Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it is hard to find the words that will truly reflect what an abomination the campaign finance system in America has become. The fact is, the only people who seem happy with the current state of campaign finance are billionaires who have phones full of contact information of the most powerful people in the land. Otherwise, if you are a typical American--putting in a hard day's work, supporting your family--you probably have the sense the campaign finance laws are rigged for the big and the powerful. There was an era when running for office was as simple as putting your name out for the public, getting a few local civic groups in your corner, and bringing in a few modest donations to get your campaign off the ground. Certainly, it is not that way anymore. It has now been well chronicled how a wave of money--particularly from a few secretive powerful individuals like the Koch brothers--has flooded American politics in the last few decades. That has grown exponentially in the years since the Citizens United decision. The fact is, there has been a tidal wave of dark money buying influence across America's political system. This isn't just about too many political ads on television and radio. Voters know that unless they unplug entirely and settle for a life out in the woods, they are going to see a lot of ads. Even beyond ads in the election season, there is this deluge of money buying the support of beltway think tanks, currying favor among lobbyists, funding so- called social welfare organizations that, frankly, aren't doing a whole lot of social welfare. The bottom line is, for those like the Koch brothers, having deep pockets means you can buy the right to grab hold of the levers of power of the American Government. You can create a whole lot of noise that virtually drowns out the constituents back home. I am heading home tomorrow. I have about nine townhall meetings scheduled in rural communities. They are always amazed that we are having those kinds of discussions--my colleague Senator Merkley does them as well--because it seems that in most of the country, everything that resembles the government we know so well, direct contact, open to all town meetings, is getting drowned out by a deluge of dollars that creates all of this noise--fake noise, to use the language of the times--that drives out real discussion about substantive issues. I am going to talk about an example, one that has certainly generated some real concern over the last few months. If you want to see what is wrong with the election system, in my view, you don't have to look much further than some of the letters I have exchanged recently with the National Rifle Association. A few months ago, there were news reports of a potential financial relationship between a Russian oligarch close to Vladimir Putin and the NRA. The big question was whether the Russian money had been funneled into the NRA to assist the Trump campaign and influence the outcome of the election. In my view, I would say that is a question that most right-minded Americans would like to have answered. I am the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, where we have jurisdiction over the Federal Tax Code. That includes the rules that pertain to political groups and tax-exempt 501(c)(4) organizations like the ones that are maintained by the NRA. I began in a series of letters that were sent to the organization, sent to the NRA, to ask questions about their foreign funding. The series of shifting answers I got in return from the NRA was enough to give you whiplash. First, when we inquired--because we had seen all of these news reports--they said: ``Nothing to see here.'' Then, as we followed up and found that a little hard to square with these public news reports, they said: ``Well . . . we get foreign funding, but just from that ONE Russian, and that's it.'' Then, we heard another version of what was going on at the NRA. They said it was a couple of dozen Russians giving money to the NRA. We continued to follow up, and they told the press and they told me: Hey, we are done with the Congress. We are not interested in answering any more questions. We are busy. We have other things to do. That pretty much sums up the problem we have heard described on the floor this week with the campaign finance system. The information Americans have access to in campaign finance reports is just the tip of the iceberg, just the beginning of unpacking this whole question of where the money comes from in our political system. Everything under the waterline is where it gets seedy, but powerful interests have managed to figure out how to keep their handiwork hidden. The powerful use shell companies to mask the identities of who is funding campaigns and so-called independent expenditures. Even simple questions asked of these powerful groups influencing campaigns--questions like, ``Do you get money from overseas,'' the Congress and the American people cannot get a straight answer. There are Members who want to see real changes made to bring some sunlight into this system. They see how important this is, giving the onslaught of attacks on the campaign finance laws that are coming from the Supreme Court. These attacks are one major reason why I have cosponsored legislation to create a constitutional amendment allowing Congress and the States to regulate and restore faith in our campaign finance system. With respect to this approach, I didn't arrive at this judgment casually. Constitutional amendments, in my view, ought to be reserved for those situations when the delicate balance set up by the Founding Fathers has been upset or, in this case, jurisprudence that governs the system has also changed. That is the situation and the challenge our country faces today. I know several Members of this body have put policy ideas forward. Many of them, in my view, have real merit. Virtually all of them, in my view, would be an improvement on this rotten abomination of a campaign finance system that exists today. Virtually every day folks back home get inundated with the smarmy political ads sponsored by groups that have these names that are just nonsense--names like the ``American Association for American Values in America.'' There is one after another. I will hear about what citizens think about this during those nine townhall meetings that I am going to be having over the next few days at home. Citizens often say it is really good to have our elected officials do this. Sometimes they would kid me that we have more cows than we have voters. Still, we are here to have this conversation because that is what I think the American political system ought to be about--direct communication, an ongoing discussion with voters, our actually being there, having the people we have the honor to represent be able to look us in the eye, to ask questions, and say: We want to hear your thoughts because we believe that is how we can hold you accountable. The flip side of that judgment is that they don't think they can do it with the campaign finance system I have described today. All of this is fed by these reports about lawmakers who march up to Koch Industries in order to plead for support for one proposal or another. When people read these articles, they say that it sure feels like that is what the political system has become all about. It is why I have done even more open-to-all town meetings. It is one way that I can show, at least on our watch, that that is what we are doing to counter the fact that a handful of the most powerful, like the Koch family, can generate a disproportionally loud voice in our system of government. The fact is the campaign finance system is broken, and it is long past the time to have fixed it. I have appreciated my colleagues' coming to the floor this week to speak out on it. I believe, as has been written, that this series of letters that I have exchanged with the NRA, just over the last few months, is a textbook case of how broken the campaign finance system is--what happens when powerful organizations and individuals like the Koch family can have a disproportionally large voice in the political system. I think the Senate ought to get about the business of fixing this system and ending the current way in which political campaigns are financed, which, as I said when I began my remarks, is such an abomination that it doesn't pass the smell test. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I come to the floor this morning to oppose the nomination of Stuart Kyle Duncan to serve on the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. I accept that there are differences of opinion with respect to nominees, and I accept that I will not agree on every issue with every Trump nominee. I do expect that individuals who are up for lifetime judicial appointments have to demonstrate that, above all else, above everything else, they will be guardians of the constitutional rights of the American people. If you want to be a judge in America, my view is, you ought to have to show an independence of thought and a respect for the rule of law. I regret to say this morning, I believe this nominee has not met those important expectations. As I review Mr. Duncan's record, it seems to me he has made a career out of fighting to restrict the rights and legal protections of the vulnerable and those who are powerless. It ought to be an immediate red flag to see how often he has aligned himself with the wrong end of some of the most high-profile cases in the last few years. My view is that his record on civil rights alone ought to be disqualifying. Twice he has represented States--North Carolina and Texas--in their defense of voter suppression laws that were written and passed based on false claims of voter fraud. Both of those laws, in my view, were a sort of Frankenstein monster of past proposals that would have made it harder for African Americans and Latino citizens to vote. You don't have to take my word for it; both of those cases were thrown out by the courts. Fortunately, neither time was Mr. Duncan successful on appeal. In another case, he argued before the Supreme Court that a wrongful conviction verdict ought to be thrown out. An African-American man named John Thompson spent 14 years on death row after prosecutors in New Orleans concealed evidence that would have proven his innocence. After his exoneration, this individual won a $14 million wrongful conviction suit. Mr. Duncan, on the other hand, led the effort to have it overturned. An innocent man's life was ruined, and Mr. Duncan saw to it that he had no recompense. He has clearly been a staunch opponent of women's reproductive rights and healthcare. He was counsel of record representing Hobby Lobby in its case against the Department of Health and Human Services in 2014. In that case, Hobby Lobby sought to throw out the legal requirement that women have no-cost access to contraception through their health insurance coverage. Mr. Duncan argued that the government has no compelling interest in guaranteeing access to contraception. To hold that view, you have to basically throw in the trash can the science showing that contraception results in lower rates of cancer and healthier pregnancies when women choose to conceive. You also have to be willing to turn a blind eye to the matter of economic fairness--that women, particularly those who are vulnerable, those of modest means, should not be taxed for their gender. Mr. Duncan went on to author a special legal brief in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, arguing that the Supreme Court should have ignored medical evidence and allowed the State of Texas to shutter women's health clinics on trumped-up grounds. I also think that as the Senate considers this nominee, we should look at his record on LGBTQ Americans. In 2015, when he was in private practice, this nominee served as special assistant attorney general for Louisiana. There, he authored an amicus brief on behalf of 15 States, urging the Supreme Court to reject the right to same-sex marriages nationwide. He wrote that recognizing such a right would endanger the ``civil peace.'' It is a head- scratcher to me how he could reach that conclusion. Whatever damage has been done to the civil peace in the last 3 years certainly has had nothing to do with same-sex marriage. When I came to the Senate, I believe I was the first Member of this body who came out for marriage equality. Back then, I said: This is pretty simple, folks--if you don't like gay marriage, don't get one. Regrettably, this nominee not only doesn't share that view, but he wrote that recognizing the right to marriage equality would, in his view, endanger the civil peace. He represented Gloucester County, VA, in an effort to deny a transgender student's right to use the bathroom aligned with the gender identity. He also represented rightwing lawmakers in North Carolina, defending broadly discriminatory legislation that became known as the bathroom bill. The list of concerning episodes and disqualifying work in Mr. Duncan's career does take a fair amount of time to actually walk through. What I will just tell you is that when I look at Mr. Duncan's background, what I see is a long record of hostility toward the rights of women and minority Americans. He has consistently defended powerful special interests over the rights of those who don't have political action committees, aren't powerful, and don't have high-priced lobbyists. As Senators consider how to vote on this nomination, I find it hard to believe that this track record of bias that I have outlined this afternoon will suddenly vanish, will just disappear on confirmation. In my judgment, this is an individual who should not serve on the bench. I urge my colleagues to vote no. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I am putting a hold on the nomination of Mr. Jason Klitenic to be General Counsel of the Office of Director of National Intelligence. I intend to maintain the hold until there is a satisfactory response to the March 6, 2018, letter Senator Grassley and I sent the Director of National Intelligence regarding the Intelligence Community Office of Inspector General, OIG, and the termination of its Executive Director of Intelligence Community Whistleblowing and Source Protection. To date, we have received no response to the letter, nor have we been provided the documents related to the Executive Director's termination requested in the letter. My hold is not connected to the qualifications of Mr. Klitenic to serve in the position to which he has been nominated, and it is my intention to release the hold once my concerns related to the OIG are resolved. I ask unanimous consent to have the March 6, 2018, letter printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the majority leader said that this is a promising day, and I would just say that I think it is more than that. It is really a milestone to have the majority leader of the Senate working with a bipartisan group of us to lift a restriction that is anti-farmer, certainly anti-consumer, and anti-common sense. This industrial hemp restriction really, in my view, is working in needless hardships from sea to shining sea. I am going to take a minute to build on some of the majority leader's remarks. Colleagues may have heard me say that, for me, this issue goes back several years. My wife was pregnant, and she and I headed from our house in Southeast Portland, and we went off to the nearby Costco store. We were walking through the aisles, and we came across a huge bag of hemp hearts. It said: Great fiber. Terrific source of protein. A variety of different attributes were spelled out on this package. Good for your heart, and good for your blood pressure. I looked at the package, and the package clearly indicated that it had been grown outside the United States. So I said to my wife, who is a businesswoman and savvy about such matters: What would be wrong with saying that if you can buy it in a major supermarket in America, our farmers ought to be able to grow it in America? She said: Well, dear, that just sounds way too logical for what goes on in your world. I think what the leader has said--and I just want to back this up with a little more detail--is that the current policy is somehow based on the idea that hemp is a dangerous drug, meaning that if you look at the way some people have attacked this idea in the past, that was always the heart of it, that hemp was a dangerous drug. Hemp does not produce the high associated with marijuana. The only thing you are going to accomplish by smoking hemp is wasting your breath, wasting your time, and wasting lighter fluid. That is pretty much what you would accomplish. This misguided policy of treating hemp like it is some kind of peril, an imminent threat to the American people, is, I think, a mistake, and it means that the hemp products that are lined up on shelves all across America simply aren't going to be fully American-made. Senator McConnell and Senator Paul have heard that from farmers in Kentucky, and Senator Merkley and I have heard that from farmers in Oregon. That is why it is so important that we move to a system that is built on common sense, something that will be good for farmers, and something that will be good for consumers and certainly offer additional consumer choice. If I might build on the now sort of memorialized words of Nancy Wyden, because when we talked about, hey, if you can buy it in a market in Oregon, the farmers ought to be able to grow it--I think that is a pretty good watchword for this bipartisan bill we are undertaking. I look forward to working closely with you, Mr. Leader. We are obviously going to be working with Chairman Roberts and Senator Stabenow, the ranking Democratic leader. This is long, long overdue. As you noted, we have bipartisan supporters, and we are going to pull out all the stops to get this legislation passed. I think I mentioned to the majority leader that those who have been involved in this effort--and it has been a really impressive coalition of farmers, health advocates, and others--are watching the Senate this morning. They are saying that the Senate has finally come to understand what is relevant for this century. The policies that have been so flawed in the past are sort of outdated relics of yesteryear, and I am pleased that Senator Merkley and I can join you and Senator Paul. We will have colleagues on both sides involved in this legislation. It is long overdue. I thank the leader. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, every day, Social Security provides vital benefits to millions of Americans who worked and paid into the system, and I cannot overstate the important anti-poverty role that the program plays. Supplemental Security Income or SSI is the safety net of last resort for individuals who have not worked enough to qualify for Social Security. Even with these critical income support programs, more and more seniors and people with disabilities find themselves struggling to keep up with the costs of the things they need just to get by. Although Social Security and SSI automatically increase each year when there is an increase in the cost of living, over time those increases do not allow beneficiaries to maintain their standard of living. Because Social Security provides an increasingly larger share of the elderly's income as they age, even a slight decrease in value of these lifeline benefits can lead to poverty and hardship. Too many seniors are walking on an economic tightrope, balancing their food bill against their rent against their utility bill. It's time to update Social Security's guarantee of a secure retirement, and this bill is a landmark step towards accomplishing that goal. I'm particularly hopeful about the benefits this bill will have for older American women, who live longer and often have less retirement savings. To help combat the risk of poverty among the most vulnerable receiving Social Security and SSI, I, along with Senators Brown and Casey, are introducing the Elder Poverty Relief Act. This bill creates a monthly Poverty Relief Benefit for almost everyone over age 82, individuals who have been relying on Social Security or SSI for a long time, or who have worked in low-paying jobs and receive a very small Social Security benefit. The Poverty Relief benefit will also go to seniors who receive only SSI. If enacted, in 2019, the Poverty Relief Benefit would provide an additional $85 a month to almost 14 million people. The Poverty Relief Benefit will grow by roughly 4 percent each year. SSA estimates that the enactment of the Poverty Relief Benefit would reduce poverty among seniors who received the benefit by almost 25 percent in 2030 which would lift 420,000 seniors out of poverty. Notably, the enactment of the Poverty Relief Benefit would not accelerate the depletion year of the Social Security trust funds. The bill has been endorsed by the Gray Panthers, Justice in Aging, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, Social Security Works, and the Strengthen Social Security Coalition. For most seniors, Social Security is the only income they will receive that's guaranteed to last as long as they live. But despite these important benefits, poverty among seniors grows--with some studies showing the poverty rate among the very old is between 12 and 19 percent. We simply must do more to protect the financial stability of our elderly friends, neighbors, and relatives and enactment of the Poverty Relief Benefit would help reduce poverty among America's seniors. These are workers who sent a chunk of every paycheck to the Federal government with the understanding that they'd be getting it back in their later year when they needed it most. We must do right by them. Mr. President: I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare be inserted into the Record following my remarks about the Elderly Poverty Act. National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, Washington, DC, March 16, 2018. Hon. Ron Wyden, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Wyden: On behalf of the millions of members and supporters of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, I write to endorse your bill, the ``Elder Poverty Relief Act.'' We applaud your leadership in developing new and innovative approaches for alleviating poverty among America's seniors. The ``Elder Poverty Relief Act'' addresses the long- standing problem of seniors falling into poverty after being on the Social Security rolls for many years. This occurs when inflation, only partially offset by annual cost-of-living adjustments, gradually erodes the purchasing power of a Social Security benefit for beneficiaries who have participated in the program for several years. The ``Elder Poverty Relief Act'' will help alleviate poverty among the elderly and the disabled by granting each beneficiary a monthly increase in their benefit equal to about $85. This bump-up will increase for future beneficiaries in tandem with growth in wages in the economy. Benefits under the ``Elder Poverty Relief Act'' will be paid to: Social Security beneficiaries beginning at age 82 (or older) and to Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients when they reach their full retirement age (currently 66, increasing gradually to age 67); Social Security and SSI beneficiaries who have received benefits for 20 years; and to Social Security beneficiaries with low monthly benefits (currently about $944) when they reach their full retirement age. The ``Elder Poverty Relief Act'' embodies legislation that the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare has supported for a number of years. In testimony given before the Senate Finance Committee at a hearing on December 9, 2014, Catherine Dodd, who is the chair of the National Committee's board of directors, recommended increasing benefits for seniors who have received Social Security for many years. For these reasons, the National Committee endorses your bill, the ``Elder Poverty Relief Act.'' We thank you for your leadership on this matter and look forward to working with you to enact this important improvement to Social Security. Sincerely, Max Richtman, President and CEO.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, every day, Social Security provides vital benefits to millions of Americans who worked and paid into the system, and I cannot overstate the important anti-poverty role that the program plays. Supplemental Security Income or SSI is the safety net of last resort for individuals who have not worked enough to qualify for Social Security. Even with these critical income support programs, more and more seniors and people with disabilities find themselves struggling to keep up with the costs of the things they need just to get by. Although Social Security and SSI automatically increase each year when there is an increase in the cost of living, over time those increases do not allow beneficiaries to maintain their standard of living. Because Social Security provides an increasingly larger share of the elderly's income as they age, even a slight decrease in value of these lifeline benefits can lead to poverty and hardship. Too many seniors are walking on an economic tightrope, balancing their food bill against their rent against their utility bill. It's time to update Social Security's guarantee of a secure retirement, and this bill is a landmark step towards accomplishing that goal. I'm particularly hopeful about the benefits this bill will have for older American women, who live longer and often have less retirement savings. To help combat the risk of poverty among the most vulnerable receiving Social Security and SSI, I, along with Senators Brown and Casey, are introducing the Elder Poverty Relief Act. This bill creates a monthly Poverty Relief Benefit for almost everyone over age 82, individuals who have been relying on Social Security or SSI for a long time, or who have worked in low-paying jobs and receive a very small Social Security benefit. The Poverty Relief benefit will also go to seniors who receive only SSI. If enacted, in 2019, the Poverty Relief Benefit would provide an additional $85 a month to almost 14 million people. The Poverty Relief Benefit will grow by roughly 4 percent each year. SSA estimates that the enactment of the Poverty Relief Benefit would reduce poverty among seniors who received the benefit by almost 25 percent in 2030 which would lift 420,000 seniors out of poverty. Notably, the enactment of the Poverty Relief Benefit would not accelerate the depletion year of the Social Security trust funds. The bill has been endorsed by the Gray Panthers, Justice in Aging, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, Social Security Works, and the Strengthen Social Security Coalition. For most seniors, Social Security is the only income they will receive that's guaranteed to last as long as they live. But despite these important benefits, poverty among seniors grows--with some studies showing the poverty rate among the very old is between 12 and 19 percent. We simply must do more to protect the financial stability of our elderly friends, neighbors, and relatives and enactment of the Poverty Relief Benefit would help reduce poverty among America's seniors. These are workers who sent a chunk of every paycheck to the Federal government with the understanding that they'd be getting it back in their later year when they needed it most. We must do right by them. Mr. President: I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare be inserted into the Record following my remarks about the Elderly Poverty Act. National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, Washington, DC, March 16, 2018. Hon. Ron Wyden, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Wyden: On behalf of the millions of members and supporters of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, I write to endorse your bill, the ``Elder Poverty Relief Act.'' We applaud your leadership in developing new and innovative approaches for alleviating poverty among America's seniors. The ``Elder Poverty Relief Act'' addresses the long- standing problem of seniors falling into poverty after being on the Social Security rolls for many years. This occurs when inflation, only partially offset by annual cost-of-living adjustments, gradually erodes the purchasing power of a Social Security benefit for beneficiaries who have participated in the program for several years. The ``Elder Poverty Relief Act'' will help alleviate poverty among the elderly and the disabled by granting each beneficiary a monthly increase in their benefit equal to about $85. This bump-up will increase for future beneficiaries in tandem with growth in wages in the economy. Benefits under the ``Elder Poverty Relief Act'' will be paid to: Social Security beneficiaries beginning at age 82 (or older) and to Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients when they reach their full retirement age (currently 66, increasing gradually to age 67); Social Security and SSI beneficiaries who have received benefits for 20 years; and to Social Security beneficiaries with low monthly benefits (currently about $944) when they reach their full retirement age. The ``Elder Poverty Relief Act'' embodies legislation that the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare has supported for a number of years. In testimony given before the Senate Finance Committee at a hearing on December 9, 2014, Catherine Dodd, who is the chair of the National Committee's board of directors, recommended increasing benefits for seniors who have received Social Security for many years. For these reasons, the National Committee endorses your bill, the ``Elder Poverty Relief Act.'' We thank you for your leadership on this matter and look forward to working with you to enact this important improvement to Social Security. Sincerely, Max Richtman, President and CEO.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am putting a hold on the Fiscal Year 2018 Intelligence Authorization Act, as currently drafted, for two reasons. The bill marked up by the Senate Intelligence Committee included three amendments I offered, one of which required that the Director of National Intelligence, working with the Department of the Treasury, produce a report on the threat to the United States from Russian money laundering. My first objection to the current version of the bill is based on a change to that provision which downgrades responsibility for the report and removes the Department of the Treasury. The critical importance of this issue to our national security requires the highest level responsibility within the intelligence community. It also requires the direct involvement of the Department of the Treasury to ensure that all the Department's financial intelligence resources, including those that fall outside the intelligence community, are brought to bear. My second objection, as I explained in my minority views to the bill in committee, is that it includes a provision stating that it is the sense of Congress ``that WikiLeaks and the senior leadership of WikiLeaks resemble a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors and should be treated as such a service by the United States.''' My concern with this language does not relate to the actions of WikiLeaks, which, as I have stressed in the past, was part of a direct attack on our democracy. My concern is that the use of the novel phrase ``non-state hostile intelligence service''' may have legal, constitutional, and policy implications, particularly should it be applied to journalists inquiring about secrets. The language in the bill suggesting that the U.S. Government has some unstated course of action against ``non-state hostile intelligence services''' is equally troubling. The damage done by WikiLeaks to the United States is clear, but with any new challenge to our country, Congress ought not react in a manner that could have negative consequences, unforeseen or not, for our constitutional principles. The introduction of vague, undefined new categories of enemies constitutes such an ill-considered reaction.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 4547, the Strengthening Protections for Social Security Beneficiaries Act of 2018, a bipartisan bill developed by House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Sam Johnson and Ranking Member John Larson. This bill updates the representative payee program by strengthening oversight and beneficiary protections, while improving payee selection and quality. As a true testament to Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member Larson's bipartisan work, the bill passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate unanimously just before Congress adjourned in March. Social Security's Representative Payment program provides financial management for the Social Security and Supplemental Security Income, SSI, payments of beneficiaries who are incapable of managing their Social Security or SSI payment. Today almost 6 million representative payees manage benefits on behalf of about 8 million Social Security beneficiaries and SSI recipients. Most often, the representative payee is a family member, like a spouse or a parent. When friends or family are not available to serve as payees, Social Security can use qualified organizations to be representative payees. Most payees perform their duties responsibly and with care. Some do not, and stakeholders in this process have raised concerns. The Social Security Advisory Board, the National Academy of Sciences, the Government Accountability Office, and Social Security's inspector general have uncovered problems with current policy and ideas for improvement. It has been almost 15 years since the last significant change to the law in this area, and this bill makes several needed policy changes and common sense improvements. The bill strengthens oversight of representative payees by requiring additional types of reviews of payee performance and draws on the expertise of the protection and advocacy system of each state to conduct the reviews. The bill reduces the burden on families by eliminating the requirement to file the annual accounting form for representative payees who are parents or spouses and are living with the beneficiary. The bill requires data exchanges between SSA and State foster care agencies to identify when there is a change in status of a beneficiary in foster care and reassess whether the payee is appropriate. The bill allows new beneficiaries to make an advance payee designation. Finally, the bill codifies current policy that bars felons from serving as a payee and requires SSA to recheck all existing payees. In 2016, my office was contacted by Lexie Gruber, a former foster youth from Connecticut. Lexie's story brought a human face to this issue and showed where the system had gone wrong. This young woman had recently aged out of foster care, graduated college at the top of her class, and moved to Washington, DC, for a new job, a success story that is unfortunately all too rare for children who have grown up in foster care. Lexie was working hard, but still struggled to afford living expenses in an expensive city while trying to work hard to save for law school. That was before the IRS notified her that the value of outstanding SSI overpayments were going to be withheld from her tax returns. This was outstanding debt she didn't know she had for benefits she never even got. To me, this is the definition of unjust. She had to contact Congress for help and since then has worked tirelessly to help ensure that other former foster youth aren't forced through her experience. This bill fixes this flaw in the system to ensure that youth aging out of care, struggling to make it on their own, aren't held liable for the mistakes of or misinformation from foster care agencies. I thank Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Larson, and their staff for putting together this bipartisan bill. It is another example of what can be accomplished when working together.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks on the legislation before us, I wish to compliment our new colleague, Senator Jones, on a superb maiden speech. I thought he was so gracious when he remembered Senator Heflin. I served with Senator Heflin, and I think Senator Jones is going to be very much in that tradition. I want to take a quick minute and commend our new colleague for launching his time in the Senate in an extraordinary way. Amendments Nos. 2212 and 2213 Mr. President, I call up amendments Nos. 2212 and 2213, as provided for under the previous order, and I ask unanimous consent that they be reported by number.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my hour begin now for speaking on this subject. We are a bit behind, but not much. I ask unanimous consent that the hour that has been assigned to me begin at this time.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I stand on the Senate floor today in firm agreement with my colleagues that the Congress must do more to combat the scourge of sex trafficking. It is a profound and tragic failure of American institutions that trafficking continues to plague our country and, in fact, has actually increased. Federal law enforcement has failed to root out and prosecute the traffickers, even when they have been operating in plain sight. So, too, have the big internet companies failed when it comes to sex traffickers who operate on their platforms. I fear that the legislation before the Senate now is going to be another failure. I fear that it is going to do more to take down ads than to take down traffickers. I that fear it will send these monsters, these evil people who traffic beyond the grasp of law enforcement to the shadowy corners of the dark web, a place where every day search engines don't go, and it is going to be even easier for criminals-- these vicious traffickers--to find a safe haven for their extraordinarily evil acts. In many respects, this debate mirrors one the Congress went through a little bit more than 20 years ago. Back then, I think it would be fair to say that not many Senators knew much about the internet. In 1995, this body had a laudable goal. The Senate said it wanted to protect kids from accessing pornography online, but the result of those good intentions was, unfortunately, a bad policy--a policy called the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Behind that policy was a fundamental misunderstanding of both the architecture of the internet and the modern application of the First Amendment. The law didn't just go after those targeting pornography to minors. It took speech that was legal in the real world and made it illegal online. And it produced a paradise for the legal trickster, creating new ways to sue over speech and adversely affecting scores of Americans, medical providers, artists, writers of literature, and more. As should happen with poorly written policy, all but one part of the Communications Decency Act was struck down by the Supreme Court. The one piece of the law left standing was section 230, which I coauthored with former Congressman Chris Cox. What section 230 was all about was laying out the legal rules of the road for the web. There were innovative new businesses sprouting up all over and novel forms of communication and media connecting and informing people in new ways. But it seemed clear that a quick way to strangle this promising set of developments in their infancy was for these new companies to be held legally liable for every piece of content that users posted on their platforms. When section 230 was written, nobody could have foreseen all of the effects. Here is what we did know back then. First, we wanted small businesses to start out focusing on hiring engineers, developers, and designers rather than worrying about how they had to hire a team of lawyers. Second, we wanted to make sure that internet companies could moderate their websites without getting clobbered by lawsuits. I think Democrats and Republicans would agree that this is a better scenario than the alternative, which means websites hiding their heads in the sand out of fear that they would be weighed down with liability. Third, we wanted to guarantee that bad actors would still be subject to all of the Federal laws. Whether the criminals were operating on a street corner or online wasn't going to make a difference, and we were determined to state that explicitly. Fourth, we wanted to protect the internet from the whims of State and local legislators. This body has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. I would ask any of my colleagues to offer an example of how something could be more interstate than the internet. It may not satisfy some publicity-seeking local official when we talk about the Federal Government's role here, but there is no question that the role of the Congress, in its leading on something that is clearly interstate in nature, is in the best interest of the American people. For the most part, the framework worked better than I ever imagined it would. As a result of section 230, the small, gutsy entrepreneur-- say an entrepreneur in North Carolina--who has a big dream of working out of his garage has a real shot at succeeding. Marginalized groups of vulnerable Americans have a better opportunity than ever to make their voices heard because of section 230, and small nonprofits have the ability to take their causes nationwide. One scholar, David Post, even wrote that the 230 law created $1 trillion worth of economic value in the private economy. He said: ``It is impossible to imagine what the Internet ecosystem would look like today without it.'' My wife saw that article, looked at me and said: Well, dear, even a blind squirrel occasionally finds an acorn. Setting aside spousal kidding, to illustrate why the protection that comes from section 230 is so important, I turn next to what things would be like without it. Imagine if you are starting a forum site that is dedicated to discussing knitting. If ever there were a topic that sounded drama free, that would be it. Yet suppose somebody goes on the site and shares a pattern he didn't have the right to share. Suddenly, your website is facing a copyright infringement lawsuit. Maybe the controversy--knitting versus crocheting--gets overheated, and the users start trading barbs. Suddenly, you have people slinging defamation suits at your itty-bitty forum host. Then somebody is injured by an automatic needle threader he reads about in a comment thread. Suddenly, you are a codefendant in a liability suit--all because you didn't have the protection of section 230. Imagine how hard it would be to launch a platform that would be open to the discussion of any topic when even the simplest, most narrowly focused website on the internet can become a magnet for lawsuits. There are not enough lawyers in the world to handle all of that litigation, and my sense is we will have a lot of constituents who will say: Thank God. In the absence of section 230, the internet as we know it would shrivel. Only the platforms that are run by those with deep pockets and an even deeper bench of lawyers would be able to make it. Moreover, section 230 is not just about hobbies and commerce. It protects the coordination of free speech, particularly among vulnerable groups of Americans. That is the reason organizations like the libertarian Cato Institute, the progressive Human Rights Campaign, and the ACLU have voiced serious concerns about the legislation before the Senate. You sure don't see those three groups lined up side by side very often, but they are here now. It is because, without the protections of section 230, civic organizations that exercise their right to free speech could be cowed by their more powerful political opponents. For this example, imagine that a nonprofit organizes a campaign in support of a local ballot measure. It uses social media to build awareness and promote upcoming rallies and events with online discussion boards. Yet, without section 230, powerful interests that are opposed to its work can just swoop in and effectively silence that nonprofit with an onslaught of litigation. Hostile individuals could pose as supporters and make comments on the nonprofit's website that would expose the group to liability suits. I think it is pretty obvious that there would be an enormous, chilling effect on speech in America. I ask unanimous consent that the statements from the Cato Institute and the ACLU that are in opposition to the legislation now before the Senate be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the fact is that section 230 was never about protecting the incumbents. I have spent my time in public service taking on a wide array of powerful, established interests. When I wrote this policy, I never envisioned a Facebook, but I did hope it would give the little guy and his startup a chance to grow into something big. The bottom line--the central point here--is that it worked. Despite the fact that section 230 undergirds the framework of the internet as we know it today, there is a significant effort underway to try to take it down, to collapse it. That is, largely, because the big internet companies--the biggest ones--have utterly failed to live up to the responsibility they were handed two decades ago. I am going to explain exactly what I mean. For these big companies, section 230 is both a sword and a shield. It offers protection from liability, but it also gives companies the authority and, more importantly, the responsibility to foster the sort of internet Americans want to be proud of. In years of hiding behind their shields, these big technology companies have left their swords to rust. Too many companies have become bloated and uninterested in the larger good, and when they have taken positive steps, as Wikimedia has, for example, their practices haven't been adopted by their peers. I will describe one case study that was reported last week by the tech news website Motherboard. In 2012, the website Reddit, on which individuals form communities where they share and discuss content, cracked down on users who posted nonconsensual photos of women. These have come to be known as ``creepshots.'' The website Tumblr did not sufficiently police the same inappropriate content, so these reprehensible communities simply relocated from Reddit to Tumblr, and this creepshot problem lived on. That is how easy it is for the creators of vile content to move from one platform to another. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously observed that he couldn't define hardcore pornography, but he knew it when he saw it. Congressman Cox and I may not have known exactly what content we intended for sites to be able to take down when we wrote section 230, but I sure know it when I see it. Far too often, the big internet companies refuse to know it even when they see it. A huge amount of that which populates social media networks each day is every bit as destructive and socially corrosive, if not more so, than the pornography at issue in that famed Supreme Court case. It is the creepshots, the sex trafficking ads, the conspiracy videos about school shootings, and anti-vax nonsense--nonsense that endangers the public health and more. The tech giants state that no one could track the millions of posts or videos or tweets that cross their services every hour. Nobody is asking them to do that--nobody. Section 230 means they are not required to fact-check or scrub every single post or tweet or video, but there have been far too many alarming examples of algorithms that drive vile, hateful, or conspiratorial content to the top of the sites that millions of people click on every day. Companies seem to aid in the spread of this content as a direct function of their business models. It is perfectly reasonable to expect some greater responsibility from these giant, multibillion-dollar corporations that were able to thrive as a result of protection that they were guaranteed by law. That was the idea behind section 230. That doesn't carry any obligation to suppress free speech, but it is definitely about being a responsible citizen, a responsible member of the community. Sites like Facebook, YouTube, and Tumblr constitute the entire internet for millions of users who click through the same group of sites every single day. They have an undeniable role to play in fostering a civil environment. Their failure to do so could very well mean that the internet looks very different 10 years from now, not just for those who spread hateful and conspiracy-driven filth, but for the millions of decent people who use the internet to learn, to find entertainment, and to keep in touch with loved ones. There was a time when the biggest internet companies had mottos like ``Don't be evil.'' Perhaps it is time for them to aspire to a more modest motto: ``Don't spread evil.'' With all of that said and done, it is not just the internet companies that fail to properly respond to the challenges of our times. When it comes to sex trafficking, which is the underlying issue the Senate is working on today, our country has failed the victims at almost every level. (Mr. COTTON assumed the Chair.) For example, the Justice Department could have and absolutely should have investigated the website backpage years ago for its role in promoting sex trafficking; but the fact is, the Federal Government fell down on the job. Backpage's activities were no secret. In the absence of action by the Department of Justice, a Senate subcommittee, led by our colleagues Senators Portman and McCaskill, conducted their own investigation and subpoenaed key documents. Among those documents were emails that appeared to show that backpage was actively working with sex traffickers to create advertisements. That meant backpage was not due protection under section 230. In fact, a lawsuit in Boston was given the go-ahead based on that precise finding. It has been widely reported that the Justice Department now has its own investigation underway, although it is coming years and years too late. This should have happened eons ago. This is only one example of where the government's efforts have fallen short. Now, following what I have described, the twin failures of the big technology companies and Federal law enforcement, this body is responding to a very serious moral challenge with flawed policy changes. In my view, the legislation before the Senate will prove to be ineffective, it will have harmful, unintended consequences, and it could be ruled unconstitutional. I take a backseat to no one when it comes to policies that fight sex traffickers, bring them to justice, and help the victims of their hideous crimes. I have used my position on the Senate Finance Committee to be one of the authors of laws that support victims and provide ongoing funding paid for by those convicted of crimes against children. I have worked with our colleagues, Senator Cornyn, Senator Portman, Senator Klobuchar, to write laws to improve the child welfare system to help prevent kids from becoming victims in the first place. I put my record up against any Member of this Congress when it comes to passing laws that while definitely not going far enough, begin the effort to provide the tools to fight this scourge, but the bill before us today is not going to stop sex trafficking. It is not going to prevent young people from becoming victims, and I am going to describe why that is the case. First, as I mentioned earlier, the Department of Justice takes the view that an important provision in the bill is unconstitutional. In my judgment, that is another issue that Congress ought to address before sending a bill to the President's desk, but instead it looks like everybody will drive it through as is. Second--and this is an astounding development--the legislation before the Senate is going to make it harder, not easier, to root out and prosecute sex traffickers. Let me read what the Department of Justice has said recently that proves that this bill is going to make it harder to root out and prosecute sex traffickers. The Department of Justice recently said this legislation would ``effectively create additional elements that prosecutors must prove at trial.'' Colleagues, I will just state we are heading in the wrong direction if we have legislation that would raise the burden of proof in cases against sex traffickers. Imagine that, with nationwide concerns about the evils of sex trafficking, the Department of Justice has said this bill would actually raise the burden of proof in cases against sex traffickers. The Department of Justice wrote a letter to Chairman Goodlatte of the House Judiciary Committee that lays out the concerns I have just described. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Justice Department letter.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, that is not the only problem when it comes to enforcing this law. The bill before the Senate is focused on taking down online advertisements, not on catching criminals or protecting victims. Taking down the ads doesn't mean the pimps and predators will stop and say: Oh, good; we see what the Senate is doing. We are now going to start following the rules. When the ads come down, colleagues, the criminals will go as fast as they can to the darkest corners of our society. Instead of stopping trafficking, the bill is going to push it to the dark web, the dark alleys, and overseas. You can't get to the dark web with traditional search engines. Career Federal law enforcement officers, the expert investigators, are the people who know how to root out the traffickers under these circumstances. They have expertise that State and local law enforcers don't have. So my view is, by handing new authorities to local officials, the bill moves in the wrong direction. In my view, the right approach is to make sure career, expert Federal law enforcement officers and investigators have the resources they need to get the job done. One of the amendments I will be offering today provides $20 million a year for 5 years to the Attorney General to spend in coordination with the FBI and Homeland Security to investigate and prosecute those who criminally facilitate sex trafficking. The bottom line, if Senators want law enforcement to do a better job of stopping those like backpage, my amendment gives the right people the resources they need to bring these monsters to justice. I heard my colleague from Alaska, Senator Sullivan, a good friend, talk at some length about how important it was to have resources to fight the scourge of these traffickers who get more and more sophisticated. They are people who are very clever about staying out in front of the law. When they are on the dark web, it is going to take resources to fight them and put them behind bars. So our colleague from Alaska, Senator Sullivan, sure ought to be for this amendment because this amendment offers real money right now to prosecute these monsters and get them behind bars. Finally, the bill before the Senate punches a hole in the legal framework of the open internet. I don't every single day quote the editors of the ``Wall Street Journal,'' but I have always had a motto that I will shout out anybody when they are right. The Journal recently summed up the impact of the bill. They said this is definitely going to be an online ``lawsuit bonanza.'' They predict any website that ``should have known'' criminal activity took place on its platform will be a target for lawsuits. Any message board or chat room where users interact with each other can become a new target for litigation. Without specific protections for companies that make good-faith efforts to find and stop criminal behavior on their platforms, this legislation could actually punish companies that try to moderate their users' posts but let something slip through. Just by looking for illegal material, a website could be setting the table to be sued over anything they didn't find. The second amendment I will be offering would clarify this issue. It is what is known as the Good Samaritan clause, and we felt strongly about it several decades ago. The companies decide, as a result of a poorly written bill, that their only option is to put their blinders on and ignore vile, illicit content. That is bad for everybody except for the criminals. So I want to eliminate that uncertainty, and I want particularly these small startup companies that are so important for our future to know, without a doubt, that they have the right to moderate the content users post. So, in technical language, what this amendment says is, neither the presence nor the absence of an attempt to moderate content online can, by itself, trigger liability. The Journal raised more than the Good Samaritan issue. Just as bad, by passing this exception to section 230, courts might make it harder to prosecute websites for other crimes. Here is what the Wall Street Journal editor said: ``If Congress provides a carve-out for sex trafficking, courts might conclude that Section 230 was intended to be applied narrowly for other crimes and make it harder to prosecute websites [that are] complicit.'' I do fear this bill is going to set off a chain reaction that leads the Congress to cut away more categories of behavior from section 230, dismantle the legal framework that has given the United States the position as a tech economy superpower. This position did not happen by osmosis. It happened because 20 years ago there was an effort to try to lay out a sensible legal foundation, a sensible legal basis for the internet, and that is what is under attack today. If this legislation that chips away at section 230 is a bad idea for the internet, if you are following this debate, you probably want to know why the biggest internet companies are big cheerleaders for it-- the big companies like Facebook. It is because it will pull up the ladder in the tech world, leaving the established giants alone at the top. As I said, section 230, from the beginning, was all about giving the little guy the best possible chance to succeed. That is what this has always been about. The big guys can take care of themselves. We want to have a policy that encourages innovation for the startups. That has been a bedrock of my time in public service. Chipping away at the law that is going to curtail the culture of innovation and bare-knuckled competition that has been the defining characteristic of the internet for more than two decades doesn't make any sense to me. The companies that have reached the top of the internet's economy are kind of worried about whether they are going to be able to keep their place at that altitude. Regulators once feared that Microsoft would dominate the way Americans interacted with the internet, but then a little company called Google appeared on the scene. Facebook, a half- trillion-dollar company got out of its infancy by displacing a competitor called MySpace. I think colleagues ought to know that these established companies would do just about anything to avoid being displaced themselves. Facebook is trying to make clear that they will do just about anything not to become another MySpace. Today, Facebook is under attack for allowing the Russians to interfere with our elections. They are under attack for giving hate groups a platform to spread their bile. They are under attack for giving conspiracy theorists, through their algorithms, a platform to lure in the unsuspecting. They are under attack for collecting, monetizing, and storing far more personal information than their users ever suspected. It is a great tool for connecting with family and friends, but it is also something a small team of well-caffeinated coders could duplicate and improve upon in terms of its functionality without a lot of difficulty and without some of the baggage Facebook has picked up over the last 6 months. So how do they stay on top? One way is to acquire the competition. Young people always tell me that nobody under 30 uses Facebook. The new generation certainly uses Instagram, so they might not even know that it is part of the same megacompany bought out by Facebook. But you can't buy everybody, so then you go to the oldest trick in the book-- make it harder for new companies to get in the game. You don't have to compete if there is no competition, and that is where this legislation comes in. If internet startups are no longer protected by section 230 and they are exposed to the threat of near constant litigation, it is going to be a lot tougher for them to secure injections of funding and grow. Fewer venture capital firms will be willing to risk their deep pockets if their early-round investments are swallowed up by legal fees instead of paying for coders. But in the eyes of the giant, established corporations, a world without section 230 isn't seen as much of a threat. The $50 million a year in liability statements for these big companies is a drop in the bucket for them. It is the cost of doing business. And it is an added benefit if the cost is too high for new companies to be able to get in the game. The biggest of these internet companies are trying to hold on to their position at the top with all their might, and they are certainly very interested in using the government to do it. That has been true of a lot of industries before them, and it should come as no surprise that it happens again in the technology area. The Facebooks of the world will tell you how important section 230 was to the innovation of the last 20 years. Yet there are technology companies like IBM that haven't done a lot of innovating for the last 20 years that want to see section 230 done away with entirely for trumped-up reasons. So, for business, let's not mistake what this debate is all about for a lot of these big, multinational companies. It is not about right or wrong; it is about dollars and cents. So what does the future hold? As the Wall Street Journal observed, a lawsuit bonanza is in the works. It is pretty ironic that a Republican Congress and a Republican President are going to create the biggest new source of opportunities for trial lawyers in decades. For the technology business, this bill means bigger is better--not better for innovation, not better for consumers, but better for the profits of those lucky enough to have reached the top of the mountain first. It is safe to expect a slew of proposed new exceptions to section 230. When somebody is injured, they and their families want recourse, but our legal system is woefully bad at delivering justice. It is unfortunately far better at facilitating deals--often unjust deals-- because numbers are far easier than doing right. This failure means that a line of injured parties will be petitioning to seek the sort of recompense only their Member of Congress can provide. For America, section 230 is very likely the reason we have a multitude of billion-dollar internet employers and the Europeans have exactly zero. Where countries aren't hiding behind the trade barrier of the great firewall or other artificial market forces, American innovation has won out over the rest of the world. I think it is pretty hard to see our country thrive and prosper without the kind of legal foundation I have described today, without these 230 protections. And a whole host of scholars have pointed out that this is a unique law in the world. It is the case where the United States got the temperature right from the beginning, and it has led to our dominance in tech. But if the United States goes out and puts all those cracks--those potential cracks, the real cracks--into the foundation of section 230, I would wager that there are plenty of other countries that are going to change their laws to siphon away our companies and take the jobs they create. The fact is--and I am not sure we in the Senate think about it every day--we are in a fight for the internet literally every day. Our internet companies aren't engaged in the fight. Their interest is currying favor with nations with which they wish to do business. The Chinese, the Iranians, the Russians, even our European allies are maneuvering to impose a more repressive view of speech and expression on individuals around the world, and unfortunately it has a lot of allies here at home. Free speech has never been free, and it is often not popular. It was wrested from the grip of a dominating state, and it ought to be--it must be defended by every generation, lest the state reclaim control. Today, in my view, the Senate is looking at taking a real step backward and down a path that this body will regret. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I believe strongly that Congress must do more to combat the scourge of sex trafficking and bring these monsters to justice and actually put them behind bars. I have heard my colleagues from the other side talk again and again about how more resources are needed to fight this evil. This is the only proposal offered to actually put more dollars into the hands of prosecutors to get the criminals behind bars, and it is going to be harder to prosecute them now that they have moved to the dark web. My colleague has said that prosecutors are against it. It is because my colleague has worked as hard as he could to tell prosecutors that if anything like this is added, it is going to die in the House. Let me just tell my colleague that when we put in more money to prosecute these monsters and it passes, the other body will pass it in about 15 minutes. I urge my colleagues to vote for the only amendment that actually is going to put these criminals behind bars because we are putting real money into that effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak to the body for 1 minute.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in my view, it is clear that when colleagues face so much political headwind, they don't feel comfortable supporting something I know they all believe in very deeply. I believe every Senator believes there ought to be real money to go after sex traffickers. I have spoken to colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and they have taken a real pounding on these amendments. My sense is that there would also be opposition to what I think is another practical, good idea, which is the Good Samaritan amendment. As I have stated, because I anticipate having to turn back to this topic in short order after the effects of this bill become clear, I am going to save this topic for a vote at that time. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment No. 2212.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, with that amendment having been withdrawn, I ask unanimous consent that there now be 2 minutes for debate, equally divided, prior to the vote on passage.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as I stated several hours ago, I stand firmly with colleagues who believe more must be done to fight the scourge of sex trafficking and, particularly, to put these monsters behind bars. The bill before us, in my view, takes a flawed approach. What is going to happen is that the criminal sex trafficker is going to head toward the dark web. This is a place you cannot access with a traditional search engine. It is going to be harder when they are in the shadowy corners of our country, of the internet, in order to prosecute them. It is also going to chip away at the foundation of the net, which is so important for vulnerable people. It is why the Human Rights Campaign Fund has made it clear that they are opposed to the bill. We shouldn't be putting at risk vulnerable groups and small startups. Given that, I believe that this bill, which will clearly pass, will be something the Senate will come to deeply regret. I will be opposing the bill.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in a few minutes the Senate will vote on the nomination of Mr. Kevin McAleenan to serve as Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. As the ranking Democrat on the committee with jurisdiction over trade policy, I am particularly interested in working with Mr. McAleenan on an issue that is of longstanding, bipartisan concern; and that is tougher, smarter enforcement of America's trade laws. Mr. McAleenan is a longtime public servant, and he has been aware that the Finance Committee has put in many hours over the last few years to guarantee that this agency has tough new tools to fight trade cheats and protect our workers. It is vital that those tools be put to good use because their trade-related mission--defending American jobs from trade rip-offs--has too often gotten short shrift. It doesn't matter what kind of trade deals you sign or what laws you put on the books if you aren't serious about enforcing them. That is where their trade mission comes in. In my discussions with this nominee, it is clear that he understands that when it comes to trade, this country has to do trade done right, and tougher trade enforcement is especially important. I will close with the mention of another issue that this agency has seen over the last few months, and that is the onslaught of Americans being stopped at the border and forced to unlock their personal electronic devices for inspection. It clearly invades their personal privacy. Senator Paul and I have introduced bipartisan legislation on this-- there is bipartisan legislation in the other body--that recognizes that law enforcement should have to get a warrant before searching a device at the border, and it comes with strong protections to let Americans know when and how they consent to having their devices searched. In my judgment, this is just common sense, particularly because the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that digital is fundamentally different. They did that when they ruled that law enforcement needs a warrant to search a phone after an arrest. We are going to keep pushing for our bipartisan legislation. In the meantime, we need to work with this agency on this critical issue that ensures, once again, that this country recognizes that security and liberty are not mutually exclusive and that you can have policies that do both. I want to continue to engage with him, if confirmed, to make sure that the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans do not disappear at the border. As I indicated, he is a public servant with many, many years of experience. I support his nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, first of all, I wish to commend my Pacific Northwest colleague Senator Murray for taking this time to talk about these exceptionally important issues. I had a chance to listen to the thoughtful remarks of our friend from New Hampshire--3,000 miles away from the Pacific Northwest--and she has been, as usual, extraordinarily eloquent and passionate about the cause of women's health, and it is great to be able to follow her. We can sum up the healthcare policy of the Trump administration in just one word: discrimination. I am here with my colleagues today to discuss a particularly alarming example of the Trump agenda of healthcare discrimination and an example of where the administration is working overtime to make women's healthcare worse. What is particularly frustrating about this is we are dealing with a bureaucracy run amok. The Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services, has made a critical judgment. They will put ideology over the law of the land when it comes to the medical care available to the young women in its custody. Under Director Scott Lloyd, the office has attempted to block several immigrants from exercising their freedom of choice with respect to reproductive health. It has no legal right to do so. This issue is settled law, but this hasn't stopped the Director and its agency from dragging young women into prolonged, taxpayer-funded court battles. There are roughly 5,000 young people in the Office of Refugee Resettlement's custody. Most of them are from Central American countries. Many of these young women are survivors of sexual violence. They are on their own, and they didn't come here to have somebody else's ideology dictating their medical care. In my view, this office ought to uphold its duty to provide all the care these young women have a right to receive, and it ought to check the ideology at the door. That is not how the Office of Refugee Resettlement is working under Mr. Lloyd. According to a recent report from VICE News, ``Mr. Lloyd receives a spreadsheet every week containing information on every pregnant teen in their custody.'' He reportedly sought to interfere in a young woman's medical procedure that was actually already underway. In another case, the report says he put a young woman at further risk by directing staff to inform her parents--against her wishes--that she had an abortion. Last fall, an HHS official was asked about Mr. Lloyd's direction of the office and the matter of interfering in the medical care of young women. Here is what that spokesman said: ``He by law has custody of these children, just like a foster parent, he knows that that's a lot of responsibility and he is going to make choices that he thinks are best for both the mother and the child.'' I say to my colleagues, that is just rampant government paternalism summed up in just one sentence. Now, it ought to be no surprise, given his background, that this is the direction the office is taking. This is a gentleman who has made a career out of opposing the right of women to make their own judgments about their own healthcare choices. He has fought access to contraception and to a variety of healthcare services that are important to women. His views are right in line--right in line--with this administration's agenda of healthcare discrimination against women. Right out of the gate, the administration and Republicans in Congress pushed for legislation that would have deprived hundreds of thousands of women the right to see the doctor of their choosing. They made it harder for many of those women to obtain routine, vital medical care from providers like Planned Parenthood, including cancer screenings, prenatal care, preventive services, physicals, and a whole host of preventive services that have absolutely nothing to do with abortion-- nothing to do with abortion. Then the Trump administration sought to deny women guaranteed, no- cost access to contraception. When women have guaranteed access to contraception, it means healthier pregnancies, healthier newborns, a lower risk of cancer, and, particularly, economic fairness for women of modest means, but the Trump administration wants to unravel that guarantee as well. Then, the Trump team is green-lighting junk insurance policies that drive up the cost of healthcare for women with preexisting conditions, and they are involved in very elaborate--as my colleague knows-- discussions with the State of Idaho. People ought to understand exactly what the Trump administration is saying to Idaho because they are going to say it to other people. The Trump administration is saying to Idaho: You can discriminate, just don't be too obvious about it. That is their position with respect to these junk insurance policies. The administration is exploring ways to place lifetime limits on the care people can get from Medicaid, and that is a frightful proposition for the millions of older women who count on Medicaid to pick up the tab for their nursing and home-based care. These are serious healthcare problems around this country. By the way, we never heard anything in the campaign of 2016 about how we were going to turn back the clock on older women for whom Medicaid is often a lifeline for long-term care, but that is what we are dealing with now. These are serious healthcare challenges women face right now--on top of it, a raging epidemic of opioid misuse and abuse and the skyrocketing cost of prescription medicine. When we are talking about the Office of Refugee Resettlement, as my colleagues talked about so eloquently, there is also a lot to be done to fix our broken immigration system. Finally, it is important, as we get into these issues, to recognize how deep-seated this policy of healthcare discrimination is. The example my colleagues are talking about here today is an example of massive ideological overreach and paternalism. It is happening at the Office of Refugee Resettlement, but it is not the only example. This is behavior that ought to stop. I thank my colleague, Senator Murray, who has been our go-to person for years and years on women's healthcare. I want her and our colleagues to know that I will be doing everything I can to be a part of their efforts to push back on these policies that turn back the clock and particularly discriminate against the rights of women. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this new law has the power to better the lives of hundreds of thousands of children and their families. It will for the first time allow States to invest Federal foster care dollars in evidence-based services, like substance use treatment and mental health and parenting programs, to prevent the need for foster care by keeping families safely together. It will provide critical new opportunities for families adopting children and relatives caring for kin by making these same services available when a child is at risk of reentering foster care. It will also support investments in Kinship Navigator programs to help grandparents and other relative caregivers who often take on the parenting role at a moment's notice. The opioid crisis is showing why these investments are absolutely critical. After years of decline in the number of children in foster care, we have begun to see a steady increase, which many attribute to the opioid crisis. According to Federal data, at least 34 percent of foster care entries are attributed to parental substance use. Family First will be a game changer when it comes to fighting addiction, as States will now have many more tools to address these issues without breaking families apart. These tools will not only help with the current opioid epidemic, but they will position our Nation's child welfare system to respond to this crisis and any others that families may face in the future.