Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am going to move now to my brief remarks with respect to our judge from Oregon. I come to the floor today to reiterate my strong support for Judge Amy Baggio's nomination to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Judge Baggio has a proven track record as both a jurist and a litigator. She spent a decade as a public defender; and in her career on the bench, she has presided over hundreds of civil and criminal matters and handled 42 trials, half of which were jury trials. And I note, because Members have been asking with respect to her values in terms of prosecuting and dealing with cases and her attitude towards criminals, in one case the judge sentenced a man to many more years for first-degree sexual abuse than anyone had thought was even being discussed, certainly longer than was sought by defense counsel. So it is a testament to Judge Baggio's fairness and professionalism that during her career as a judge, she has never once had a party file a request for a different judge. In addition to being fair, she has consistently demonstrated an ability to make thoughtful decisions that protect communities and their values. I urge my colleagues--and I gather that we will be going to the vote now--to support a very dedicated public servant--and I emphasize that-- a public servant who has got a real track record as a public defender and in her career on the bench. I urge my colleagues to support Judge Amy Baggio.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following members of our team be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Congress: Steven Mapes, Jordan Harrington, and Janelle Conrad.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I come to the floor to talk about something every American wants from their public officials: transparency and accountability. Unfortunately, after repeated attempts, Congress has not received that transparency or accountability from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and it is feeding the perception of corruption. For the past 6 months, the Senate Finance Committee has been trying to get straight answers from the Justice and his wealthy friends about the growing list of handouts they have lavished on the Justice. Most recently, we sought to figure out whether Justice Thomas secretly had over $250,000 in debt written off--simply wiped away--by a wealthy benefactor. If so, as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I am working to learn whether he paid the taxes he was supposed to-- taxes that any American is legally required to pay. The Justice has refused to respond. Justice Thomas acts as if the freebies and the special favors Americans are reading about--the flights on private jets, comped; trips on luxury yachts; megawealthy individuals paying for school tuitions; quarter-million-dollar debts wiped away--is totally normal stuff. The reality is, it is not. It isn't normal for anyone, and when the person receiving all of these extravagant handouts is one of the nine most powerful jurists in the country, with unchecked power to rewrite laws from the bench, it looks worse. With respect to this disappearing debt, here is what we know. In 1999, one of Justice Thomas's friends loaned him $267,230 to buy a luxury RV. That is some kind of friend. Justice Thomas wants to believe the story is simple, like the couple hundred bucks you would loan somebody to get their car fixed in an emergency. This is the story that the Justice has, in effect, apparently subscribed to obscures the truth. The simple fact here is that loans have to be repaid, and it sure looks like this one was not. According to the terms of the loan agreement--which, by the way, was written down on Supreme Court stationary from the chamber of Clarence Thomas--Thomas's friend supplied the money to buy Thomas the luxury RV. In return, the Justice was supposed to pay 7.5 percent interest for 5 years. Then the loan would come due, and then Justice Thomas would be responsible for having to repay the full principal. But from what I have seen, the payment never happened. Through my investigation, I have uncovered that Justice Thomas only paid interest on the transaction. When the deadline hit after 5 years, his friend extended the maturity date on the loan for another decade. But just 4 years later, Thomas' friend simply decided to stop collecting payments from the Justice, even though the Justice still owed him more than $\1/4\ million. Justice Thomas's friend wrote a note telling him that the interest he paid was good enough and that he wouldn't accept further payments. That means that the debt--likely the entire $260,000 in principal--was considered forgiven. Again, that is quite a friend. So the documents we have seen indicate Justice Thomas received a $267,000 loan to buy a luxury RV and never repaid most--and, likely, not even a dollar--of the money that his friend originally loaned him. This has legal consequences. The Tax Code makes clear that in instances where a debt is canceled, forgiven, or discharged for less than the amount owed, the borrower must report the amount canceled or forgiven as income for tax purposes. Furthermore, the forgiven debt is income that Justice Thomas is required by law to report on his financial disclosure report. But Justice Thomas never reported the $\1/4\ million in forgiven debt on his financial disclosure report in 2008, the year his debt was forgiven. He won't give the Finance Committee a direct answer on whether he reported it on his taxes, raising serious legal questions. After I publicly revealed these findings, Justice Thomas, through his lawyer, said the documents that I reviewed were untrue. The Justice said: The loan was never forgiven. Any suggestion to the contrary is false. And-- The terms of the agreement were satisfied in full. This contradicts the documents I reviewed. So, along with Senator Whitehouse, our colleague from Rhode Island, we wrote to Justice Thomas's lawyer and gave him a chance to prove his claim. Personally, I believe that a sitting Supreme Court Justice would jump at the opportunity to correct the record and prove that he repaid his debt and did not cheat on taxes. I wish I could report to the American people that was the case and that this whole mess was just a misunderstanding. But that did not happen. Justice Thomas did not give us any documentation about his so-called loan. Senator Whitehouse and I gave him a month to respond and received nothing--no loan agreement, no payment schedule, no evidence of principal payments, and no explanation for why he and his lawyer said the documents and information I uncovered were untrue. If what Justice Thomas and his lawyer are saying about the loan is accurate, the question is, What is behind all the stonewalling? Does the Justice believe he shouldn't ever have to answer the questions about all these major windfalls and luxury travel, not even to prove that everything was on the level? Justice Thomas and his lawyers could put this whole affair to rest by providing copies of checks repaying the $\1/4\ million loan. My personal guess is they can't because those payments never happened. If a wealthy friend forgave a $\1/4\ million loan to Justice Thomas, the law requires that he declare it. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, it is essential that Justice Thomas list that income on his taxes. He is also required to disclose the money on his financial disclosure report. Based on what we have seen, it seems like he did neither. Our laws, including our tax laws, have to apply to everyone. The law applies to everyone, especially one of the nine most powerful jurists in America. Congress must ensure that they do. It is time for Justice Thomas to respond with the facts about this $\1/4\ million loan and any similar money and gifts he has received as a Supreme Court Justice. Now, Madam President, I am going to yield to my colleague on the Finance Committee. He is also the chairman of the Budget Committee and chairman of the important Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, our colleague Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, ensuring Americans' right to access, read, and understand the law is critical to the functioning of our democracy. Whether text with the force of law is found in statute or regulation or whether it has been incorporated by reference, it is essential that all members of the public have fair and equitable access to the legal standards by which they must abide. Unfortunately, I have concerns that the Protecting and Enhancing Public Access to Codes (Pro Codes) Act would hinder, rather than enhance, the public's access to technical or voluntary consensus standards that have been incorporated into law by reference. This bill explicitly allows standards-setting organizations to require that a member of the public create an account or agree to terms of service as a condition of access. Requiring that an interested party surrender personal information to, or enter into a binding contract with, a private entity in order to read the law raises concerns of privacy and fairness. I am also troubled that the bill lacks robust standards for public accessibility. It does not require standards to be made available in print or in person, and it does not require standards to be searchable, machine-readable, or accessible to persons with disabilities. In this way, the Pro Codes Act risks creating barriers to access for many Americans, including researchers and reporters, those without reliable internet service, and individuals with visual impairments. For these reasons, I will object to any unanimous consent agreement regarding the Pro Codes Act.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following members of my office be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 118th Congress: Tiffany Chenneville and Eoghan Stafford.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I rise today with my colleagues to pay tribute to a special friend and our former colleague, Senator Kohl of Wisconsin. I was fortunate enough to be able to serve with Herb Kohl during his service in the Senate and have been equally fortunate to know his wonderful family. I have been listening to my colleagues describe Senator Kohl, and I thought that I would describe him in a way that Herb Kohl would never describe himself as being. That is because he was too modest. The fact is, Herb Kohl was really the embodiment of what we Jews know as tikkun olam, which is a belief that all of us have a responsibility to leave our world and our communities better off than we found them. Herb did that day in and day out, living his life always trying to boost the well-being of those less fortunate. As my colleagues have been saying, Herb Kohl didn't need to go into public service, but what we are all saying today is that public service desperately needs people like Herb Kohl: a successful businessperson, passionate about improving his home State of Wisconsin and his country through public service. When most people think of a U.S. Senator, my guess is they have an image of somebody who loves to hear themselves talk, puts out a blizzard of news releases, tweets every day, and aims to take credit for lots of stuff. Herb Kohl was just the opposite of all that. For example, at home in Oregon, I always make a point of going to Boys & Girls Clubs to shoot baskets with the kids in the summer. Again and again, I would encounter young people around lunchtime who came to camp ravenous and got two lunches right away. They weren't just hungry; they had had nothing to eat but a candy bar since the day before. Local Boys & Girls Clubs helped kids get substantial, nourishing meals, and they are always trying to find ways to get extra food to kids in need, particularly as the week comes to a close and many kids are facing a weekend in the summer not knowing where their next meal would come from. I assume my colleagues know this. It wasn't until years after I had been going to shoot hoops in the summer with the Boys & Girls Clubs--it wasn't until years later that I found out that Herb Kohl, our Herb Kohl, was giving generous support to those Boys & Girls Clubs for years. But did he say a word about it to my colleagues, to me? We talked basketball all the time, but he never talked about how he stepped in to help all those future hoopsters. And that was Herb Kohl in a nutshell. He would see a need for his community, and without any fanfare, without any notice, without any press releases, Herb Kohl didn't act like a Senator; he just acted in the spirit of tikkun olam. He stepped up. He wanted to help. He never asked for an award, never saw himself with a picture of himself in a blue suit and a red tie getting some kind of award. A number of Senators over the years--and I think this echoes what my colleagues have said--they said that Herb was very nice to them and very polite. I heard Senator Klobuchar talk about work on antitrust stuff. But a lot of colleagues would come up to you and they would say our first name and they would say: But I haven't really had a lot of extended conversations with Senator Kohl. Now, we know it was not because he was unpleasant or wished somebody ill but because he was very private, putting in the work each day to make good on his pledges to Wisconsin families and so many others. All of us read the really wonderful, gracious obituary for Senator Kohl in the New York Times. One of the reasons I wanted to come to the floor today was to mention a couple of things that they didn't even manage to get into that wonderful obituary. It was terrific. But let me give some examples. My background is working with the Gray Panthers, working with the elderly. I was thrilled to be able to work under him when he was chair of the Aging Committee. When it came to seniors, no issue for Senator Kohl was too small or too insignificant for him to tackle. He tackled end-of-life issues and long-term care, addressing unemployment among older workers, protecting seniors from financial abuse, tried to help them save for retirement. All of us could go through this laundry list of accomplishments. Not all of those ideas might have been on the front page of the paper, but they represented the quiet and thoughtful workhorse that Herb Kohl was. Older Americans had no better ally than they did in Senator Kohl. Through all the partisan infighting, he always worked on those senior issues because he saw that as ground that was exempt from all the pettiness that drives so much of politics. I will close with this: I was especially appreciative that Senator Kohl, in his quiet way, had the vision to look down the road at big challenges. For example, he talked to me often--and I am sure my colleagues as well--about how the guarantee of Medicare had evolved over the years. In other words, Senator Kohl knew that Medicare was not a voucher, that it wasn't some piece of paper, some snippet of paper; it was a guarantee of Medicare. He also knew that it had evolved over the years. It is still continuing with the prescription drug benefit. He knew the program inside out, and Senator Kohl would always say to me: Let's just keep figuring out how to update the Medicare guarantee, protect the elderly, and promote choice and alternatives without compromising the protections that older people deserve. Let me just say to my colleagues, as chair of the Finance Committee, if you walk into the Senate Finance Committee room today and you talk about the issues relating to Medicare and Medicare Advantage and them spending $6 billion on garbage advertising, Herb Kohl was telling us years ago there were supposed to be guardrails for that, there were supposed to be protections for that. That was Herb Kohl--thinking down the road as well as helping people today. So I am really pleased to be here with my good friends, and I will just close with one last point. I think one of my colleagues talked about it. Senator Klobuchar knew that the Senate was kind of a community, and I suspect that there are a few people in the House today who understand that as well. But when staff was working late at night-- they might have a bill or an amendment or something or maybe they would be working on a project where staff was helping the bigger campus community--and it would get to be 8 or 9 o'clock at night and people were kind of hoping that somehow, out of the sky, a pizza would arrive--not with Herb Kohl. When it got to be 9 o'clock, we got ourselves a real dinner, and nobody knew where it came from, but a handful of us did. Until his last days, Herb Kohl practiced tikkun olam. That is why you have some of my most thoughtful colleagues--the Senate is made up of a lot of people, but I have just been here a few minutes, and I heard Senator Baldwin, Senator Klobuchar, and my partner from Oregon, Senator Merkley. These are the kind of people who also represent the best of public service. That is why all of us are here--because our hearts are heavy today because we so admired him, we so appreciated him. I send my love tonight to Sid and Dorothy and Lisa and the whole family because they continue to represent the ideals Herb Kohl stood for. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I lift my intent to object to Executive Calendar No. 262, the promotion of Lt. Gen. Timothy Haugh to the grade of general and, consequently, to be the Director of the National Security Agency--NSA--and commander of U.S. Cyber Command. I have received the information I sought from the Department of Defense and NSA in connection with the nomination.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I don't want to make this a bouquet- tossing contest. The fact is, the four Senators on the floor have together put in decades and decades and decades prosecuting the cause of clean energy. And the fact of the matter is, we had tried a lot of things over the years. We tried cap and trade. I was a strong supporter of Senator Markey's efforts. We tried carbon taxes. We tried border adjustment. And particularly three of the four Members over here are from the Finance Committee--they were willing to take the risk of saying we ought to basically, if not throw the Tax Code in the garbage can as it relates to energy, get pretty darned close in terms of creating a whole new set of incentives. I am going to speak about Martin O'Malley's candidacy here for a few minutes. But I just wanted to say to these four, we would not have even gotten a major climate bill out of the Senate Finance Committee to break 50 years of gridlock. That is how the New York Times described it: 50 years of trying. And the Finance Committee broke that gridlock. It wouldn't have happened without these four Senators. I want them to know that.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I just heard about this legislative idea a few minutes ago. So I really have very little information about it. But what I can tell you is, we already know what the bottom line is. The amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana will hurt honest taxpayers and will help wealthy tax cheats. That is the bottom line. Now, I am all for seafood inspections. We have got loads of seafood in our part of the world. But I want to take just a minute to talk about the reasons that Members of this body ought to oppose the legislation. First--and the Congressional Budget Office has made this point--this amendment uses the fake offset of cutting IRS funding. The cut in IRS funding included in this amendment doesn't pay for an increase in seafood inspections; it increases the deficit. And the reason I say that is because that is what the Congressional Budget Office says about these ideas. The Congressional Budget Office are the folks that we put in place to give us objective, nonpolitical analyses of various important ideas. The Congressional Budget Office are the people that we use on the Finance Committee regularly, and the Congressional Budget Office has said that every dollar cut from the IRS budget reduces revenue by $2. And that increases the deficit. Second, this has given a big pass to wealthy tax cheats. People need to know that the reason there is a focus on IRS enforcement is because the wealthy tax cheats have the lawyers and accountants, and they have all kinds of ways to get around the rules. The working families that we represent--the folks in Michigan, the automobile workers--pay taxes with every single paycheck. We know what kind of financing they have because they pay with every check. It is the wealthy tax cheats that we have to deal with. And I just say to my friend, the kind of person that he has given a pass to is--we recently found almost a thousand millionaires who didn't even file a tax return. Not one of the scams--they didn't even file a tax return, almost a thousand millionaires. The Federal Government lost more than $30 billion just on that. So the Senate ought to be focusing on making sure that we have tough IRS enforcement, that we have the funding to improve services for all taxpayers--all of them--and, particularly, ending the free ride, once and for all, for wealthy tax cheats. And the service has gone up. We have seen reduction in waiting times for calls from 28 minutes to 3 minutes. I wish I had time to have a more extended exchange with my colleague. We are, right now, in our caucus meeting having debates on important issues. But I would just say, in the future, if my colleague could even give us 15- or 20-minutes' notice, we could maybe have a more extended discussion. The people who get help here are wealthy tax cheats. The people who are hurt here are honest taxpayers. And for that reason, I object.

Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, we hear often about this matter of taxing college endowments, that somehow this is going to address college affordability and make the Tax Code, you know, more fair. I am the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and I gather that my colleague has just introduced this legislation--maybe as recently as today. I think it is appropriate that before we start making tax policy on the floor of the U.S. Senate, we have a chance to actually have the Senate look at some of the details. For example, if we are going to talk about tax fairness, I will just say to the Senator from Ohio that I welcome that. I am the author of the bill to say that billionaires, who now, under the current Tax Code, can go for years and years paying little or no taxes--I am the author of the proposal that would change it. All you have to do is change three words: buy, borrow, and die. That is how they do it--buy, borrow, die, and pay little or nothing for years on end. So what we ought to do is take the Senator's ideas and anybody else's, you know, ideas and bring them to the Senate Finance Committee. I will tell you I have not seen any evidence in the past about how, somehow, the kind of tax my colleague wants to levy is going to somehow make things better for students, which is what I want to do. This tax legislation has not been considered by the Senate Finance Committee. That is the correct place to hold a robust discussion about fairness and affordability. For that reason, I object.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I expect that the Senate will soon pass by unanimous consent the Blackburn-Ossoff REPORT Act. This bill will strengthen the Nation's centralized reporting system for the online exploitation of children, operated by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, to better protect children from online sexual abuse and exploitation. Senators Blackburn and Ossoff worked closely with me to make important changes to this bill to require that the upgraded CyberTipline be secured consistent with Federal cybersecurity best practices, so that hackers are not able to steal and then distribute the extremely sensitive images and videos documenting abuse that are stored in this system. I sincerely appreciate their partnership on this important issue.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I got back late last night from Oregon-- another round of community meetings. You can't do your job well sitting behind your desk back here; you have to get out into the community. I have had more than 1,000--really more than 1,060--open-to-all townhalls, in every corner of Oregon, and I am going to talk for a few minutes about the issue I hear about constantly, and that is the shortage of affordable housing for working families. I am going to talk about what it means for my constituents, but I will tell you, I hear about it all across the country and from Senators on both sides of the aisle. I have just introduced legislation with the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Senator Sullivan, about housing that is affordable for working families. Ask the New Hampshire Senators about employers and workers facing housing challenges there. Ask those from Kansas what is going on in Kansas City, where they can't house teachers. Oregonians from Brookings to Baker City are facing rising rents and housing costs and are making tough financial choices. They ought to have enough money because they are working hard to pay for affordable shelter. Here is a statistic that will give you a sense of what the challenge is all about. In my State, 26 school districts have been forced to buy, rent, or build housing for their teachers. So get this, Mr. President-- and we are westerners, and we understand this. We know we have a lot of challenges competing in tough markets. We have a leg up geographically with Asia, for example, on the west coast, but we are losing it if we don't have affordable housing for working families, for firefighters and teachers. Folks, the minority community has said: We are trying to start small businesses on a credit card, and we can't afford shelter. In Oregon, these school districts--more than 20 of them--are now basically in the housing business. How in the world--I see my friend from Alaska is here. We have been talking about these issues. It is wonderful to work with him on it. How in the world did our schools suddenly get in the housing business? I guess in some places they are going to in effect rent houses they bought to teachers, and the teachers will practically be back, I say to my friend from Alaska, in their college days. They will be waiting to use the washing machine in line with other teachers. So I just don't think it is right that all our school districts have to get into the housing business--by the way, there was a front-page story in the Wall Street Journal here not long ago about the same sort of thing in Kansas City. I have introduced comprehensive legislation as chairman of the Finance Committee to tackle this issue. It is called the DASH Act--the Decent, Affordable, Safe Housing for All Act. Today, we are just going to focus on one piece, which is affordable housing for working families. Senator Sullivan and I have teamed up here in the Senate. I am very pleased that our bill is bipartisan and bicameral. I am very pleased that our bill is bipartisan and bicameral. Representatives Jimmy Panetta and Mike Carey are offering the same kind of tax credit that Senator Sullivan and I are offering for working families, and our proposal is built on the proven and successful--what is called LIHTC--low-income housing tax credit. My view is that the combination of LIHTC, plus the help that Senator Sullivan and I and our counterparts in the House want to advance--those two efforts--could spur a juggernaut of new and desperately needed housing construction. Our bill could be a big shot in the arm to the countless middle-income Americans hoping to get their shot at the American dream of owning a home. I want, as we get into this issue of working families, to make sure that everybody understands that we are also recommitting our support to the existing programs that help the homeless and help folks of modest incomes, like LIHTC. These are people who, every week, walk an economic tightrope. They are balancing the food bill against the fuel bill and the fuel bill against housing costs. We desperately need more LIHTC funding, and as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I am going to continue to push that. But I don't think the two needs here for working families and low- income folks are mutually exclusive. We can do both. We ought to do both. Our country is not at its best when we pit working families against people of modest means. We ought to be extending opportunity for all Americans. I will just say--and I am going to yield to my friend from Alaska-- that small businesses across my State--and I heard it yesterday again at our business summit in Portland--can't grow because employees can't afford housing. Even when they have good-paying jobs, families are forced to search for months for reasonably priced properties, only to be up against several other families in similar circumstances and contending for the same property. So we are going to continue to try to build on the progress of LIHTC. My hope is--and I had a good talk just this morning with the chairman in the other body, Chairman Jason Smith of the Ways and Means Committee, my counterpart. We had a good conversation about the effort to get help for kids with what is called the child tax credit, and an equal amount of help for the research and development tax issue for innovation so we can outcompete China. We made good progress just in the last week, Chairman Smith and I, in looking at the numbers and the various ways in which we can ensure that an equal amount of assistance--an equal amount of assistance--goes for the child tax credit and the research and development tax credit. One of the reasons I was so pleased to be able to come to the floor this morning and talk with my colleague from Alaska is I think we also ought to be talking about, on top of--and I use those words--an agreement that is proportional in assistance for the child tax credit and for the research and development tax credit. I think, on top of that, we ought to give a boost to housing, particularly the low-income housing tax credit, which has gotten significant support from my colleague from Washington, Senator Cantwell, and a number of Republicans as well, and we should include such a housing effort--on top of a child tax credit and a research and development-innovation package, help on housing--and make them all bipartisan. I see my friend from is Alaska here. I thank him for his cooperation. I will just say, in closing, no community is immune from the skyrocketing cost of housing. Democrats aren't usually supposed to use this word, but I will tell you I am a supply-sider on housing. We need to increase supply, and on that, Senator Sullivan and I are working together. I yield the floor to him.

Mr. WYDEN. I will yield very quickly to Senator Peters after I wrap this up. Mr. President, first, I want to thank Senator Sullivan again for giving us a chance to bring housing, in a bipartisan way, to the Senate floor and just to tell colleagues there is an opportunity to do something really big here in the U.S. Senate. I just got off the phone again with the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in the other body, my counterpart. We are making good progress in the effort to make sure that there is a child tax credit and a significant boost to research and innovation in this country. They have to be proportional. We have made that clear. That is the essence of a good and fair agreement. Now, Senator Sullivan and I and our colleagues who are advocating for LIHTC are getting an opportunity to also discuss building upon that and taking some steps to ensure that there is housing for working families and for low-income folks. I thank my colleague from Michigan for the chance to close this discussion up.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WYDEN. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I must regretfully object to the promotion of Lt. Gen. Timothy Haugh to the grade of general and, consequently, to be the Director of the National Security Agency--NSA-- and Commander of U.S. Cyber Command. In January of 2021, I made public an unclassified memo I received from the Defense Intelligence Agency revealing that it was purchasing, retaining, and using location data revealing the movements of Americans. After receiving that information, I pressed the Department of Defense to identify which other Agencies within the Department are buying Americans' personal data, including location data and web browsing records. The Department provided me with that information in March of 2021, but marked the information ``Controlled Unclassified Information''-- CUI--a made-up designation with no basis in law. The administration is abusing the C-U-I designation to keep this unclassified information from the American public. In May of 2021, I wrote to Secretary of Defense Austin to urge him to remove the restrictions on that information, so that the American people can be told which Agencies are buying their information without court oversight and so that Congress can conduct appropriate oversight. In August of 2021, I received a response letter from the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security, declining to clear the information for public release. In connection with Lieutenant General Haugh's pending promotion to lead the NSA, I narrowed my request. I asked that the American people simply be provided yes or no answers as to whether the NSA is buying their location data and web browsing records. Unfortunately, intelligence officials have been unwilling to release even that basic information. The American people have a right to know whether the NSA is conducting warrantless domestic surveillance of Americans in a manner that circumvents the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Particularly as Congress is currently debating extending section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Congress must be able to have an informed public debate about the scope of the NSA's warrantless surveillance of Americans. Until the NSA publicly releases the information described above, I must object to the Senate proceeding with the Haugh nomination.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I am going to spend a few minutes discussing the three words on this chart next to me: buy, borrow, and die. These three little words are allowing billionaires across America to legally get away with paying little or nothing in taxes for years and years on end. Here is how it works: A billionaire buys and holds assets, like works of art, more houses than they can possibly live in, stocks and bonds, you name it. They increase in value untaxed. The billionaire then borrows against these assets to support a lavish lifestyle, and they can borrow at a fraction of the consumer rate due to the enormous holdings of these valuable assets. That loan is untaxed. The billionaire's assets appreciate at a higher rate than the interest on the loan--that is not hard to do. So the billionaire can, essentially, do all of this until they die, and then their kids can start all over again. So let's now contrast buy, borrow, and die with the tax system in America for firefighters and nurses. Nurses and firefighters, for example, living in Philomath, OR, are required to pay taxes out of every paycheck. Working people don't get to play by these billionaire rules. They don't get to call up an army of high-priced lawyers and accountants every time they don't feel like paying their taxes. Right now, the average billionaire can wriggle their way into a low 8 percent tax rate while a nurse or a firefighter making $45,000 is paying a 22 percent tax on their wages. Now, here is the gut punch for everybody who is following this and works for a wage: Current buy, borrow, and die practices under our tax law are perfectly legal. That is a pretty sickening reality. Tax laws simply don't apply to billionaires in the same way they do to firefighters and nurses. Nurses, firefighters have mandatory tax rules. The billionaires can pretty much pay what they want, when they want to. How is that fair? Americans overwhelmingly believe it is not. So it is time to look to solutions that restore fairness to the Tax Code while still rewarding success. After all, that is what our country was founded on. We believe deeply in success and the ethic of giving everybody a chance to get ahead. Luckily, there is a solution that achieves both fairness and economic growth. Today, I, along with 15 other Members of the Senate, am introducing the first comprehensive Billionaires' Income Tax that would finally end buy, borrow, and die. This is going to put a stop to one of the most common schemes billionaires can use to pay little or no taxes for years and years on end. Now, as to implementation of our bill, there is a way already on the tax books that allows you to do it. In the Tax Code there are mark-to- market rules and policies. Now, for the tax wonks out there, people who think tax policy and its root-canal-like pain are enjoyable, here are the sections: Mark to market is in section 475, it is in section 877A, it is in section 1256, and it is in section 1296. So there is your model. That is how you do it. You use rules and policies that are on the books today, a blueprint right in front of us to use as a model for taxing billionaires fairly. Mark to market under the Billionaires' Income Tax would require billionaires to pay taxes every year, just like those firefighters and nurses. It is time to close the loopholes and make sure that everybody at the very top is paying taxes on their income as it is earned, and our Billionaires' Income Tax is the way to do it. This Congress, our staff on the Finance Committee and I have investigated a number of tax schemes that the very wealthy, with the help of armies of tax lawyers and accountants, use to pay virtually no Federal tax. The Finance Committee has investigated crooked Swiss bankers hiding wealthy Americans' income; $34 billion in unpaid taxes from the very wealthy, who won't even file a tax return--we are not even talking about schemes, they won't even file a return; unpaid taxes for millionaires; tax-dodging schemes between Leon Black and the notorious Jeffrey Epstein; and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's wealthy buddy secretly forgiving a massive private loan. Billionaires looking to dodge their taxes are thriving today under the current tax laws. So I want a tax policy, as chairman of the Finance Committee, that gives everybody in America the chance to get ahead. Our friend, our former colleague, Senator Bradley from New Jersey--has a better jump shot than I do--that is what he talked about, is opportunity, giving everybody a chance to get ahead. Unfortunately, the flawed tax policies that billionaires take advantage of promote wealth building in the hands of a fortunate few. This is leaving a lot of people behind. Over one-third of families in America don't have the cash on hand to pay for a $400 emergency if they had to. Meanwhile, during the pandemic, when families were forced make tough choices between paying rent and buying groceries, billionaires increased their wealth by over $1 trillion. We have big needs in this country--obviously, the Medicare solvency crisis. We have seniors at the risk of losing the Medicare guarantee unless there is a way forward for paying for it. If Medicare becomes financially insolvent, seniors and Americans who counted on those guaranteed health benefits need look no further than billionaires, tax cheats, and their Republican allies who refuse to say that the billionaires could pay their fair share. The Billionaires' Income Tax raises an estimated $557 billion over 10 years. If the ultra-wealthy started paying their fair share under my Billionaires' Income Tax proposal, we could be on our way to making Medicare financially sound, protecting the Medicare guarantee for millions of Americans. I am going to close with this: The Billionaires' Income Tax is not an attack on success; it is a fundamental strike for fairness. We want a successful economy, and to have a successful economy, you have to have a Tax Code that ensures that everybody in America gets a fair shake, and treats everybody fairly. It is time, in my view, to close the gap between the billionaires at the top and everybody else, and our Billionaires' Income Tax is a way to make that happen.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I am going to spend a few minutes discussing the three words on this chart next to me: buy, borrow, and die. These three little words are allowing billionaires across America to legally get away with paying little or nothing in taxes for years and years on end. Here is how it works: A billionaire buys and holds assets, like works of art, more houses than they can possibly live in, stocks and bonds, you name it. They increase in value untaxed. The billionaire then borrows against these assets to support a lavish lifestyle, and they can borrow at a fraction of the consumer rate due to the enormous holdings of these valuable assets. That loan is untaxed. The billionaire's assets appreciate at a higher rate than the interest on the loan--that is not hard to do. So the billionaire can, essentially, do all of this until they die, and then their kids can start all over again. So let's now contrast buy, borrow, and die with the tax system in America for firefighters and nurses. Nurses and firefighters, for example, living in Philomath, OR, are required to pay taxes out of every paycheck. Working people don't get to play by these billionaire rules. They don't get to call up an army of high-priced lawyers and accountants every time they don't feel like paying their taxes. Right now, the average billionaire can wriggle their way into a low 8 percent tax rate while a nurse or a firefighter making $45,000 is paying a 22 percent tax on their wages. Now, here is the gut punch for everybody who is following this and works for a wage: Current buy, borrow, and die practices under our tax law are perfectly legal. That is a pretty sickening reality. Tax laws simply don't apply to billionaires in the same way they do to firefighters and nurses. Nurses, firefighters have mandatory tax rules. The billionaires can pretty much pay what they want, when they want to. How is that fair? Americans overwhelmingly believe it is not. So it is time to look to solutions that restore fairness to the Tax Code while still rewarding success. After all, that is what our country was founded on. We believe deeply in success and the ethic of giving everybody a chance to get ahead. Luckily, there is a solution that achieves both fairness and economic growth. Today, I, along with 15 other Members of the Senate, am introducing the first comprehensive Billionaires' Income Tax that would finally end buy, borrow, and die. This is going to put a stop to one of the most common schemes billionaires can use to pay little or no taxes for years and years on end. Now, as to implementation of our bill, there is a way already on the tax books that allows you to do it. In the Tax Code there are mark-to- market rules and policies. Now, for the tax wonks out there, people who think tax policy and its root-canal-like pain are enjoyable, here are the sections: Mark to market is in section 475, it is in section 877A, it is in section 1256, and it is in section 1296. So there is your model. That is how you do it. You use rules and policies that are on the books today, a blueprint right in front of us to use as a model for taxing billionaires fairly. Mark to market under the Billionaires' Income Tax would require billionaires to pay taxes every year, just like those firefighters and nurses. It is time to close the loopholes and make sure that everybody at the very top is paying taxes on their income as it is earned, and our Billionaires' Income Tax is the way to do it. This Congress, our staff on the Finance Committee and I have investigated a number of tax schemes that the very wealthy, with the help of armies of tax lawyers and accountants, use to pay virtually no Federal tax. The Finance Committee has investigated crooked Swiss bankers hiding wealthy Americans' income; $34 billion in unpaid taxes from the very wealthy, who won't even file a tax return--we are not even talking about schemes, they won't even file a return; unpaid taxes for millionaires; tax-dodging schemes between Leon Black and the notorious Jeffrey Epstein; and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's wealthy buddy secretly forgiving a massive private loan. Billionaires looking to dodge their taxes are thriving today under the current tax laws. So I want a tax policy, as chairman of the Finance Committee, that gives everybody in America the chance to get ahead. Our friend, our former colleague, Senator Bradley from New Jersey--has a better jump shot than I do--that is what he talked about, is opportunity, giving everybody a chance to get ahead. Unfortunately, the flawed tax policies that billionaires take advantage of promote wealth building in the hands of a fortunate few. This is leaving a lot of people behind. Over one-third of families in America don't have the cash on hand to pay for a $400 emergency if they had to. Meanwhile, during the pandemic, when families were forced make tough choices between paying rent and buying groceries, billionaires increased their wealth by over $1 trillion. We have big needs in this country--obviously, the Medicare solvency crisis. We have seniors at the risk of losing the Medicare guarantee unless there is a way forward for paying for it. If Medicare becomes financially insolvent, seniors and Americans who counted on those guaranteed health benefits need look no further than billionaires, tax cheats, and their Republican allies who refuse to say that the billionaires could pay their fair share. The Billionaires' Income Tax raises an estimated $557 billion over 10 years. If the ultra-wealthy started paying their fair share under my Billionaires' Income Tax proposal, we could be on our way to making Medicare financially sound, protecting the Medicare guarantee for millions of Americans. I am going to close with this: The Billionaires' Income Tax is not an attack on success; it is a fundamental strike for fairness. We want a successful economy, and to have a successful economy, you have to have a Tax Code that ensures that everybody in America gets a fair shake, and treats everybody fairly. It is time, in my view, to close the gap between the billionaires at the top and everybody else, and our Billionaires' Income Tax is a way to make that happen.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, my colleagues have said it so well. Very briefly, I want to thank Senator Murray and all my colleagues who have done such good work. Let me start by saying that we Democrats are generally not supposed to use the words ``supply-side economics.'' I want everybody to understand we have to be supply-siders on childcare. We desperately need more childcare facilities. We need more built. And I have no qualms about saying as a proud Democrat and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee I am a supply-sider on the issue of childcare. I will say that everywhere I go in my State, big communities and small communities, there are waiting lines, very long waiting lines, for childcare. It is absolutely unacceptable. We have to increase our supply. We passed a number of good pieces of legislation. We have more to do. Point No. 2 is this is a fundamental issue of American productivity. We know that we are trying to compete in tough global markets. The President of the Senate, in my part of the world, California, Oregon, and the West, we have a geographical advantage, a leg up on China. Let's not give it away with the absence of good childcare facilities. You have to have childcare in order to be able to get to work and know that your kid is going to be OK while you are gone making a living. Finally, the third point that I would make is that we need to tap all the resources that are available in our communities--all of them. Child care centers, in-home child care, and we should also be thinking of how to partner with churches. This isn't a red or blue issue. It's not a rural or urban issue. It's an everyone issue. So our committees, working together, can do this. But we ought to utilize all our resources. I am going to make this a filibuster-free zone. My colleagues have all said it, you know, really well. Supply-side economics for getting us more childcare facilities. Let's focus on this as a productivity issue, a competitiveness issue. Third, let's utilize all the resources in our communities. I congratulate all my colleagues, and it is great to see the Finance Committee stalwarts out in force. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am announcing my intent to object to any unanimous consent request to proceed to S.1490, the Kids Online Safety Act. I agree with the sponsors of this bill that social media and online games can have a negative impact on the mental health of minors. However, this bill makes the mistake of empowering State attorneys general already enforcing bans on LGBTQ information and prosecuting individuals for helping others receive abortion healthcare. Armed with this bill, all a State attorney general would need to do is link the content they want to scrub from the internet with causing ``anxiety'' or ``depression'' and demonstrate that the platform allowed minors to access such content. For everyone except the largest platforms, the act of being served with the complaint, no matter how specious, would be enough incentive to take down the content in question. Sadly, some deep-pocketed groups that promote anti-choice and anti-LGBTQ policies are cheerleading the bill for this reason. Until the bill is amended to foreclose the ability of State attorneys general to wage war on important reproductive and LGBTQ content, I will object to any unanimous consent request in relation to this legislation.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, Senator Klobuchar has said it very well, and I want to pick up on her remarks. And we are here to reflect on the extraordinary achievement in the Inflation Reduction Act in order to provide for the first time a real measure of relief--a real measure of relief--for these staggering costs seniors and others pay for medicine in our country. And I am going to talk about the negotiation issue. And I want to say, this is just the next and essential piece of what we are doing to get relief for the consumer. For example, through most of the summer, I talked about the price-gouging penalty that we got in the law. And I see my friend Senator Stabenow, my colleague who has been my seatmate on the Finance Committee--we sure wish she wasn't retiring-- but the price-gouging penalty is the first such thing in Federal law. This is a penalty that it has imposed, as Senator Stabenow remembers, when drug companies hiked their prices over inflation. They have to pay a rebate to Medicare, which is used to lower the out-of-pocket costs for seniors. And Senator Stabenow and I have been out crunching the numbers on this issue. And one of the areas that we found is that these drugs, particularly those that are administered in a doctor's office, already are producing massive savings. Senator Stabenow, we found a drug a couple of weeks ago where seniors are saving several hundred dollars per dose--per dose--I would say to my colleagues--on one of these cancer drugs you get in the office. And this is just the beginning, as Senator Klobuchar has said. So this legislation, which didn't, unfortunately, get a single Republican vote, represents a seismic shift in the relationship between consumers and Big Pharma and especially authority for Medicare to negotiate prices of prescription drugs with manufacturers. And I just want to take a few minutes to pick up on this issue of the barrage of legal actions Big Pharma and their allies are taking to stop Medicare drug price negotiation. And we have been talking about all these lawsuits that the big companies--and I gather the Chamber of Commerce is with them all the way--have filed to prevent seniors and families from getting a break on medicine. So these legal actions that the big companies and the Chamber of Commerce are taking beg the question that I just want to offer up this afternoon: What would happen in America if our country didn't negotiate in our economy? The fact is, negotiating on price is the underpinning of the American marketplace. It ensures you bring two sides together to get a fair deal. And the question really has to become: Are these companies that have filed these suits really arguing that the government shouldn't try to get a fair price on medicine for more than 50 million American seniors? Senator Stabenow, that is the essential question--are they really arguing to the American people--and by the way, this is taxpayer money, much of this is taxpayer money--are they really arguing that seniors and taxpayers shouldn't get a fair deal? Now, the fact is that Medicare, in particular, with such strong taxpayer backing has a special argument for being a program that negotiates to get fair prices on because Medicare is not just a slip of paper, as we have examined in the Finance Committee often. I see Senator Whitehouse, our distinguished colleague. Medicare is not just a slip of paper with a few words on it. Medicare is a guarantee; it is a guarantee for seniors of good quality coverage. And it just begs the question: If you have a guarantee and a guarantee of something specific--good quality coverage--wouldn't you automatically say that the taxpayer should be able to have a friend and advocate negotiating for them in order to get the best possible deal? And I think the answer to that question is pretty obvious. Now, Big Pharma has, unfortunately, taken a very different position. They have been guarding the prohibition on price negotiation in this country like the Holy Grail. And they don't like that we have closed this chapter. And the first 10 drugs were not drawn out of a hat. Congress made it clear in black letter law the criteria of the Federal Government has to use. And so what we are doing now, Senator Stabenow--we have been talking to many of the members of the Finance Committee--is we are looking at the fact that these 10 drugs also were ones where we made sure and put in the criteria specifically where you had significant taxpayer support in terms of getting the drug to market. So again, another argument for why you ought to negotiate, the costliest drugs and drugs that get to market with taxpayer money. Now, Senator Klobuchar, I thought, very eloquently described a number of the drugs, but I think--and I want to give my colleagues a chance to make their remarks--I think we ought to reflect on the importance of making sure that, when Big Pharma has been double-dipping into taxpayers' wallets for these important medications--groundbreaking research from the National Institutes of Health are another research arm of the Federal Government. Then, after the research was funded by taxpayers, manufacturers sell the drugs developed using taxpayer-funded research back to taxpayers at sky-high prices, are they really not going to have a chance to get a better deal? Enbrel, which is the drug we mention often on the floor, was discovered at Massachusetts General Hospital using NIH-supported research. The hospital sold the patent rights to the drug manufacturer that has profited off Enbrel at the expense, Senator Stabenow, of taxpayers for now going on 30 years. My colleagues are going to have a chance to go into further detail about this, but I think when you are talking about Big Pharma and a new law that considers among a host of other factors prior to Federal financial support, provided by the taxpayers that we have the honor to represent, it means that the government should stand up for seniors and taxpayers to make sure that they get a good deal. An investment in basic science funded by American taxpayers is based on our record in the Finance Committee, often the foundation of the new drug--and when drug manufacturers use this taxpayer-funded research to make a drug, the price of the drug should be lower to reflect taxpayer investment, and you get the best possible deal for those taxpayers when you negotiate. And I will just close by saying, I think my colleagues know from talking to people at home, most people when you discuss this issue think it is absurd that for all these years, nobody could negotiate for them. What they are surprised about is not so much that a law passed, even though Senator Klobuchar talked about beating all these lobbyists, what they are surprised about is how people with a straight face have made the case for years that, with all of the taxpayers' support for medicine that I just outlined, that you wouldn't have started negotiating for taxpayers and seniors a long time ago. I really appreciate Senator Klobuchar doing this. I see the Chair, who has been our champion in the other body for many years, my seatmate, Senator Klobuchar--we have an exciting new Member from the west who has also joined us. This is an important chance to really think through where we are headed. And Senator Stabenow knows we have got a lot more to do. We are taking on the PBMs, the middle men, who are also a factor in driving up prices. But tonight is a chance because Senator Klobuchar has taken this time for us to outline what the negotiation issue is all about. I have tried to go through some of the history about how you were stunned to hear over the years that you couldn't negotiate. That has been changed. My colleagues are going to continue this discussion, and you are going hear a lot more about it because, for all of those people, all of those people that I knew, starting with the Gray Panthers who were standing in those pharmacy lines, getting mugged at the pharmacy counter trying to figure out how they were going to choose between their food and their rent, they are going have new hope because prices are going to be negotiated. There is going to be hope for them, and there is going to be hope for American taxpayers. And it is long overdue. I yield to my colleagues.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before I make a unanimous request on this important bipartisan, bicameral bill, I wish to talk for a moment about why it is so critical that the Senate pass this urgently needed legislation. For hundreds of thousands of Americans and their families waiting for a transplant, this is not an abstract issue. We are talking about life and death. More than 100,000 people are on the waiting list to receive a transplant, and, on average, 17 people die each day waiting for an organ transplant. In the first half of this year alone, more than 2,200 Americans have died while waiting for a transplant. The inadequacies of the current system are especially harmful to minority populations who are disproportionately represented on the organ transplant waitlist, yet, on average, wait longer for a transplant and are at a higher risk of death while waiting. I would just say to my colleagues that this is morally repugnant, and this legislation begins, finally, to root out this bias against our minority communities. For the last 40 years, the same contractor has had a stronghold on this contract. The lack of competition has not been in the best interest of patients, and this fall the contract will be up for renewal. In last year's bipartisan investigation, the Finance Committee found shocking failures with the current contractor who oversees the entire system: long wait times for patients on transplant lists, viable organs being lost or damaged in transit. We saw pictures of these organs lying around in airport hangars. There has just been a lack of accountability when the problems happen, technology failures, and even patient deaths. The last place anybody wants to hear about gross mismanagement and incompetence is in the business of saving lives. It is time for real accountability and real change. This bill would build on the administration's recently announced plans to modernize the program and clarify that there is the ability to award multiple contracts for these key functions. This would create real competition for these contracts and ensure the best-in-class organizations can be awarded contracts to support this critical system. The bill, which passed in the other body last week, would bring much needed change and modernization of the organ transplant system by supporting the administration's efforts and codifying, in the black letter law, modernization efforts where we aren't going to turn back the clock. We are not going to go back. We are going to go forward. I would like to thank a number of Members on both sides of the aisle who have been on the frontlines in this fight, particularly Senator Grassley, Senator Cardin, and Senator Young, who always worked in a bipartisan way. Senator Grassley, in particular, has been a longtime leader on this issue, an outspoken advocate for fixing a broken organ transplant system. I believe he had a challenging schedule, as many Senators did tonight, but I wanted to thank Senator Grassley. And I want to also thank my friend from Vermont, Senator Sanders, and his very talented staff for their commitment to help us get to this point, and we are going to continue to work in the future. Let's be clear about what is on offer. Every Member of Congress wants Americans to have the best-in-class organ transplant system. Our legislation is written from top to bottom to ensure competition for technical functions like those that will help this program perform to the highest possible level. I said we were going to pull out all the stops to get this passed because the patients deserve it. This is the final stop after all of these years of foot-dragging and excuses. And tonight, this is the final stop. Let's send the Securing the U.S. Organ Procurement Transplantation Network Act to the President's desk today.