we don't know all that much frankly with monetary theory it is a fairly new idea. we don't want to take too many risks. at some point that deficit financing total federal debt could ignite inflationary expectations. that's why they get serious

about raising revenue. the easiest place is for people who are very wealthy the least dampening effect on the economy. but right now with underutilized capacity with nine.5 million americans who have lost their jobs, 4 million dropping out of the labor wage force altogether 15 million americans working part-time who want to be working full-time with this underutilized capacity, right now we do need to spend to stimulate the economy there's no question about that and there's a great deal of consensus about that with regard to the mainstream. thank you. >> thank you very much. i believe the last question? >> chair sanders thank you very much to you and the ranking member for today's hearing i look forward to having a conversation about the importance of unions. they family raise me to understand that communities are stronger when workers are protected and my grandfather was a union carpenter my dad was an ironworker. my mom worked with the local public school district my brothers ibew

and my nephew accepted into an apprenticeship program i believe everyone should have the same opportunity my grandfather, father and siblings and if you have to build security into has something passed on better to your children and grandchildren. and that's what i fight for today. the testimony we heard today include striking statistics. , 12 does the bottom 50 percent of families own? >> senator that is 2 percent. >> what is the current pay gap between ceos and the average worker? >> over 300 / one. >> how much of that value has the minimum wage loss to inflation since last raised 2009? >> just about 10 percent to make him a chance union membership fallen over the past century? >> 32 percent of private-sector workers down at six.4 percent today. >> down 33 percent since 1950. >> would you agree increased inequality are correlated with declined of membership

? >> you think they are directly correlated. look at the rise of unions, you can see the years 1940 to 1978 those were the years of the greatest degree of equality in terms of income much more equitably than today. >> a very much appreciate having you here today. i want to make sure i give you time to answer the question.

is similar to earlier so what would having the opportunity to join the union mean to you and your coworkers? >> our voices have been amplified to give us an even playing field with better pay wages that the living wage not just of minimum-wage enemas on - - amazon voices. and job security and get fired for doing nothing but with the value in a commitment to the job and not just amazon investment all over the country. >> thank you for being here today. i appreciate the expertise especially that i have benefited from the work as a secretary of labor and t5. your testimony has been very compelling. thank you so much for coming today ever bring us together with that chair sanders i yield back. >> thank you very much senator. not sure if we have another senator join us. but let me wrap up this hearing by thanking all the panelist and senators who participated. the issue we're dealing with today income inequality is an issue that has to be addressed and an issue to determine what kind of nation we wish to

become. we are the wealthiest nation in the history of the world that the truth is half of our people are living paycheck to paycheck millions of people are working for starvation wages as a result of the pandemic people wonder how they will feed their kids and avoid eviction for go to the doctor when they are another family member get sick. our goal is to create a nation for the economy works for all people and not just the very few but that is where we are

right now. not only the absurdity of two people in america having more wealth than the bottom half the country but the power on top that they have to hire lobbyist in washington, influence legislative decisions, own media, me campaign contributions. there is a reason the rich get richer. it's not just economic decisions or political decisions and too often they are influenced by the people who have the money. this was an excellent hearing. thank you to the panel for participating we look continue this issue in the months to come. thank you very much. what?

meeting adjourned. [inaudible conversations] in

hate crimes we have seen in our state and across the country. now, madam president, i rise today to voice my strong support >> madame president i risern today to voice my strong support is the attorney general to serve as secretary of hhs after four years of attack on healthcare from president trump and one year of the pandemic ravaging the nation, the challenges that lie ahead of us especially with healthcare are numerous, enormous and absolutely urgent. the uninsured rate and healthcare cost of all

skyrocketed. confidence in public health agencies have plummeted already equities have gone deeper and devastating communities pushing to the brink covid-19 has killed over half a million people and that number continues to rise. when it comes to the hard work ahead to rebuild a stronger and fair country it is clear we need an experienced leader at department of health and human services. we don't have a second tors waste it's clear attorney general javier bacerra has the conviction and qualification of the task at hand and as a member of congress for over two decades he has proven himself a skilled legislator who understands healthcare policy as attorney general of

the largest justice department , he has proven himself as a leader capable of heading a complex department like hhs. and throughout all of his work he has proven himself as a champion for public health. with quality affordable healthcare passing the children health insurance program many affordable care act in time and time again has gone to court like winning a $70 million settlement for pharmaceutical companies winning a settlement from opioid manufacturers behind the addiction crisis or when he worked to investigate

companies and hold them accountable for putting workers accountable for putting workers when they were unlawfully marketed and then marketing tobacco products to children and let a bipartisan effort with the republican attorney general of nebraska to protect from tobacco imagery. investigating companies and hold them accountable to put failing to follow covid-19 safety measures. attorney general bacerra driving inequities in healthcare and as leader of the department of justice he fought in court against the trump administration rule for the lgbtq community against the constant efforts to undermine reproductive health care with that plane disregard for my grandchildren. attorney general bacerra also this on - - established of your of disability rights as well as focusing on environmental justice compilation public health hazards have disproportionately hurt communities of color. overall the record tells a story that is

clear, compelling and persuasive. he fight against pharmaceutical companies opioid manufacturers, tobacco ndcompanies employee's and more affordable quality healthcare for every patient. i have no doubt as secretary to put patients in public health first into the data and experts back into the driver's seat. and also bring an important perspective to the 12th and first generation college students. he is exactly the kind of leader we need to make sure we make it on the promise of these historic investments we made of the american rescue plan to end this pandemic to rapidly scale up testing and sequencing to identify new strains of covid and slow the spread.

the effort to break down barriers to access to promote vexing confidence and investments to build public health infrastructure recruit and train 100,000 public healthcare workers and also a valuable partner to congress as we were to address challenges that predate this pandemic that make it all the more urgent like rooting out systemic racism to address inequities in themi system which make the pandemic so much more damaging for communities of color addressing the mental health care crisis that is made this trauma so much worse with the opioid epidemic a crisis w than ever the past year and like expanding access to quality affordable childcare which has becomehe

more difficult for families to get during this pandemic. when it is over we will need a strong leader at the department and was so many other outstanding issues bring down prescription drug prices and that is truly a right not a privilege and h doing four years of attacks and reproductive rights to ensure every woman can get regardless of race or income or zip code or disability lowering the maternal mortality rate, reversing the alarming trait and ensuring the office of refugee resettlement upholding the welfare mission to prioritize every child in its care to ensure with decency and humanity and o kindness to place children with suitable sponsors quickly and safely. senator to

we have our work cut out for us but as attorney general bacerra secretary is up to the job. important natalie with republicans and democrats and attorneys generals of louisiana and tennessee have spoken highly of their experience working with him. iron to every senator who once the administration to succeed to end the pandemic quickly, keeping family safe to make sure everyone gets quality affordable healthcare joining me to vote yes to confirm. >> i rise to share my objection the nomination of attorney general bacerra secretary hhs. one.$3trillion of spending and hhs that department has a largest budget and the entire executive branch. in fact to compare the budget of hhs to other nations gdp, hhs ranks among the top ten in the world. the size of this department is

significant the responsibilities are even greater overseas this department is a big impact on the crunchy, the economy including those of the unborn. this is exactly why am deeply concerned with president bidens pack of attorney on - - attorney general bacerra for hhs. he has spentas his career promulgating far left ideology with divisive policies that don't resonate with the majority of americans the secretary of hhs has massive authority to steer the future of healthcare in our country. someone who made a career from the abortion industry and other federal policies like free healthcare for illegal immigrants should not be at the helm of this department. i am concerned attorney general bacerra has the power of this agency to overstep and impose the radical liberal

agenda on millions of americans. this administration decidedly intentionally chose a nominee to his repeatedly attacked the religious freedom of so many americans. that has pushed a very pro- abortion agenda and the nominee that supports a complete takeover by the government of the healthcare and nominee that advocates for illegal immigrants for taxpayer-funded healthcare. how do these qualities make attorney on - - attorney general bacerra right person ahead hhs? it doesn't make sense to summon in our country that this unfortunately is a far left administration that is outside the mainstream. especially now during a pandemic it is critical that all americans can trust to ever hold this position and it's critical the leader of this massive department

operates as a good steward of federal health programs not using the post to impose the government takeover healthcare to eradicate jobs based coverage for millions ofra americans, he is not that person. heme has built his career defending the most extreme stances in society. and we can expect he will only take things further it hhs. when it comes to abortion attorney general bacerra does not believe there should be any restrictions, not one. in fact they had the chance to ask him some questions at a hearing volumes.

his inability to name even one restriction you might think about putting on abortion is chilling. and mr. becerra's views on abortion even go a step further. he has repeatedly bullied and harassed americans that respect the sanctity of life like the little sisters of the poor. this order of nuns has dedicated their lives to serving the less fortunate and under their fortunate and under their i asked if he would support a ban on the lethal discrimination of babies diagnosed with down syndrome or banning sex selective abortions or at least a ban on partial-birth abortions? his refusal to answer spoke volumes not even one restriction he would think about iss chilling in his views on abortion even goe a step farther he has repeatedly bullied and harassed americans that respect the sanctity of life like the sisters of the poor this order of nuns has dedicated their lives to serve the less fortunate and with their catholic faith they do not believe in providing abortion or contraceptive. attorney general bacerra litigated against these nuns in court and attempted to revoke the exemption for

religious groups from providing contraception and that goes against their religious beliefs. literally sued to impose crippling fines on catholic not nuns remaining true to their religious beliefs. crippling fines on nuns a horrendous attack on america's constitutional right for religious freedom. he said crossing the border illegally would be criminalized. like crossing the border illegally should be decriminalize.

and then to receive health benefits of taxpayer dollars. and one of the u nominees would seek to incentivize to incentivize border crossings even more. but attorney general bacerra would have a massive ability to have pro- abortion anti- religious freedom and socialist healthcare agenda but sadly the biden administration really is. to represent the failure majority of americans in noio place att the largest department of executive branch. i urge my colleagues to consider the impact hent would have as head of hhs and vote against his confirmation we must end up for life for mayor religious freedom and the american firstic agenda and his nomination. i yield back my time. >> the senator from utah. >> the stated mission department of hhs is to enhance the health of all being of all americans. and then to oversee all healthcare and social services to protect the health and the

rights of the american people. unfortunately the history of the nominee before us attorney general bacerra poses grave concerns to carry out this goal and for the ability to oversee and agency with such vast far-reaching responsibilities. first he is repeatedly on the record to eliminate private health insurance for millions of americans even at a time when families need affordable, effective and flexible healthcare. and when healthcare workers need jobs now more than ever , it is concerning that he has repeatedly and deliberately undermined america's constitutional whites and wages with political warfare

for those who disagree with his views. take for example his views on abortion set of laws that protect and sustain the life and health of american women and unborn children he supports laws of finally hurt them to endorse legal abortion up and tell and during the moments of birth. as attorney general as a state of california with 15 felony charges against reporter to expose planned parenthood's wall exporting body parts ofer aborted babies even the l.a. times said is disturbing overreach. defended a california law that required pregnancy centers to advertiser state funded abortion clinics that so egregiously violated free speech it was ruled unconstitutional which of course it was and is.

but is consistently and flagrantly taking hostile actions against religion. perhaps the worst example of this can be found in his legal persecution of the little sisters of the poor. a religious order of catholic nuns who care for the elderly poor. he waged a lengthy and difficultsi battle against the sisters, and order of nuns with contraception in the health insurance plan even though doing so violates their beliefs and they are nuns. even after the supreme court ruled for the little sisters of the poor in 2016 under a separate case and after the trump administration granted full protection in

2017, attorney general bacerra stills to the trump administration for those protections. he wasn't comfortable letting those stand in place with respect to little sisters of the poor it wasur determined to make sure they couldn't live according to their own religious beliefs and their teachings. during the pandemic, the legal architect of the most strident street on - - sleeping brazenly unconstitutional restrictions on church and worship services. some of which were struck down by the supreme court in the last month and tried to prevent covid relief funds for going to religious and other t,private schools. irst

amendment to the constitution. in doing so, they sought to defend and preserve the space for our deepest convictions, a space upon which the state cannot and must never encroach. in practice, that has meant that the government's job is not to tell people what to believe or how to discharge their religious duties, but to protect this space for all people of all faiths and of no faith at all, for that matter, to seek truth and to order their lives and to order their lives our founders established the principle of religious liberty and the natural right of all human beings to freely hold them live out their religious beliefs. because they understood man is not free unless his conscience is free. this principle was so important, so fundamental, it was the first freedom articulate in the first amendment to the constitution.

they sought to defend and preserve the deepest convictions that the state cannot ever encroach andnton impact is the government's job is not to tell people what to believe. how to discharge their religious duties to protect all people and all faith and those of no faith at all for that matter, to seek truth in order lives accordingly. the american people deserve a leader at hhs who will strengthen the tradition. a leader to protect the fundamental rights, not trample them. unfortunately, tragically the record of this nominee demonstrates serious threats it appears that president biden arrived at the white house prepared and willing to grant himself and his administration a mandate that american voters didn't agree to give to him. his party lost ground in the house. they split the senate. and they maintained their trailing minority of governorship. but they seem to ignore that. in his first 50 days, he did 34

executive orders. more than anyone in history. he dismantled existing immigration controls, threatened protections for small businesses against the radical climate agenda, and destroyed thousands of jobs and the potential for greater energy security promised by the keystone x.l. pipeline project. meanwhile, my democratic meanwhile, my democratic to the rights and health and well-being of the american people they deserve better and i cannot support the nomination attorney general bacerra. thank you i yield back my time. >> the senator from tennessee. >> it appears president biden arrived at the white house prepared and willing to grant himself and administration that american voters did not agree to give to him. the parties won the house and split the senate and maintained the trailing minority of governorships butbu they ignore that. and his first 50 days he did 34 executive orders more than anyone in history. positions onr

to avoid debate on radical immigration reform, the equality act, and an already infamous bill that would federalize elections. they just don't want to talk about these things. just do it. the more people learn about what the biden white house is up to, the more questions that they have for those of us who represent them. some of my democratic friends in tennessee say to me i may have voted for joe biden, but i did not vote for this. they do not want to radically change the country. they do not want to be tied to legislation that has a nice-sounding name but does the exact opposite of what the biden administration would have you believe that it would accomplish. they have noticed that the president's cabinet picks came into their confirmation hearings

ready and willing to move the goalposts away from the constitution and the rule of law to accommodate their radical agenda. last week, this body voted to discharge from committee xavier becerra's nomination to the health and human services secretary position. i voted no, and i will vote no on his confirmation as well. not only because he is not only because he is to transform the senate not ands

views don't align with his own. submit, conform, or else. it is in the nature of our job as legislators to recognize that, yes, elections do have consequences, and yes, the president has a right to assemble his own cabinet, but we cannot be expected to greenlight a nominee who has so little patience for diversity. diversity of thought, diversity of opinions. and his first and only instinct

is to destroy the diversity. burn it to the ground, bring it back in their own image. that's not what the american people want president biden and his administration to do, but that's what they are getting with this nominee. i strongly oppose xavier becerra's nomination. i have from the start, and i would urge my colleagues to consider what you will be approving if you vote in favor of this confirmation. radically antilife. radically antireligion. radically antiborder security. radically antifree speech. radically unqualified to lead. i yield the mr. wyden: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: 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. this afternoon. >> first, in our lifetime, america has never faced a greater public health challenge then the pandemic we face today. the right now, for example, it's coordinating the distribution of vaccines. it's working to get p.p.e., 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, keep them afloat so that rural patients have access to care. the department's work includes the department's work includes department of health and human services is our pointca agency, the leading agency to coordinate the efforts to and the pandemic as soon as possible. right now coordinating the distribution of vaccines to get ppe into the hands of nurses and doctors and providers who need more of it. the department supports hospitals with access to care. those for cdc national institute of health, national guard them 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 and. they certainly understand having a person to coordinate confirmed and on the job is part of that effort. there simply is no argument to delay this confirmation any

longer attorney general bacerra has the right leadership experience to succeed in this criticalre job. the nation second largest department of justice head. he is in charge of the 1 billion-dollar budget and more than 4000 employees as the top law enforcementms official ^ what would be the ^ fifth largest economy in the world. ^ in terms of health policy ^ in the area i tried to specialize in ^, i tell ^ them that ^ attorney general bacerra has spent years and years ^ on this issue the key committee with jurisdiction over healthcare ^ has been two major policy debates including the affordable care act. ^ as california's attorney general he defended the accident court ^.

when the pandemic head he fought to protect the health and well-being of all californians with nurses and doctors and those who found themselves in harm's way attorney general bacerra is leadership savvy and the experience in both areas to run this department. no question about it. attorney general bacerra made it clear ^ to members of the finance committee he will follow the law. ^ he said it again and again and response to a barrage of questions. he will be accessible to senators and work to find common ground on key healthcare issues. that is heavy lifting. most of the time that is all you can ask of nominees of the other party. healthcare is a divisive

subject every senator understands that is particularly true when it comes to women's healthcare. it's clear to me attorney general bacerra once to bring the two sides together. that's a great place to start after the last four years of knockout on - - knockdown drag out healthcare issues don't knot 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 community. getting our country to that point is the essence of what this job is