Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of his efforts. He is a valued member of the Senate Finance Committee, and this is a thoughtful approach to bring accountability at Social Security. The legislation directs the independent nonpartisan Government Accountability Office to conduct a top-to-bottom audit of Social Security's databases and in the process, determine whether DOGE left the Agency vulnerable to cyber attacks when its agents gained unfettered access to Agency records. Americans want to know whether the DOGE agents violated Federal privacy and cyber security laws when they accessed their personal information. Now, I have said it once. I will repeat it again. Social Security's databases represent the Fort Knox of Americans' personal lives. I see our friend from South Dakota here. He is a member of the Intelligence Committee. We have talked about privacy issues on a number of occasions, and privacy is what the Whitehouse legislation is all about. This whole question of the Social Security databases involves people's bank account numbers, their home addresses, work histories, salaries, medical records. The list goes on and on. Social Security, under the direction of the DOGE-appointed Acting Commissioner, let Mr. Musk's cronies stroll in without raising a finger. It remains to be seen what is going to happen with Mr. Musk no longer leading DOGE and the new Commissioner Mr. Bisignano taking the helm at Social Security. It is clear that DOGE accessed the original records under false pretenses, and they were claiming that there was rampant fraud throughout the Social Security program. As the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, I have been demanding evidence from the Trump administration for some time now about the existence of all of this ``fraud.'' Social Security has refused to provide me with a single shred of evidence. That is because--

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent and my friend from South Dakota for 3 additional minutes.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, Social Security, as I say, has refused to provide me with a shred of evidence because we already know from the Social Security watchdog that Social Security fraud--and, colleagues, this is the relevant number--represents 0.009 percent of payments. So we have known for some time that this effort is part of the Trump plan to cut Americans' Social Security benefits. I believe the long- term objective is to privatize the program so it can be sold off to some billionaires and he can weaponize Social Security to go after groups it wants to target. This effort is also part of what Donald Trump, Mr. Musk, and Peter Thiel have made a broader effort all about, and that is to collect and compile a master list of personal information on each American by pulling from the IRS and the Departments of Homeland Security, Education, and Social Security. I close by saying, thankfully, Federal courts have slowed DOGE's access to Social Security records for now. But the fact is, there needs to be a comprehensive understanding of the damage to make sure Americans' data is protected. That is why Senator Whitehouse's legislation is so important. I urge its passage. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I would say to my colleague, I very much wish that I was not in this position. This morning, I was--like Chairman Lee, I was chairman of the committee, and I know this is a challenging process to put these measures together. Chairman Lee and I have worked very closely for years on these issues and a host of others, and I look forward to having plenty of opportunities in the future to continue our good work. So the reason I am here is I requested that two additional, strongly bipartisan measures that already cleared the Chamber last Congress and had no objections be individually included in the request. One of those bills was S. 356, the Secure Rural Schools Reauthorization Act of 2025, that for years I have championed with my friend and colleague from Idaho Senator Crapo. Across the West, this legislation has had bipartisan support because it would reauthorize a crucial lifeline--particularly for schools and law enforcement and roads throughout the West. I was in Grant County recently, a small community in eastern Oregon, and they are basically hanging by a thread if they don't get the Secure Rural Schools money restored. That is why I am here on the floor today. I am clear that I want us to work together and to get this done as expeditiously as possible. I am committed, as I have been over the years, working with Chairman Lee to advance these bipartisan proposals swiftly. I deeply regret being out here and having to express my concerns today and to object, and I just hope we can be back on this floor very, very quickly to pass this good package of bills and make sure the Secure Rural Schools legislation is included. Therefore, I object.

Mr. WYDEN. Just to briefly respond because we are hearing about hostages and extortion and all this kind of thing. I just want my colleague to know because he and I have worked together for years and years and we have never had a difference of opinion that was based on somebody trying to take hostages and these kinds of things. This is about something that is really, in my communities, a question of whether they are going to make it in terms of keeping the schools open. There are no objections to what Senator Crapo and I have been doing here. Let me repeat that: No objections. And throughout the West and in the Federal Government, like in my colleague's State, the Federal Government owns much of our land. People are waiting to see if we will work together and fix this. I want to tell my colleague, I am happy to join him in 20 minutes if we have worked this out, and we will be done, and if my colleague says we will go home and say we got something else done that was constructive. So I want to renew my point: This is not about politics. It is bipartisan. There are no objections. I stand willing, with my staff, to join the Lee staff right now. We can work together over the next few minutes. We have a unanimous consent request, and we are done. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, the Senate will soon vote on Frank Bisignano to serve as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. I came to the floor last week to lay out my concerns surrounding the confirmation process for Mr. Bisignano. This nominee lied multiple times to myself, my staff, and members of the Finance Committee. He directly contradicted a confidential whistleblower report that I received detailing his close ties to DOGE and its ongoing operations at Social Security. When pressed on it during his confirmation hearing, he lied to me and the committee saying he had no direct involvement with DOGE. He has made a very lucrative career out of being the guy who swoops into failing businesses, guts them from the inside out, and moves on to the next target. This is not someone nominated because of his plans to bolster customer service and make it easier for seniors to access their hard-earned benefits or strengthen the Social Security guarantee. He was nominated because Donald Trump hopes he will apply the same approach to Social Security and upend life for millions of seniors and people with disabilities as we know it. The administration is already weaponizing Social Security to go after immigrants and other groups it wants to target, all under the guise of rooting out fraud and abuse. Social Security is a lifeline to millions of seniors and Americans with disabilities. A missed Social Security check can be the difference between seniors being able to afford rent, groceries, or medications. But Donald Trump and the inner circle are so out of touch, they think that most Americans won't even notice if they start missing their checks. In March, Commerce Secretary and billionaire Howard Lutnick mused that his mother-in-law wouldn't complain if she missed a Social Security check. I wouldn't expect the mother-in-law of a billionaire to complain either, but for the rest of America's seniors who aren't lucky enough to have a billionaire son-in-law, a missed Social Security check will be the difference between being able to put food on the table, keep a roof over their head, and get their prescriptions at the pharmacy. Mr. Lutnick went on to say that anybody who did complain about a missed Social Security payment is a fraudster. That is some top-tier gaslighting if I have ever heard it. Lay the groundwork for Americans to miss their checks, and when they do, immediately write off anybody that complains as a fraud. The Trump administration is doing its best to get people used to the idea of seniors missing checks. Their strategy here is death by a thousand cuts. First, they cut off customer service. Then they close field offices and lay off staff. Then they farm out customer service operations to private equity firms that employ AI chatbots in foreign call centers in an effort to plunge America's elderly into a maze of redtape designed to keep them from getting what are earned benefits. It is also a pathway to privatization. None of us have to look hard to see the damage private equity has brought to nearly every corner of industry and business. Take healthcare, for example. The firms are gobbling up medical practices and hospitals in hopes of turning a profit. They have turned the simplest task of scheduling a doctor's appointment into an Olympic sport, forcing patients to navigate phone trees or automated online systems that don't offer any real help. And if patients need to get lifesaving treatment, health insurers like UnitedHealth deploy AI programs to deny claims left and right. But this is exactly what Trump is hoping Mr. Bisignano is going to do: gut Social Security from the inside out. Then you can sell the parts off to the highest private equity bidder and make it harder for everybody to get their money. The goal is to break the system so thoroughly that Americans buy in, and they can privatize the system entirely. Everything the Trump administration is doing is part of an agenda that is going to make families poorer, sicker, and less safe than ever before. It is not an exaggeration to say that the country is at a turning point. At no time during the history of Social Security have we come this close to the possibility of seniors and people with disabilities actually missing their Social Security checks. Social Security is money that Americans pay from each paycheck. So when seniors and people with disabilities start missing Social Security checks, that is DOGE and Elon Musk stealing your hard-earned money. By confirming Mr. Bisignano, the Senate will be signing a death sentence to Social Security as we know it today. Republicans will be responsible when your grandma misses her Social Security check and can't pay her month's rent. Republicans will be responsible when your aunt living in rural Oregon can't get the help she needs because the phone lines have been shut off, and her closest field office was shut down. Republicans will be responsible when an entire generation of seniors and disabled Americans are left unable to afford basic necessities. At a time when costs are rising, the Federal Government ought to be focused on cutting costs and helping families and seniors afford the cost of living. Instead, it sure looks to me like Republicans are poised to pass another bailout for billionaires and corporations while simultaneously working to dismantle the Federal programs and resources that Americans rely on. That is the Republican agenda in a nutshell, and every single Member of this body that votes to confirm this nominee is going to own the consequences. Mr. Bisignano is unfit to be the steward of Americans' hard-earned Social Security benefits. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on his nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to reject Frank Bisignano's nomination to be the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. The first 100 days of Donald Trump's second term have been filled with chaos and cruelty that have reached into every corner of American life. Perhaps no development has been as alarming to the elderly and other concerned Americans as the attacks of the Trump administration on Social Security. Social Security has long been considered the third rail of American politics. It is simply too important to American workers who spent their lives paying into the program out of every paycheck for politicians to idly propose major changes that would harm the earned benefits of Americans. Yet Donald Trump and his billionaire allies have decided that they are simply immune to the concerns of American citizens. They are about to find out just how wrong they are. Over the past several months, the Trump administration has attacked nearly every aspect of Social Security. First, it was Americans' sensitive private information protected by Social Security. Then it was scheduling field offices for closure across the country. Then it was eliminating phone service for many Social Security claims. Worst of all, there is a widespread view among Donald Trump's top lieutenants, from Elon Musk to Howard Lutnick, that Social Security is just chock-full of fraudsters. The whiplash caused by day after day of all the disruption and chaos has resulted in bedlam at Social Security, and, in my view, it has put the earned benefits of millions of Americans in jeopardy. Mr. President, I wish I could stand in the Senate today and say the cavalry is coming; the chaos will soon be over. But I am afraid that is not the case. If Frank Bisignano is confirmed, he is going to bring more of the chaos, lies, and callous disregard for Americans who count on Social Security that the Trump administration has brought to the Agency through DOGE. That was front and center when the nominee came before the Finance Committee in March. That was front and center when the nominee came before the Finance Committee in March. Just before the hearing, I received a very valuable statement from a whistleblower, a former senior official at Social Security. The whistleblower stated that Mr. Bisignano had been deeply involved in the DOGE chaos at Social Security. The whistleblower said: I am concerned that the President's nominee to be Commissioner of Social Security, Frank Bisignano, will not temper the crisis but rather bolster it. The allegations presented by the whistleblower center around Elon Musk's DOGE and their attempts to access Social Security databases that hold reams of personal, sensitive information of every single American. These databases represent the Fort Knox of Americans' personal lives-- bank account numbers, home addresses, work history, salaries, medical records. Trump's DOGE cronies wanted unfettered access to the databases. They are still fighting for that as we speak, after they have been blocked in court. According to the whistleblower, Mr. Bisignano personally appointed his Wall Street friend Michael Russo to be the leader of the DOGE team at Social Security. According to the Washington Post, which independently verified the whistleblower's account: After Russo had trouble persuading the career staff to expedite the hiring of a DOGE software engineer named Akash Bobba, ``Mr. Bisignano personally intervened . . . to instruct Social Security Administration staff to onboard Mr. Bobba and give him immediate access'' to the agency's private data systems. Bisignano did not address what role he may have had in helping Mr. Bobba gain access. Bobba and Russo did not respond to requests for comment. That is a direct quote from the Washington Post newspaper. My view is this is a remarkable statement that ought to alarm all Americans. I asked Mr. Bisignano about his affiliations with DOGE before, during, and after his hearing. Each time, he disavowed the whistleblower's allegations. I viewed that moment as an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to come together, as we have done so often on a bipartisan basis, and get to the bottom of this before the Finance Committee reported the nominee to the full Senate. Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues didn't see it that way. I started by asking the chairman of the Finance Committee for a bipartisan meeting with this whistleblower to evaluate their claims and seek additional evidence to determine if the nominee lied to members of the committee. The majority refused to hold that meeting or postpone the committee vote unless we agreed to hand over any information received from the whistleblower directly to the nominee and the Trump administration. I just want to be clear on this point. This is a violation of Whistleblowing 101. That is because it allows the government to identify the individual blowing the whistle through a process of elimination. It jeopardizes the whistleblower's anonymity and safety, and I am going to have no part of that as the cochair of the Whistleblower Caucus with my friend Chuck Grassley. There is a long bipartisan tradition in the Senate of treating whistleblowers with great respect and deep care. I am here to warn America now about a dangerous erosion of congressional oversight that will have a chilling effect on public servants who are thinking about coming forward and blowing the whistle when government Agencies are acting against the interests of the Americans they serve. Mr. President, I fear that the events I have just described are going to cause public servants who want to do the right thing to put away their whistles. That is bad for good government, it is bad for congressional oversight of laws we delegated to the executive branch through our constitutional authority, and it is bad for Americans who expect their government to be responsive and transparent. The double whammy of disrespect for Social Security and the Americans who count on its earned benefits, along with the culture of secrecy and lies that exist throughout the Trump administration, is a bad omen for what is ahead for Social Security. Even if the Republican Party decides to pretend none of this is happening, Americans from Portland, OR, to Portland, ME--all of them-- are speaking out, literally, this weekend. All Americans should be concerned that a nominee for a position of public trust like Commissioner of Social Security is accused of lying about his actions at the Agency, and that efforts to bring this important information to light are now being thwarted. If Mr. Bisignano can get away with lying before he is even in place as Commissioner, who knows what else he will be able to get away with once he is in office? He could lie by denying any American who paid their Social Security taxes the benefits they have earned, claiming some phony pretense. He could lie about how sensitive personal information is being mishandled or, worse, exploited for commercial use. I will close with this. I am going to have a lot more to say about the nominee and the Trump administration's disastrous record on Social Security. Today, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the cloture vote coming up to bring sanity back to Social Security and, in my view, safeguard the Senate's long and bipartisan tradition as a safe haven for government whistleblowers who want to speak truth to power. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. To respond to my colleague, who I have worked together with so often in such a positive way, this is an area where we just have a very significant difference of opinion. The whistleblower was a senior official who worked for years at Social Security. I believe the information given was credible, documented now by the Washington Post reporter who surveyed some of the resources and the individuals who could confirm it. What I want to do, because I have worked with my colleague so often, is to have a bipartisan process to resolve the matter. What the majority said was, if we were going to have a bipartisan process, we would take the information that the whistleblower gave and we would give it to the administration and anybody else. And it would breach the essence of Whistleblowing 101--what we have worked on for so long. So I want it understood that I still wish we were doing this in a bipartisan way, as I have done for so long as the cochair of the Whistleblower Caucus. That would resolve it, and it would be done with the tradition of protecting whistleblowers, as we have done so often over the years and especially in the Finance Committee. What I think is unfortunate is this is breaking the tradition that the Finance Committee has always done in terms of protecting whistleblowers, doing it in a fair way, and working together. I think we will regret it. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Milande Watson of my team be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Congress.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I just want to thank Leader Schumer for all the help. We are going to be focused today on something that really matters to people, and I thank him. Mr. President, we are beginning, as you can tell, to discuss the resolution to repeal the global tariff emergency. As is becoming routine under this President, Americans were greeted with grim economic news this morning. After 3 years of strong growth and rising job numbers, the U.S. economy actually shrank in the first 3 months of 2025. The trade deficit hit a record $162 billion. The United States added only half as many jobs this month as expected. A major culprit is unquestionably Donald Trump and his senseless global tariffs. If this continues to be our tariff policy, every major economist and forecaster is, unfortunately, predicting recession, job losses, and the misery that was all over our news feeds this morning. The U.S. Senate cannot be an idle spectator in the tariff madness. The Congress has the power to set tariffs and regulate global trade, and Members can vote today--not do something in a month or some other time--but Members can vote today to put an end to Trump's global tariffs and the economic disaster they are creating. Earlier this month, Donald Trump slapped new 10 percent taxes on nearly everything Americans buy from overseas, 125 percent tariffs on nearly everything from China, and he promises even higher taxes in July on products from nearly five dozen countries. That is just the latest plan. I think we all understand goldfish have memories that last longer than Donald Trump's tariff promises. Before these global tariffs, there was the on-again, off-again trade war with China and Mexico; tariffs on steel, aluminum, and cars; and ad hoc exemptions for things like electronics and fertilizer. When the public outcry was so great, Donald Trump had to backtrack. Donald Trump imposed his global tariffs by declaring an economic emergency under a law call IEEPA. No President has ever imposed tariffs under this law. In my view, Trump's actions clearly go beyond what the law allows, which is why Senators Shaheen, Kaine, and I have offered a bill to make it clear that this law does not allow the President to issue tariffs. Members can vote today to repeal the so-called emergency Trump declared and end the harmful global tariffs. Now, I am going to talk for just a few minutes with respect to taking stock of the economic carnage that Donald Trump's trade chaos has already inflicted on our country. We are going to examine the administration's own claims about what their plan is and make the case for why every Member of this body should vote to assert the powers of Congress to trade and to end the tariffs, and they should do it no matter their party or which State they represent. I already mentioned the shocking economic news this morning. By every single forecast, by every measure, Donald Trump's self-defeating tariffs are actively making Americans poorer, and they are doing it now and for years to come. Economic growth, gone. Inflation, rising. Unemployment projections, up again. Experts estimate Trump's tariffs will cost average families about $4,000 a year. Many products from China won't even be available soon, and that is thanks to the tariffs. For the products that are still available, prices are going up--a fact that Donald Trump flails about trying to hide. When Amazon was rumored to list the impacts of tariffs on prices, Donald Trump threw a fit, reportedly threatening Jeff Bezos and calling it a hostile act. God forbid that Americans actually know what the real costs of his tariffs are. Meanwhile, Donald Trump and Republicans are charging ahead with plans to go forward with their tax bill, which features more bailouts for billionaires, paid for by kicking millions of people off their health insurance and gutting programs that kids and families rely on to stay safe and healthy. Donald Trump, meanwhile, puts higher taxes on groceries, clothes, and cars for working families, while he puts his extra time in to pass tax cuts for the wealthy. That is his agenda. My state knows how Donald Trump's tariff chaos is already hurting real people, and we know how it is drying up markets for ``red, white, and blue'' products. About one in five jobs in Oregon depends on trade, and the trade jobs often pay better. Speaking with small businesses and workers all over Oregon--I did it just last week--every single one warned of damage from tariffs, and soon. Bob's Red Mill, for example, sells delicious flour and grains, mostly made from wheat and other crops in Oregon. But some of their ingredients--like coconut or tapioca, which just aren't grown here-- come from outside the country. The cost of those products goes up because of tariffs. Worse, foreign markets for Bob's goods are drying out. That is because other countries put their own tariffs on Bob's flour and other Oregon ag products in retaliation for Trump's aimless war. Oregon grass seed growers estimate that about half of their exports-- nearly $200 million in sales--are being canceled, thanks to the global tariffs. Donald Trump and his advisers claim there is nothing to worry about. They say the economists and the pundits are overreacting, and everything is going according to plan. Secretary Bessent is on cable news so often, trying to calm investors, that it is a wonder that he has got any time to do a bit of negotiating. But, as usual, it is not clear at all what the plan is, what their tariffs are supposed to accomplish, or when, if ever, American families and workers will see the relief. Earlier this month, Donald Trump claimed he would have 200 deals completed within 3 or 4 weeks. Then he said: No, that is ``physically impossible'' to have all of the meetings needed to seal the deals. He should have thought of that before he started a trade war against the entire world. Now, he claimed that he was already negotiating with China to lower tariffs and calm trade tensions, but China and Secretary Bessent said that talks have not even started. This weekend, the Agriculture Secretary said 100 countries had reached out to start trade talks, and almost at the same time, Secretary Bessent said there are actually 18 so-called priority countries, and those talks would take about 90 days. If nobody in this administration can even agree on what is happening right now, how can they negotiate smart trade deals with nearly every nation on Earth? Anonymous White House aides continue to say that Donald Trump is working to deescalate his trade war, but Donald Trump doesn't sound like he is willing to admit he got it wrong. He told Time magazine that if tariffs are at 20 percent or even 50 percent a year from now, that would be a ``total victory.'' So, once again, no one can tell what his administration wants or what the end game is. I believe it is hard to see how any foreign country right now would make concessions to Donald Trump. That is because he has proven himself to be both untrustworthy and incapable of sticking to a position on tariffs for more than a few weeks at a time. One foreign diplomat told the press that countries are worried that any deal they make with the Treasury or Commerce Secretaries will be contradicted by Trump. Other trading partners said they don't want to make a deal now only to have Trump decide on a unilateral tariff in the future. Donald Trump has trashed America's credibility. He hasn't just made it unlikely for his administration to get a good deal for American workers. My view is he has hurt every future president who wants to strike a good trade deal. The best way to restore our Nation's good name is for Congress to step in and assert, finally, our constitutional authority over trade. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress power ``To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations'' and ``To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.'' In other words, this is our job. It is not always pretty, but Congress can provide stability and certainty on trade that last beyond a single President's administration. This body has already signaled bipartisan support for reversing pointless tariffs. We did that when we passed Senator Kaine's bill to end the tariffs on Canada. Today, the Senate can take another powerful step--a powerful step in the right direction--by voting to repeal the global tariffs on a bipartisan basis. I would just close by saying: Listen to your constituents. Listen to what you are hearing from home, because what I heard was, overwhelmingly, Oregonians and the people I ran into in airports and the like said it is time to bring some certainty and predictability back to making these urgently needed trade policies. I urge this body to vote for jobs and prosperity rather than unending trade conflict that leaves our country as a loser. I urge every Senator to support this crucial resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 1 minute to conclude, and Senator Schumer will ask for an additional minute as well, and we would wrap up. But I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute.

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President. Senators, the devastating economic news we got this morning should be enough for Senators to vote yes tonight. The only winner from the tariffs is China, which is scooping up markets and allies Donald Trump has left in the dust. Senators, vote yes. Reclaim American trade policy, and end its outsourcing to Donald Trump.

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I must object to the Senate proceeding to the nomination of Sean Plankey of Pennsylvania, to be Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), Department of Homeland Security. Since July 2022, I have repeatedly urged CISA to release an important, unclassified report by independent cybersecurity experts that the Agency commissioned, titled ``U.S. Telecommunications Insecurity 2022.'' Congress and the American people have a right to read this report, and until CISA releases it, I must object to this nomination. CISA permitted my staff to read the report in person at the Agency's office in the fall of 2023. However, CISA has marked this unclassified report ``For Official Use Only'' and has refused to provide copies of the report to Congress and in response to FOIA requests from the public. I directly asked then-CISA Director Jen Easterly to release the report in a February 27, 2024, phone call; however, she continued to stonewall my requests until she left office in January 2025. CISA has to date refused to release the report by making a claim that the report is predecisional and deliberative and protected by a so- called ``deliberative process privilege.'' Setting aside that a FOIA exemption does not apply to disclosures to Congress, based on my staff's review of this report, this report is a technical document containing factual information about U.S. telecom security. The report does not recommend or discuss specific policy options that CISA could take to address this threat. As such, this report contains important factual information that the public has a right to see and CISA should stop withholding the entire report under a purported ``deliberative process privilege'' claim. On February 29, 2024, I wrote to then-President Biden, urging the administration to take action to address the serious national security threat posed by foreign governments exploiting U.S. phone carriers' weak cybersecurity. In that letter to then-President Biden, I stated that ``CISA is actively hiding information about [the threat] from the American people . . . CISA refuses to publicly release this unclassified report, which includes details that are relevant to policymakers and Americans who care about the security of their phones.'' The Biden administration took no action in response to my letter. CISA's inaction on telecommunications security prompted the Agency's top telecommunications security expert to file a whistleblower report with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the summer of 2024. Citing his access to nonpublic reports and other ``very concerning information,'' the CISA official told the FCC that ``there have been numerous incidents of successful, unauthorized attempts to access the network user location data of communications service providers operating in the USA.'' He added that foreign surveillance went beyond location tracking and included ``the monitoring of voice and text messages'' and ``the delivery of spyware to targeted devices.'' CISA's multiyear cover up of the phone companies' negligent cybersecurity has real consequences. In a November 2024 joint statement, CISA and the Federal Bureau of Investigation confirmed that the Chinese Government hacked ``multiple telecommunications companies to enable the theft of customer call records data, the compromise of private communications of a limited number of individuals who are primarily involved in government or political activity, and the copying of certain information that was subject to U.S. law enforcement requests pursuant to court orders.'' Vice President Vance subsequently revealed that his communications and those of President Trump were compromised in this hack. This espionage incident, and the harm to U.S. national security caused by it, were the direct result of U.S. phone carriers' failure to follow cybersecurity best practices, such as installing security updates and using multifactor authentication, and Federal Agencies failing to hold these companies accountable. The Federal Government still does not require U.S. phone companies to meet minimum cybersecurity standards. While it is too late to prevent the Salt Typhoon hack, there is still time to prevent the next incident. As such, I intend to object to considering this nominee until CISA agrees to release this report, which will enable Congress and the public to better understand the current threats and the need for stronger cyber defenses.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before she leaves the floor, let me thank Senator Klobuchar for her outstanding remarks. She and Senator Van Hollen have really made the case that we want a tax bill that gives everybody in America the chance to get ahead, not just the people at the top, and I want to commend her for it. Mr. President, around the country this morning, Americans turned on the news, and they saw panic. Americans are wincing this morning as they look at their retirement accounts. Their savings are down. The cost of their morning coffee and eggs are up. The markets are looking bloody, and people are afraid for their jobs and their own personal finances. Not so for the ultrawealthy. They may not like what they are seeing, but they don't have anything to worry about because they have got an ace in the hole: their Republican allies here in the Senate. While Donald Trump torches what used to be the world's strongest economy, Republicans scramble to pass a bailout for billionaires and big corporations. While typical families panic, the billionaires can go shopping for luxuries--for real estate, for yachts--safe in the knowledge that Senate Republicans have their backs. That is what this debate is all about. Donald Trump is taking the United States back to economic policy that predates the light bulb. He is slapping random taxes on imports from all over the world--tariffs that are effectively huge tax increases on products American families and businesses use every day. Donald J. Hoover says he is not going to back down, and that is terrible news for everybody who counts on a steady paycheck to be able to get by. Everything from cars and machinery right down to T-shirts and your morning cup of coffee--it is all going to cost a whole lot more because of what Donald Trump is doing. Small businesses are going to get clobbered. Parents are going to need to take out second mortgages just to take their kids back-to-school shopping. They are facing an increase in the cost of living by thousands of dollars each year. Big businesses are panicking too. They are worried about the prospect of a full trade war. The only thing preventing an even larger panic and collapse is the faint hope that somebody--somebody--may be able to convince Trump to back down. Personally, I wouldn't wager on it. That is the economic carnage Trump is creating around the country. Here on Capitol Hill, Senate Republicans are charging forward with a bailout for billionaires and corporations that, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, could cost $7 trillion. People following along at home are going to hear a lot of sweet- sounding promises from Republicans about what they are trying to accomplish. They claim their tax bill is just all unicorns and rainbows. They will say everybody is going to benefit from a tax cut and typical families will get the help they need. They will promise rising wages and a booming economy. It is just not true. The reality is, unless you are way out at the upper end of the income scale, any benefit you get from this Republican bill is going to get blown out of the water as the Trump tariffs continue to hike inflation. If you are somebody who punches a timeclock or keeps an eye on the bills every month to make sure you can get by, there is no good news for you in what the Republicans are trying to accomplish. So they move ahead with their $7 trillion tax agenda, but there is no way to cover that cost without taking a wrecking ball to the Medicaid Program, and that is their plan. It will be devastating for tens of millions of Americans, with seniors and kids bearing the brunt. I remember this from my days as director of the Gray Panthers, but I can tell you, Medicaid pays for two out of three nursing home beds in the Nation. If Republicans move forward with their nearly $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, countless families will have to make impossible choices between keeping an aging parent or grandparent in a nursing home they can barely afford or bringing them home to try to care for them on their own. Medicaid covers nearly 38 million kids in America. That includes half of all American kids with special healthcare needs. These cuts to Medicaid will set those kids back for the rest of their lives. Millions of parents will be left wondering how they will pay for the home-based care their children rely on to go to school every morning. And let's be clear. These cuts may be partisan in Congress, but their consequences will transcend party lines. Medicaid cuts are going to hit red and rural parts of America the hardest. Hospitals, nursing homes, and other providers in rural communities all over the country right now are barely hanging on. They depend on Medicaid. If these Republican cuts go through, rural America will become even more of a healthcare desert. So I, Mr. President, and colleagues will be offering an amendment to block these Republican Medicaid cuts and the damage they are going to do to millions of vulnerable Americans. It is not only Medicaid that Republicans target. Countless other lifelines that seniors and families rely on are on the chopping block: Meals on Wheels, which helps seniors get a hot meal; Head Start, which helps kids get set up for success in the future with early learning and development; food assistance that is going to help millions of families stay out of hunger. Donald Trump even wants to gut the technology- neutral clean energy tax credits I authored, which would increase costs for consumers, wipe out potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs, and devastate energy security. This is the hardship Republicans inflict on America and particularly on people who struggle to get by, and this is how Donald Trump is going to protect his ultrawealthy political donors from chaos. It is a one- two punch. Not only are typical American families facing economic ruin as Trump hikes tariffs and increases the cost of living, not only are they panicking as the market crashes and their retirement savings shrink, but now they have Republicans here in this Senate coming after their pocketbooks, their healthcare, and the food on their dinner table. As I began, it is clear Donald Trump is completely out of touch. He and his advisers don't give a whit about the harm they are causing to typical Americans. And you don't have to take it from me; Donald Trump literally says it himself. Talking about auto manufacturers, he says: I couldn't care less if they raise prices. After yesterday's market crash, Donald Trump was asked about the tariffs and said: I think it's going very well. Let me repeat that. Yesterday, after the crash, Donald Trump was asked about the tariffs that this morning are hitting so many working people, and Donald Trump said: I think it's going very well. The Secretary of the Treasury is on his own all-is-well media tour. Recently, he said: Access to cheap goods is not the essence of the American dream. I don't know about this billionaire's interpretation, but I will tell you what is not part of the American dream: getting charged 10 bucks for a cup of black coffee because the Trump administration is too incompetent to figure out a smart approach to tariffs. A few days ago, with concerns bubbling up over what tariffs would do, the Secretary of the Treasury said: The reason stocks are a safe and great investment is because you're looking over the long term. The long-term spin is as dismissive as it gets. Try telling that to a 65-year-old who scrimped and saved and was planning on retiring this month, only to see their 401(k) deflate like an old balloon. Nothing can illustrate how out of touch these guys are more clearly than what Trump said this week during his rambling press conference announcing his tariffs. Listen to this. Talking about shopping for food, Donald Trump actually said: An old fashioned term that we use--groceries. I used it on the campaign. It's such an old fashioned term, but a beautiful term. Groceries. It says a bag with different things in it. So in closing, Mr. President, it is obvious that Donald Trump has not got the first clue of how the vast majority of Americans live or the hardships they face in the months and years ahead as he wrecks the economy. What is he doing now? He is hobnobbing down in Florida at his private country club resort, where the Saudi Government is helping financially with a splashy golf tournament. All the Trump administration is focused on--and this is what he is apparently dealing with at his golf tournament--along with Republicans here in Congress, is passing this bailout for billionaires and corporations while everybody else fears for what tomorrow will bring. As the debate goes forward, Democrats are going to offer a whole host of amendments to put what I believe is a morally bankrupt bargain on full display for the American people. It is going to be a long debate, but it is an important one. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, once again, Senator Sullivan is out here saying that he is for protecting vulnerable people, but by not defining the vulnerable, the Sullivan amendment is code for States to cut benefits or kick people off their coverage altogether. To me, the Sullivan amendment basically says that if somebody thinks you are not poor enough, you are not sick enough, or you are not disabled enough, we are not going to be there for you. Here is the difference between now and 2017: We learned during the pandemic how important expanded Medicaid is to vulnerable people, and this language that my colleague from Alaska is offering doesn't protect vulnerable people. So I urge my colleagues strongly to oppose it. I yield. Vote on Amendment No. 2035

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 1989 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. WYDEN. Colleagues, this amendment offered by Senator Hawley and myself says that $880 billion in Medicaid cuts have no place in this resolution. Right now, those cuts can be found on page 46, lines 3 through 7, and we ought to get rid of them. The Modern Medicaid Alliance, which includes AARP, the Federation of American Hospitals, and dozens of provider health plan and patient advocacy groups agree with Senator Hawley and me and support us in this effort. Protecting Americans' healthcare ought to go beyond party lines. Protecting families who count on Medicaid ought to go beyond party lines. Protecting seniors who count on Medicaid for nursing home care ought to go beyond party lines. Protecting kids with disabilities who count on Medicaid ought to go beyond party lines. And protecting working Americans who are walking an economic tightrope--all of that, colleagues, should go beyond party lines. In that spirit, I hope the Senate will join Senator Hawley and me on a bipartisan basis to finally take Medicaid off the chopping block. I urge my colleagues to vote aye.

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, ahead of the Senate's final vote on the nomination of Dr. Mehmet Oz to head up the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, I want to take a couple minutes to describe what is at stake with this vote. Dr. Oz is the second Trump nominee to pass through the Senate Finance Committee with a record of dodging Medicare and Social Security taxes. That means, if confirmed, the person running the Medicare Program thinks it is acceptable to not pay the taxes he owes into the programs he is running. Let me repeat that: If confirmed, the person running the Medicare Program thinks it is acceptable to not pay the taxes he owes into the program he is running. Now, in addition, during the consideration of this nominee, I pressed Dr. Oz on whether he believes nursing homes ought to be staffed with a registered nurse 24/7. Once again, Dr. Oz refused to answer my question. He claimed it was a complicated question. Not really, I told him. An AI chatbot paid for by private equity isn't going to take your mom to the bathroom or bring your grandpa his meals every day. I don't think it is at all complicated whether there ought to be a nurse on staff at every single nursing home. Dr. Oz is certainly very able on television, but he seems to have no understanding that technology is no replacement for real nurses and real medical staff. That attitude is going to have a real impact as Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress pursue nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts to achieve their billionaire tax breaks, which House Republicans have already passed. Several weeks ago, Senate Republicans confirmed one of Trump's most unqualified and dangerous nominees to date, RFK Jr., who will be heading up America's healthcare at HHS. He was confirmed as well. Now our country is facing the biggest measles outbreak in decades, while the Trump administration touts the benefits of cod liver oil and convinces parents not to vaccinate their kids. The country has heard tragic tales of families following RFK Jr.'s advice on unproven alternative treatments for measles that end up sending kids to hospitals. Just this week, he abruptly fired more than 10,000 public health workers, many of whom reportedly helped seniors navigate insurance claims when they were denied care or provided oversight over nursing homes. Everything this administration is doing is an effort to make you and your family less safe. Dr. Oz, unfortunately, has been out there peddling, over the years, unproven cures and treatments and encouraging people to ignore proven facts and science. The dangers of promoting unqualified wellness grifters to be in charge of healthcare in our country is not just a talking point. These are real and deadly matters. This week, Donald Trump and Senate Republicans are gearing up to pass their massive tax giveaway to billionaires and corporations. They are paying for it by gutting Medicaid and cutting off the services that millions of Americans rely on. Food stamps, Meals on Wheels, and Head Start are all on the chopping block, just so billionaires can go out and buy things like more yachts. These cuts to Medicaid are going to be devastating for kids and people with disabilities. It can destroy care in nursing homes as we know it. It will rip basic care away from seniors and kids. Dr. Oz will be responsible for executing the destruction brought down on the Medicaid Program by the cuts Republicans are preparing to make. And there would be premium hikes--let me mention that: premium hikes-- for everybody else who gets their insurance through the marketplace when Republicans take away the tax credits that lower their premiums. During his confirmation hearing, I gave Dr. Oz the opportunity to go on the record and reassure the American people he wouldn't go along with the Republican scheme to rip away healthcare. He refused. So, I also asked Dr. Oz: If he was confirmed, would he travel to Malheur County in my home State? It is an overwhelmingly rural and red county and also has the most recipients of Medicaid in any county in Oregon. Dr. Oz agreed to come to Malheur County and explain Trump's catastrophic cuts, face-to-face, with Oregonians. I am going to hold him to that. He is going to have to answer to the people of Oregon and Malheur County about these inhumane policies. Republicans are full steam ahead with their plans to gut Americans' healthcare and put for-profit insurance companies and private equity firms in charge of America's health. So here is the real question with respect to this vote that will be coming up: What is at stake on the Mehmet Oz vote? What is at stake is whether your aging parents can be safe in their nursing home. What is at stake is whether your kids can go see a doctor. What is at stake is the very health and well-being of your family. By supporting the Oz nomination, Republicans are sending a very clear message that they are a lot more afraid of Donald Trump than having to answer to their own constituents. Every Member of this body that votes to confirm Dr. Oz is going to own the consequences of this decision, those consequences that I spelled out. I urge the Senate to oppose this nomination when we vote later. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, this year marks the 40th anniversary of the release of the beloved classic film, ``The Goonies.'' With enduring and relatable themes of adventure, acceptance, and friendship, ``The Goonies'' has become one of the alltime great American underdog stories. ``The Goonies'' has withstood the test of time and firmly established its place in American culture. A large part of what makes this film unique and impactful is its iconic setting along the stunning Oregon coastline. Indeed, so significant is the film's location that thousands of fans from around the globe gather each year in Astoria, OR, for a multiday celebration to commemorate the magic that is ``The Goonies.'' One of the reasons for the enduring success of ``The Goonies'' is the lessons it has imparted on generations of viewers who come away inspired to stand up to bullies, accept people who are different from them, and ``never say die'' when it comes to fighting for their communities and the things they believe in. As I travel to my townhalls all over Oregon and hear the deep concerns that so many Oregonians feel about the state of our country and the world, I hope we can all take an important lesson or two from ``The Goonies.'' Fans from around the world will flock to Astoria this summer for ``The Goonies'' 40th anniversary celebration. All of them will be able to participate in treasure hunts, costume contests, and many other Goonies-adjacent events. In addition to Astoria, the 40th anniversary festivities will also include a visit to Ecola State Park, home to some of Oregon's foremost coastal views and the site of some legendary Goonies adventures. Visitors to Astoria this summer will also be welcomed to the Oregon Film Museum, which eagle-eyed fans may recognize as the former Clatsop County jail, which played host to the Goonies iconic jailbreak scene. Just as the original Goonies fans and stars have grown and matured since the film's release in 1985, so has Oregon's film industry. With its magnificent and diverse natural beauty, Oregon has become a much sought after location for film production. As the backdrop for major television shows and box office hits alike, film production in Oregon brings with it good-paying jobs and tourism that in turn support local businesses and economic development across the State. Certainly all film producers in Oregon and across the country should aspire to achieve the remarkable success of ``The Goonies.'' Whether we are learning important life lessons from the stalwart friendships in ``The Goonies'' or taking note of how Oregon has grown a film industry no one could have imagined 40 years ago, what is important is that we all recognize the power in our differences--and to ``never say die!''

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise to support my colleague Senator Kaine's joint resolution to terminate the Trump order placing blanket tariffs on products Americans buy from Canada. I am going to start by saying, as the Ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, I am always struck by how much doubletalk there is about trade. So let's be clear as we start this part of the discussion. Tariffs are taxes on things we buy from other countries. The bottom line is, those taxes make it more expensive for Americans to buy those products. No other country pays the tariffs. Let me repeat that. No other country pays the tariffs. The consumer pays the tariff. So if somebody tells you they can do tariffs and do it without raising prices--I am sorry, but anybody who says that with a straight face is basically taking advantage of you. Every credible economist, every automaker, every business on the record has said that Trump's trade taxes are going to make things more expensive for Americans. Ronald Reagan's favorite economist, Art Laffer, just released a study showing auto tariffs are going to raise car prices by $4,700. The Yale Budget Lab estimates that the full Trump tariff scheme is going to cost an average family thousands of dollars a year. It is one thing if tariffs are imposed with a good strategy, like decreasing sales in the United States by raising prices to punish countries that cheat on trade and changing their behavior so that U.S. workers get a fair shake. I have consistently supported targeted tariffs in the past as a tool to fight back against trade cheating, especially by China. When China was stealing America's trade secrets, subsidizing cheap solar panels, and then dumping them here to drive U.S. manufacturers out of business, we were shouting from the rooftops for more tariffs on Chinese goods. But Canada is not China. Canada is America's closest ally, not a rival. Making everything Americans buy from Canada more expensive for some bogus reason is, in the words of the Wall Street Journal ``the dumbest trade war in history.'' There are 8 million American jobs that depend on trade with Canada. Canada is the biggest export market for 32 States. It provides raw materials and potash that so often farmers need to grow their crops. U.S. farmers can't replace 90 percent of potash that comes from Canada, definitely not overnight. The only choice is higher prices--again, higher prices paid for by Americans. So the stuff we buy from Canada gets more expensive. And on top of that, in response, Canada has already slapped tariffs on a whole host of crops, ag products, dairy, alcohol, manufactured goods. The list goes on and on. Canadian grocery stores pulled U.S. products off the shelves. Our small businesses and farmers are losing sales as we speak because of the weird obsession in the Trump administration with attacking our northern neighbor. Plunging our economy into a recession because of the Trump desire to annex Canada is just bizarre--bizarre even by Washington, DC, standards. Congress has delegated far too much of its authority to the executive branch, and it is far past time for the Congress to take it back. In 1962 and 1974, Congress passed laws handing the President major portions of our constitutional power over tariffs. It is time to reverse that trend. Those dates I mentioned were before my time, but I want everybody to know, on our watch, I think this has got to be a bipartisan concern. We have got to take these powers back, because if Republicans say it is not their fault that Trump is destroying our economy, why not do something like this to restore the power of Congress to set tariffs? I am going to close by addressing the bogus claim of the Trump administration that tariffs are actually intended to stop fentanyl trafficking from Canada. Let me be clear. Our immigration system needs reform, and the fentanyl crisis is a serious issue. Oregon is no stranger to the devastating effects it has wreaked on our economy communities. The reality is, there is no crisis at the northern border. Less than 0.1 percent of fentanyl entering the United States comes from Canada. Fentanyl seizures at the northern border are down over 97 percent from July 2024. I think almost everybody understands that Canada is not the issue here. Instead of coming up with real solutions to get fentanyl off the streets and out of our communities, Donald Trump has decided he would rather make threats and tariff our closest allies. My colleague from Alabama is on the floor, and we are going to have a little bit of a discussion. We just talked about how we are going to handle it. But I want to be clear. If Donald Trump and the Republicans wanted to address fentanyl in an effective way, they would pass my bill to limit the millions of low-value packages that come into the United States from China and elsewhere. Getting a handle on these so-called ``de minimis'' imports will help our border agents detect the illicit imports of things like fentanyl and pill presses before they reach communities in the United States. So with that, Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 1185 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I listened very carefully to my colleague from Alabama, and I don't believe my colleague used the word ``fentanyl,'' and that is what we are concerned about in the Pacific Northwest. We are concerned that fentanyl has hit our country and our region like a wrecking ball. So maybe when this all gets sorted out, he will support my bill to crack down on fentanyl everywhere through reforms of this de minimis issue. And I would just say, for purposes of our discussion now, I understand--and we all await the announcement, I gather, sometime late this afternoon--the Trump administration only is going to address de minimis shipments from China and nowhere else. We have to make this comprehensive. My colleague serving as the Presiding Officer knows what it is like in the West with fentanyl hitting us so hard. If you just do it with China, Chinese companies are going to circumvent the rules and transship through other countries. That is why I felt so strongly about a comprehensive solution to get at this fentanyl, this poison, that has hit us so hard, because if you just go to one country, what you are going to have is something called merchandise laundering. We saw it when we did an investigation in the committee. A Chinese company ships its product through an intermediary in Vietnam or another third country. The intermediary then slaps a ``Made in Vietnam'' sticker on the Chinese product and falsely labels the product, and they can easily evade the Chinese product restrictions. And with millions of shipments coming in from China, there is no way for Customs and Border Protection to police Chinese products transshipped through third companies. This is not a new gimmick. Chinese companies have been circumventing tariffs all this time with products like steel and solar panels. I have been bird-dogging this issue since I passed the Enforce and Protect Act nearly a decade ago. My de minimis bill that I hope to get bipartisan support for would stop the flood of low-value packages from all countries on a global scale. That is the only way to deal with this problem--not create, as my colleague from Alabama would do, a gigantic game of Whack-A-Mole. So I hope we will be back on this floor doing something comprehensive to fight the scourge of fentanyl, and I proposed it with legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, first of all, I want it understood that we take a backseat to nobody--nobody--when it comes to fighting this fraud. That is why I negotiated a bipartisan package in the last Congress dealing with a host of issues relating to addressing fraud and making improvements to unemployment insurance. I negotiated that bill with our ranking member, now the chairman of the Finance Committee. I am a little struck by what is going on here because my colleague, my friend from Oklahoma, was a cosponsor of that proposal. In other words, we did what the American people say they want, which is to have people find common ground on commonsense matters like fighting fraud. Our bipartisan proposal went after pandemic-era fraud by extending the statute of limits on prosecution. It would help to prevent fraud in the future. It would help States improve their unemployment insurance programs to get benefits out on time in the event of a big economic crash shall like we saw in 2020. It would make better use of data to prevent abuse. It would protect people who got overpayments entirely due to somebody else's mistake, who may not even know it to this day. I will tell you, I think it is odd at best but certainly disappointing that our Republican colleagues have decided to walk away from a really good bipartisan agreement. The proposal they brought to the floor is much smaller, is much narrower. In fact, instead of looking forward, it is looking backward--no improvements to unemployment insurance, no fraud prevention looking at the future. In fact, the bill before the Senate actually cuts $5 million of crucial fraud-prevention funding that Democrats secured after the pandemic. So you ask yourself, why are Republicans attempting to make this cut? The nonpartisan experts at the Congressional Budget Office, looked at this narrow proposal my colleagues have brought forward, and they said if Congress were to pass this bill, Republicans would spend more money--more money--trying to track down fraud than they would actually recover from the fraudsters. Government efficiency is something we are all interested in. You had me at hello on the concept of working on those kinds of issues in a bipartisan way. But here is a Republican anti-fraud proposal that loses taxpayer dollars overall, and to pay for it, they cut future fraud prevention. That just strikes me as defying common sense. Another issue with this approach I want to highlight is that the bill now before the Senate fails to provide any protection for workers who got overpaid through no fault of their own. Colleagues may remember that when the pandemic UI program was created, it was in the midst of the COVID crisis--highest unemployment since the Great Depression, tens of millions of Americans out of work, entire sectors of our economy essentially mothballed. Congress scrambled to create an unemployment insurance program for Americans who weren't eligible for traditional unemployment insurance. Without it, a whole lot of people would have gone hungry and lost their homes. In the rush to get urgently needed relief to those out of work, some States made mistakes, provided a number of workers more in unemployment than they were entitled to. These workers didn't defraud anybody. A lot of those people who received overpayments had no idea they had gotten more money than they should have. The issue is that some States are running their unemployment insurance programs with decrepit, old systems that can barely keep up, and they made mistakes. Now 5 years down the line, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to claw back these payments--even from people who did nothing wrong. In fact, some of these people to this day aren't even aware they were overpaid. They certainly aren't fraudsters. States made mistakes in the heat of an economic crisis, and Congress shouldn't be punishing individual workers who had no idea in the first place what was going on. Final issue with the proposal: The Trump administration has made a mockery of fraud prevention by illegally firing the Department of Labor inspector general. The inspector general's office successfully oversaw unemployment fraud investigations throughout the pandemic. In my view, firing the inspector general is a big setback in the fight against fraud in the unemployment insurance program. The Trump administration has also given DOGE unfettered access to unemployment insurance claims data. The bill before the Senate would allow DOGE to falsely accuse innocent workers of fraud years after unemployment insurance helped them keep food on the table during the pandemic. That is not being tough on fraud. That is making innocent people victims. Democrats are all in--all in--on bringing criminals who defrauded the UI system to justice and building a more reliable, durable unemployment insurance system for the future. That is why, colleagues, we negotiated a really strong, bipartisan antifraud package. For the life of me, I don't understand walking away from that package now, especially in favor of a narrower proposal that would lose taxpayer dollars and sacrifice the effort to fight fraud. Therefore, I would ask the Senator to modify the request so that the Wyden substitute amendment, which is at the desk and is a text of the Wyden-Crapo Unemployment Insurance Integrity and Accessibility Act, be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.