Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I certainly have no sympathy for leakers, and I want to make a couple of points to make it clear why I am going to oppose this proposal. First of all, the biggest leakers of taxpayer data are the big tax software companies. We never hear a peep from our colleagues on the other side about that. In fact, my Republican colleagues try, with every piece of legislation where there is a possible connection, to get rid of the IRS's new direct-file system that allows taxpayers to avoid the big tax prep companies who overcharge them and give away their data. My view is, it makes no sense to create an even larger double standard--a life sentence for nonviolent offenders. That seems disproportionate to the whole concept of potentially zero penalty for big corporations that leak all the time. Second, let's talk about the system this proposal would protect. It is a system that allows the people at the very, very top to pay what they want, when they want to, and, often, sometimes nothing at all for years on end. Some of the wealthiest folks--the people at the very top--pay zero for years on end, including the ex-President. So my view is the American people ought to have more information about the tax schemes the ultrawealthy are playing, not less. I want to make it clear, again, I take a backseat to no one when it comes to protecting taxpayer data. But the tax games of the ultrawealthy are not a state secret that ought to be protected like the nuclear codes. The Congress ought to be doing more for tax transparency. I am happy to have that discussion. Meanwhile, the Senate should not go out of its way to help the system that helps the ultrawealthy hide in the shadows and dodge paying their fair share. For those reasons, I object.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, let me go to the policy issue. I know this is very important to my colleague from Florida. And when families are wrestling with this issue, they have the sympathies of all of us. Here is what concerns me: Families struggling to afford IVF will get virtually no benefit from the Scott proposal that more than doubles the annual contribution limit. That is the bottom line. Families struggling get virtually nothing from this. I have just felt--and I am sorry that we started a little bit early because I wanted to hear Senator Scott's remarks. I just think, if you look overall, Republicans have just had no interest in protecting in vitro fertilization or reproductive rights. The fact is, Donald Trump, some time ago, claimed that he was going to require insurers to cover IVF. As far as I can tell, not Senator Scott, but Republicans generally basically never thought he was serious about it, which is the case for all of these proposals, virtually, that he is making, sometimes more than one a week. So my view is, the money that this bill would cost is better spent on extending the expansion of the Affordable Care Act's premium tax credits because they actually lower the cost of health insurance for typical families. That is what we want to do: lower the cost of health insurance for typical families. By the way, that is set to expire at the end of next year unless Congress takes action. So for those reasons, Madam President, I object.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am announcing my intent to object to any unanimous consent request to proceed to the nomination of John Bradford Wiegmann to be the General Counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), subject to the Department of Justice fulfilling its commitment to me to provide a list of certain legal opinions. Opinions of the Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) carry enormous weight, guiding government agencies and providing legal bases for entire programs. They have precedential value, continuing in force from administration to administration. Yet Congress and the public have limited insight into these opinions. The potential risks of this secret law are most apparent in the world of intelligence, where the OLC wrote opinions green-lighting warrantless surveillance and torture without the oversight or awareness of the congressional intelligence communities. In December 2023, I made a modest request of the Justice Department. Christopher Fonzone, then ODNI General Counsel, had been nominated to be Assistant Attorney General in charge of OLC. I asked him for a list of OLC opinions directed to an element of the intelligence community and any other opinions related to surveillance authorities. The Department of Justice then committed to responding to my request ``as expeditiously and thoroughly as possible.'' Nine months later, I have not received the list. It is my intent to lift the hold on Mr. Wiegmann as soon as the Department abides by its commitment and provides me with the list I requested.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Senate Committee on Budget, Senator Whitehouse. I want to ask for a clarification of H.R. 7032, the Congressional Budget Office Data Sharing Act and its application to taxpayer privacy rules. As you are aware, section 6103 of the Tax Code establishes strict limitations regarding the disclosure of confidential taxpayer information, including the disclosure of taxpayer information between government agencies or between branches of government. The authority of the Congressional Budget Office to receive confidential taxpayer information is restricted under section 6103. The Internal Revenue Service has long held that information disclosure provisions outside of the Tax Code may only override section 6103 if such disclosure provision explicitly states so. H.R. 7032 makes certain amendments to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to strengthen and clarify the CBO Director's authority to request and receive data from executive branch agencies, but does not explicitly reference section 6103 or make any amendments to the Tax Code. Accordingly, it is my understanding that H.R. 7032 is not intended to modify the application of section 6103 of the Tax Code in any way. Is that correct?

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in a few minutes, Senators will vote on the Tax Relief for American Workers and Families Act. There has been a lot of discussion and debate this week about it, and I will make just a few final points. Republicans are talking a lot these days, trying to convince Americans that they are the ones who support children and families, not Democrats. The Republicans talk about supporting small businesses. They talk about competing with China. They talk about how terrible it is that nobody can afford a home in America. And they talk about cracking down on fraud in government programs. The bill that the Senate will vote on in a few minutes helps with each and every one of these issues. Now, we are going see whether Senate Republicans really, in fact, do want to help, whether they are offering anything more than talk. Over the last couple of days, I have read lots of comments from Republican Senators who say that it is really time to wait and that, if Republicans take control of the Senate, they will write a better bill. So I would ask: Better for whom? One thing I am sure of is it won't be a better bill for the 16 million kids who stand to benefit today--today--colleagues, from the proposal we are going to vote on. And it won't come as any comfort to families who are getting clobbered on rent or the small businesses that are going to fail if they don't get help now. The House of Representatives passed this bill back in January. It was the product of work with Republican Chair Jason Smith and I, but it also included a year's worth of negotiations with colleagues here in the Senate. That bill got 357 votes--almost an even split between the two parties. And as I have said before, in the House of Representatives, at this point, it would be hard to get 357 votes if you were just out ordering a piece of pie. The only reason our bipartisan bill didn't become law 6 months ago was because of the delay of Senate Republicans. I offered to make changes. I met with a significant number of Senate Republicans personally. They talked about what their proposed ideas were for compromise, and I offered them. I offered them. I said it publicly in the Senate Finance Committee. It wasn't good enough, although they looked a little bit like the dog that caught the car. But in old-school basketball terms, Senate Republicans just continued the delays. It was kind of the old four-corners offense: stall and drain the clock. But for the millions of people who are hurting, those folks can't afford for the Senate to just keep waiting. Now, the reality is, when it comes to tax policy debates, this is the easy stuff. The difficult issues don't get agreement from 357 Members of the House of Representatives. The debate on taxes is sure to get a lot harder when Congress is going to have to deal with trillions of dollars in tax changes coming down the pike. If Senate Republicans can't work across the aisle or work with a House that produced 357 votes, there is going to be some very, very heavy lifting next year. And I will close with this. Every Senator now has a choice. The results here are not predetermined. Republicans can choose to side with children and families. Republicans can choose to side with people who are walking an economic tightrope just trying to pay the rent. Importantly, Republicans can choose to side with small businesses. The fact is, the problems small businesses are having today, to a great extent, are due to the singlehanded efforts of Senate Republicans, who did nothing but derail an effort to fix research and development expensing. In fact, they were willing to derail research and development expensing in the 2017 tax bill when everybody said we need this to compete with China. Senate Republicans said: Nah, we are interested in giving tax breaks to people at the top rather than small businesses. So they gutted--gutted--research and development expensing for small business. Not a single Democrat voted for it. And then they promised to fix it in 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024. All those years, Senate Republicans said they would get a break for small businesses on the research and development issue. Now, a lot of those small businesses have to go out and borrow to keep their doors open. So we offered to work that and other issues out. But Republicans said: Gee, we are just going wait around until 2025. Well, I want to say to my colleagues and I want to say to the country, for a lot of these small businesses, the research and development issue is a lifeline. I have had them come to me and say: Ron, I am not even going to be around in 2025 for somebody like the Senate Republicans who want to wait. I say we ought to help them now. Make no mistake about it, a Senate that passes this legislation can allow our bill to go to the President of the United States right away--right away--and help goes out to those 16 million families, the 4 million small businesses that depend on research and development expensing and the families that got clobbered with disasters. We have a chance to help those families who, after they got clobbered with disasters, got clobbered by an outdated tax code. We would fix it. We would fix it today. And because of Senator Cantwell, hundreds of thousands of units of affordable housing could get on the way today. So Senate Republicans can do those things that I just described. And the way I see it, you know, if you show up for work around here and you have a chance to help 16 million kids, 4 million small businesses, scores of businesses that have been clobbered by disasters and create hundreds of thousands of units of housing--doing all that sounds, to me, like one hell of a day at the office. So Senate Republicans can choose to help that way or they can continue with excuses, empty talk, and what are sure to be their plans for the future: locking in even more handouts to big corporations and the wealthy. This is a thoroughly bipartisan bill; 357 votes in the House of Representatives--every Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee voted for this bill. So I say: Let's help the kids and the families. Let's help the small businesses. Let's help those who need housing. Let's be there for those who face disasters. I say to my colleagues on the Republican side: This is a chance to help everybody in America--everybody. I hope my Republican colleagues make the right choice. I strongly urge them to vote yes and side with the children and families all over the country. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Janice Lepore, a fellow in our office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Congress.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Senator Whitehouse, thank you very much for your comments, particularly if you are talking about the immediacy of what is in this bill. I have had small businesses come to me--I am sure Senator Hassan has, too--and they say, look, if this is put off until 2025, you guys might have your debate then, I won't even be around to see it because I won't field any payroll and I won't have that R&D money. Senator Bennet has been in this fight since day one, has really dedicated his public service to kids.

Mr. WYDEN. Apple pie.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I thank my colleague. And Senator Cornyn said I could take a second to add on. I think my colleague from California has made a central point. In the West, in particular, we want to make sure that those who have been clobbered by these fires don't get clobbered again by an outdated tax code. So I am strongly in support of Senator Padilla's work. We have an opportunity to get it on the books tomorrow, if it passes. Tomorrow, it goes to the President and gets signed into law. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President and colleagues, if I started the workday with the opportunity to help 16 million kids from low-income families, make America more competitive with China, build affordable housing for hundreds of thousands of Americans, and pay for it all by cracking down on fraud, I would call that a hell of a good day at the office. Tomorrow, we are going to find out if Senate Republicans agree. The vote on the tax bill tomorrow has been more than 6 months in the making. In fact, I have been working on this in a completely bipartisan way for 2 full years. The only reason this didn't get done a long time ago is delay on the part of the Senate Republicans. So no more delay. It is time to vote. Everybody is going to see where each Senator stands. Over the next 45 minutes or so, I am going to have a number of my colleagues talk about why this bill is so important. So I am going to start with just a few key points. For starters, the bill was designed with balance in mind. For every dollar in tax cuts for business, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the official scorekeeper of these matters, has told us that an equal amount goes to children and families as goes to business. Our focus on families is on those that are walking an economic tightrope. And 16 million kids are going to benefit from the bill, half a million lifted out of poverty--a huge accomplishment. And it is especially important for the families with modest incomes; families with two, three, or four kids. Under the current rules, they get discriminated against because those big families get only a single child tax credit regardless of how many kids they have. Think about that. Federal law tells these struggling families that if you have got a large family, well, try to figure out how to get by splitting a single child tax credit, and figure out how three or four kids can split a pair of shoes. Three or four kids can't do that. They can't split a single meal. This economic discrimination against large families in America ought to end. There has been a lot of talk about who is really looking out for the families. My view is, that is going to become clear when the Senate votes tomorrow. We will see who is actually on the side of the families that need a boost, families who are facing the kind of economic discrimination that I just outlined. I know that my colleagues on this side want to make sure that families can get the assistance they need, and we want to end the discrimination against large families. There is so much in this bill that ought to bring the two sides together. That is certainly what happened in the House, with 357 votes. For example, the bill builds 200,000 new affordable housing units. The lack of affordable housing is a nationwide crisis. It is not just blue States and cities; it is everywhere. On housing, you can call me a supply-sider. We have to build and build and build 200,000 new units. And in a minute or two we will hear from my colleague in Washington State, who has singlehandedly led the effort to meet housing needs in America. The bill invests in research and development so we can outcompete China. Changes Republicans made to the Tax Code back in 2017 slashed the value of the tax incentives for research and development. It is worth only 20 percent of what it used to be. Republicans have said in 2018, in 2019, in 2020, in 2021, in 2022, in 2023, and in 2024 that they would fix the research and development tax credit mess that they singlehandedly created. Tomorrow is going to be their chance. According to the Treasury Department, 4 million small businesses would benefit from this bill. Picture that, Mr. President: 4 million small businesses, startups, ones that depend so much on research and development to compete with China. Many of them are in fields that compete directly with China and other countries. They want to know why in the world would Congress put this off until 2025. A lot of them say: Ron, we are not going to be around in 2025 if you all don't act. The bill also provides help to families and businesses hit by mega storms and mega wildfires. This is so important to the people in my State. I have told them at townhall meetings--I have had almost 1,100 of them, Mr. President--that we are going to get this done because, in Oregon and virtually everywhere in our country, so many of our communities have been devastated. As I touched on, 357 votes in the House doesn't happen by osmosis. By and large, on a normal day, you can't get 357 House Members to agree to order a piece of apple pie, but that is the kind of support this tax bill had. Left-leaning groups like it; right-leaning groups like it; family organizations like it; faith-based organizations like it; pro- life groups, pro-choice groups--across the political spectrum. And in the next day or so we are going to see if the Republicans, who talk so much about these issues--help for small business, help for families, building housing, preventing fraud--my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about it constantly. Now we are going to find out if anybody wants to actually follow through on the rhetoric. I know we do. We believe, with the Senate voting now, we have got a chance--as I touched on at the beginning--to have a real day at the office, a day when you help the kids, when you help the families and the small businesses and the people who need housing and people who have been devastated by disasters. Get all that done tomorrow, Mr. President, and that is one hell of a day at the office. I yield my time now to my colleague from Washington State, our leader on housing issues and many others.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for her good work. Senator Casey and Senator Brown have been two champions of the child tax credit. Let's start with Senator Casey.

Mr. WYDEN. Senator Casey, one of the things that I most appreciate about the Senator's services, when we bring up a bill, you invariably say: What does it mean for the kids who are hurting? We thank you for it. Senator Brown.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves, I just want to say one of the most powerful things Senator Brown often says on the Finance Committee is: Whose side are you on? And Senator Brown always is on the side of communities where everybody has a chance to get ahead--not just the people at the top, the small businesses and the kids and the working families. And we so appreciate that leadership. Next is Senator Whitehouse, and not only is he a valued Member of the Finance Committee, but he uses the Budget Committee to focus on these kind of priorities, and we appreciate that.

Mr. WYDEN. Senator Bennet, you have been leading on these issues for a long time, and I want to take special note of a message for tomorrow. We have all been reading the press and the discussion about what is going on, sometimes thousands of miles from here, and there is a debate about who is for kids. I want everybody to remember what Senator Bennet said: Tomorrow, every single Senator can be for the kids. That is going to be our message for tomorrow. And by the way, our next speaker, our colleague from New Hampshire really shows her support for that proposition because she has been a champ on small business issues, and as we went into these debates, she pointed out, folks, we better be for the kids because kids who have an opportunity can be better workers down the road, and at every step of the way, she championed both kids and small businesses.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, what we have heard from our friend from New Hampshire is: It is time for results, not just rhetoric. Our last speaker will be Senator Padilla, our friend from the West. Senator Padilla.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, after months of negotiations, the Kids Online Safety Act, KOSA, has been improved, thanks to hard work by Commerce Chair Cantwell and Leader Schumer. The changes that I, LGBTQ+ advocates, parents, student activists, civil rights groups and others have fought for over the last 2 years have made it less likely that the bill can be used as a tool for MAGA extremists to wage war on legal and essential information to teens. I want to take a moment to thank all of the advocates, parents, young people, and concerned citizens that have raised their views about KOSA with me, both in support of the bill and with concern about its implications. Let me be clear, I strongly support elements of this bill, especially Senator Markey's Children and Teens' Online Privacy Protection Act, which will safeguard the personal information of young people online. Provisions regulating addictive design elements used by platforms to keep young people hooked are valuable safeguards that will make tech products safer. Unfortunately, KOSA's improvements, while constructive, remain insufficient. I fear this bill could be used to sue services that offer privacy-enhancing technologies like encryption or anonymity features that are essential to young people's ability to communicate securely and privately without being spied on by predators online. I also take seriously concerns voiced by the American Civil Liberties Union, Fight for the Future, and LGBTQ+ teens and advocates that a future MAGA administration could still use this bill to pressure companies to censor gay, trans, and reproductive health information. For these reasons, I cannot vote for this legislation. However, if this bill is signed into law by the President, I look forward to working with my colleagues to conduct rigorous oversight of the FTC to ensure that my worst fears about this bill do not come true and that kids benefit from a safer internet. Whatever happens to this bill, I look forward to working with my colleagues on other initiatives, including regulating harmful and manipulative platform designs, to tackle the vital topic of kids' safety online. I also remain convinced that this effort must go hand- in-hand with passing a strong baseline privacy law for all Americans.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I come to the floor today to again voice my strong support for the nominations of Adam Landy and Kashi Way to serve as judges of the United States Tax Court. The Senate will be voting on their nominations soon, Mr. Way's in just a few minutes and I believe Mr. Landy's later this afternoon. The U.S. Tax Court is the judicial backbone of the Federal Tax Code. Americans rely on the Tax Court to dispute tax bills before they need to pay them. It is key to making sure taxpayers are heard in a timely manner and an essential way to protect fairness in our tax system. The nominees for these positions have never been controversial. And as I am about to make clear, both these nominees have the right experience and the qualifications for the job. Adam Landy has served as a special trial judge on the Tax Court since 2021. He also has several years of experience at the Office of the IRS Chief Counsel in Baltimore, San Francisco, and in the private sector. Kashi Way is a senior legislative counsel with the Joint Committee on Taxation staff. During his 18 years at the joint committee, Mr. Way had a major impact on just about every piece of energy tax legislation that has gotten any traction in the Congress, as well as a host of other tax bills. This committee and our staff will be sorry to lose Mr. Way on the joint committee, but he is, in my view, going to make an excellent Tax Court judge. These two Tax Court nominees have experience in both the public and private sector. Their broad experience will be invaluable to take on the role as Tax Court judges. I would also like to reiterate my strong support for the nomination of Rose Jenkins to serve on the Tax Court. She is a qualified nominee and will make an excellent judge. I will be working with my colleagues to ensure we can bring her nomination to the floor for a final confirmation vote as soon as possible so she can get to work for the American people. Madam President, and let me just close by way of saying, I think it is particularly important--I see a number of my colleagues on the Finance Committee here--that we continue to work in a bipartisan way on this and that we make this experience more bearable and understandable for the citizens who are a part of it. And I think these nominees will help to do that. So I close by saying, in my view, there is no question that these nominees are highly qualified for the roles that they are nominated to fill. We have worked on these in a bipartisan way. I support each of them. And when the Senate votes on their nominations, I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor. Madam President, I would ask unanimous consent that the scheduled vote occur immediately.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Aaron Moss and Allison Carter, fellows in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Congress.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as a parent of young children, I certainly understand the impulse to shield children from harmful or inappropriate content online. That is why I wrote section 230 of the Communications Act back in 1996--to empower companies to offer tools that allow families to decide what content to block and filter for their children. However, the Shielding Children's Retinas from Egregious Exposure on the Net Act goes far beyond empowering parents and protecting kids--or any compelling governmental interest. Instead, it would violate the privacy rights of every single American by requiring invasive and data-abusive age verification technology to access a broad swath of lawful adult content on the internet. Indeed, it would encourage platforms to verify any internet user attempting to access a broad array of websites that might host deemed-harmful content using the most common form of verification--a government-issued ID. Requiring websites to collect the IDs of everyone attempting to view adult content will inevitably lead to a privacy, national security, and counterintelligence disaster when adversaries and criminals obtain those records. In addition, it would incentivize platforms to censor anything that might fit the bill's broad definition of content harmful to minors, to avoid investigations and fines, even if that content is perfectly legal. Such censorship would undoubtedly include information about sexual health, LGBTQ+ content and, content from other marginalized or vulnerable groups. Neither of these outcomes are good for the vital American rights of privacy and access to information. For this reason, I will object to any unanimous agreement to take up or pass the Shielding Children's Retinas from Egregious Exposure on the Net Act.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I come to the floor today to state my strong support for Judge Mustafa Kasubhai's nomination to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. There are a number of reasons why I believe Judge Kasubhai's nomination is appropriate, but today I will focus on what I think are three priorities of his. First is public safety; second is understanding rural communities; and third, his nomination has broad support from leaders across the political spectrum. During his 6 years serving as a Federal magistrate judge on the Oregon district court, Judge Kasubhai has demonstrated a commitment to the rule of law and community security--so much so that the judge's nomination has been endorsed by the Oregon Association Chiefs of Police, the Acting U.S. Marshal, and others in law enforcement. The Oregon Association Chiefs of Police took special note of Judge Kasubhai's record. They called that record a ``distinguished record of service and dedication to upholding the rule of law, as well as his unwavering commitment to supporting crime victims and law enforcement'' as one of the many reasons that the Oregon Association Chiefs of Police is backing his nomination. In one case earlier this year, Judge Kasubhai ordered a White supremacist, alleged to have defaced a synagogue, to be held in detention while court proceedings were ongoing. Judge Kasubhai deemed this individual too great a threat to the community, despite defense counsel calling for him to be released on home confinement. This is just one example which shows Judge Kasubhai's commitment to prioritizing public safety. Second, the judge knows and understands the challenges facing rural communities across the country. Before serving as a magistrate judge, he practiced law in Klamath Falls, OR. For those who aren't familiar with my State, this is a very rural area with an agricultural and natural resource-driven economy. Judge Kasubhai has been there for these communities. Anyone with Judge Kasubhai's resume would have had a lot of opportunities available to them, and it says a lot about the judge's character and care for rural Oregonians that he chose to go where his skills were most needed, and he saw that he could make a difference in rural Oregon. In talking with Judge Kasubhai, it is clear that his time working in Klamath Falls gave him a firsthand understanding of how the judicial system affects rural communities. I have no doubt that he will use this knowledge to ensure that his decisions are fair to all and take into account the needs of communities, large and small. Finally, not only did Judge Kasubhai advance through a bipartisan judicial selection commission in my State, he also brings with him letters of support from leaders across Oregon and the political spectrum. Notably, he has the support of both a judge appointed by President Bush, who called him ``the very soul of fairness,'' as well as a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney. Judge Kasubhai's extensive legal accomplishments, unwavering commitment to serving our communities, and dedication to the rule of law are all reasons why I urge my colleagues to vote for his confirmation. This is a judge who will truly lead--and lead in a way that complies with the rule of law. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise and want to thank my colleague from Washington State who has been leading on these issues for years and years and my friend from Illinois. And what I am going to do just briefly, my colleagues have been so eloquent, is talk about why Senator Duckworth's legislation is so important at this crucial time. It is absolutely essential that we pass the Duckworth bill. And as far as I am concerned, I am prepared to stay on this floor--I mentioned this to my colleague--for as long as it takes. We are just going to stay at it until we get this done. And the reason I feel so strongly about this is, several decades ago, as a young Member of the Congress--the other body, the House, with a full head of hair and rugged good looks--I wrote a law called the Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act. It was supported by the profession. It was supported by patient groups. And I never imagined, after we passed that law, that people would be out here on the floor of the U.S. Senate trying to unravel the progress that has been made. And when we passed it, it was all about some simple ideas, particularly clarity for the families trying to navigate the system. It was largely information. It was a new technology then, decades ago. It is not now. Now it is proven. Families rejoice being able to use it. And never did I imagine that we would have an effort on the floor of the U.S. Senate trying to turn back the clock, trying to unravel the progress that has been made. That is what Senator Murray and Senator Duckworth are taking on: a rearguard action to turn back the clock and unravel the progress that has been made for so many families. And, unfortunately, this is kind of where we have been for a while, trying to unravel the progress with respect to contraceptives, trying to unravel the progress with mifepristone. We will have more to talk about all of this. But the court ruling out of Alabama earlier this year would have effectively turned back the progress, made IVF impossible. And since then, we have seen the far right, as my colleagues have said, trying to build on the effort to take away our freedom. And none of this seemed to me, Senator Duckworth, imaginable several decades ago when people were rejoicing because they knew how to navigate the system and get information, figure out what providers were right for them, and it worked so well, as it does today. And your bill is absolutely essential business for the Senate. I would just say to my colleagues here: Do not vote to unravel all of this progress that families rejoice in. Support the Duckworth legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I share our colleague's view that the southern border is serious business. I strongly favor smart, effective policies to deal with it. The reason I can't support what he has proposed is that defunding infrastructure does not make sense, and that has long been the position of the Senate. The money that is being discussed here has been supported unanimously over three particular initiatives here in the Congress. The authors of this, and I would say this specifically, have been Senator Cornyn, a member of the leadership on the other side of the aisle, and our colleague from California, Senator Padilla. Let me repeat that. We have gone through this three times with strong bipartisan support from Republican leadership--our colleague from Texas, Senator Cornyn--and Senator Padilla from California. The reason why is that we have said we can come up with smart policies on the border and also maintain our infrastructure. Unfortunately, the funding that my colleague is talking about would harm the effort to ensure we build the roads and the bridges and that we deal with lead pipes in schools. That is what we are talking about. That is why the States and the localities have been such strong supporters of this. My colleague serves on the Finance Committee. There are a number of areas where we have worked together. I will note that this week in the Finance Committee, a number of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have talked about how they want to generate more growth--a smart idea. Put me down as interested and wanting to work in a bipartisan way. Well, the reality is, you can't generate big-league economic growth with little-league infrastructure, and that, unfortunately, is what is going on here. Where we agree that we ought to be tackling a very serious issue--the southern border--we disagree on the method of funding that effort. I think defunding infrastructure is the end result of what my colleague is talking about, and it turns upside down the bipartisan coalition that has allowed us to use that money at the State and local levels with Republican leadership and our friend from California. So that is why I have to object. Therefore, I do object this evening.