Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to propound a unanimous consent request. I think colleagues know we have run a little bit behind. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Iowa be recognized next for her remarks and that I be recognized to close the debate on Mr. Jorjani and be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes. I think we would end up being about 10 minutes late or thereabouts, between 20 of and quarter of. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak for up to 15 minutes after the Senator from Iowa has finished her remarks.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, there is a job opening at the Interior Department, and that can mean only one thing: another Trump nominee who, incredibly, is already under investigation for misconduct, even before his first day on the job. This time, it is Daniel Jorjani, a long-serving Trump Interior official who is up for a powerful role as the Department's Solicitor. I say to the Presiding Officer and colleagues, I have put a hold on this nominee. If anything, the case for withholding action on this nominee has gotten greater in the last few days. Just in the last few days, the Department's inspector general has made it clear that this is an individual he is going to investigate. I will tell my colleagues that, if you are putting somebody already under investigation on a fast track to the Interior Department corruption hall of fame, right up there with Ryan Zinke, I believe that is a mistake the Senate is going to regret. It probably doesn't take an inspector general investigation to uncover why this is a mistake. I am going to explain it this morning, briefly. First, I believe it is important to start with an honest assessment of what Donald Trump appointees have done at the Interior Department. Under this President, it is often difficult for one agency's corruption to stand out above the rest, but somehow Interior Department officials manage to do that again and again. Mr. Jorjani, a former industry adviser for Koch Industries, is an example of just this type of behavior. The Office of the Interior Solicitor is in charge of legal issues and ethics for the Department. It is a big team with a lot of power. Mr. Jorjani has been a key member of the Solicitor's office. His own words indicate that he doesn't believe that his primary function at Interior is to protect public lands and uphold ethical standards. We have already heard discussion earlier this morning that he wrote to agency colleagues--and we have been quoting it--saying ``our job is to protect the Secretary.'' Those are his words, not the words of anybody here in the Senate. What Senators may not know is that Mr. Jorjani was talking about Ryan Zinke, who brought on a category 5 ethical hurricane during his brief time as Interior Secretary. In the same email, Mr. Jorjani boasted about having impeded inspector general investigations into the misuse of taxpayer funds for travel. It wasn't just talk. The record shows that covering up dirty ethics and potential lawbreaking is routine for Mr. Jorjani. By my count, there are at least four investigations into wrongdoing at the Interior Department that were closed or found inconclusive due to a lack of cooperation or records production on Mr. Jorjani's watch. These investigations covered a multitude of issues, from the potential misuse of expensive chartered travel to a halted study on the crucial health impacts of potentially dangerous Interior Department energy policies. Then there is the issue of the Interior Department's new policy under the Trump administration with respect to the Freedom of Information Act. The new policy--and again, this is a retreat from public interest standards--gives political appointees unprecedented control over the Department's response to Freedom of Information Act requests. In my view, it looks like an effort to conceal the fact that Trump Interior officials are spending their days doing the bidding of a host of special interests. There is clear evidence that this new secretive Freedom of Information Act policy was implemented under the Trump administration, that Mr. Jorjani knew about it, and that he was up to his eyeballs in putting this in motion. When I asked Mr. Jorjani about the Freedom of Information Act policy during an Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing, Mr. Jorjani actually claimed it didn't exist. He later told one of our colleagues, the distinguished Senator from Maine, Mr. King, that he had no involvement in Freedom of Information Act responses. I want it understood that I believe Mr. Jorjani lied to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and perjured himself to that body. Colleagues, I know that Members on both sides are concerned about what has happened with the Freedom of Information Act under this administration. I want to commend the several Republican Senators who have said that they are troubled about what this administration is doing with the Freedom of Information Act--the so-called ``awareness reviews'' by appointees that really aren't hard to figure out. It is about secretive political interference. What we are seeing with the Freedom of Information Act is inconsistent with the intent of Congress, and it is wrong. The importance of government openness and honesty with the American people ought to be a bipartisan proposition. It is in the interest of everyone--Democrats and Republicans--to protect the Freedom of Information Act from evasion and protect it from abuse. That is part of why this new Interior policy on the Freedom of Information Act is so troubling. As I mentioned, on Friday, the Interior inspector general confirmed to me that Mr. Jorjani is currently under investigation for his role in this Freedom of Information Act policy. For colleagues who may be following this, let's just understand what is going on: We are getting ready to vote on whether to advance somebody who is under a formal inspector general investigation. The fact that the inspector general is investigating such a serious matter ought to be enough all by itself to stop this nomination from going forward. Certainly, Mr. Jorjani's own words about how he views the job--not about protecting the public but about protecting someone like Ryan Zinke--ought to be disqualifying. If Mr. Jorjani is confirmed, the person who will be in charge of ethics at the Interior Department told colleagues his job was to protect a crook. That is what he said. Colleagues, this administration in too many instances has made deceit and unethical conduct the norm at the Interior Department. Trump officials have sidelined the Department's core purpose, which is to protect our treasured public lands on behalf of all Americans. Too often, it seems, they side with special interests that will pollute America's air, poison the drinking water, fuel climate change, and destroy the treasures that Americans all love. At some point the U.S. Senate ought to draw the line. I think the Jorjani nomination is such a place. I urge my colleagues to oppose the nomination. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, Huawei presents a very real threat to the security of every American, both individually and collectively. I have long been concerned that the Trump administration was going to let Huawei off the hook in order to get a politically useful trade deal. As the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over trade matters, that concerns me greatly. In addition, I am concerned that the resolution being offered does not go far enough to protect America's national security and hold the Trump administration accountable. Tomorrow there will be another bipartisan measure offered that, in my view, will better address the concerns I have just mentioned, and therefore I must object this afternoon.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, our laws and rules don't work unless they work for everyone. Individuals and small businesses should have the same rights--and the same ability to enforce those rights--as big corporations. I agree that individual creators are less likely than Disney or Sony to reap the full benefits of the copyright system when their creations are stolen for unfair commercial gain. That is a problem. However, the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act (CASE Act) of 2019 is not the right solution. The CASE Act would create an extrajudicial, virtually unappealable tribunal that could impose statutory damages of $30,000 on an individual who posts a couple of memes on social media, even if the claimant sustained little or no economic harm. Even the threat of such a judgment could stifle the legitimate fair use of content and be a boon to copyright trolls who harass and threaten innocent internet users to win settlements. That is a terrible result for freedom of expression, and it isn't even the type of activity the supporters of this bill are trying to target. Our copyright system is a careful balance between protecting our First Amendment values and ensuring that authors, photographers, graphic designers, and other creators can protect their works and earn a living. The CASE Act does not get the balance right, and that is why I am placing a hold on this bill. For these reasons, I will object to any unanimous consent agreement to take up or pass the CASE Act by unanimous consent.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, scores and scores of my friends and neighbors at home in Oregon have been grieving since they learned the sad news about the passing of a remarkable woman, Mary Gautreaux, who died at her home over the weekend. Mary Gautreaux was an astounding bundle of energy and passion. She had an incandescent smile, a huge heart for people who didn't have any power and clout, and the ability to make just about everybody she met more optimistic about the policies, opportunities, for the days ahead. Mary came to our office back in the 1990s, after working at the U.S. Forest Service, planting trees and fighting fires. I can tell you that no resume or job title could have ever captured what Mary Gautreaux was all about or how hard she worked to protect the qualities that make Oregon different--the very special place she was proud to call home. Mary Gautreaux, simply stated, was an all-star Oregonian. She loved her family and her coworkers with fierce loyalty. All of Mary's friends and neighbors knew, up close and personal, what an indomitable force she was. It didn't matter where you lived--from Portland to Burns and everywhere in between, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, the left, the right, mayors, county officials, everybody liked being with Mary. They liked working with Mary. They admired her professionalism, and they were so impressed that she always tried to involve everybody. She always wanted everybody to believe that they were special, that they counted. That is something we will always remember. My office saw her as an anchor, as I did personally. For the better part of two decades, she and I traveled to hundreds of townhalls and community meetings in every nook and cranny of our State. Mary and I always shared a kind of special joke. At one of these town meetings, somebody invariably would ask me something that I didn't know a lot about, and I would always say the same thing. I would say: Folks, I want you to know I am really digging into that issue, but Mary Gautreaux is one of the leading authorities on the subject. She would be rolling her eyes. Then I would say: Well, feel free to call Mary on nights and weekends. She is always available for people. My sense is that she got a kick out of it the first hundred times I did that. It was a special kind of bond we had, and that was vintage Mary Gautreaux. But the fact is, she really did make herself available--always, any time, any day. She was always ready to pick up the phone and travel the State to solve a problem. If I were to talk about all of the accomplishments and all of the results she produced for the people of Oregon, we would be here until New Year's Eve 2020. But I do want to talk about a handful that stand out for their exceptional breadth and impact. Mary Gautreaux was an early advocate of reopening the Willamette River for the benefit of everybody in Portland. She knew it had the potential to be a treasure for the community. She was out there swimming every chance she could get, and she loved every time she could get out into the Willamette. But she recognized that not everybody had her physical abilities. So as was always her way, when Mary recognized a problem that needed fixing, she got to work. She pushed locally with the city and community activists to get a ladder installed at a popular swim spot. As a result of this kind of effort and, frankly, her imagination--I don't know that finding ladders is always in the job description, she just figured out how more people could have the opportunity to get in and out of the Willamette safely and take a swim in one of the country's most impressive urban rivers. The whole metropolitan area of my hometown has her to thank for other important achievements. We have exceptional drinking water. Mary was instrumental in the creation of Portland's Bull Run water reserve being still, I believe, the only urban water source closed to people, entirely, for its protection. Everybody in Oregon, as they learn about this--because Mary never sought any publicity for herself--really has to thank Mary Gautreaux for that effort. She really went to bat for rural Oregonians. She recognized, because I lived in southeast Portland and she lived in northeast, we loved Portland, but we didn't have the job of representing the ``state of Portland.'' Our job is to get into every nook and cranny of our State, and, particularly, when so many rural communities are so hard-hit, Mary would be there, helping small airports, tiny airports get bigger, helping veterans who couldn't get over icy roads to get to healthcare in the urban areas. She would help, from food pantries to rural hospitals. She did everything to make sure that, in those small communities, they would understand that they counted. Sometimes people would point out to her: A lot of those communities had more cows than people. I always thought to myself: I probably didn't have the cows with me half the time, either. That wasn't Mary's measure of public service. Mary's measure was to make sure that nobody was left behind. One of her recent accomplishments for rural Oregon is also going to be treasured for a long time: the designation of the Frank and Jeanne Moore Wild Steelhead Special Management Area. Frank Moore and Mary had a wonderful bond. Frank is a World War II hero. After the war, he came home to the Umpqua River. He has guided generations of fishing families on the river for years and years. Now he is 96. Mary made a judgment a few years ago. She was concerned that Frank might not get the designation and recognition he deserved while he was alive. Mary basically pushed and pushed and pushed in order to make sure that the legislation I just mentioned would pass and actually get done. What a wonderful party we had for Frank Moore. If there was something Mary Gautreaux loved, it was a good party. You will hear a little more about that in just a moment. On the national level, in southern Oregon, Mary's work on the designation of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument created unique wilderness protections, unique protections for ranchers and environmental folks. It is something that is going to be a model for generations to come. She was the key to the creation of the Badlands Wilderness. I remember when Mary Gautreaux pulled it off, people said: Because of Mary, it was a good day for the Badlands. It is a wonderful accomplishment for folks in Central Oregon. In eastern Oregon, Mary's work on the East Moraines in the Wallowas was significant. She helped Oregonians everywhere, and she always tried to look ahead. Mary was one of the first who recognized in our State that recreation would be a powerful economic engine for years to come, billions of dollars coming into the State. There would be jobs for everybody from kayakers, to guides, to craft brewers. It was a huge economic multiplier. What did we get out of it? We also got a chance to have a new focus on recreation. We have seen the creation of Oregon's Office of Recreation. It is a State office borne out of Mary's tireless work, organizing people all over the State to highlight the 7 Wonders of Oregon. I am here to say tonight that Mary Gautreaux, for lots of us, was the 8th Wonder of Oregon. All of these achievements are part of her enduring legacy in our State, places people will visit, lands that are protected, ranchers, environmentalists. They are people who, before Mary showed up, might hardly ever talk to each other, let alone work together. She figured out a way to find common ground and achieve what I have just described. I want to talk a little bit about travels with Mary, the laughs that we had on the long car rides, bouncing around ideas, occasionally a passionate debate on something that was important to Mary. She always recognized--like Patton, Mary knew that an Army marches on its stomach. She generously stocked our car with apples and oranges and fruits and every manner of snacks--some healthy, some perhaps not so healthy--as we drove around Oregon. Let me tell you something, when Mary Gautreaux saw hungry folks as we made our way through the State of Oregon, what she did along the way is made sure the car--because she didn't want anybody to go hungry--got a whole lot lighter because she gave away so much healthy food to hungry folks who were hurting. No task seemed trivial or thankless. I will tell you, when you rode around in a car with her--and, you know, most of the time in government, people are talking about bills and amendments or polls and the like. What Mary was always talking about was how it might be possible to help more people at the next stop. The key was, at the end of a trip, she would always say to a person or two: Give me your phone number. I want to be able to stay in touch. I want to check in. That is the way she was, and sometimes, she would ask them to give her a name or two of somebody else they were worried about who had fallen on hard times--and Mary would reach out to them. Another memory I wanted to share is a little bit raw, and the Senate may know how it is going to play out in the months ahead. A few months ago, while she lay in her hospital bed coming to terms with a fresh diagnosis of terminal cancer, she learned that a group of young doctors at the Oregon Health and Sciences University had been in training to do a rotation in Ontario, OR, in Malheur County--a city of 11,000 people, the gateway to the Owyhee Canyonlands, spectacular high desert landscapes that were near and dear to Mary's heart. But it seemed these young doctors never got to go outside. Mary said: We better do something for all these young doctors. So she began asking for their supervisor so she could help these young doctors get out into the landscape. I do want people to know that there is going to be an opportunity to enjoy that landscape, work in that landscape, particularly in traditional industries like agriculture, to a great extent because of what Mary inspired in Malheur County. She dedicated her last days talking to anyone and everyone who she thought could come together and help stabilize the small community in eastern Oregon. I want people to be able to picture it because Nancy and I went to Mary's home in northeast Portland over these last difficult weeks. Mary always managed to cheer us up, rather than vice versa. One of the things that finally made us smile--and the hospice folks nearby--her whole room was built around the maps of the Owyhee, where she was looking at places for various uses that would be appropriate, how to protect the beauty of this extraordinary part of Oregon. You would talk to her about the beauty. She would always say that the first time she saw it, it brought tears to her eyes when she viewed it, and she so wanted to help the ranchers and folks in that area. She was dedicated to preserving this part of the world. It was Mary Gautreaux's dying wish that we could make this possible. Many of my colleagues may have seen me waiting on the floor of the Senate over the last few hours. Our chair, Senator Murkowski, has had a busy schedule today. When I chaired the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, we worked very close together. Lisa Murkowski has a big heart too. She is always interested in trying to bring people together. I told Chair Murkowski that, very shortly, I was going to be introducing legislation to recognize Mary's extraordinary work in Malheur County. We were going to have a community board, a community board to empower the ranchers and the small businesses and the families that had been there for years and wanted to know that there was a future. We wanted to call it the Mary Gautreaux Malheur County Community Empowerment for Owyhee Act, or the Mary Gautreaux Malheur County CEO Act. Stay tuned because you are going to hear me talk more about Mary's extraordinary efforts in this regard. In the meantime, this weekend, we are going to do what Mary Gautreaux wanted us to do. We talked to her about it. We said: Mary, we want to make sure that we tell Oregon--and in this case, the country--about your life and your accomplishments and how much we loved you. The way we are going to show her how much we loved her, this weekend, we are going to do what she wanted. We are going to have one heck of a giant party in her neighborhood, at her home, in northeast Portland. We are bringing together friends and family. She has so many of them. I am looking down this row. I guess we broke most of the rules of the Senate because you are only supposed to have a couple of people here. As far as I can tell, the people I am honored to represent in the U.S. Senate--there are more than 4 million of them--half of them would have showed up and sat with the folks on that row if they could have. This weekend, we are going to have a chance to tell each other stories. We are going to have a chance to talk about all of the people Mary helped. I am working now--because Mary loved bright colors--to make sure that her home and everybody there really sees what she wanted, was a lot of color and a lot of passion and a lot of friends and a lot of people talking about what a special place Oregon is and all these young people, who have done so much, are building on her approach for bringing people together, her values of caring, standing up for people who didn't have very much and were outside the power circle of Washington. This is a hard talk to give, but it is sure easy to always remember what a wonderful person Mary Gautreaux was, how she represented the very best our State has been able to offer. I told her privately right before she died: Mary, we love you. We will always be thinking of you. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I want to recognize and honor a quintessential Oregonian and legendary figure in our State's media circles, Patsy Smullin. On September 12, Patsy earned well-deserved honors from the National Association of Broadcasters for her long-time leadership as president and owner of California Oregon Broadcasting, Inc., COBi. As association president and our former Senate colleague Gordon Smith put it in presenting Patsy with its Chuck Sherman Television Leadership Award for local TV in medium and smaller markets, ``Patsy's passion for excellence in small market local television is unmatched. She exemplifies the best of broadcasting by running the longest continuously-owned and operated, independent broadcast organization in the West.'' Like former Senator Smith and countless elected officials throughout our State, I have come to know Patsy from regular visits to southern Oregon for townhalls, community meetings, and more. When I visit TV station KOBI in Medford, I can always count on a wide-ranging and thought-provoking set of questions from her station's journalists, and of course, that steadfast commitment to serious and fair journalism starts at the top with Patsy. As the son of a journalist, I very much appreciate her unshakable dedication to independent journalism that continues in the very best tradition of both her profession and in the legacy established back in 1933 by California Oregon Broadcasting, Inc. As a Senator, I appreciate in equal measure her rock-solid devotion to local journalism that serves viewers so well in all of southern Oregon. In Patsy's remarks accepting her award, she noted that ``Television in medium and smaller markets is a business where the hours are often long, the pressure to get it right is heavy, and the monetary compensation is not equal to the responsibilities.'' Then with classic Patsy modesty, she added, ``I have been very fortunate throughout my career to be surrounded by individuals who might not make a lot of money, but who make a positive difference in their community each and every day and love their work.'' I will conclude my remarks by saying all of southern Oregon is incredibly fortunate that Patsy has set the bar high both for working long hours and love of her profession to make a positive difference in her community each and every day.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to recognize Marian Wright Edelman, founder and president emerita of the Children's Defense Fund, for her powerful advocacy for racial justice and on behalf of children, the poor, and all marginalized people. On September 18, the Coalition on Human Needs will honor Mrs. Edelman as an extraordinary Human Needs Hero. Mrs. Edelman's storied career spans several epochal chapters of American history. Her activism and leadership led to the creation of programs such as Head Start, federally funded child care, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and tax credits for low-income families. Through the Children's Defense Fund and in her earlier work, Mrs. Edelman led in opening doors for children with disabilities, overhauling child welfare services, and expanding educational opportunities and health care for all children. From her early fight to ensure that nutrition aid reached the poorest families to her ongoing advocacy to protect children of color and all children from the ravages of poverty, Marian Wright Edelman has assisted tens of millions of children living in poverty and touched countless lives for the better. Mrs. Edelman grew up the daughter of a Baptist minister, who raised her with a strong emphasis on the value of faith, family, and education. These values would guide her through the challenges of entering the public sphere as an African-American woman. Mrs. Edelman's advocacy began while she was a student at Spelman College, where she was an active participant of the civil rights movement. Upon graduating from Yale Law School, Mrs. Edelman became the first African-American woman admitted to the Mississippi Bar. In Mississippi, she practiced with the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund and was an integral part of the Freedom Summer of 1964. She was instrumental in exposing the plight of child poverty in the South and throughout the United States, culminating in Senator Robert Kennedy's historic trip to witness the plight of hungry children in Mississippi. Subsequently, Mrs. Edelman served as counsel to the Rev. Martin Luther King's Poor People's Campaign. In 1973, she founded the Children's Defense Fund, an organization that to this day continues to work tirelessly to ensure child poverty will one day be a thing of the past. The CDF's ``Leave No Child Behind'' mission is to ensure every child ``a Healthy Start, a Head Start, a Fair Start, a Safe Start, and a Moral Start in life and successful passage to adulthood with the help of caring families and communities.'' To that end, CDF continues the tradition of Freedom Schools in 28 States and empowers outstanding high school students who have overcome tremendous adversity through its Beat the Odds program. Through her work, Mrs. Edelman has achieved international renown, garnering numerous awards, including the Presidential Medal of Freedom. She has authored several books on her life and our Nation's shared responsibility to children. Mrs. Edelman has been a guiding voice in much of my own work in Congress, and I know that countless other Members of Congress would say the same. This is particularly true with respect to my involvement in the Family First Prevention Services Act, a law that changed the way our Nation supports child welfare services by expanding the largest Federal program--title IV-E of the Social Security Act which pays for foster care services--to also support services for families to help prevent the need for foster care in the first place. This legislative victory simply would not have occurred were it not for the strong and steady voice of Mrs. Edelman and her colleagues at the Children's Defense Fund. Marian Wright Edelman will long be remembered as one of the greatest champions of children in our Nation's history, and so it is my honor and privilege today to recognize Marian Wright Edelman.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this summer, while American families enjoyed time away from work and from school, the big pharmaceutical companies revved up their influence machine to dismantle bipartisan legislation aimed at bringing down prescription drug costs. In July, the Senate Finance Committee, on which I am the ranking Democrat, passed legislation that constitutes the most serious and the most significant bipartisan effort in recent memory to lower drug prices. It is the result of months and months of work by Members on both sides. With respect to Chairman Grassley he and I worked literally every single day for 6 months with our colleagues to try to bring together this bipartisan package. Now the big pharmaceutical companies want to shred the bipartisan Finance Committee bill into confetti. The bill has two particularly important proposals. First, it has an out-of-pocket cap in Medicare that is going to save senior citizens $27 billion in the next decade. It will end the era when prescription drugs forced senior citizens into bankruptcy. The second key proposal is the one that really has Big Pharma mobilizing their lobbyist armies. It is a provision that stipulates that if big pharmaceutical companies are engaged in price gouging-- engaged in price gouging--they are going to face consequences. They are going to be able to set the prices, but if they price gouge, the taxpayer is not going to funnel up unlimited subsidies any longer. That is what that provision does that the big pharmaceutical companies are fighting. It is literally a requirement that drug companies, big drug manufacturers, when they price gouge, make a payment to Medicare, a penalty, one might call it. It is going to save the Medicare Program $60 billion. If the drug companies raise prices faster than inflation, they will have to pay the difference back to Medicare. There will be no more unjustifiable price hikes to please the shareholders at everybody else's expense and, particularly, no more taxpayer subsidies for price gouging on pharmaceuticals in America. For literally years, I have been hearing the big drug companies say that they didn't want price controls, that price controls would be bad for innovation. Nobody--nobody--wants to freeze innovation, so we went back to the drawing board, and we said: OK. You set your price, but if you do price gouge, if you do hit patients, families, and consumers in an unfair way, the taxpayer is not going to ladle out unlimited subsidies. That is what that provision of our bill does. Unfortunately, the big pharmaceutical companies would do just about anything to protect the status quo, keep the prices climbing up and up and the profits rolling in. Their lobbyists are walking the halls here on Capitol Hill. The pharmaceutical company executives are pulling out all the stops from their political headquarters to generate support. Their fear-mongering messages have spread in op-eds attacking our legislation, saying that somehow this bill, a bipartisan bill written by Senator Grassley, the senior Member of the Republican Caucus, is somehow a socialist price control. I already talked about how it is pretty hard to call it price control if the company gets to set its prices, but it certainly doesn't limit subsidies. Apparently, the pharmaceutical companies will not accept any limits there as well. Basically, the pharmaceutical lobbyists are calling it inhumane for the Senate Finance Committee to try to fix the broken system and bring down pharmaceutical prices. They basically say that any effort--any effort--to hold down prices is socialism. One op-ed said that the Medicare drug program would cease ``to function as a market entirely'' if drug companies lost their constitutional right to limitless--limitless--price increases. Others have even claimed that drug prices are falling nationwide, which millions of seniors can tell you is fiction, based on the trips they take to the pharmacy window. I have a bottom line, now that the Senate has come back after the summer break. The big pharmaceutical companies have had just about the longest winning streak in Washington. It seems as though they have a couple of lobbyists for practically every Member of Congress. Yet the Finance Committee voted on a bipartisan basis to actually act in the face of price gouging and protect American patients and families. We cannot let the big pharmaceutical companies win this time. We cannot let them win on that price-gouging penalty in particular. They want it gone. They know this is going to ripple through the American economy because people are going to say: Hey, this is a pretty fair approach. The companies can set their prices, but they don't have a right to unlimited subsidies. I personally believe--and the head of the Congressional Budget Office touched on this for our committee--this has the potential to be copied in the private sector as well. I think that is a good thing also. The question for the Senate is going to be this: Are we going to hand pharma essentially the power of a line-item veto, where they can go in and strike one provision--one provision--the provision that does the most to stop drug company price gouging? Whether pharma gets to comb over our proposals to strike down anything that might curtail their price increases or cut into their profits--that is really what they are seeking to do. If pharma can prevent the Senate from taking even the first basic steps to bring down drug prices, then the question is, What is going to come next? Are the drug company and the drug lobbyists going to get their own desks here on the floor of the U.S. Senate? At least then their influence wouldn't just be in the shadows of the Nation's Capitol. The prices of prescription drugs in America are out of control. All this summer I was having townhall meetings at home. I went to small pharmacies across my State, urban and rural. Usually, in these meetings, I would ask if somebody in the audience knew somebody who had been affected by high insulin prices. Everybody's hand went up. I asked: How many of you have neighbors who have been affected by high insulin prices? Everybody's hand goes up. The fact is that insulin prices have gone up thirteenfold in the last few years, and that drug is not 13 times better. It is basically the same drug, basically the same insulin that has been around for decades. The reason those prices go up and up and up constantly is that the big pharmaceutical companies can get away with it. Now the Senate Finance Committee is saying: You aren't going to get away with it any longer. The days when everybody in Congress would just look the other way and they could charge anything they want will be over. There was one particularly interesting article written over the course of the summer in which the author, using AARP data, basically said that if Senator Grassley and I and bipartisan members of the Finance Committee had done this 10 years ago, there wouldn't be a crisis with drug prices. His argument--he went through AARP data--was, essentially, drugs that had gone up $5,000 over a few years would have gone up something like $500--something much more manageable for American families and patients. The Senate Finance Committee is moving to actually stop this price gouging. I don't believe the pharmaceutical industry ought to be able to overrule 19 Senators on the Senate Finance Committee, Democrats and Republicans. Pharma shouldn't be able to gobble up 50 billion Medicare dollars that our legislation would otherwise save as part of the effort to stop the price gouging. Our legislation gets to the heart of how drug companies have managed to manipulate and abuse the broken healthcare system for far too long. They have done it with a pretty simple formula: Just make sure that the U.S. Senate lets them do anything they want--no constraints on companies at all. Keep the seniors on the hook for huge costs when they are prescribed expensive drugs. It is not just a crisis in Medicare. A recent study showed that nearly one-third of American adults said that at some point in the last year, they chose not to take medication--medication that was prescribed--because of the cost. In particular, insulin is cited again and again as a prime example, with tragic stories about people who died after self-rationing the insulin they needed to manage their diabetes. Rising drug costs force the people of this country into impossible choices. You are robbed of your savings if you get your prescriptions filled, and you are robbed of your health if you don't. Obviously, that is unacceptable. It ought to be unacceptable to every Member of this body, just the way it was unacceptable to the Senate Finance Committee on a bipartisan basis. I did make clear in the Finance Committee that this was just the beginning. I believe, for example, it is long overdue for Medicare to have the power to bargain with drugmakers directly for lower drug prices. Something like 90 percent of the American people--90 percent of the American people--believe that it is time to lift the restriction on Medicare so that Medicare could bargain to hold down the costs of medicine. We weren't able to get that into the bill, but, at a minimum, the bipartisan legislation the Finance Committee approved should not be picked apart by pharma lobbyists, particularly on the key question of whether they want to stop pharmaceutical price gouging. On this side, my colleagues and I are going to continue to fight to get this legislation passed by the full Senate. For now, it is up to Leader McConnell to bring our bill to the floor. My message to every Member of this body is this: The Americans who are battling illnesses and struggling to pay for their medications cannot wait. These are people who are walking an economic tightrope. Every month they balance their food bill against their fuel bill and their fuel bill against their medicine bill. These are Americans who cannot afford to be shunted aside while the Senate favors business as usual for the drugmakers. Every one of us knows what this crisis is all about and how big it is. Senators were home for weeks this summer. They heard from those in their communities, in grocery stores, in gas stations, in restaurants, and in Dairy Queens--everywhere you go. When a Senator is home, folks come up and tell them a story about how they feel when they get their prescription drug bills, that they have been hit by a wrecking ball. I held townhall meetings all over the State. The issue of prescription drug costs came up at every single one of them. I am going to close with this. Pharma's winning streak has to end here, and it has to end now. For the Senate to cave and allow pharma to block the price-gouging penalty would be an outrage. It would be a dereliction of duty on the part of the Senate. I am going to keep up this fight, and I know Chairman Grassley is going to continue to fight for our bipartisan bill, and I urge Senators on both sides of the aisle to stand with us. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, Oregonians love and cherish their wild rivers, and I am pleased we were able to protect many of these Oregon treasures in the Oregon Wildlands Act, which Congress included as part of the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act. The act adds 255 miles of new Wild and Scenic Rivers in Oregon. Some, but not all, of these new or expanded wild and scenic rivers designated under the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act were evaluated by the Bureau of Land Management for their potential inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. These evaluations in many cases identified the rivers' ``outstandingly remarkable values,'' ORVs, consistent with agency regulations and guidance. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act specifies that wild and scenic rivers are managed to ``protect and enhance the values,'' 16 USC 1281(a), for which the wild and scenic river was established. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act generally defines ``outstandingly remarkable values'' as ``scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values.'' The Federal land management agencies, including the Bureau of Land Management, which is administering most of the new and expanded wild and scenic rivers in the Oregon Wildlands Act, has defined ``other'' values as, but not limited to, ``ecological, biological or botanical, paleontological, hydrological, traditional cultural uses, water quality, and scientific values.'' Some of the new and expanded wild and scenic rivers in Oregon Wildlands Act were never evaluated by the agency. Therefore, as part of the fact-gathering by my staff based on State and Federal agency data and research and public input during the development of the legislation, ORVs were determined for the new and expanded wild and scenic rivers. The table I am including with my statement lists both the general and specific ORVs identified during consideration of the legislation. It is to protect and enhance these values for which I, as the chief sponsor of the Oregon Wilderness Act, included the various wild and scenic rivers in the legislation that Congress ultimately included in the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act. This table includes both the outstandingly remarkable values that BLM found for the stream segments, as well as additional values. The John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act reflects the Nation's commitment to protect America's rivers, streams, and special places. I am pleased the legislation permanently protects from damming, diversion, and mining over 255 miles of Oregon's pristine rivers and streams as part of the nation's Wild and Scenic Rivers system. I ask unanimous consent that the table be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in the coming hours, the Senate could take up the nomination of Elizabeth Darling to serve as Commissioner for Children, Youth, and Families at the Department of Health and Human Services. If she is confirmed to that role, she would be a key official overseeing the foster care system. I previously had a hold on Ms. Darling's nomination, and I am going to begin my remarks by saying my hold was never about her personally or about concerns with her qualifications. In fact, I believe she is qualified for the position. I placed a hold on her nomination because of serious problems at the Department of Health and Human Services affecting child welfare policies that would fall in her area of jurisdiction if she is confirmed. I think this involves a matter the distinguished Presiding Officer of the Senate might be particularly interested in at this point. I authored, with the former Finance Committee Chair, Senator Orrin Hatch, landmark families legislation called the Family First Prevention Services Act. Family First, that Chairman Hatch and I authored, is a once-in-a- generation bipartisan update of child welfare laws in America, inspired to a great extent by Marian Wright Edelman, the head of the Children's Defense Fund. The implementation of that law, in my view, is moving too slowly. Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services followed through on a request from me and a group of colleagues from both parties and both Chambers to open up the availability of prevention programs for States that Chairman Hatch and I felt so strongly about under Family First. This was an important first step, and, if Ms. Darling is confirmed, I expect to see the Department take more. What I would like to address for a few minutes, though, is a deeply discriminatory policy change that has been made by the Trump administration in the child welfare system. Until the Trump administration intervened, Health and Human Services regulations explicitly banned religious discrimination in federally funded Social Services programs, discrimination that should be barred by our core constitutional protections. Unfortunately, under this administration, that safeguard is no more. This year, the Trump administration has set a precedent that foster care agencies that receive Federal dollars can turn away qualified prospective foster parents simply because they are Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Mormon, or any other faith, or simply because they are nonbelievers. What this is all about, in short, is a green light for taxpayer- funded discrimination on the basis of religion. It stems from a case involving Miracle Hill Ministries, a foster agency in South Carolina. Miracle Hill is a faith-based social service organization--the largest provider of foster care services in South Carolina. It serves around 15 percent of the State's foster care population. I have no reason to doubt that Miracle Hill has a lot of wonderful staff and volunteers who wish to do a great deal of good work. Last year, the Governor of South Carolina asked the Department of Health and Human Services for a waiver that would allow Miracle Hill to continue receiving taxpayer dollars despite its practice of turning away qualified foster parents based solely on their religious beliefs. In effect, it was a request for a loophole to evade the Federal policy banning religious discrimination. The Department of Health and Human Services OK'd it. At a time--the Presiding Officer of the Senate and I have talked about this--when there are too many vulnerable kids and too few safe foster homes in America, the Trump administration actually gave the largest foster care organization in South Carolina permission to turn away prospective foster parents because of their faith. This is not an academic matter. Let me give an example of the consequences. In 2018, Beth Lesser--a woman who unintentionally brought this issue to light--went to Miracle Hill Ministries to volunteer as a foster mentor. Before she moved to South Carolina, she was a foster parent in Florida. You would think any foster care organization would be thrilled to have Ms. Lesser walk through their door--an experienced foster care parent coming to volunteer her time, her energy, and her love--but during orientation training, Miracle Hill found what they consider to be a problem: Ms. Lesser, like me, is Jewish. After Miracle Hill discovered Ms. Lesser's religion, they quickly turned her away. Ms. Lesser is not the only person to experience this discrimination. Another was Aimee Madonna, who grew up in a foster care home and has three kids of her own. She contacted Miracle Hill and volunteered to open her home in the screening process. But when Miracle Hill learned that Ms. Madonna is Catholic, she got turned away too. She was devastated by the decision. In February, she sued the State of South Carolina and the Department of Health and Human Services over this unconstitutional discrimination. I commend her for fighting for her rights, and I believe she speaks for people of so many faiths whom I mentioned earlier. I do want to explain why I find this precedent the Trump administration has set to be so objectionable, starting with the most obvious. It is horrendous policy because it is going to hurt vulnerable kids all across this country, particularly if and when the Trump administration hands out more waivers in more States. If they do it this way, it is going to reduce the number of safe and loving foster homes available to youngsters in the child welfare system. That is the wrong way to go. This policy is going to limit the diversity of foster homes and foster parents and growing up around people of different views and philosophies and religions. Diversity is important for kids. That is particularly important for LGBTQ youth, who make up one in five kids in foster care. There are homes where LGBTQ kids are not safe. They benefit from the chance to grow up in these more inclusive environments, where there are more diverse families who respect their sexual orientation and their gender identity. It raises troubling questions about what is going to happen to children who were raised outside of evangelical Christianity before they entered the child welfare system. What is going to happen to a Jewish kid or a Muslim kid or a Mormon kid who is placed in a home where they are considered heretics? This is a personal matter for me. That kid could have been me. I was so proud of my parents. They fled the Nazis in the thirties. Not all got out. All my dad--just about the most red, white, and blue fellow around--wanted to do was serve in our Army so he could drop propaganda pamphlets on the Nazis, telling them they ought to give up. You can read about my dad, Peter Wyden, in the Holocaust Museum. I am so very, very proud of my dad. I thought about, for example, what might have happened if my parents had died in a car crash when I was 12 years old and I had been put in one of these evangelical families through a foster agency that discriminates. I could have been told that everything my wonderful, patriotic, Jewish parents had taught me to believe was wrong; that my parents--that my dad, who was honored in the Holocaust Museum--that his beliefs were sinful. It would have added a lot more difficulty to a situation that was already traumatic. The thought that children who have lost their parents could have another part of their identity stripped away is appalling. That religious discrimination in particular, that fundamentally un-American act--the idea that it is going to be propped up with Federal tax dollars is just wrong. In my view, what the Trump administration has done with the South Carolina waiver is unconstitutional. I also believe it is the latest iteration of a much larger assault on individual religious liberty. From a legal perspective, the Department of Health and Human Services justifies its discriminatory waiver by pointing to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, what is known as RFRA. Here is the problem: That law was intended to stop religious discrimination, not promote it. In this case, however, the administration is interpreting that law to protect only the religious freedom of Miracle Hill, not the freedom of Jewish or Catholic or Muslim or Buddhist individuals who want to become foster parents in South Carolina. HHS's waiver disregards the establishment clause in the First Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits the government from ``respecting an establishment of religion.'' This is a Federal agency using taxpayer dollars to elevate some religions above others. That is unconstitutional every way you cut it. The consequences at this point are limited to one State, but because of this precedent, that is one too many. It only takes one small step to set a harmful, dangerous precedent that will change everything. There are already rumors that HHS plans to turn this waiver into a nationwide policy. Make no mistake about it--that would be nationwide religious discrimination. The consequences of an action like that would reach far beyond our child welfare system. It is not much further down the road before out- and-out discrimination against people of particular faiths, gender identities, and sexual orientations under the guise of religious freedom bleeds into other areas of American life. These debates are going to keep hitting the courts, and they are going to keep confronting the Congress. The Trump administration, Republican lawmakers, and Republican judges are ensuring that will happen. I mentioned at the outset that this debate is tied to a nomination the Senate may take up today--we will see about later in the week. It involves the Commissioner on Children, Youth, and Families at Health and Human Services. I made that judgment, after a lot of reflection, that I am not going to stand in the way of that vote. I believe Ms. Elizabeth Darling is qualified. But in making that judgment, I was not willing to let today pass without sounding an alarm on a very dangerous precedent the Trump administration has set in this field. This is about the prospect of State-sponsored religious discrimination. In this case, it is going to come down hardest on vulnerable kids in our country. I believe it is clear that what is happening is unconstitutional. I will close by saying again that there is bipartisan interest in improving our child welfare system. The distinguished Presiding Officer of the Senate is from Utah. I wish he could have seen Chairman Hatch and me work together on Families First. As you know, when Chairman Hatch got enthused about something, he was really enthused. Marian Wright Edelman came to both of us. This had been her dream for 30 years, to try some fresh approaches in terms of helping these kids. In effect, what Families First does is it creates a third option. You have kids in homes where a parent might have gotten caught up in drugs or alcohol. We can get them some help. There is the foster care option. We have some very good foster care facilities in this country, and we have some that aren't exactly so great. So what Chairman Hatch and I said and what Democrats and Republicans on the Finance Committee said and what eventually the Congress on a bipartisan basis said was ``We are going to do better by these vulnerable kids,'' and we created a third option. One of them is built on a dream that I was part of. Back when I was director of the Gray Panthers, we were advocating for something called kinship care where grandparents could play a bigger role in stepping in and trying to help these vulnerable families, where maybe if a son had gotten in trouble with the law or a daughter-in-law had problems with alcohol and the like, the grandparent could help out. Under Families First, Chairman Hatch, a Republican, and I, a Democrat, said: We are going to try to help those families. We are going to try to give them help. If you have a son who has had problems with alcohol and drugs, they are going to be able to get some help. The grandparents can step in and get some help. We are going to create more options for the most vulnerable families and most vulnerable youngsters in America. We were moving forward. We were moving forward to be able to say--and this, of course, is not driven from Washington, DC; it is driven at the State level. The Presiding Officer of the Senate is a former Governor. We were moving forward. Now we have the Trump administration seeking to move backward. There are nearly half a million kids in foster care in this country. Democrats and Republicans ought to keep building on the work that Chairman Hatch and I--and I was proud to be his partner, with him as the chairman, in this effort to help those kids stay safe and get ahead in life. Now the Trump administration is spending taxpayer dollars not to help those kids but to promote discrimination. That is not the way to help these kids, not the way to help these families. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in opposing these policies of discrimination. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I wish to give notice of my intent to object to any unanimous consent agreement regarding S. 918, the E- FRONTIER Act. In January of 2018, media reports revealed that officials in the National Security Council were considering a proposal for the Federal Government to pay for and build a national 5G telecommunications network. This proposal was then widely criticized by top administration officials, including Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai and White House Economic Adviser Larry Kudlow. The President himself subsequently distanced himself from the proposal and made it clear that he favored a 5G strategy that is private-sector driven and led. In response to this controversial proposal, a Senator introduced the E-FRONTIER Act. This bill prohibits the Federal Government from constructing, operating, or offering retail or wholesale services on broadband networks absent congressional authorization. My colleague stated the bill is intended to ``protect commercial 5G broadband networks from nationalization without authorization from Congress.'' While I agree that there is no need, at the current time, for the Federal Government to offer commercial wireless service in well-served urban markets, I do not believe that Congress should be taking any options off the table when it comes to delivering high-speed wireless broadband to rural communities that have long been ignored by the private sector. This bill is also drafted so that its impact would extend significantly beyond its stated goal. Not only would my colleagues' proposal prohibit the Federal Government from operating commercial wireless networks without explicit congressional authorization, but it would also prohibit the government from operating wireline networks, such as fiber and cable networks. Passing this legislation would bar the Federal Government from offering fiber-to-the-home connectivity to the tens of millions or Americans who currently have no meaningful option for high-speed broadband internet access at home. In effect, it would tell Americans in rural and low-income communities across the country that, if the private sector does not think it can make a profit offering service in their communities, that is the end of the line for them. Outside of providing subsidies, the Federal Government would be barred from addressing these market failures by contracting to build the infrastructure itself. Time and time again, Congress has, on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis, maintained the critical importance of delivering broadband to all Americans, and not just those in big cities. This body should not ban any option for internet connectivity without fulsome debate and regular order. Unfortunately, this need case is far from a hypothetical. As many as 162 million Americans across the country do not have access to internet service at broadband speeds, according to one recent analysis cited by the FCC. Congress should be passing laws that work to close this gap and not those that tie our hands as millions and millions of Americans are left behind in this new digital divide. It is an issue of fairness, it is an issue of equality, and it is an issue that must be subjected to vigorous public debate. So I rise today with a simple and straightforward request: Before Congress limits possible broadband buildout options for decades to come, let's give my colleagues' proposal the careful consideration that it deserves. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see if we can resolve some of these outstanding issues in a manner that is fair, transparent, and timely. For all of these reasons, I will object to any unanimous consent agreement to consider S. 918.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, today I wish to give notice of my intent to object to any unanimous consent agreement regarding Senate Executive Calendar No. 367, the nomination of Daniel Jorjani to be Solicitor at the Department of the Interior. Recently released documents reveal that, during Mr. Jorjani's confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, he knowingly gave misleading and untruthful testimony about the Department's Freedom of Information Act--FOIA-- policy. Department officials appear to have created a policy with regard to the Freedom of Information Act allowing political appointees to delay and thwart the release of information to the public. Worse still, when I asked Mr. Jorjani about this policy, he told me it didn't exist. Attempts by political appointees at the Department to delay, stonewall, and otherwise inhibit public and congressional oversight are completely unacceptable. This sort of rank political interference with government accountability runs contrary to the very basis of our form of government. On February 28, 2019, the Department issued an updated version of its formal ``Awareness Review'' policy, which outlines the Department's review process for FOIA document productions. However, based on documents obtained through multiple FOIA requests, it appears the Department has a supplemental process for document productions that has not previously been made public. Mr. Jorjani appeared before the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on May 2, 2019, for his confirmation hearing to serve as the Department's Solicitor. During Mr. Jorjani's hearing and in written testimony he provided the Committee shortly thereafter, he told me this supplemental awareness review process did not exist. Currently, the Department's inspector general is conducting a review of Interior's FOIA policies. In addition, I have asked the U.S. Department of Justice to look into whether Mr. Jorjani perjured himself before the committee. I cannot condone the movement of Mr. Jorjani's nomination. Therefore, I will object to any unanimous consent agreement to consider Mr. Jorjani's nomination.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senator Blumenthal and Senator Warner, who have spoken strongly on the issue at hand, which is to protect our great country and our extraordinary 200-year experiment in self-governance. To do it, we have to add a new tier--a strong protection--for the sanctity of our elections. I thank Senator Blumenthal. He is a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, where he is doing important work on these issues. I thank our colleague, Senator Warner, of course, who is the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, on which I serve. I also thank my colleague who is still on the floor, Senator Blumenthal, for all of his leadership. I look forward to partnering with him and with Senator Warner in the days ahead. In a moment, I will ask for unanimous consent to adopt a bipartisan bill that I have proposed with Senator Cotton. It is S. 890, the Senate Cybersecurity Protection Act. Before I ask, however, for that unanimous consent request, I will give some brief background as to why Senator Cotton and I are working on this issue and putting all of this time into this effort. In the 2016 election, obviously, the Russians inflicted damage on our democracy by hacking the personal accounts of political parties and individuals and then by dumping emails and documents online. This tactic generated massive amounts of media coverage that was based on those stolen documents. It is clear, in my view, that the Russians and other hostile foreign actors are going to continue to target the personal devices and accounts, which are often less secure than official government devices. You don't have to take my word for it. Top national security officials in the Trump administration have said virtually the same thing. Last year, the Director of National Intelligence--our former colleague, Senator Coats--told the Senate Intelligence Committee: ``The personal accounts and devices of government officials can contain information that is useful for our adversaries to target, either directly or indirectly, these officials and the organizations with which they are affiliated.'' Likewise, in a letter to me last year, the then-Director of the National Security Agency, Mike Rogers, said that the personal devices and accounts belonging to senior U.S. government officials ``remain prime targets for exploitation.'' These foreign intelligence threats are not just aimed at the executive branch. Last year, a bipartisan Senate working group examined cybersecurity threats against Senators. In its November 2018 report, the working group revealed there was ``mounting evidence that Senators are being targeted for hacking, which could include exposure of personal data.'' Likewise, Google has now publicly confirmed that it has quietly warned specific Senators and Senate staff that their personal email accounts were targeted by state-sponsored hackers. Unfortunately, the Sergeant at Arms--the office that is tasked with protecting the Senate's cybersecurity--is currently barred from using its resources to protect the personal devices and accounts of Senators and their staff, even if Senators and their staff are being targeted by foreign spies and hackers. That is why, on a bipartisan basis, I and Senator Cotton, who also serves on the Intelligence Committee with me and with Senator Warner, who spoke earlier, introduced legislation to permit the Sergeant at Arms to provide 100-percent voluntary cybersecurity assistance to Senators and their staff. Our bill is modeled after a provision in the recently passed Senate Intelligence Authorization bill, which permits the Director of National Intelligence to provide voluntary cyber help to protect the personal devices and accounts of intelligence community employees. Fighting back against foreign interference means securing every aspect of our democracy, including the personal accounts and devices of elected officials. I feel strongly that the majority leader, our colleague from Kentucky, must stop blocking this commonsense legislation and allow this body to better defend itself against foreign hackers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be discharged from further consideration of S. 890, the Senate Cybersecurity Protection Act; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I note again there has been an objection. I would only state that I don't see how anyone could consider what I have proposed to be a partisan issue. I and our colleague from Arkansas, Senator Cotton--a military veteran--have joined in an effort, which I would just say to the Senators who are on the floor, is going to be one of the great threats of our time. We know that hostile foreign actors are going to target the personal accounts and devices of government officials. Russia clearly demonstrated the opportunities for meddling in the last election. Now, we know that those opportunities are going to grow exponentially in the days and months ahead. So I only want to pass on that I think this is regrettable, and there has been an objection, and I just hope we will be able to pass this bill before more people are hacked and their stolen data is exploited by hostile foreign actors. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I rise to rebut the deeply flawed proposal the Attorney General made this morning. This morning, he raised a tired, debunked plan to blow a hole in one of the most important security features protecting the digital lives of the American people. Mr. Barr--once again echoing the views of some on the far, far right--is trying to undermine strong encryption and require government back doors into the personal devices of the American people. ``Encryption'' is a technical term that gets thrown around by people in government who don't want you to use it. The idea, however, is simple: It is using math to encode your information so that the only people who can read it are the ones you want to read it. As is often known, encryption is used every time a credit card is swiped or an online bank account is accessed. It helps protect our kids from predators who would spy on them through their cell phone cameras or surreptitiously track their movements. It keeps our health records, our personal communications, and our other sensitive data secure from hackers. Strong encryption helps protect national security secrets from hackers working for the Russians, the Chinese, the North Koreans, and other hostile governments. I have spent a full decade fighting off horrible plans to undermine strong encryption. My usual argument goes something like this: You can't build a back door only for the good guys, for government officials who are trying to protect people. Once you weaken encryption with a back door, you make it far easier for criminals and hackers and predators to get into your digital life. Then I go through all the reasons the government's plan to build a back door is just about the worst idea since Crystal Pepsi. Today, I want to raise some even more pressing concerns that are new. Many times in the past, I have warned that unnecessary government surveillance holds the potential to be abused, but I have never done what I am doing today. Today, I fear--rather, I expect that if we give the Attorney General and the President the unprecedented power to break encryption across the board and burrow into the most intimate details of Americans' lives, they will abuse those powers. I don't say that lightly. Yet, when I look at the record, the public statements, and the behavior of William Barr and Donald Trump, it is clear to me that you can't make the case for giving them this kind of power. There is too much evidence that they will abuse it. Their record shows they do not feel constrained by the law. They have not been bound by legal or moral precedents. Donald Trump, by his own words, has no ethical compunction--these are his words--about using government power against his political enemies. Never before have I been so certain that an administration in power would knowingly abuse the massive power of government surveillance. It is for that reason that building government back doors into the encrypted communications of the American people is now uniquely dangerous and must be opposed at all costs. These are serious charges that I have made, and I am going to walk through my reasoning. First, I would like to discuss the Attorney General's history when it comes to government surveillance and government power. When this body voted on Mr. Barr's nomination earlier this year, I laid out in great detail his history when it comes to Executive power. Anyone wishing for a full airing of Mr. Barr's lifelong devotion to unbounded Executive power can dial up those remarks of mine on C-SPAN, but I just want to highlight one item again this morning. Mr. Barr testified in October of 2003, and he laid out his ideological position that the President is not restrained when it comes to surveilling people here in the United States--not by laws passed by Congress, not by the Fourth Amendment, no constraints. In that 2003 testimony, Mr. Barr said that the PATRIOT Act didn't go far enough in terms of government surveillance. Even worse, Mr. Barr said that laws going back to the 1970s have no real effect on Presidential power. Mr. Barr said: ``Numerous statutes were passed, such as FISA''--Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--``that purported to supplant Presidential discretion with Congressionally crafted schemes whereby judges become the arbiter of national security decisions.'' In one sentence, Mr. Barr just swept 40 years of congressional action and 200 years of constitutional governance out the window. We ought to take him at his word that he has contempt for the Fourth Amendment and critical laws that protect our law-abiding people. It is far more than just words, however, that lead me to this conclusion. It is now public record that William Barr, when he was Attorney General in the 1990s, approved a massive, illegal surveillance program. The inspector general at the Department of Justice revealed this March that William Barr gave the OK to a bulk phone records dragnet at the Drug Enforcement Agency that ran for more than 20 years. The inspector general found that Mr. Barr never even looked to see whether that Drug Enforcement Administration bulk surveillance program was legal. The inspector general called it ``troubling'' because of the disconnect between what the law says and how it was secretly being interpreted and used. The Drug Enforcement Agency program that William Barr approved relied on subpoena power that requires that the records being collected be ``relevant or material'' to an investigation. But Mr. Barr didn't bother to consider whether all of those phone records that were collected in bulk were consistent with the law; he just went ahead and rubberstamped it. The inspector general tends to be polite about outright calling government programs illegal, but even the inspector general pointed out that there are multiple court cases that ``clearly suggested potential challenges to the validity of the DEA's use of this statutory subpoena power in this expansive, non-targeted manner.'' Finally, the inspector general found that the records collected from the program were used outside the Drug Enforcement Agency for investigations that had nothing to do with drugs--a practice the inspector general said ``raised significant legal questions.'' The inspector general goes on to note that Congress was kept almost entirely in the dark. At a time when the American people are hungry for transparency and openness and accountability, the inspector general says Congress was kept in the dark by Mr. Barr about a decades-long, illegal bulk collection program, with the exception of a single secret Intelligence Committee hearing in 2007. Even then, it was obvious the program was illegal. That is why my colleague Senator Feingold and I wrote to the head of National Intelligence pointing out that the subpoena authority the DEA was using was never intended for bulk collection. This was secret law, and it was wrong and dangerous. That is why I wanted to make sure people knew Mr. Barr's history, because this secret, illegal bulk collection program was approved by the current Attorney General. So you have an Attorney General who not only has said he is not constrained by the law, but he has a history of breaking the law. You also have a President who almost every day expresses contempt for any legal or constitutional restraints on his powers. That attitude applies to surveillance too. In 2016, in response to Russian hacking of his opponents, Donald Trump said: ``I wish I had that power.'' So Donald Trump--a President who Attorney General Barr thinks can do no wrong--is the one who is driving this. This is the President who Attorney General Barr thinks is above the law. This is the President whom the Attorney General will, in effect, cover for at virtually every turn, as he did when he repeatedly lied about the contents of the Mueller report. Let me close by talking about why this matters to William Barr's efforts now to break into Americans' encrypted communications. The argument that the government needs to weaken encryption has always been based on the promise that the government will never use the back door without a court-ordered warrant. Yet Mr. Barr, in his own words and actions, has demonstrated repeatedly, when it comes to surveillance, that the laws don't matter, that the courts don't matter, and that even the Constitution doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is what he and the President feel like doing. So I would ask my colleagues who are here, what Senators in their right minds would give these men the authority to break into the phone of every single American? Imagine what kind of information they could gather on their political opponents. Imagine if a Member of Congress were secretly gay and were desperate to hide the fact. Despite campaigning on family values, imagine if a Member of Congress had cheated on his wife. Would a man like the individual I have described here use that information against them? Would Donald Trump use it to secure their loyalty in the face of his own wrongdoing? I understand that the world is a frightening place, and anybody who serves on the Select Committee on Intelligence would share that view. Some government agencies will always advocate for greater powers to surveil Americans and intrude into their digital lives. It is important to remember, as I touched on in the beginning, that the banning of encryption in America will not stop the bad guys from using encryption, and it will not ban basic math algorithms elsewhere in the world. It will only leave Americans less secure against foreign hackers, and--I regret having to say this--it will leave Americans less secure against intrusions by an administration that has shown it is willing to support lawless measures. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am lifting my hold on the nomination of Elizabeth Darling to be Commissioner on Children, Youth, and Families at the Department of Health and Human Services. I will not object to any unanimous consent request concerning the nomination of Ms. Darling at this time. Please remove my hold from the back of the Executive Calendar in the section titled Notice of Intent to Object.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, on October 22, 2018, the Departments of Health and Human Services and the Treasury issued a document, entitled State Relief and Empowerment Waivers, relating to section 1332 of the Affordable Care Act and its implementing regulations. Although it was not submitted to Congress for review under the Congressional Review Act, CRA, this so-called guidance document seemed to me to be a substantive rule that should be subject to review under the CRA. Accordingly, I wrote a letter, along with Chairman Pallone of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, asking the U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO, to determine whether the CRA applied. This week, I received a reply, in which the GAO general counsel concludes that the 2018 guidance ``is a rule under the CRA, which requires that it be submitted to Congress for review.'' I ask unanimous consent that the letter from GAO, dated July 15, 2019, be printed in the Congressional Record following my remarks. The letter I am now submitting to be printed in the Congressional Record is the original document provided by GAO to my office. I will also provide a copy of the GAO letter to the Parliamentarian's office. Based on Senate precedent, my understanding is that the publication of the GAO legal opinion in today's Record will start the ``clock'' for congressional review under the provisions of the CRA.

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 stand here this afternoon in a state of disbelief. Last Wednesday, my colleagues and I in the Congress were briefed on the state of election security in America. I am prohibited from talking about the details of that classified briefing, but the message from my Republican colleagues after that elections security meeting was very clear: Nothing to see here. One Senator said it is clear the Federal Government is doing ``everything you can do.'' The top Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee said: ``I wouldn't say we've got a need for more election security legislation.'' A Member of the House Republican leadership said: ``The agencies have the tools they need, and I am confident they are addressing the threats.'' It is case closed for those Republicans--mission accomplished. My Republican colleagues were just so satisfied that the foundation of our democracy is in good hands. Election security is not a problem for those colleagues I just quoted. It was to my enormous shock this weekend when I picked up my phone, and I read the following headline: ``Old Software makes new electoral systems ripe for hacking.'' Over the weekend, I said: Gosh, that just can't possibly be right. After all, my Republican colleagues said after the classified briefing that election security issues were in good shape. I just kept reading, and as it turns out, according to an exhaustive analysis by the Associated Press, the vast majority of 10,000 election jurisdictions nationwide use election management systems that run on old software that is soon going to be out of date and ripe for exploitation by hackers. According to the Associated Press, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida, Iowa, Indiana, Arizona, and North Carolina, among others, are all at risk. Even the State of Georgia, which just passed legislation to buy new voting machines, is on track to buy equipment that suffers from this significant cyber security weakness. Worse, two of the three largest voting machine companies, ES&S and Hart, don't make election systems that are free from this vulnerability. Many election officials will be buying election systems that will be out of date the moment they start using it. I am reading this story, and I am thinking to myself: Maybe--just maybe--this Trump administration hasn't solved the election security issue. Now, colleagues, I am being a little bit disingenuous here. I have actually known about this problem for some time. In fact, I wrote to the Election Assistance Commission about it because, of course, our elections weren't secure last week, and they sure as heck aren't secure this week. Anybody who says otherwise is either selling you a voting machine or simply has a malicious intent toward our elections. Russia attacked our democracy on every front in 2016, including voter registration databases and election software vendors. I am a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and I can't talk about classified matters, but it is public record that there were attacks on our election infrastructure in 2018. Our colleague Senator Rubio of Florida even said that hackers were ``in a position'' to alter voter rolls in 2016. In April, the FBI Director said that 2018 was, ``just kind of a dress rehearsal for the big show in 2020.'' I will say, as I have been saying at home at townhall meetings across my home State, that in 2020 I believe the hostile foreign actors are going to make 2016 look like small potatoes, and I am not just talking about the Russians here. What the Associated Press revealed this weekend should be chilling for anybody fighting to protect our elections from foreign interference, but it is certainly not the first indication Americans have gotten that our elections are vulnerable. Last year, the journalist, Kim Zetter, and the New York Times reported that ES&S had installed remote access software and wireless modems in election equipment for years. I believe that is about the worst thing you can do in terms of election security in America, short of putting American ballot boxes on a Moscow street. Special Counsel Robert Mueller revealed in his report that an election software vendor was actually hacked by Russia in the summer of 2016. The public still doesn't know enough about what happened there or what the government did to investigate. This is another area where I am seeking to excavate the facts. My colleagues, particularly my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar, and my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, are doing the same. VR Systems, the company Mr. Mueller was referring to, sold e- pollbooks to a county in North Carolina. I am talking now about the systems that workers used to check voters in at a precinct. It happened that several of the VR Systems e-pollbooks used by Durham County in North Carolina malfunctioned on election day in 2016. The problem was so bad that one precinct had to shut down completely for several hours. Last month, I asked the FBI what happened; is anybody investigating? It sure looks like no Federal Agency has been out there looking at these malfunctioning e-pollbooks. It wasn't until last month that the Department of Homeland Security announced it would finally perform a forensic examination of the Durham County machines. That is not good enough. It is critical to secure our political parties, our campaigns, and the votes of Americans. In 2015 and 2016, Russia hacked two Democratic campaign committees. Russian hackers also stole emails from John Podesta, Secretary Clinton's campaign manager. The Russian Government then leaked Democratic emails to influence the Presidential and, reportedly, House races in six States. As I have emphasized at every part of my investigation, every part of my efforts, this is not a problem reserved for one political party. The National Republican Party committees have also all been hacked in the past, as well as the campaigns of Senator Graham and our late colleague John McCain. Political campaigns don't have the expertise or resources to protect themselves from foreign government hackers. They ought to be in a position to get assistance, and if Congress doesn't act, they are going to get hacked again in 2020. That is why I introduced legislation earlier this year, the Federal Campaign Cybersecurity Assistance Act, to secure campaigns and State parties. This would apply to both Democrats and Republicans. The bill turns the party committees, like the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee, into an ``IT department'' for their campaigns, State parties, and candidates. The parties will be able to give campaigns professionally managed, secured laptops, cell phones, and emails, which are much harder to hack. I think it is in the interest of our country, voters, Democrats, and Republicans to pass that bill. I am going to close my remarks where I began, this extraordinary information that was compiled by the Associated Press that demonstrates that out-of-date software is going to be used by election officials all over the country unless something is done about it. As a result, I have asked the Election Assistance Commission what they are going to do to stop the proliferation of out- of-date, insecure software. A lot of people tell me, don't stay up waiting for much. Earlier this year, I asked the Department of Homeland Security how many States used voting machines with old, insecure software on Election Day in November of 2018. They said they didn't know. I will say it again. The Agency in charge of protecting our election infrastructure against cyber threats has no idea how many vulnerable voting machines are out there right now. That is a big problem. An even bigger problem is the inadequate laws. Right now, there are no mandatory Federal cyber security standards for elections. There is no law or regulation that says States can't use insecure machines. It is perfectly legal for the biggest voting machine company in America-- and these voting machine companies basically think they are above the law; they wouldn't even answer basic questions when I asked them--to sell a small county equipment that every cyber security expert in America knows is insecure. It is perfectly legal for a county clerk to put the outcome of a Presidential election at risk by buying insecure machines. I will just say to my colleagues, I don't think this has anything to do with Democrats or Republicans. I believe it is an out-and-out scandal--an out-and-out scandal that does a disservice to our country and particularly the sacred right to make sure that all Americans can vote and have their vote counted. Congress has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into election technology since 2016, but without required cyber security standards, a huge portion of that money is going to go towards voting machines and election systems that are not much better than the insecure systems they are replacing. The Congress must do better. Voluntary standards or just saying to the local governments ``We are just going to let you do your own thing'' will not cut it on cyber security. It is up to the Congress to get serious, finally, about providing for the security of our elections. I have been pushing hard for hand-marked paper ballots and risk- limiting audits as key defenses against the hackers. The hackers are, in effect, burglars out there knocking on windows just looking for an opportunity to exploit. We need a stronger defense against these hackers, and it is critical. In addition to the hand-marked paper ballots and the risk-limiting audits, it is critical for Congress to pass legislation giving the Federal Government the authority to require basic cyber security for election infrastructure. In my view, anything less is waiving a white flag to foreign hackers. By blocking any and all election security legislation, I believe Donald Trump and the majority here in the Senate are in effect rolling out the red carpet for all of the hostile foreign actors I have mentioned here and saying: Look, there are holes in our cyber security. Come on in, and interfere in our democracy. We are better than that. I am going to be working with Democrats and Republicans to ensure that--especially in light of the developments that were reported on just in the last 72 hours about the out-of-date software that we are seeing in our voting machines all across the country--I am going to work with Democrats and Republicans to put the security and the integrity of our votes--a process that is sacred in our country--first. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for 5 minutes, followed by Senator Cortez Masto for 5 minutes, prior to the series of votes we will have.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President and colleagues, at Fourth of July picnics and parades, it is likely that complicated healthcare policy debates are not exactly a central topic of conservation. I am pretty sure that is the way the Trump administration wanted it to be. Today, lawyers representing the Trump administration and a number of Republican Governors are attempting to have the Affordable Care Act ripped up and thrown out by a Federal court. They were unable to do that in the Congress, so now they have headed off to try to get it done in the courts. The case is happening in the Fifth Circuit in Louisiana. This is not some theoretical exercise; this is an immediate threat to the healthcare of millions and millions of Americans. I want to be clear at the outset of these remarks what the bottom line is. The bottom line is that eliminating protections for preexisting conditions is now the official position of the Republican Party. That is the centerpiece of what this court case attacks--the ironclad, airtight guarantee at the heart of the Affordable Care Act that insurance companies cannot discriminate against those with a preexisting condition. The fact is, the Republican Party wants that eliminated. This attack on Americans' healthcare goes way beyond preexisting conditions. What about prescription drug costs? Prescription drugs are outrageously expensive right now, and the problem is getting worse under the Trump administration. Prices are up more than 10 percent just in the past 6 months. Americans are forced to make life-threatening choices where they really have to balance their food bill against their medicine bill and medicine against other necessities, like shelter. In effect, Americans self-ration because their prescriptions just cost too much. If this lawsuit succeeds, prescription drug costs are going to skyrocket even higher. If the Affordable Care Act is thrown out, that will be the end of the requirement that health insurance companies have to cover prescription drugs. Patients will be forced into junk insurance plans that don't cover the care they actually need. Millions of people of limited means would be kicked off their Medicaid coverage. Millions of seniors would face higher drug costs. The bottom line: If this case is successful, it will launch a forced march back to the days of yesteryear when healthcare was for the healthy and the wealthy. The reason I say that is that is the way it used to be. If you had a preexisting condition in the past, you were just out of luck unless you had an enormous amount of money. The only people who really could benefit were people who were healthy and people who were wealthy. The Affordable Care Act changed that. More than 100 million people got a lifeline protection against discrimination if they had a preexisting condition. If the lawsuit succeeds, the biggest winners are going to be the largest of the insurance companies and the drug manufacturers. They would get the power they need to once again walk all over the American people. Here is the kicker: There is no replacement plan if the Affordable Care Act is wiped out. The President keeps saying he has a big, beautiful healthcare plan, and we always get the sense--it reminds you of the movie house in the old days where it would say: Coming soon. Movie coming soon. But it never actually gets there. There is never a grand unveiling, and that is because there isn't a backup plan. This is just an ideological crusade to make winners out of the most powerful corporations and losers out of millions of working Americans. Democrats in this Chamber have proposals ready to go to take a better path, a better approach, and to protect the healthcare of our people, blocking Trump's lawyers from using taxpayer dollars to destroy the Affordable Care Act, banning junk insurance, which isn't worth much more than the paper it is written on, and standing four-square behind protecting people with a preexisting condition. That is what the Senate ought to be working on so the Trump administration can't bring on a healthcare nightmare for millions and millions of Americans. One of our most valuable members of the Senate Finance Committee has joined us now, Senator Cortez Masto, and I am happy to yield to her to close our time before the vote.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Wildfire Smoke Relief Act of 2019 with the ultimate goal of providing Federal emergency assistance to at risk individuals in areas with unhealthy air quality caused by wildfire smoke. By actively preparing for the effects of wildfire smoke inhalation, this bill attempts to ensure the long term health and security of all of those affected by wildfires. In 2018, over 2,000 fires burned nearly 900,000 acres in the State of Oregon. The result of these fires was weeks and weeks of wildfire smoke. In Southern Oregon alone, there were 39 days with unhealthy air quality directly caused by smoke from wildfires. People need proper air filtration equipment, and in extreme cases, to seek refuge in a smokeless area. Communities are being choked by wildfire smoke, and each year wildfires are becoming more destructive than the previous. Vulnerable populations like children, the elderly, pregnant women, and low-income families are disproportionately affected by wildfire smoke. Additionally, those with chronic heart or lung conditions are at a similarly heightened risk. Symptoms from smoke inhalation can develop within a relatively short time of exposure, and according to research, is akin to smoking several packs of cigarettes per day. Symptoms vary and can include poor development of lungs in children, shortness of breath, coughing, chest pain, nausea, reduced lung capacity, bronchitis, headaches, and visual impairment. The bill would authorize the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to provide assistance to at risk individuals by providing smoke inhalation prevention equipment and low-cost home improvements when air quality causes unhealthy air quality levels or three consecutive days. Smoke inhalation prevention equipment would include an air filter, a face mask or respirator, a portable air filtration unit, and other low cost equipment used to keep smoke out of a house. In severe cases, the Wildfire Smoke Relief Act would authorize FEMA to provide transitional sheltering assistance for at risk individuals. In these extreme cases FEMA can arrange alternate, cost-efficient housing arranged for at-risk people to escape the smoke. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Jeff Merkley in introducing the bill today and look forward to working with my colleagues toward enactment of the Wildfire Smoke Relief Act in the 116th Congress.