Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, Oregonians have a strong interest in using biomass as a source of renewable fuels. This desire, coupled with how well we grow biomass in Oregon, creates the opportunity to use carefully selected wood waste as a source for cleaner transportation fuel. If we do it right, this effort will lead to healthier forests, more carbon sequestration, cleaner transportation fuels as compared to traditional gasolines, and protected old growth forests. Current law excludes the use of federal biomass in the making of renewable fuels as defined by the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The bill being introduced today eliminates that exclusion. In addition to being an energy matter, this is an important forest management issue. Over many decades there has been an unnatural buildup of woody material on the forest floor. It becomes fuel for catastrophic wildfires. For months, each summer, Oregonians in every corner of the state, from Astoria to Adel and from Medford to Madras, suffer from smokey skies, hazardous air quality, and the almost constant threat that a wildfire may burn down their homes. In the eastern portion of the state, invasive species like juniper trees pose challenges, on both private and public lands--lowering water tables, posing fire risks, and encroaching on sage grouse habitat. It is time we stopped putting our heads in the sand, hoping the environmental ship will right itself. Instead, this excess woody biomass should be contributing to U.S. energy independence by being converted to transportation or electricity fuels. This bill makes that economically feasible. It would make it more cost efficient for private landowners to remove low-value brush, like juniper. The bill also helps pay for programs to reduce dead and dying trees that fuel catastrophic wildfires and helps thin out unhealthy second-growth forests. The bill ensures that all residuals from the milling process and certain biomass from national forests and BLM forests qualify for the RFS standards. Importantly, under this new definition biomass materials harvested from federal lands must be done so in accordance with all federal laws, regulations, and land-use plans and designations. In addition, the bill pays specific attention to biomass removal from insect and disease ridden forests and wildfire prone areas. And, to ensure environmental problems are being solved, not created, the bill restricts the types of biomass materials that can be harvested from federal lands so that old growth trees and stands will continue to be protected. At the end of the day, the small diameter trees, the limbs, the debris, even sawdust at the mill presents real opportunities to generate green energy, generate green jobs, lower wildfire risks in rural areas across the country, and better position the United States to meet the RFS. There is a lot of bipartisan support for the biomass definition in this bill. It balances sound energy policy with sound environmental policy. I want to thank my colleagues Senators Risch, King, Crapo, and Merkley for joining me on this important bill.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, while she is on the floor, I want to commend my northwest colleague and friend, Senator Murray, for all of her leadership, constantly coming to the floor and leading us on this enormous health challenge--a challenge that is really existential for so many women across the country. Right now in State capitals across the land, Republican lawmakers are passing extreme bills that throw in the trash can 45 years of settled law on reproductive health. This is an open, coordinated attack on Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose the healthcare she needs. These Republican lawmakers are passing bills that are not only harmful, but they are overwhelmingly opposed by the public--bills with harsh criminal penalties for women and doctors, bills with no exceptions for cases of rape or incest, bills that explicitly compare women getting medical care to the Holocaust. Let me repeat that--bills that explicitly compare women getting medical care to the Holocaust. I want to be clear on what this is all about. The party of Donald Trump is insisting on government control of women's bodies. That is what is on the table in Alabama, Georgia, Missouri, and elsewhere-- government control of women's bodies. Millions of women across the land are watching in anger and in fear as all of this is playing out. I have heard from many of them back home in Oregon. I heard it last weekend. I have four town meetings in the rural part of Oregon coming up; I am going to hear it again. Women are afraid for the future--their future and their family's future--because they know what is at stake with this coordinated attack on their rights. First, it puts women's lives in danger. The reality is, abortions will still happen in States that pass these laws, but those abortions will happen later, and they will be unsafe. Women are going to die. That is a fact. Women are going to die because of these restrictions. If you need proof, just look at the figures before and after the Roe case. In the decades before Roe, thousands of women died due to unsafe abortions. And those are only the ones people know about. That doesn't even take into consideration the unnamed, the unknown victims of those misguided policies. After Roe was decided in 1973, women's healthcare got safer. Now, once again, there is an effort to undermine that safety of women. Second, in key ways, the future these restrictive laws are creating is worse for women and healthcare professionals than before Roe. What we are talking about now is jailing doctors for life. We are talking about treating women like hardened criminals after they get a medical procedure. Women in some places are facing the prospect that they may need to report miscarriages to the government or they could wind up in prison. The other side in this debate paints a picture of women exercising their right to choose that is unfair and unrealistic. These are incredibly difficult choices. Many women exercising the right to choose have just been hit with the most devastating medical news that prospective parents can face. It is not up to State lawmakers and government bureaucrats to step in and interfere with this intensely private and personal choice, but that is exactly what is on offer with the laws being passed in statehouses across the land. These laws bind and punish women with a level of government control that did not exist before Roe. This is right out of nightmarish fiction. It is a coordinated attack on women's rights that is cruel and dangerous. Abortion and other reproductive decisions are healthcare, and healthcare choices ought to be made by women with the help of doctors they trust, not by the Federal Government and not by State lawmakers-- women and doctors. That is it. Full stop. My Democratic colleagues and I want to thank Senator Murray and Senator Shaheen, who have been such advocates for women's healthcare for many years in public service. They are here. We are all going to be part of this effort that I am proud to join in to fight at the Federal level with everything we have to stand up for women's right to make intensely personal choices, and we are going to be joining those women across the land who are standing up and fighting with everything they have. The government should not have control of women's bodies--end of story. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, today I want to recognize and honor Parkrose High School coach and security guard Keanon Lowe for his heroism during the school day on May 17, 2019. When Mr. Lowe spotted an armed student in a classroom in the northeast Portland high school, he bravely tackled the student, wrestled away the gun, and held the student until police arrived. Mr. Lowe may have saved the lives of countless students, teachers, and administrators at Parkrose. In Mr. Lowe's own words the day after the incident, ``When I signed up to be a security guard, football and track and field coach for Parkrose High School, I did so to guide and coach young people whose shoes I had once been in. I had no idea that I would one day have to put my life on the line like I did yesterday for my students.'' Mr. Lowe is no stranger to the spotlight. Before becoming the football and track coach at Parkrose, Mr. Lowe was a standout football player in Oregon at Jesuit High School and then the University of Oregon, U of O, ``Go Ducks!'' As an U of O alumnus, I witnessed Mr. Lowe's standout play both in Autzen Stadium in Eugene and in the 2015 national championship game against the Ohio State University. All Ducks fans know Mr. Lowe as a champion on the field, and now all of Oregon and the country, know him as a hero off the field. Mr. Lowe's heroics saved the day on a Friday morning just before noon. Students, teachers, and administrators at Parkrose, as well as their loved ones, are incredibly grateful that Mr. Lowe prevented what could have been a tragedy in my hometown. Sadly, far too many schools in my State and across America have not been so fortunate in the past few decades. Gun violence in schools has essentially created a ``lockdown generation'' of students whose happy memories of high school dances, games, plays, and other activities jostle alongside memories of lockdown drills and, in far too many instances, violent gunmen. Again, in Mr. Lowe's own words, ``I'm blessed to be alive and extremely happy that the students are safe. I'm not sure what's next, I haven't had the time to really think about it. But I am sure I want to be a part of the solution to school gun violence.'' I am grateful that Mr. Lowe prevented the worst on May 17, 2019, and welcome his commitment to be a teammate in reducing the chances of gun tragedies in every school in America.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Federal Campaign Cybersecurity Assistance Act of 2019--a bulky name for a bill that attempts to do a simply stated thing: protect our democracy from foreign cyber attacks. This bill allows the national campaign committees to provide much-needed cybersecurity assistance to State political parties, Federal campaign offices' staffs, and Federal candidates' personal accounts and devices. In 2015 and 2016, hackers working for the Russian government penetrated the networks of the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The hackers also compromised the email account of Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign manager, John Podesta. The Russian government subsequently leaked and weaponized Democratic party and campaign emails in order to influence the outcome of several elections--most publicly, the presidential race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, but also U.S. House of Representatives races in Illinois, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Hackers also targeted Republicans during the same period, but were less successful in their efforts. The impact of Russia's hacking-enabled influence campaign was a surprise to many. However, this was not the first time that a foreign government hacked into the campaign organization of someone running to be President of the United States. Senior officials from the 2008 Obama and McCain presidential campaigns have publicly confirmed that both organizations were compromised by hackers. In an interview with NBC News 2013, Dennis Blair, who served as President Obama's Director of National Intelligence between 2009 and 2010 stated that ``Based on everything I know, this was a case of political cyber-espionage by the Chinese government against the two American political parties. They were looking for positions on China, surprises that might be rolled out by campaigns against China.'' In recent years, the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and the the National Republican Congressional Committee have all been hacked, as well as the campaigns of Senators Graham and McCain. Both major political parties have suffered hacks, and will undoubtedly continue to be targeted by foreign governments and other sophisticated hackers. Over the past two years, Congress has turned its attention to several weaknesses in our democracy that were exploited by Russia including the role of social media companies and long-standing flaws in paperless voting machines used in several states. While these issues have yet to be meaningfully addressed, they have, at least, been the subject of oversight hearings and legislative proposals in Congress. In contrast, Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on the vulnerability of political parties and campaigns to hacking by foreign governments, nor has anyone else in Congress introduced legislation to help defend these organizations from cyber attacks. For the sake of the integrity of the American political process, I introduce this bill today to protect those running for office, and the organizations that support them, from cyber attacks. Russia's hacking and leaking of emails in 2016 is now well documented. Their efforts continue. If you think they aren't working towards the 2020 federal elections as hard as any cub reporter in Iowa, you'd be sadly mistaken. And they are likely NOT alone. Other hostile governments will undoubtedly seek to emulate and improve on Russia's tactics. Congress has acted in the past to protect those running for office from serious threats. After Senator Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1968, Congress authorized the Secret Service to protect Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates. In extending Secret Service protection to candidates, Congress recognized that the threats to Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates required professional protection. Congress must now take action to protect candidates for Federal office--and consequently, our democracy--from another serious threat: hacking by foreign governments. The political parties are best of the available options to provide cybersecurity to campaigns. Politicians are already dependent upon the parties for fundraising, advertising, polling, messaging, and other forms of support. Giving parties the responsibility to provide cybersecurity does not make politicians dependent on help from a new entity. Parties are also responsible to politicians they protect, moreso at least than any other government, corporate, or non-profit entity. Quite simply, this bill gives the national campaign committees the role of the ``IT Department'' for state parties, campaigns, and candidates. The committees will be able to provide these entities with securely configured laptops and cellphones, professionally administered email, encrypted messaging, and collaboration software, and if necessary, hire third-party cybersecurity experts to help in the event of a successful hack. This bill also permits the national parties to provide this assistance with money they raise in their ``building fund.'' The building fund is one of three supplementary accounts through which Congress permitted the national campaign committees to raise an additional $100,000 per individual, per year, to pay for the cost of presidential nominating conventions, national party headquarters buildings, and election recounts and other legal battles. I know that some advocates have serious concerns about the building fund and the other supplementary accounts created by Congress in 2014. I share these concerns, and have long supported bold reforms of our campaign finance system. However, the current Senate is extremely unlikely to pass legislation creating public financing of elections anytime soon, and so while we have the current system, permitting the use of money in the building fund for cybersecurity appears to be the least bad option. Most importantly, this approach does not permit the parties to raise any new funds--it merely permits a new use of money raised through the building fund. I am not the only one to recognize the severity of the cyber threat aimed at political parties. Earlier this year, the Canadian agency responsible for government cybersecurity, the Communications Security Establishment, issued a lengthy report on threats to elections, which noted that that ``Globally, political parties, candidates, and their staff remain attractive targets for cyber threat activity.'' Likewise, the Maryland Board of Elections published guidance last week, recognizing that ``Campaigns are a potential cyber target,'' and consequently permitted state political parties to provide additional cybersecurity assistance to campaigns. November 2020 gets closer by the day. Congress cannot wait any longer to protect state parties, campaigns, and the candidates themselves from sophisticated cyber attacks. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to promptly act on this legislation, and to secure our democracy from cyber threats before it is too late.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Federal Campaign Cybersecurity Assistance Act of 2019--a bulky name for a bill that attempts to do a simply stated thing: protect our democracy from foreign cyber attacks. This bill allows the national campaign committees to provide much-needed cybersecurity assistance to State political parties, Federal campaign offices' staffs, and Federal candidates' personal accounts and devices. In 2015 and 2016, hackers working for the Russian government penetrated the networks of the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The hackers also compromised the email account of Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign manager, John Podesta. The Russian government subsequently leaked and weaponized Democratic party and campaign emails in order to influence the outcome of several elections--most publicly, the presidential race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, but also U.S. House of Representatives races in Illinois, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Hackers also targeted Republicans during the same period, but were less successful in their efforts. The impact of Russia's hacking-enabled influence campaign was a surprise to many. However, this was not the first time that a foreign government hacked into the campaign organization of someone running to be President of the United States. Senior officials from the 2008 Obama and McCain presidential campaigns have publicly confirmed that both organizations were compromised by hackers. In an interview with NBC News 2013, Dennis Blair, who served as President Obama's Director of National Intelligence between 2009 and 2010 stated that ``Based on everything I know, this was a case of political cyber-espionage by the Chinese government against the two American political parties. They were looking for positions on China, surprises that might be rolled out by campaigns against China.'' In recent years, the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and the the National Republican Congressional Committee have all been hacked, as well as the campaigns of Senators Graham and McCain. Both major political parties have suffered hacks, and will undoubtedly continue to be targeted by foreign governments and other sophisticated hackers. Over the past two years, Congress has turned its attention to several weaknesses in our democracy that were exploited by Russia including the role of social media companies and long-standing flaws in paperless voting machines used in several states. While these issues have yet to be meaningfully addressed, they have, at least, been the subject of oversight hearings and legislative proposals in Congress. In contrast, Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on the vulnerability of political parties and campaigns to hacking by foreign governments, nor has anyone else in Congress introduced legislation to help defend these organizations from cyber attacks. For the sake of the integrity of the American political process, I introduce this bill today to protect those running for office, and the organizations that support them, from cyber attacks. Russia's hacking and leaking of emails in 2016 is now well documented. Their efforts continue. If you think they aren't working towards the 2020 federal elections as hard as any cub reporter in Iowa, you'd be sadly mistaken. And they are likely NOT alone. Other hostile governments will undoubtedly seek to emulate and improve on Russia's tactics. Congress has acted in the past to protect those running for office from serious threats. After Senator Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1968, Congress authorized the Secret Service to protect Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates. In extending Secret Service protection to candidates, Congress recognized that the threats to Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates required professional protection. Congress must now take action to protect candidates for Federal office--and consequently, our democracy--from another serious threat: hacking by foreign governments. The political parties are best of the available options to provide cybersecurity to campaigns. Politicians are already dependent upon the parties for fundraising, advertising, polling, messaging, and other forms of support. Giving parties the responsibility to provide cybersecurity does not make politicians dependent on help from a new entity. Parties are also responsible to politicians they protect, moreso at least than any other government, corporate, or non-profit entity. Quite simply, this bill gives the national campaign committees the role of the ``IT Department'' for state parties, campaigns, and candidates. The committees will be able to provide these entities with securely configured laptops and cellphones, professionally administered email, encrypted messaging, and collaboration software, and if necessary, hire third-party cybersecurity experts to help in the event of a successful hack. This bill also permits the national parties to provide this assistance with money they raise in their ``building fund.'' The building fund is one of three supplementary accounts through which Congress permitted the national campaign committees to raise an additional $100,000 per individual, per year, to pay for the cost of presidential nominating conventions, national party headquarters buildings, and election recounts and other legal battles. I know that some advocates have serious concerns about the building fund and the other supplementary accounts created by Congress in 2014. I share these concerns, and have long supported bold reforms of our campaign finance system. However, the current Senate is extremely unlikely to pass legislation creating public financing of elections anytime soon, and so while we have the current system, permitting the use of money in the building fund for cybersecurity appears to be the least bad option. Most importantly, this approach does not permit the parties to raise any new funds--it merely permits a new use of money raised through the building fund. I am not the only one to recognize the severity of the cyber threat aimed at political parties. Earlier this year, the Canadian agency responsible for government cybersecurity, the Communications Security Establishment, issued a lengthy report on threats to elections, which noted that that ``Globally, political parties, candidates, and their staff remain attractive targets for cyber threat activity.'' Likewise, the Maryland Board of Elections published guidance last week, recognizing that ``Campaigns are a potential cyber target,'' and consequently permitted state political parties to provide additional cybersecurity assistance to campaigns. November 2020 gets closer by the day. Congress cannot wait any longer to protect state parties, campaigns, and the candidates themselves from sophisticated cyber attacks. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to promptly act on this legislation, and to secure our democracy from cyber threats before it is too late.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I wish to pay tribute to J. Michael Keeling, a lifelong advocate for employee retirement benefits who believed in creating engaged workforces through Employee Stock Ownership Plans, or ESOPs. A proud graduate of Harvard and the University of Texas School of Law, and a lifelong student of history, Mr. Keeling's support of ESOPs began in the 1970s when he served as chief of staff for former Congressman J.J. ``Jake'' Pickle, an ardent supporter of these plans. When Mr. Keeling joined the ESOP Association, he distinguished himself as an outstanding advocate and lawyer on behalf of employees and their companies seeking to establish Employee Stock Ownership Plans during the 1980s. In 1991, after serving as general counsel to the organization, Mr. Keeling was chosen by the ESOP Association's board of directors to lead its operations as president and chief staff officer. It was during his distinguished 28-year tenure in this position that many important achievements benefitting thousands of businesses and millions of employee owners took place. Thanks to his efforts, the ESOP Association developed a nationwide network of chapters facilitating education, training, and networking among employee owners. These local groups help hundreds of companies better engage their employee owners and successfully navigate the often complex regulations guiding ESOPs. Recognizing that good policy is predicated on good data, Mr. Keeling worked with the ESOP Association to establish the Employee Ownership Foundation to fund research on the economic and personal effects of ESOPs and broad-based employee ownership. Since its inception in 1997, the foundation has donated millions of dollars to fund academic research. Its support was the key factor in establishing the first academic center devoted specifically to employee ownership: the Institute for the Study of Employee Ownership and Profit Sharing, at Rutgers University. Thanks to foundation-funded research, as a nation we now have clear evidence that companies with employee stock ownership are much more likely to withstand difficult economic times, more likely to invest in employee training, and are far less likely than conventionally owned firms to lay off employees. The foundation also has funded the academic study of dozens of fellows and researchers interested in employee ownership and its role in the U.S. economy. During his tenure at the ESOP Association, Mr. Keeling visited nearly 600 ESOP companies. The breadth of insight he gained, coupled with his deep understanding of ERISA and tax law, made him a uniquely credible voice in the retirement plan community. Mr. Keeling is retiring from his role as head of the ESOP Association this year, and I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing his longterm, passionate efforts to preserve and advance the retirement benefits of millions of working Americans.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I have introduced the Retirement Parity for Student Loans Act. This legislation would permit employers to make matching contributions to workers under 401(k) and similar types of retirement plans as if worker student loan payments were salary reduction contributions to the retirement plan. This legislation will help workers who cannot afford to both save for retirement and pay off their student loan debt by providing them with employer contributions to build their retirement savings. This legislation is a common sense fix to our nation's laws that govern employer-sponsored retirement plans and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I have introduced the Retirement Parity for Student Loans Act. This legislation would permit employers to make matching contributions to workers under 401(k) and similar types of retirement plans as if worker student loan payments were salary reduction contributions to the retirement plan. This legislation will help workers who cannot afford to both save for retirement and pay off their student loan debt by providing them with employer contributions to build their retirement savings. This legislation is a common sense fix to our nation's laws that govern employer-sponsored retirement plans and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, before he leaves the floor, I just want to thank the chairman of the Finance Committee. I think the chairman said: Well, the ranking member might agree with some of my comments. I agree with every one of the chairman's comments. I think, Madam President, how I would begin--and I think the Chairman would agree on this--we can have some pretty spirited debates about healthcare in this Chamber and in the Finance Committee, but, as the chairman indicated, there isn't an inch of difference with respect to our views on Robert Pear. We all thought he was a true professional, and he was the gold standard of journalism as it relates to healthcare. I thought about yesterday, Chairman Grassley, because we had a hearing on a topic relating to reimbursement of physicians. I think the chairman and I would be of like mind--it probably wouldn't be inherently fascinating in every coffee shop in Iowa and Oregon, but it is incredibly important, for example, for the survival of rural hospitals and so many concerns that I know the Presiding Officer of the Senate has and the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee has. I looked over at the press table, Chairman Grassley, and the seat for Robert Pear was missing. Robert Pear--and that was what this special man was all about--never jumped to sit in front and say: Well, I am from the New York Times, so I should count more. As the chairman remembers, he always sat in the back. I thought we missed him so much yesterday. The chairman and I had just gotten the news. What we were talking about yesterday was what Robert Pear was all about--taking a very complicated issue that probably was not inherently fascinating and putting it in very simple, understandable, thoughtful words for the American people. As the chairman correctly said, that was what everybody would wait for when there was a complicated issue. You would hear it among Republicans, the chairman's staff, and my staff. People would hear about an issue, and very often, the first thing they would say was ``Did Robert Pear write about it?'' If Robert Pear wrote about it, it was important. In fact, one of the most noteworthy aspects of the incredible outpouring of affection and admiration for Robert Pear yesterday--and the chairman and I talked about it in committee--is the New York Times had a slug called ``Pear on Health,'' and all over the country, my guess is--the Des Moines Register; the Oregonian, my paper, a big paper in Oregon--they would all wait for the Robert Pear slug because they knew that was a very important issue. The fact that Robert Pear wasn't at the witness table yesterday after all these years broke our hearts and brought back a lot of memories. I actually was stunned over the years--and the chairman touched on it--by his encyclopedic knowledge of healthcare. He remembered the amendment to the amendment to the amendment to the amendment that somebody offered 10 or 15 years ago. When I came to the Congress, he went and studied the history of the Gray Panthers. I was codirector of the senior citizens group. My little one still wonders if they are the Pink Panthers. Robert Pear knew everything about that. When he was up on the Hill--and the chairman probably remembers this--he had a little notebook in which he scribbled Chairman Grassley's remarks or my remarks or whoever he was talking to, but he also had bigger notebooks, and he kept an exhaustive set of files. In a town where, particularly at important post-hearing or post- legislation events, all the reporters are shouting one above another, Robert Pear was the most soft-spoken voice in the room. In fact, I was at some events--my guess is that the chairman was as well--where it got kind of loud and frantic. They were throwing microphones and the like at you. When Robert Pear raised his hand and was called on, the room hushed. It went quiet because everybody understood that the question Robert Pear would ask was the right one. Senator Grassley and I were talking yesterday about how we particularly appreciated and felt--Republicans and Democrats--that Robert Pear was fair to all sides, and he held us all accountable. The general sense was that if you were a legislator and you were going to be interviewed by Robert Pear, you better go out and do some serious prep work because he would know the subject inside-out and in that soft-spoken way would just stay at it until he excavated the real effects. That was part of the Pear ``tell the right story in the right way'' approach to ensure that if you read a Robert Pear health story, you learned something. I think most Senators would agree that is not always the case with every single story, but that was the standard Robert Pear set. I think what I would like to say is that there are going to be a number of Senators who over the years had a chance to work with Robert Pear. We are going to hear their own accounts of their relationships, but we are not going to hear one single Senator--not one--say that Robert Pear tried to make them look bad, took a cheap shot, or tried to say something flashy in order to get a headline. They are going to say just the opposite. They are going to say: That is what journalism is supposed to be all about. I am a journalist's kid and very proud of it. My dad was a first- generation Jewish kid. He taught himself English and was a journalist. He always said: ``Ron, the journalist's job is to ask the tough questions--the tough questions that really matter.'' Robert Pear asked the tough questions, no doubt about that, but he always did it in a very unique way, a fair way, a thoughtful way, a way that embodied the gold standard for journalism that I have described. So yesterday was particularly sad. We got the news in the morning. We had that healthcare hearing, which started about an hour after we got the news. The first thing I thought of as I came into the room was how hard it is going to be--and it is not going to stop hurting for a long time--to imagine that seat at the end of the press table not having the thoughtful, informed Robert Pear sitting there so he could get the facts to the American people. So I just want to close today--we have had a number of colleagues speak already--to say, Robert, Robert Pear, you were the consummate professional. You were fair to the bone. It was an honor--an honor to get to work with you over the years in healthcare. We say goodbye to someone who was a true mensch, and this afternoon with heavy hearts, we think of Robert Pear and want the country to know what an extraordinary person he was. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, on May 21, 2019, the U.S. Postal Service will release a series of postage stamps commemorating America's Wild and Scenic River system. These are America's remarkable rivers and streams unique for their free-flowing beauty, along with their contribution to recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, and countless other important benefits. As we recognize the 50th anniversary of this landmark conservation law, I want to make a point that Oregon has always been a leader in protecting rivers and just this year added more than 250 miles of Wild and Scenic Rivers designations, increasing our miles of protected rivers from 1,916 to a grand total of over 2,170 miles. That gives Oregon the State with the most miles of Wild and Scenic River designations in the contiguous United States. Three Oregon rivers are being recognized by the U.S. Postal Service in this commemorative stamp edition: the Deschutes, the Owyhee, and the Snake Rivers. Each is remarkable and unique in its own way, and together, these rivers embody Oregon's tradition of providing habitat for endangered salmon and steelhead, clean drinking water, and recreation opportunities for countless outdoor enthusiasts from all over the United States and the world. One of these rivers, the Owyhee, carves its way through some of the harshest and most arid and remote landscape of Oregon's high desert in the easternmost parts of our State. The Owyhee River flows through a steep, eroded canyon with cliffs towering hundreds of feet above. Added to the Wild and Scenic Rivers system in 1984, this river is revered for its remarkable cultural, geologic, recreational, and scenic values. It is of particular historical significance to Tribes across Oregon, Idaho, and Nevada. Beyond its significance as a Wild and Scenic River, the Owyhee region is a critical lifeline to the rural economy of eastern Oregon and the local ranching community. Moving westward to central Oregon, the Deschutes River is an oasis that winds through sandy, pumice-filled soils and sloping plateaus. A Wild and Scenic River since 1988, the Deschutes is world renowned for its fly fishing, rafting, and hiking opportunities. For centuries, Native Americans have honored the cultural and fishing uses of the river and venerated its historical value. The final Oregon river honored in this series is back to the east in Oregon but north of the Owyhee: the mighty Snake River. It flows through Hells Canyon--the deepest gorge in North America--on the border between Idaho and Oregon. First designated a Wild and Scenic River in 1975, the Snake River holds significant cultural value for the people of the Shoshone and Nez Perce Tribes. It also holds an important part of our State's history; emigrant pioneers risked their lives crossing the Snake in search of their future in Oregon. Pristine sections of this river and its stunning landscapes provide bountiful opportunities for salmon fishing, rafting, and exploration. These Oregon rivers and others recognized by the U.S. Postal Service in these stamps contribute to the most stunning landscapes in the country and protect the very qualities that make America's and Oregon's natural treasures so incredible.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, the Senate is just hours away from voting on whether to confirm David Bernhardt to head the Interior Department. He would replace Ryan Zinke, who was forced from office in the eye of an ethical hurricane. I am here tonight to put the Senate on notice that I believe, if David Bernhardt is confirmed as Interior Secretary, another ethical storm will be on us in the very near future. The Zinke ethics hurricane was bad enough. America should not be harmed again if it is followed by a Bernhardt ethical typhoon. I believe the Bernhardt nomination ought to be stopped in its tracks right here, right now. At a minimum, the Senate ought to put on hold this whole matter until we can gather more information so an informed decision can be based on all the facts. At this moment, with the debate hurtling possibly toward an end, there are four pending requests by a dozen Senators, including myself, for inspector general investigations of the issues involving Mr. Bernhardt. In the other body, there are a host of requests for investigations as well. There has been a lot of speculation about how all of these issues have been aired. This is old news, say some. The fact is, that is not right. This doesn't go back months. My concerns aren't information that has been sitting out in public view for years. The prospect of an investigation is developing in real time right now. I am going to run through some of the basic facts before getting into deeper details. First, according to the Office of Government Ethics, Mr. Bernhardt has 27 different former clients who are posing a potential of unlimited numbers of conflicts of interests--oil clients, coal clients, water clients, major ag and resources clients. All of them have business before the Department that the Interior Secretary is supposed to be running for the benefit of the public, not for special interests. My sense is, with all of these conflicts, Mr. Bernhardt would have basically two choices; one, he could comply with the ethics pledge and pretty much recuse himself from everything. Lord knows what he would be doing all day because he would have to recuse himself; or two, he would basically do business and just violate the ethical principles. Lately, he seems to have been on what seems like a victory parade on Capitol Hill, touting what he says is a record of being a champion of ethics, but if you take a look at that record and take a look at what was said during his confirmation hearing, as my son William Peter Wyden, age 11--pictures available on my iPhone after my presentation-- would say, that Bernhardt statement was one big whopper. Mr. Bernhardt served as Deputy Secretary to Ryan Zinke. All through this parade of environmental horrors that were visited upon us, Mr. Bernhardt was the key man in that office. There is not one shred of evidence that Mr. Bernhardt objected to Ryan Zinke's corruption. There is no evidence of it. Just think about it. He is always described as the guy who made the Interior Department run and that he was the key to all of these pieces. Ryan Zinke is out there with flagrant conflicts of interest and the like. Yet there is no evidence that Mr. Bernhardt--the self-styled expert on ethics--ever objected to anything. Second, not even 2 weeks ago, Mr. Bernhardt came before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for his nomination. He admitted that he had a role in blocking a landmark scientific report on toxic pesticides--the kind of report that career, nonpartisan scientists and staff spend years developing in close consultation with Department lawyers. Mr. Bernhardt's excuse for blocking the report was that it needed to be ``read by the lawyers,'' and he gave the impression to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the country--people were following it on C-SPAN--he gave the impression, when he said it needed to be read by the lawyers, as though that was not already the routine. His claim doesn't pass the smell test. I believe he lied to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Third, let's talk about his lobbying. Mr. Bernhardt deregistered as a lobbyist to join the Trump transition team before the President's inauguration. There is evidence he kept right on lobbying, nonetheless, in violation of the law. There is a whole lot of talk about mislabeled invoices and simple errors that attempted to explain it all the way. The fact is, there were multiple cases in which Mr. Bernhardt was engaged in activities that made him the de facto lobbyist, carrying on with the same job he had been doing all along. So you have a pattern of unethical behavior right in front of our eyes. He said he had to do this lawyering. There hadn't been any lawyering. Then we go back and look at the rules, and they say that in these situations, there is lawyering all the way through the process. That is why I am very troubled about his trustworthiness. After Ryan Zinke's departure, every Senator ought to be interested in restoring integrity and honor to the Interior Department. Yet the Trump administration has double downed on its commitment to graft by nominating David Bernhardt for this job. As I mentioned, there are pending requests for inspector general investigations. I have also called for an investigation by the U.S. attorney. Neither of those has had adequate time to respond, but the majority leader has rushed this nomination to the floor. To indicate how fast the nomination is moving, the President obviously nominated Mr. Bernhardt to lead the Interior Department less than a month ago. Less than 2 weeks ago, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held the confirmation hearing on his nomination. Exactly a week later, the committee voted to approve it. One week after that, the Senate may choose to vote on his final confirmation. I just think it is a grave mistake to be moving forward with so many serious unanswered questions, and let me go through the history about why. The Interior Department is still reeling from Ryan Zinke and what I call this self-generated ethical hurricane. In addition to overseeing the largest rollback of Federal land protections in American history, Ryan Zinke triggered so many Federal inquiries and investigations before he resigned in shame that you can't even easily track them. By most public reporting, he triggered at least 17 different Federal inquiries before he officially left office at the start of the year: the inappropriate censorship of scientific reports, the wasting of tens of thousands--if not hundreds of thousands--of dollars on office doors and chartered flights, and of cutting potentially illegal land deals with oil industry executives. His rap sheet basically goes on and on. It is as long as the Columbia River. In his brief tenure, Ryan Zinke demonstrated that he was better at corrupt self-dealing than he was at protecting our treasured public lands. I mentioned David Bernhardt was Mr. Zinke's Deputy, and he was the Solicitor for the Interior Department during the Bush administration. He knows a lot about how the Department works. I want to say this to my colleagues: If this is a guy who is hands on and if he really understands the Department of the Interior, I think you have to wonder why Mr. Bernhardt never seems to have objected to any of Mr. Zinke's corrupt activities. The Interior Department, unfortunately, isn't new to scandal, and I am going to take a brief moment to look back at one particular scandal that relates to these matters--Julie MacDonald, a notoriously corrupt Interior official during the George W. Bush administration who was forced to resign. In December of 2006, after an anonymous complaint sparked an investigation, the inspector general released a report showing that Ms. MacDonald had given internal Department documents to industry lobbyists and that she had run roughshod over career Department staff who tried to stand in her way. I had serious concerns about the report and what was happening at the Department. So, literally, more than a decade ago, I placed a hold on a nominee to the Interior Department, pending some accountability for these flagrant abuses by Ms. MacDonald. The next day, which was months after the original report became public, she finally resigned. Later that year, I requested an expanded probe into Interior decisions related to the Endangered Species Act that Ms. MacDonald had been involved in. There was evidence of her meddling having directly affected species in the Pacific Northwest. The Interior's inspector general released a report. According to the New York Times, it found ``Ms. MacDonald's zeal to advance her agenda has caused considerable harm to the integrity of the Endangered Species Act program and to the morale and reputation of the Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as potential harm to individual species.'' I bring this up because here is where David Bernhardt figures into the story. A few weeks ago, I was surprised that Mr. Bernhardt requested to meet with me in my office. I said I would be glad to do it. When nominees come by, I usually just start with the questions: Why should I vote for you? Why should I be supportive? It is kind of an easy way for the nominee to get into it. That is why I do it. What Mr. Bernhardt said was that he was a big ethics champion. He said: Hey, do you remember Julie MacDonald? I am captain ethics. I advised Julie MacDonald to clean up her act. I didn't ask Mr. Bernhardt about Julie MacDonald. He brought it up. I have met with a lot of nominees, and I have heard a lot of reasons as to why they deserve my vote, but this meeting was certainly a head- scratcher. A nominee who had been present for Ryan Zinke's reign of corruption and conflict and who had seemed not to do anything about it had shown up, at his request, to tout his own ethics. A few hours after the meeting in my office with Mr. Bernhardt, I decided I would look at his record for myself. Interior Department documents that had been obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request showed he had recently blocked the release of a Fish and Wildlife report about the effects of dangerous, toxic pesticides. Career staff at the Fish and Wildlife Service, an Interior Department Agency, were on the brink of completing a comprehensive report on the impact of three pesticides on, potentially, hundreds of endangered species. This was a report by career staff. It was not put together by people who were political appointees. It defined pesticides that were so dangerous and so toxic that they jeopardized the continued existence of more than 1,000 species. This report, had it been made public, would have had profound consequences for pesticide manufacturers in the businesses that had used them. The dedicated team of career staff at the Fish and Wildlife Service that had worked so long on this in order to make sure they really dug into the science--and they took years to be fastidious about it--wanted to make it public. The team was working rapidly to submit its findings to the Environmental Protection Agency for its review. The documents show that before this landmark report could make it into public view, Mr. Bernhardt came along and pushed himself into the middle of the process. The documents show his emails on the pesticide report. He demanded briefings from these career scientists. They show meetings with White House officials and others about the specific section of the law that governs the role of Fish and Wildlife in these types of assessments. There is even included an email in which Mr. Bernhardt edited the letter that Interior officials used to block the release of the pesticide report. There were digital fingerprints everywhere. I have to say that I looked at this, and I said: This sure sounds like Julie MacDonald all over again. The guy who said: ``Hey, I was the one who pushed Julie MacDonald to clean up her act,'' looked like he was meddling with the science just the way Julie MacDonald was. Ms. MacDonald was found by the inspector general to have meddled with the scientific conclusions, and now there is David Bernhardt, who has been alleged to have manipulated the process and blocked the release of an Endangered Species Act report. So Mr. Bernhardt came to say that his ethics were unimpeachable and that he was above reproach. Yet I will tell you, for my colleagues who are thinking about this, if you read the documents I read from the Freedom of Information Act, they make him sound like another Julie MacDonald. I worked through all of these documents, and they left me with the impression that Mr. Bernhardt had lied to me about his ethics during our one-on-one meeting as well. It left me wondering why he would go out of his way to talk up his ethics when he must have known the truth was going to come out eventually. During his confirmation hearing, he claimed he would strive to bring a culture of ethical compliance. He said he hoped to overhaul the ethics of the Ryan Zinke period and the Julie MacDonald experience. Senators called his qualifications unparalleled and claimed that the allegations of ethical misconduct against him were false. I respect those colleagues who have their opinions. I have my own, and my opinions are going to be based on the documents. The document I entered into the record at his confirmation hearing showed that the pesticide industry repeatedly asked political appointees at the Interior Department and at the Environmental Protection Agency to intervene in the scientific analysis. It showed that Mr. Bernhardt eventually did so. According to documents that had been made public by the Freedom of Information Act, a pesticide industry attorney wrote to then-Secretary Zinke and then-Administrator Scott Pruitt on April 13 of 2017. The pesticide industry was asking for changes to the Endangered Species Act. The industry followed it up very shortly with a request to meet with the Environmental Protection Agency's staff. At that time, a pesticide industry executive called an attorney of the Interior Department for a meeting as well. Another official from a pesticide trade association reached out to the same Interior Department attorney to discuss the Endangered Species Act. Other supporting documentation consisted of an email that was dated October 5, 2017, from Mr. Bernhardt to Gary Frazer, the Fish and Wildlife Service's Assistant Director, who handles these endangered species. He ``was the top official overseeing the assessment of the impact,'' according to the press, while looking at the implications of these pesticides. In this email, Mr. Bernhardt asked Mr. Frazer for a briefing the following week. Additional documents show that Mr. Bernhardt held a series of meetings with Mr. Frazer over the next 3 weeks. On October 30, according to the calendar released by the Freedom of Information Act, Mr. Bernhardt met with White House officials to discuss Endangered Species Act provisions. It is called section 7. That is the section that pertains to the role that the Fish and Wildlife plays in ensuring other Agencies aren't jeopardizing species. An email from November of 2017 shows Mr. Bernhardt edited the draft of a letter from career Fish and Wildlife Service staff to the EPA. It announced the Interior Department wouldn't be delivering the Fish and Wildlife's assessment to the Agency as planned. This, colleagues, is where Mr. Bernhardt put the brakes on this important Fish and Wildlife report about the pesticides. According to a New York Times report, the pesticide analysis was blocked in conjunction with a ``radical shift'' in how the Fish and Wildlife analyzes the effects of these pesticides. The change greatly increased the burden of proof the Agency is required to meet to demonstrate pesticide effects on species. According to that article in the Times, it would likely result in fewer new restrictions on pesticide use. CropLife and RISE--two trade associations that represent the pesticide companies--were very much in favor of this. They were praising it. Based on the documents, at the hearing, I asked Mr. Bernhardt why he would come to my office and sell me on ethics when the reports and the documents I just read showed otherwise. He had no response. At the hearing, I asked Mr. Bernhardt specifically why he would come to the office and make these claims. He had no response at the hearing but took a long sip of water as though he had meant to go on awhile. Mr. Bernhardt made the claim that career Fish and Wildlife staff ``clearly'' didn't complete any legal review on the pesticide report, which is why he stepped in. During the hearing and while under oath, I believe Mr. Bernhardt confirmed allegations that he interfered with the release of an Endangered Species Act report. He didn't, however, acknowledge that his involvement was inappropriate political meddling. Following the hearing and with serious questions remaining about whether he had lied under oath to the committee, I wrote the Interior Department's inspector general for her help in getting to the bottom of the matter. Here are the facts I included: On March 28, 2019, Mr. Bernhardt appeared before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for his confirmation hearing to become Secretary of the Department of the Interior. I questioned him about these documents and his role in blocking the Fish and Wildlife's analyses. He confirmed to me that he had reviewed the analyses. He claimed he believed the analyses had not been subject to legal review and made the determination to delay the report. Second, Mr. Bernhardt's response: You're dealing with some of the most difficult consultations on the planet, and when I read the document, my reaction to it was this is really an interesting draft. But it clearly didn't have any legal review, and in our world you can't ignore the law and come up with a scheme. He continued: And so what we decided is that the approach needed to be readdressed. Mr. Bernhardt's answer is totally off base with respect to the way legal analyses work. Under standard procedure, there would be legal analysis through the development of this kind of fish and wildlife report. It would involve lawyers at Fish and Wildlife, Interior Department, or both. So I am especially troubled by what appears to be a political appointee meddling in the scientific process with respect to a report that revealed the extraordinary danger of toxic pesticides. I am the senior member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, a former chairman of the committee. I cannot recall ever having this kind of exchange with a nominee. That is why I had to request that the Office of Inspector General investigate the following: What role did Mr. Bernhardt and other political appointees at the Interior Department play in delaying or obstructing the Fish and Wildlife Service pesticide report? What role did he play in changing Fish and Wildlife policy with regard to this key section in the Endangered Species Act? What role did other political appointees--Agriculture Senior Advisor, former CropLife lobbyist, Ms. Adcock--play in the Interior Department and Fish and Wildlife Service's decision making? Whether, as Mr. Bernhardt alleged to me under oath on March 28, 2019, the Fish and Wildlife draft analysis ``clearly didn't have any legal review'' and whether, as Mr. Bernhardt alleged to me, career lawyers at the Interior Department agreed with his analysis--these are all questions that haven't been answered. I would just say to the Senate, if you need more evidence that there are too many questions to allow this nomination to move forward, the story just gets more complicated. After Mr. Bernhardt demonstrated that he simply was going to dance around the truth, the Senate has to question his basic understanding of the law. So on Monday, I asked the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia to thoroughly investigate potential civil and criminal violations of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 by Mr. Bernhardt, as well as his former lobbying firm. By the way, again, a newspaper reports--this time the Washington Post--that Mr. Bernhardt's ex-firm has quadrupled its business, earning nearly $5 million to lobby the Interior Department since he has taken his most recent spin through the Interior Department revolving door. So here is what I said to the U.S. attorney: Lobbying Disclosure Act filings show Mr. Bernhardt registered to lobby for his law firm on behalf of the Westlands Water District on March 30, 2011. Westlands is the largest agricultural water district in the United States, in central California. Public reporting indicates Mr. Bernhardt ran his former lobby firm's natural resources department. That lobby firm filed its 2016 fourth quarter report on November 18, 2016--1 week after the 2016 Presidential election--terminating Mr. Bernhardt's lobbying status as of that day. Public reporting at the time indicates Mr. Bernhardt ``delisted himself as a lobbyist in November after Trump won the election to avoid running afoul of the new President's ban on lobbyists joining his administration.'' Public reporting and documents obtained via public records show that Mr. Bernhardt maintained his relationship with Westlands after his lobbyist deregistration on November 18, 2016. Furthermore, he may have repeatedly engaged in activity that would require him to continue registering as a Federal lobbyist. So he claimed he was no longer a lobbyist, but it sure looks as though he went right on lobbying. The Lobbying Disclosure Act is pretty clear. I will read from public guidance provided by the U.S. House of Representatives. A lobbyist can terminate their registration ``only when the individual's lobbying activities on behalf of that client did not constitute at the end of the quarter . . . 20 percent of the time that such employee is engaged in total activities for that client; or that individual doesn't reasonably expect to make further lobbying contacts.'' What does the law mean by ``lobbying contacts?'' That is pretty clear too. The same guidance says it is ``any oral, written, or electronic communication to a covered Federal official that is made on behalf of a client'' with regard to Federal legislation, rulemaking, executive orders and the like. ``Covered Federal officials'' include all Members of Congress and their staff. The evidence I included in my request to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia included several emails showing Mr. Bernhardt may have engaged in repeated, regulated lobbying contacts with covered Federal legislative branch officials. The first time, according to the information that is already public, appears to be on November 22, 2016, just a few days after he deregistered as a lobbyist. Mr. Bernhardt agreed to join a conference call with Westlands and the offices of Representative Devin Nunes and former Representative Valadao to discuss upcoming legislation. The second and third times are covered in a complaint filed with the U.S. attorney's office in 2017. That complaint included copies of emails documenting Mr. Bernhardt's role in 2016 and 2017 as an intermediary for congressional staff and Westlands. It also appeared to include a trip to California for Mr. Bernhardt, paid for by Westlands. So here is what it appears happened: Mr. Bernhardt provided his client, Westlands, with information about legislative efforts in 2016 and 2017. His old lobbying firm also disclosed lobbying on behalf of Westlands on those same legislative efforts over the same timeframe. Another new report shows that Mr. Bernhardt was also in contact in December 2016 with a Senate employee covered by lobbying regulations. On March 8, 2017, his old lobby firm sent Westlands an invoice for more than $27,000 for ``Federal lobbying.'' It included an itemized list of expenses related to Mr. Bernhardt's January 2017 travel to California for a ``Westlands'' trip. On April 20, 2017, the lobbying firm filed its 2017 first quarter disclosure that is required by the Lobbying Disclosure Act. It showed Westlands paid the firm $70,000 for lobbying services related to H.R. 1769, a bill involving the San Luis unit drainage district, among other measures. It was a longstanding priority for Westlands--a moneymaking opportunity. It was sponsored by then-Representative Valadao, one of the Congressmen Mr. Bernhardt appears to have been in contact with on November 22, 2016, and January 2, 2017. The lobby firm's 2017 first quarter disclosure was filed shortly after the firm sent Westlands the March invoice for Mr. Bernhardt's February 2017 ``Federal lobbying'' activity. According to a media report in July of 2017, a Westlands representative claimed Bernhardt ceased all lobbying activity ``the moment he deregistered as a lobbyist.'' In May of 2017, during his confirmation process to be Deputy Secretary, Mr. Bernhardt also claimed in writing to the committee he had ``not engaged in regulated lobbying on behalf of Westlands Water District after November 18, 2016.'' These Bernhardt claims simply do not line up with the documents. Perhaps that is why he refused when one of my colleagues requested he provide complete records relating to any communications he had with covered legislative branch officials after the date of his deregistration. Let me repeat that. When one of the Senators on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee asked Mr. Bernhardt to provide documents that would help the committee get to the bottom of this issue, he just stonewalled. He just refused. The Lobbying Disclosure Act isn't that burdensome. The firm and Mr. Bernhardt could have chosen to disclose his lobbying activity on behalf of Westlands. They chose not to do so, so everybody is going to ask why. The U.S. attorney's office is responsible for enforcement of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. So this week I wrote to the U.S. attorney, requesting a thorough investigation. I have spent this time highlighting some of the major reasons that make me feel strongly that Mr. Bernhardt's nomination should not move forward at this time. Chief among them are that I have two pending requests for investigations at this time, neither of which have been responded to because it has been a short time and the majority leader is interested in steamrolling this flawed nominee by the American people. I am just going to conclude my remarks by summarizing a couple of Mr. Bernhardt's greatest hits with respect to why he is thoroughly unqualified to be Secretary of the Department of Interior. The first is the matter of the conflicts. He is a former oil lobbyist. In fact, at one point, I was going to say that he was the oil industry's guy, but the oil industry lobbyists beat me to it. A secret tape came out, and they were quoted as saying: We are glad he is our guy. Dozens of his ex-clients have business before Interior. According to his ethics pledge, he should be conflicted out of working on those issues. If he remains involved, he will be flagrantly violating his ethics pledge. So if he follows the rules and stays out of all of these issues his clients have before the Department, I will tell you, for the life of me, I can't figure out what he is going to do all day because he is going to be conflicted out of all of these matters that are going to be before the Department. Just last week, Mr. Bernhardt's previously unrevealed calendars were partially made public. To nobody's surprise, many of those secret meetings have been with industry. This is yet another item that Congress, including the other body, has asked for more information about. So the damage has been done. The conflicts are clear. He has already taken actions that benefit his former clients and former employers. He has taken steps specifically to weaken the Endangered Species Act--worked to weaken wildlife protections for a California fish species, according to another investigation. This weakening of protections for the California fish species is a policy change that one of Mr. Bernhardt's former clients--Westlands Water District--had been pushing for for years. Mr. Bernhardt's Interior announced that the Agency is basically going to stop holding oil companies accountable for oilspills by ending enforcement of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This move has been long supported by yet another energy lobby, another one of Mr. Bernhardt's former clients. Mr. Bernhardt's Interior Department increased drilling and mining access on millions of acres of sage-grouse habitat across five Western States. That drilling will be conducted by companies, again, linked to Mr. Bernhardt. It could make the sage-grouse an endangered species, and it could endanger the livelihoods of ranching families on the rural frontier who are just hoping to preserve their traditional way of life. Mr. Bernhardt continues delivering for the oil and gas industry. A CNN report found the Agency has advanced at least 15 policies supported by his former clients during his time at Interior Department-- everything from the elimination of BLM's methane reduction rules and gutting safety rules for natural gas drilling on public lands, to risking the lives of workers by reducing safety standards for offshore drilling. I don't think it is any big surprise why those oil executives were cheering about Mr. Bernhardt's nomination and calling him, literally, their guy. During the longest government shutdown on record, when national parks were unstaffed and overflowing with human waste, Mr. Bernhardt even recalled Interior employees to specifically approve hundreds of drilling permits. Certainly, the oil and gas giants are getting their money's worth. To cap off my list, Mr. Bernhardt's Interior Department even proposed opening up the entire U.S. coastline for offshore oil drilling. I am heading home. I am sure my colleague from North Dakota and other Senators are also. I am having town meetings and listening to people. There isn't going to be anybody who comes to my town meetings starting in the next couple of days who wants to see the Oregon coastline up for offshore drilling or who wants to see the oil derricks at Haystack Rock, and they don't want to be standing on our beaches holding oil- soaked sponges. The entire time Mr. Bernhardt has been at the Interior Department, his former lobbying firm has just been raking in the cash. So the question really becomes: Has he already broken the law? My bottom line is that the Senate ought to take the time to actually look into that issue. It isn't some trivial matter after the self-generated Zinke ethical hurricane. Shouldn't we say, after that ethics horror show, that it is the job of every Member in the Senate--every Democrat and every Republican--to work for policies that bring honor and credibility back to the Interior Department? I just don't think that is going to be the case if this body confirms David Bernhardt. We will be voting, at least tonight, on the procedure, and depending on how that goes, we may be voting on final passage. I will just tell you that I don't want to be back on this floor in a matter of months talking about yet another Interior leader, like Ryan Zinke, forced from office as the result of a grotesque scandal. The Senate doesn't have to leave the door of the Interior Department wide open for more conflicted individuals to waltz into positions of power where they can work against the interests of the American people. I believe that is exactly what America will get from David Bernhardt. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this nomination. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, 30 years ago today, the Whistleblower Protection Act was signed into law. To call it a triumph doesn't do justice to the sheer number of years and people it took on both sides of the aisle to overcome numerous obstacles and enact Federal protections for Federal Government employees who step forward and do what we all should do: expose wrongdoings in order to hold government officials and agencies accountable. Congressional efforts to protect whistleblowers date back to at least 1912 with the enactment of the Lloyd-La Follette Act. This act guaranteed the right of Federal employees to communicate with Members of Congress without the oversight of their employer and prohibited compensation to managers who retaliated against employees attempting to disclose whistleblower matters. However, empowering Federal employees to speak up and speak the truth was and continues to be an ongoing struggle, one that has often pitted Congress against the executive branch. When President George H.W. Bush signed the Whistleblower Protection Act into law that April morning in 1989, it came after his predecessor President Ronald Reagan had vetoed a similar bill despite the fact that it had been unanimously adopted by both the Senate and the House. The Whistleblower Protection Act, itself, was first introduced by Representative Pat Schroeder of Colorado as an amendment to the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 and then as a stand-alone bill in 1982. The principal purpose of the bill was to block retaliation against employees who came forward, a never-ending problem. The bill would have allowed ``a person claiming to be aggrieved by a prohibited personnel practice to: (1) bring a civil action in a U.S. district court against the employee or agency involved (respondent); or (2) seek corrective action through the (Merit Systems Protection) Board.'' While that particular bill ultimately died after receiving unfavorable comments from the U.S. Government Accountability Office-- GAO--and the Merit Systems Protection Board, which adjudicates whistleblower complaints, its failure didn't deter our colleagues. By the time 1989 rolled around, Members of both the House and the Senate, including Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, who spearheaded efforts in the Senate, had worked together for years to find a compromise and pass legislation that protected those employees whose disclosures revealed waste, fraud, or abuse. Between May of 1982 and September of 1989, 28 bills and resolutions with whistleblower protections built into them were introduced, many of them with dozens and dozens of cosponsors. Since the passage of the Whistleblower Protection Act 30 years ago, Congress has continued to improve protections for whistleblowers, notably with the passage of the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998; the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012; the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017; and more recently the Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017. Unfortunately, despite all of these efforts, becoming a whistleblower is still a perilous path. In its latest budget justification, the Office of Special Counsel, the agency that investigates retaliation against Federal whistleblowers, reported that, in fiscal year 2018, that agency received over 4,100 complaints of retaliation, otherwise known as prohibited personnel practices. This, according to OSC, is a new agency record. That is not a record that anyone should be proud of. As much as today is a celebration of the Whistleblower Protection Act and the work of the many people it took to make those protections law, it is a greater celebration of the courage whistleblowers embody when they step forward to shine a light on waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in the government. Their bravery and sacrifice is invaluable, and for that, we thank them. Unfortunately, coming forward to do what is right still requires too much of both. Consequently, Congress still has more work to do to protect whistleblowers, and I call on my colleagues to remember the value of citizens being able to blow the whistle. As Representative Schroeder said early on in her efforts to help whistleblowers: ``If we in Congress are going to act as effective checks on excesses in the executive branch, we have to hear about such matters.''

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I, along with my colleague Senator Booker of New Jersey, are introducing the Algorithmic Accountability Act. This bill is a critical first step to address the use of biased or discriminatory algorithmic decisions impacting American consumers. It is a bicameral effort, led in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Yvette Clarke, vice chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Today's biggest companies are increasingly using algorithms to make decisions about consumers. The use by companies of algorithms can often benefit consumers, and these technologies have been critical in the creation of thousands of American companies. Alongside this beneficial proliferation, algorithms have become entrenched in the most life- changing of decisions. Algorithms can now determine whether Americans are hired for a dream job, are approved for a home mortgage, or even sent to jail. But, as history has shown, a win for the corporation is not always a win for the consumer. And, in this case, when consumers lose, all too often they are a woman or an American of color. Though an innovation critical for future growth, algorithms can be as discriminatory as the humans they have begun to replace. The issue is a simple one: While algorithms come to conclusions based on calculations, these calculations are created by humans or use data collected and supplied by humans. And, unfortunately, we humans can be biased, whether we know it or not, or we can created algorithms that, in time, create biases of their own. Thanks to a flood of news reports and investigations detailing algorithms-gone-wrong, these issues are coming to light. Yet, American companies and the U.S. government are doing far too little to assess whether their own algorithms depend on biased assumptions, have created biases assumptions, and have the effect of increasing discrimination in the U.S. Senator Booker and I intend to change that by ensuring that today's racial, social, and gender biases do not become entrenched in the automation of tomorrow. Our bill has four main components. First, it authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to create regulations requiring companies under its jurisdiction to conduct impact assessments of highly sensitive algorithms. This requirement would apply not only to new algorithmic systems, but also those that are both new and already in existence. Second, it requires companies to assess their use of algorithms-- including any relevant training data--for impacts on accuracy, fairness, bias, discrimination, privacy, and security. Third, it requires companies to evaluate how their information systems protect the privacy and security of consumers' personal information. And, finally, it requires companies to correct any issues they discover during the impact assessments. This legislation is in no way intended to hinder the adoption by American companies of advanced technologies like algorithms. Automated decision systems are out there, and they are being adopted into commercial decision-making processes. What we are seeking to do with this bill is to ensure that companies take a hard look at their own technologies to ensure that they address any unintended side effects. Mr. President, it is time for Congress to get involved by requiring companies to address biases and unintended discriminatory effects in their automated decision systems. I thank my colleague Senator Booker for his efforts on this bill, and I hope the Senate will promptly consider and pass this critical legislation.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I, along with my colleague Senator Booker of New Jersey, are introducing the Algorithmic Accountability Act. This bill is a critical first step to address the use of biased or discriminatory algorithmic decisions impacting American consumers. It is a bicameral effort, led in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Yvette Clarke, vice chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Today's biggest companies are increasingly using algorithms to make decisions about consumers. The use by companies of algorithms can often benefit consumers, and these technologies have been critical in the creation of thousands of American companies. Alongside this beneficial proliferation, algorithms have become entrenched in the most life- changing of decisions. Algorithms can now determine whether Americans are hired for a dream job, are approved for a home mortgage, or even sent to jail. But, as history has shown, a win for the corporation is not always a win for the consumer. And, in this case, when consumers lose, all too often they are a woman or an American of color. Though an innovation critical for future growth, algorithms can be as discriminatory as the humans they have begun to replace. The issue is a simple one: While algorithms come to conclusions based on calculations, these calculations are created by humans or use data collected and supplied by humans. And, unfortunately, we humans can be biased, whether we know it or not, or we can created algorithms that, in time, create biases of their own. Thanks to a flood of news reports and investigations detailing algorithms-gone-wrong, these issues are coming to light. Yet, American companies and the U.S. government are doing far too little to assess whether their own algorithms depend on biased assumptions, have created biases assumptions, and have the effect of increasing discrimination in the U.S. Senator Booker and I intend to change that by ensuring that today's racial, social, and gender biases do not become entrenched in the automation of tomorrow. Our bill has four main components. First, it authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to create regulations requiring companies under its jurisdiction to conduct impact assessments of highly sensitive algorithms. This requirement would apply not only to new algorithmic systems, but also those that are both new and already in existence. Second, it requires companies to assess their use of algorithms-- including any relevant training data--for impacts on accuracy, fairness, bias, discrimination, privacy, and security. Third, it requires companies to evaluate how their information systems protect the privacy and security of consumers' personal information. And, finally, it requires companies to correct any issues they discover during the impact assessments. This legislation is in no way intended to hinder the adoption by American companies of advanced technologies like algorithms. Automated decision systems are out there, and they are being adopted into commercial decision-making processes. What we are seeking to do with this bill is to ensure that companies take a hard look at their own technologies to ensure that they address any unintended side effects. Mr. President, it is time for Congress to get involved by requiring companies to address biases and unintended discriminatory effects in their automated decision systems. I thank my colleague Senator Booker for his efforts on this bill, and I hope the Senate will promptly consider and pass this critical legislation.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following individuals be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Congress: Elliot Eichen, Marisa Morin, Pamela Reed, Katherine Rudell, Jackson Shawn-Hays, Sarah Harvey, Stephanie Bell, Sarah Christ, Roberta Daghir, Mattie Wheeler, Alec Camhi, Ebony Smith, Kristen Lunde, Briana Hauss, and Rachel Swindle.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am going to use my time on the Senate floor to address two related subjects. The Republican leader is reportedly on the verge of going nuclear to speed through the confirmation of more far-right nominees. He says Democrats are guilty of extreme, unprecedented obstruction, and he claims that his hand has been forced and that is why he is required to change the Senate rules. In the real world, I want to make clear that I believe the facts tell a different story, and I am going to lay out briefly why I think this is the wrong way to go. When you look at the numbers, you see that the Republican leader's argument is a fantasy. Let's look at judges, and let's compare the Trump administration to the Obama administration. The Obama administration started with 53 judicial vacancies; the Trump administration started with 112. That increase didn't occur because a whole lot of judges somehow magically qualified for Social Security and quit sometime in 2016; it was because Republicans blocked nominees for years at a time, and they kept those seats open. Senate Republicans even blocked their own judicial selections during the previous administration. Put your arms around that. Senate Republicans even blocked their own. Only 22 judicial nominees were confirmed in the final 2 years of the Obama administration--the fewest in a Congress since Harry Truman was President. In 2015 and 2016, the Judiciary Committee considered only five circuit court nominees. It considered that many in December of 2017 alone. There were nearly twice as many circuit judges confirmed in the first 2 years of the Trump administration as there were in President Obama's entire first term. Nominees are moving nearly twice as quickly under this President. Republicans even blew up a century-old bipartisan practice of seeking input from Senators on judicial nominees from their home States. It is based on what has come to be known as the blue slip to consent to a hearing and a markup of a nomination. It is a tradition, by the way, Republicans fought to protect when a Democrat was President and they were in the minority. Under this President, they threw the blue-slip tradition out the window. Republicans are also moving nominees in huge batches and at paces that prevent serious debate on their qualifications. A few months ago, the Judiciary Committee held a markup and voted out 46 nominees, including 44 judicial nominees. That had never been done before. It is a head-scratcher how that can meet any reasonable definition of ``advice and consent.'' The way my colleagues on the other side talk about the issue, you would think Democrats delayed every nomination for as long as possible. That just doesn't remotely resemble the truth. Setting judges aside, what about the executive branch? The President and his advisers will tell you right out in the open that they don't want to nominate anybody. They have chosen to leave those positions vacant. That certainly doesn't meet a textbook definition of ``Democratic obstructionism.'' I am the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee. Our committee has zero nominees ready for a committee vote. It is not because anybody is blocking them; it is because the Trump administration seems uninterested in putting nominees forward. Our committee, on a bipartisan basis, has done its job. So, colleagues, you can't look at the record of nominees over the last 2 years, particularly on judges, and conclude that the Democrats have broken the Senate. It is just not true. I believe a number of my colleagues on the other side know it. When they want to go nuclear and change the rules, we get a parade of horror stories about how Democrats are obstructionists. It is a totally different story when they prefer to tout their record on nominations. Let's hear from Republicans, from the President on down. Here is the President tweeting in late 2017: ``Judges at a record clip. Our courts are rapidly changing.'' The President at a rally last year: ``We have the best judges. We put on a tremendous amount of great Federal district court judges. We'll be setting records. We are setting records. Appeals court judges. A Supreme Court judge--fantastic.'' The Vice President, March 2018: ``The President . . . set a record for the most court of appeal judges confirmed in the first year of an administration in American history.'' Leader McConnell said it all, speaking about the confirmed judges. He said ``including a record number of circuit court judges for a President's first year.'' More recently, Leader McConnell said: ``We confirmed every circuit judge. We've now done 29 circuit judges. That's a record for this quick in any administration in history.'' After November's elections, when Democrats won control of the House, Leader McConnell said: ``I think we'll have probably more time for nominations in the next Congress than we've had in this one, because the areas of legislative agreement will be more limited between a Democratic House and a Republican Senate. . . . I don't think we'll have any trouble finding time to do nominations.'' That is Leader McConnell. ``I don't think we'll have any trouble finding time to do nominations.'' Leader McConnell said: ``We intend to keep confirming as many as we possibly can for as long as we're in a position to do so.'' My colleagues on the other side can't have it both ways, constantly talking about Democratic obstructionism and then, in effect, making all these statements about how they are setting records for getting people through. You can't have it both ways. I am going to close on this. I am not going to apologize for opposing nominees who are unqualified, corrupt, or simply outside of the mainstream. I opposed the nomination of Ryan Bounds to the Ninth Circuit because he concealed hateful writings to a bipartisan committee--since I became the State's senior Democrat, and now as the senior Senator, I have continued this committee. We have had a bipartisan selection committee that vets candidates. We had it when my former colleague, Senator Smith, who I know is a friend of the Presiding Officer's, was here. We always worked in a bipartisan way to address these issues. This was a nominee who concealed hateful writings from the bipartisan selection committee that vetted his candidacy, and he was forced to withdraw. I opposed Neomi Rao because she also had put extreme views in writing, and those views closely mirrored the work she had done as a Trump appointee attacking protections for women's health, for sexual assault victims on campus, and for vulnerable communities across the country. I opposed the nomination of Thomas Farr because he ruthlessly attacked the voting rights of people of color. I opposed the nomination of Tom Price to lead the Department of Health and Human Services because I thought he was just about as corrupt as they came and seemed to be laser-focused on taking away people's healthcare. I opposed the nomination of Steven Mnuchin to be Treasury Secretary because I believed a history of profiting off of the suffering of millions of Americans ought to be disqualifying for that job. Now, what has been the record? Multiple members of the Trump Cabinet have resigned under an ethical cloud. The rule change for which the Republican leader is pushing will cause the rushing through of even more unqualified and corrupt nominees at the sub-Cabinet level. The bottom line is that all of the doomsday talk about the Democratic obstruction that is forcing the Republican leader's hand is simply out of touch with the facts. The Trump administration will find more support among the Democrats when it picks better nominees. It is a quaint idea--pick better nominees, and then you will get support. Instead, the nuclear option Leader McConnell is set to trigger this week is a strategy that will take us in the opposite direction. It is going to make it easier to rush unqualified and extreme nominees through the Senate before anybody notices. I oppose this change. I urge more of my colleagues on the other side to do the same.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I would like to raise a few key points on this whole matter. First, this is a question of international trade, which is a subject that has been handled by the Senate Finance Committee for literally decades. The full committee has not been consulted on this resolution. It is less than a week old, which, in my view, has not given Senators an adequate amount of time to consider it. Suffice it to say, the prospect of reshaping the American economy with sweeping trade deals is not something that ought to just rocket past the committee of jurisdiction. Second, with respect to the substance of the request, I simply do not believe it is the role of the United States to give aid and comfort to the UK's nationalist right while it inflicts irreparable harm on the UK's own economy and citizens. Third, thinking kind of objectively about the future, I don't believe anybody can pretend to know what the UK and its relationship with Europe is going to look like even in the near future. The Senate simply cannot make promises about trade talks months or years down the line when the May government doesn't even know what is coming down the pike in a matter of days. Finally, there are serious issues that need consideration with respect to our trade relationship with the UK and Europe. That cannot happen if the debates play out in a slapdash process here on the floor of this Senate. For example, European governments are in the process of implementing a new copyright regime that provides an easy way to chill free speech online with bogus copyright claims. A number of European governments, including the UK's, have proposed new digital services taxes. Let me repeat that. A number of these governments have proposed new digital services taxes. What they are attempting to do is loot American technology companies with discriminatory taxes--slapping what is essentially an extra tariff on American firms. The UK would need to commit to abandoning these unfair policies, which, in my view, are serious barriers to trade, as a precondition of negotiations in the future. Otherwise, if the Senate were to, in effect, make promises on trade in the dark, we would risk surrendering our negotiating positions on these key issues which I have outlined without getting anything in return. For the life of me, I just can't see the case for undermining our American businesses and American jobs for the benefit of the UK's nationalist right as they steer their own economy and international stature off a cliff. For those reasons, Madam President, I object.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I, along with my colleague Senator Cotton from Arkansas, am introducing the Senate Cybersecurity Protection Act to defend the integrity of American democracy by providing cybersecurity protection for the personal accounts and electronic devices of Senators and and key members of their staff. In 2016, hackers working for the Russian government broke into a range of targets, including the network of the Democratic National Committee and the email account of Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign manager, John Podesta. These widely publicized breaches are only the tip of the iceberg. These hacks are widely known today because the emails stolen from these accounts were subsequently weaponized and used as part of a campaign to influence the outcome of several elections--most publicly, the presidential race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, but also U.S. House of Representatives races in Illinois, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Senator Lindsey Graham also reported that his campaign's email was successfully compromised. While the Russian hacks in 2016 were a watershed moment, these are merely the most visible and disruptive examples of foreign intelligence services using offensive cyber capabilities to target those involved in our political process. Senior officials from the 2008 Obama and McCain presidential campaigns have publicly confirmed that both organizations were compromised by hackers. In 2017, the media reported that then- White House Chief of Staff John Kelly's personal cell phone had been compromised, possibly for as long as ten months before the malware was discovered. And in 2018, media reports revealed that the personal email accounts of senior congressional staffers had been targeted by the notorious Russian hacking group ``Fancy-Bear.'' These and other events clearly demonstrate the unique threats faced by Senators and their staff. Unfortunately, as I revealed in a letter to Senate leadership last year, the Sergeant At Arms (SAA), which is responsible for the Senate's cybersecurity, informed me that it currently lacks the authority to use official Senate resources to protect the personal devices and accounts of Senators and key Senate staff, even when those staff are being targeted by foreign governments. Senators Cotton and I are not alone in recognizing the seriousness of this national security threat. Last year, then-Director of the National Security Agency Admiral Michael Rogers acknowledged in a letter to me that personal devices and accounts of senior U.S. government officials ``remain prime targets for exploitation.'' Likewise, in written responses to post-hearing questions from the Senate Intelligence Committee last year, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats wrote that ``[t]he 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.'' The Appropriations Committee also noted last year in its report accompanying the 2019 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill that it ``continues to be concerned that Senators are being targeted for hacking and cyber attacks, especially via their personal devices and accounts.'' Currently, Senators and staffers are expected to protect their own devices and accounts from foreign government hackers. This is absurd. Senators and the vast majority of their staff are not cybersecurity experts, and certainly do not have the training our resources to defend themselves from sophisticated foreign intelligence agencies. Eric Rosenbach, who was formerly Chief of Staff to Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, has endorsed the bill we are introducing today, observing that ``Senators and their staff should not be expected to go toe to toe with some of the most sophisticated adversaries in cyberspace; authorizing protection of personal accounts is a critical component of our cyber defense efforts.'' Likewise, Bruce Schreier, a noted cybersecurity expert has also endorsed the bill, stating that ``[i]t is ludicrous to expect individual senators and their staff to to defend themselves from spies and hackers. Hostile foreign intelligence services do not respect the arbitrary line between work and personal technology. As such, the U.S. government must extend its defensive cyber perimeter to include legislators' personal devices and accounts.'' Our bill would permit the SAA to provide voluntary, opt-in cybersecurity assistance to Senators and key Senate staff to secure their personal devices and accounts. Any Senate staffer would be eligible to receive assistance, provided that the Senator employing them determines that they are highly vulnerable to cyber attacks and information collection because of their position in the Senate. There is precedent for extending cybersecurity protection to the personal devices of government officials. Section 1645 of the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act permits the Secretary of Defense to provide personal device cybersecurity assistance to officials whom the secretary ``determines to be highly vulnerable to cyber attacks and hostile information collection activities because of the positions occupied by such personnel in the Department.'' The Senate Cybersecurity Protection Act is also similar to provisions included in the intelligence authorization bill approved by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in 2018, which would permit the Director of National Intelligence to protect the personal devices and accounts of high-risk staff in the intelligence community. Passage of this common sense, bipartisan legislation would provide Senators and their staff with much-needed protection for their personal accounts and devices, and with them, the integrity of American democracy. I thank my colleague Senator Cotton for his efforts on this bill, and hope the Senate will promptly pass this vital legislation.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I, along with my colleague Senator Cotton from Arkansas, am introducing the Senate Cybersecurity Protection Act to defend the integrity of American democracy by providing cybersecurity protection for the personal accounts and electronic devices of Senators and and key members of their staff. In 2016, hackers working for the Russian government broke into a range of targets, including the network of the Democratic National Committee and the email account of Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign manager, John Podesta. These widely publicized breaches are only the tip of the iceberg. These hacks are widely known today because the emails stolen from these accounts were subsequently weaponized and used as part of a campaign to influence the outcome of several elections--most publicly, the presidential race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, but also U.S. House of Representatives races in Illinois, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Senator Lindsey Graham also reported that his campaign's email was successfully compromised. While the Russian hacks in 2016 were a watershed moment, these are merely the most visible and disruptive examples of foreign intelligence services using offensive cyber capabilities to target those involved in our political process. Senior officials from the 2008 Obama and McCain presidential campaigns have publicly confirmed that both organizations were compromised by hackers. In 2017, the media reported that then- White House Chief of Staff John Kelly's personal cell phone had been compromised, possibly for as long as ten months before the malware was discovered. And in 2018, media reports revealed that the personal email accounts of senior congressional staffers had been targeted by the notorious Russian hacking group ``Fancy-Bear.'' These and other events clearly demonstrate the unique threats faced by Senators and their staff. Unfortunately, as I revealed in a letter to Senate leadership last year, the Sergeant At Arms (SAA), which is responsible for the Senate's cybersecurity, informed me that it currently lacks the authority to use official Senate resources to protect the personal devices and accounts of Senators and key Senate staff, even when those staff are being targeted by foreign governments. Senators Cotton and I are not alone in recognizing the seriousness of this national security threat. Last year, then-Director of the National Security Agency Admiral Michael Rogers acknowledged in a letter to me that personal devices and accounts of senior U.S. government officials ``remain prime targets for exploitation.'' Likewise, in written responses to post-hearing questions from the Senate Intelligence Committee last year, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats wrote that ``[t]he 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.'' The Appropriations Committee also noted last year in its report accompanying the 2019 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill that it ``continues to be concerned that Senators are being targeted for hacking and cyber attacks, especially via their personal devices and accounts.'' Currently, Senators and staffers are expected to protect their own devices and accounts from foreign government hackers. This is absurd. Senators and the vast majority of their staff are not cybersecurity experts, and certainly do not have the training our resources to defend themselves from sophisticated foreign intelligence agencies. Eric Rosenbach, who was formerly Chief of Staff to Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, has endorsed the bill we are introducing today, observing that ``Senators and their staff should not be expected to go toe to toe with some of the most sophisticated adversaries in cyberspace; authorizing protection of personal accounts is a critical component of our cyber defense efforts.'' Likewise, Bruce Schreier, a noted cybersecurity expert has also endorsed the bill, stating that ``[i]t is ludicrous to expect individual senators and their staff to to defend themselves from spies and hackers. Hostile foreign intelligence services do not respect the arbitrary line between work and personal technology. As such, the U.S. government must extend its defensive cyber perimeter to include legislators' personal devices and accounts.'' Our bill would permit the SAA to provide voluntary, opt-in cybersecurity assistance to Senators and key Senate staff to secure their personal devices and accounts. Any Senate staffer would be eligible to receive assistance, provided that the Senator employing them determines that they are highly vulnerable to cyber attacks and information collection because of their position in the Senate. There is precedent for extending cybersecurity protection to the personal devices of government officials. Section 1645 of the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act permits the Secretary of Defense to provide personal device cybersecurity assistance to officials whom the secretary ``determines to be highly vulnerable to cyber attacks and hostile information collection activities because of the positions occupied by such personnel in the Department.'' The Senate Cybersecurity Protection Act is also similar to provisions included in the intelligence authorization bill approved by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in 2018, which would permit the Director of National Intelligence to protect the personal devices and accounts of high-risk staff in the intelligence community. Passage of this common sense, bipartisan legislation would provide Senators and their staff with much-needed protection for their personal accounts and devices, and with them, the integrity of American democracy. I thank my colleague Senator Cotton for his efforts on this bill, and hope the Senate will promptly pass this vital legislation.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, the Democrats on this side believe that climate change is a real and urgent problem. The Republican leader seems to believe it is not a problem at all. The majority leader has scheduled votes today on a version of the Green New Deal. I was proud to be a cosponsor of that. I want to make sure that nobody believes what is happening today on this floor is part of a serious debate. The fact is, it is a sham debate about the growing and urgent problem of climate change. The Green New Deal is all about offering a mission statement--a statement of direction on the urgency of climate change. It is about recognizing the staggering threat and encouraging everybody to come forward to bring up good ways to tackle it. As the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee, I will outline just one of them this afternoon. It is not a bill; it is a resolution. That is why it is a head- scratcher to hear all these far-fetched attacks on the Green New Deal in the media and here on this floor. Let's be clear about what this resolution, the Green New Deal, says. Nobody is out there banning cheeseburgers. If you want to eat an ice cream sandwich and wash it down with a milkshake, nobody is going to be taking that milkshake out of your hands, either. I don't know what this anti-food legislation is that I keep hearing opponents talk about, but it certainly isn't the Green New Deal. I will tell you that my son, William Peter Wyden, age 11, is specifically going to make sure that his papa doesn't sign on to something like that. There is no building trains to Hawaii. Nobody is banning airplanes, and nobody is trying to take people's cars. The Green New Deal is about bringing good ideas to bear in the fight against climate change. That is what the American people are demanding action on. I will tell you that this issue comes up at every townhall meeting I hold. Just over the last week, I was in rural counties where Donald Trump won by an enormous percentage, and people understood what climate change was all about because of the wildfires we had. These are not your grandfather's wildfires; these are infernos. We have had them leap the Columbia River. They are more powerful. They are more dangerous. Fire season isn't for just a couple of months in the summer; it is almost year-round. In my home State, we have had to get used to what amounts to the idea of clean air refugees when fires burn near populated areas. This is where folks--particularly folks who are of modest income--have literally nowhere to go and can't go outside. Anybody who hasn't been to the Columbia River Gorge should know that when a fire leaps the Columbia River, you are talking about something very different. Rivers have historically blocked the spread of wildfires but not anymore. Last year, dozens of people were killed and more than 10,000 structures destroyed by the Camp Fire, the most destructive fire in California history. These infernos are happening across the West--Washington, Nevada, Colorado, Montana, and elsewhere. Climate change isn't just about fires; it drives extreme temperatures in both directions. Extreme cold is a danger to millions of people during the winter. Warmer temperatures in spring and summer bring more rain and more floods to so much of the country. Elsewhere, especially in the West, the threat of drought looms continuously. The hurricanes battering the east coast and the Gulf of Mexico are intensifying. It seems as if every week, another group of prominent scientists warns about mass-extinction events, ecological failures, and runaway temperature increases. There are great economic impacts as a result of all this. When Americans face a future of extreme temperatures, bigger storms, and hotter fires, it will mean that it will cost more money to rebuild the city that has been flooded by a hurricane or burned in an inferno. We are going to see increases in insurance premiums when weather-related damage becomes more common. If you really want to know how serious this problem is, look at these private insurance premiums. The market is telling us how serious this problem is. It requires more energy to heat and cool homes and workplaces in extreme temperatures. I want to make one last point because I think there is a little bit of confusion about the direction the Senate ought to go. I had mentioned that the Green New Deal is really a mission statement, a resolution, a sense of urgency that we ought to be all about. I want to contrast that with the original new deal, which was actual legislation, something like 15 bills--certainly, more than a dozen major ones. My sense is that this is what Congress is going to have to do in the years ahead with respect to climate. Let me give an example. We have talked about the mission of the resolution, where we would like to go. Here is an example of what we ought to work together on with respect to legislation. As the senior Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, I pointed out that there were more than 40 separate tax breaks for energy on the Federal tax books--40 separate tax breaks for energy. In fact, the Tax Code, as it relates to energy, is essentially anchored in dirty energy tax relics of yesteryear. Given the fact that taxpayers now write out big annual checks to the dirtiest energy companies, what I have proposed is that we replace that. You can't stand up to climate change as long as you are ladling out all of those tax subsidies to dirty energy. What I have proposed is to take those 40-plus energy tax breaks and just basically throw them in the trash can--in effect, throw them into the trash can that is right next to our desks. For those 40 energy tax breaks that are disproportionately for dirty energy, we would then substitute three new ones--one for clean energy, one for clean transportation fuel, and one for energy efficiency. I would like to think that the Democrats and Republicans who are playing off this idea are going to be able to say: Hey, we can find common ground on this because for companies all across the country, when they buy new pieces of equipment for their companies, they will invariably make sure they will be cleaner and more energy efficient than what will have been on their factory floors. So they would qualify for two out of the three new energy incentives I am talking about. That is something we could have a real debate about. That is not a sham debate. That is a real debate. Yesterday, Senator Alexander, our Republican colleague from the Presiding Officer's State, said he believed climate change was real. He said he believed it was caused by man, and he called for a new Manhattan Project for Clean Energy. I heard it. It sounded like he had plenty of ideas that could make for a real debate between Democrats and Republicans. Senator Alexander sits right over there, not far from our colleague from Iowa, Senator Ernst. He was talking about real ideas after acknowledging that climate change was a problem and that man contributed to it. I hope some of my colleagues on the other side will follow Senator Alexander's lead. This is a debate the Senate ought to have. It ought to have a debate about what Senator Alexander was talking about. We ought to have a debate about throwing the 40 separate tax breaks for energy into the garbage and substituting for them three new ones that reflect our most current challenges. That is the way the Senate is supposed to function: You recognize a problem; you come forward with ideas in a serious debate; and you try to build common ground. I see my colleague from Iowa is here. I am interested in working with her, and we have worked together on other issues. I am interested in working with all of my colleagues as I have with respect to this question of making the Tax Code neutral regarding energy sources. We are not doing that today. What we are doing is playing a political game. I say to my colleagues that nobody ought to take part in this political game. You don't play political games when the consequences for the American people are so serious. Instead, you have a serious debate about what to do about the serious problem. That is not what is going on today. I close by saying that years into the future, our children and our grandchildren are going to deal with the consequences of inaction, and they are going to look at something like this so-called debate--because I call it a sham debate--and they are going to be angry. The American people deserve a lot better than this kind of fake debate that is being held on the Senate floor right now. I want to make it clear: As the senior Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, I am very interested in working with my colleagues on real and bipartisan approaches to deal with this staggering challenge. That is not what we are having today, and our country is going to regret it. 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, I have come to the Senate floor this afternoon to talk about a young man named Enes Kanter, who plays basketball for my hometown Portland Trail Blazers. I wish I could be here to run through Saturday's box score or preview tonight's match up against the Clippers, but, unfortunately, Mr. Kanter is facing dangers that are far more serious than the outcome of any basketball game. His family is now facing those dangers as well. Mr. Kanter is from Turkey. His love of basketball brought him to the United States in 2009, and he was selected third overall in the 2011 NBA draft by the Utah Jazz. Enes is a bright, intelligent, and soft- spoken guy. He pays attention to what goes on back home in Turkey; he cares deeply about his country's future; and he rightfully believes that he ought to be able to express his opinion as he sees it on these important issues. For that, Turkey's President Erdogan has labeled Enes Kanter a terrorist. President Erdogan and his cronies are too thin-skinned to tolerate Enes Kanter's eloquence and inspirational dissent off the court. Erdogan revoked Mr. Kanter's passport based on accusations that lacked any real proof. President Erdogan has demanded that INTERPOL issue a red notice on Mr. Kanter, which means he has to stay in the United States whenever his team travels outside the country. It has kept Mr. Kanter from going to London and going to Toronto. As Mr. Kanter himself wrote in a recent Washington Post opinion article, ``I am definitely a target, and Erdogan wants me back in Turkey where he can silence me.'' Following strategies right out of ``The Dictator's Playbook,'' Erdogan has responded like a coward to Mr. Kanter's criticism and has tried to silence him by threatening his family--his family who still lives in Turkey. Mr. Kanter recently told reporters that his father would be going on trial this week, in just a few days, in Turkey. The details of that trial are shrouded in the fog of secrecy--where authoritarians thrive. Yet Mr. Kanter's powerful words cut cleanly through that fog just a few days ago. When asked what his father was on trial for, Enes said for ``just being my dad.'' Enes is a young man who has already sacrificed so much. As a teenager, he moved thousands of miles away from home to pursue his dream of playing in the NBA. For the crime of just voicing his opinions on the future of Turkey--a nation that is supposedly an American ally-- Enes was labeled a terrorist. Years ago, he cut off contact with his family because he believed Erdogan would punish them for speaking with someone who was critical of Erdogan's government. Now, without being able to contact them, Enes has to live in constant fear of what is going to happen to his loved ones back home. So, as I stand on the floor of the U.S. Senate, I want to make sure there isn't any confusion on two important topics. First, Mr. Erdogan, the world is watching how you treat Enes Kanter's father this week and in the weeks ahead. Mr. Erdogan, the world is watching how you treat Mr. Kanter both when he is on American soil and when Enes travels abroad. Second, the United States cannot and must not stand idly by while Enes and his family are subjected to this autocratic torment. I have called on Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to raise Mr. Kanter's case with his counterparts, and I have asked our Secretary of State to state clearly that our country will actively resist these contrived red notices or extradition requests. The fact is, our State Department should be taking all of the necessary steps to ensure that Mr. Kanter can travel safely with the Trail Blazers or to advocate for the freedom of his people. Enes Kanter is a young man--an American resident--who is exercising the right to free speech that is enshrined in our Constitution. The United States must not stay silent in the face of such a blatant attack on free thought and expression. In my view, this is not exactly an isolated issue. It is certainly not just a sports story. The situation ought to be examined in a broader context--a government that is taking a supposed NATO ally down an increasingly authoritarian road. When the Saudis brazenly killed Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi in a consulate in Turkey, Erdogan styled himself a fierce defender of journalists, but this is a classic situation of actions speaking louder than words, for Erdogan jails more journalists than do the Saudis. In fact, Erdogan jails more journalists than do the Russians, the Chinese, and more than any other authoritarian regime that is out there. Erdogan does not only target journalists or independent media outlets, all of whom knowingly, bravely risk such oppressive actions when they just want to report the truth; Erdogan has thrown peaceful demonstrators into jail as well. Just last Friday, he cracked down on people who were assembling peacefully in Istanbul for International Women's Day. It gets worse--worse because Erdogan is brazen enough to push his assaults on democratic norms right here on American soil. Less than 2 years ago, Erdogan gave the go-ahead for his security detail to brutally attack nonviolent demonstrators right here in the Nation's Capital. That assault, to emphasize the point, took place on American soil--right here, just a short walk from the White House. Americans ought to be outraged over this sort of behavior, especially from a supposed friend and ally like Turkey. It has not gone unnoticed that Erdogan recently doubled down on his decision to make a major military purchase from Vladimir Putin's Russia, and his use of fraudulent INTERPOL red notices is right out of Vladimir Putin's playbook. It is past time for the State Department to stand up to this behavior. The State Department needs to call this behavior out. It is not a far-off threat to other people the Federal Government can conveniently ignore. Erdogan's abuses are happening right here in our country, on American soil. People like Enes Kanter are the victims. As a younger man back in the day, I went to school on a basketball scholarship. I often tell people at my townhall meetings that I wanted to play in the NBA--a ridiculous idea because I was too small, but I made up for it by being quite slow. My abilities on the court were certainly light years removed from Enes Kanter's, but I can tell you, from playing in college, I certainly remember the value of a full-court press. I am firmly committed and will state once more that our State Department must put a full-court press on Turkey to treat Mr. Kanter-- and all of those who speak out against Erdogan's totalitarian regime-- with respect for their human rights and freedom of expression. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.