Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am announcing my intention to object to any unanimous consent request to proceed to H.R. 5284, the Claiming Age Clarity Act. I support my colleagues' efforts to simplify the language the Social Security Administration, SSA, uses related to claiming retirement benefits. However, I am concerned that the bill's lack of administrative funding to implement the legislation would harm the Agency's ability to serve the American public. According to SSA estimates in September 2025, implementing this bill would cost between $8 and $12 million and require significant manpower to update its rules, regulations, guidance, and other materials-- including benefit statements--both printed and online versions. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Social Security's customer service budget has dropped by 23 percent since fiscal year 2010 after adjusting for inflation. Over the same period, SSA is serving 17 million more Social Security beneficiaries, a 28- percent increase. Moreover, since February 2025, SSA reduced staff by nearly 6,000 employees through encouraging retirements and voluntary resignations, including 2,000 from frontline positions. In August 2025, SSA diverted 2,000 field office staff away from serving customers in the front office to answer national 800 number calls indefinitely. Field offices, which bore the brunt of those staffing cuts, are now forced to backfill the staffing shortages with other employees at the expense of timely processing benefit claims and assisting seniors who come into the field offices. Simply put, SSA is having to do more with less resources and fewer staff. As my colleagues know, annual statements are an effective communication strategy to educate individuals about their earnings and payroll tax records, estimate of earned monthly benefits, and other information designed to help them more effectively plan for retirement. To this end, SSA has worked diligently over the last several years to streamline and modernize the Social Security annual statements to increase the public's understanding of its programs. However, SSA's funding constraints already limit SSA's ability to educate Americans about their Social Security benefits. Section 1143 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1320b-13, SSA is required to mail Social Security annual statements to most workers aged 25 and older who are not currently receiving Social Security benefits. Yet, due to budgetary constraints, SSA has suspended mailing statements to those individuals since 2011. Enacting this legislation without providing SSA with the necessary resources to implement and effectively communicate this change, including mailing annual statements, would stymie the bill's effects. Similarly, changing terminology--even to make it clearer--would presumably create confusion among some, resulting in increased call volume and foot traffic in the field offices and on the national 1-800 number. I am committed to working with the sponsors of the legislation and our colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations to ensure that SSA has the necessary resources to effectively implement the bill while improving customer service for the millions of Americans who rely on Social Security. Until then, I will object to any unanimous consent request in relation to this legislation.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object, I don't often disagree with my friend and longtime colleague from Illinois, and I very much share the stated goals of the STOP CSAM Act. Child sexual abuse material is a toxic plague on the internet. There are real victims who need support and criminals who have to be hunted down and locked up. I don't take a back seat to anybody when it comes to helping kids and punishing predators. Last Congress, Senator Durbin and I compromised on a different version of this bill and agreed to let that version pass by unanimous consent. Let me say that again. Last Congress, we reached agreement on a version of this bill that could have passed unanimously. Today, to my regret, the sponsors have chosen to abandon those negotiations and instead are seeking to advance what I consider to be a dangerous bill that would make internet users unsafe. That is because the bill would weaken the single strongest technology that protects kids and families online. That is strong encryption. It will make it easier to punish sites using encryption to secure private conversations and personal devices. While STOP CSAM sponsors claim that their bill does not target encryption, the bill explicitly allows courts to punish companies that offer strong encryption. It also would encourage scanning of content on users' phones or computers before information is sent over the internet, which has, in my view, the same consequences as breaking encryption. Weakening encryption and other security technologies is the single biggest gift that can be given to the predators and dangerous criminals who want to stalk and spy on kids. Sexual predators will have a far easier time stealing and extorting photographs of children, tracking their phones, and spying on their private messages when encryption is breached. Doing so threatens the privacy and security of every single law- abiding American. I heard some talk about who supports the bill. Let me tell you who supports the bill. It is Big Tech. Google and X have endorsed that. Let me repeat that. Google and X have endorsed this bill. It is the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union who oppose it. This is really about who are you for. I am here for women who depend on encryption to seek reproductive healthcare information. I am here for journalists reporting on sensitive stories in places where their messages could be intercepted and used against them. I am here for kids and teenagers seeking information about immigration laws as Donald Trump continues a brutal crackdown. The key to better protecting kids online is to do what is effective, not what only sounds effective. Congress ought to focus our energy on giving law enforcement officials the tools they need to find and prosecute criminals responsible for exploiting children and spreading vile abuse materials online and to help prevent children from becoming victims in the first place. I repeatedly have given that support to prosecutors and law enforcement officials to do more to protect kids from being exploited. I remain open to revisiting conversations with the bill's sponsors to get back to a version that doesn't make the internet less safe. We did find a compromise in the last Congress, and I want to say to my longtime friend Senator Durbin and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that I am willing to work together to find another such compromise. I urge, for example, my colleagues to support my bipartisan Invest in Kids' Safety Act, which I will shortly reintroduce. The bill would direct $5 billion in mandatory funding to do three things: one, give law enforcement agencies the tools and personnel they need to catch the predators who create and spread CSAM; two, fund community-based programs to prevent at-risk kids from becoming victims in the first place; and three, invest in programs to support survivors of abuse. Any legislation that doesn't include those pieces is missing the point, and that is why I object today.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I was participating in the 2025 Oregon Business Plan Leadership Summit and necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 635, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Robert Chamberlin to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Mississippi. Had I been present for this vote, I would have voted no.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of legislation to strike the provision in the Federal funding package that would give a windfall to a handful of Republican Senators who the Biden administration investigated in connection with Trump's effort to try to overthrow the government on January 6, 2021. This provision would give those Senators $500,000 for every phone call appearing on a call log, adding up to a corrupt giveaway of hundreds of millions or possibly even billions of taxpayer dollars. One of my colleagues has already bragged about his plans to sue the Federal Government to secure himself a payday. How did we get here? My staff unearthed this secret provision shortly after the government funding bill was released. The brazenness of this corruption kind of takes your breath away. I immediately blew the whistle about this awful misuse of taxpayer money and alerted the press. Once the public learned of the heist, they were outraged and Members of Congress couldn't distance themselves from it fast enough. Now, I am outraged over the corrupt Republican payoff, but I completely agree that it is important to notify Senators who have been surveilled by the government. Every American should have the right to be told, eventually, if the government spies on them, which is why I have authored the bipartisan Government Surveillance Transparency Act to do just that. Notifying Congress when Federal, State, or Local government Agencies spy on it is essential to protecting the separation of powers and our Constitution. The fact is that right now, the FBI, any State attorney general, or even a local sheriff, can obtain the phone records of every Member of Congress, and we would never find out. This poses a major threat to the separation of powers. That is why I have called for Senators to be notified about surveillance in response to overreach by Trump in the past. Once Senator Heinrich's bill passes, I am committed to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address the threat of surveillance by the executive branch. It is deeply regrettable that my colleagues took a well-intentioned protection against government surveillance and wrapped it in an unacceptable giveaway of Americans' tax dollars to Republican Senators. I am committed to scrapping this provision and passing real protections against government overreach, not just for U.S. Senators, but for every single American.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. It is my distinct honor and privilege to recognize and congratulate Dr. Bruce Siegel on his retirement after an extraordinary career as a visionary leader whose four decades of service in public health, hospital administration, and health policy have left an indelible mark on our Nation's healthcare system. Bruce has spent his entire career advocating on behalf of our Nation's most at-risk populations and the providers that care for them. For the past 14 years, he has led America's Essential Hospitals, formerly the National Association of Public Hospitals, championing the cause of mission- driven safety net hospitals that serve communities facing the greatest social and financial barriers to care. Dr. Siegel's tenure has been defined by bold and effective advocacy. He led efforts to preserve the 340B Drug Pricing Program, secured $15 billion in targeted safety-net hospital funding during the COVID-19 pandemic, and fought to close Medicaid payment gaps. He was instrumental in stopping harmful cuts to Medicaid disproportionate share hospital funding and oversaw the association's successful rebranding in 2013. Perhaps most notably, Dr. Siegel spearheaded a national campaign to incorporate social risk factors into Federal value-based purchasing programs, an unprecedented step toward recognizing and addressing health disparities in policy and practice. Dr. Siegel's medical career began after graduating from the Joan & Sanford I. Weill Medical College of Cornell University and reflects a deep commitment to public service and health equity. From his early days as New Jersey's Commissioner of Health to his leadership of NYC Health + Hospitals and Tampa General Hospital and later as a professor and director at George Washington University, Dr. Siegel has consistently worked to improve care for the most vulnerable among us, performing pioneering research into healthcare quality, healthcare disparities, and the safety net. He has had a significant and positive impact on our healthcare system, and his contributions will be sorely missed. As he prepares to retire at the end of 2025, I thank Dr. Siegel for his tireless dedication and visionary leadership. His legacy will continue to inspire future generations of healthcare advocates and public servants.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss several recent floor developments. Yesterday, Senate Republicans started talking about big insurance companies and women's healthcare. Now, I have heard a lot of talk from Republicans about how the Affordable Care Act is just a big giveaway to insurance companies. I would ask any Republican who accuses Democrats of bailing out insurance companies to talk to a small business owner in their State who fears that if they don't have the tax credits next year--I repeat, next year--those small businesses won't be able to keep their doors open, run their business, pay their employees, and pay for healthcare. Now, if Republicans are serious about cracking down on price gouging by insurance companies and executives who want a big payday, I welcome them to the fight. I have been at it for years. I wrote the first tough law--it was bipartisan; it is on the books--to stop the rip-offs of older people who had 10 or 15 insurance policies that weren't worth the paper they were written on. But I can say that since a handful of Republicans joined me in 2008 to crack down on the abuses of insurance companies, Republicans willing to go after Big Insurance have been mighty few and very far between. So let me repeat. I will work with any Republican that wants to go after profit-hungry crooks and get them out of the insurance business, where they are jacking up costs and denying care, but it shouldn't come--and I say this to my colleagues--it shouldn't come at the cost of kicking millions out of their healthcare in January. Democrats want to bring down costs for families. It is that simple. So I am not a sympathizer with the UnitedHealth Group; I am here on behalf of Carla and Bartley of Eugene, who are looking--I say to my colleague in the Chair--they are looking at a 500-percent increase in their premium this year. Now, Republicans say they might vote to lower Americans' healthcare costs but only if we agree, in addition, to a backdoor national abortion ban. As always, Republicans are spinning a tale that the government is funding abortion. It isn't. Here is the reality: The Affordable Care Act already prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars for this care. Zero Federal dollars pay for this care in ACA plans. What Republicans are talking about putting on the table amounts to nothing short of a backdoor national abortion ban. Instead of working with Democrats to fix the healthcare crisis they created, Republicans now want to hold women's healthcare hostage and force a radical agenda on the American people. I have one thing to say about that: Not on my watch. Under this plan, Republicans could weaponize Federal funding for any organization that does anything related to women's reproductive healthcare. They could also weaponize the Tax Code by revoking the nonprofit status of these organizations. Republicans have already demonstrated that they are willing to weaponize the law to deny women basic healthcare. Donald Trump defunded Planned Parenthood in his horrible budget bill. So the possibilities here are endless, but the results are the same--a complete and total restriction on abortion courtesy of Republican Senators. They have been laying the groundwork for decades, and now they are pulling out all the stops to do it. The Budget chair is already talking about another reconciliation bill in this session, so this is a real and present danger. Donald Trump said he would leave abortion care up to the States. Well, this latest scheme makes it pretty clear: A de facto nationwide abortion ban has been his plan all along. Since Roe was overturned, women are being denied lifesaving medical care; doctors are fleeing States where they fear persecution. Democrats were told for years by Republicans that we were blowing these scenarios way out of proportion. We were told again and again that we were fearmongering. Instead, now it is all coming true. Democrats must dismiss this radical Trojan horse against women's essential healthcare out of hand, and the time to do it is now. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I support this proposal and would like Americans to know why. Since before Donald Trump was sworn in for a second term, Senate Democrats have known that this is a healthcare problem for millions of American families that cries out for fixing. Again and again, we asked our Republican colleagues to work with us, sit with us, and negotiate improvements in a black-letter law that makes Americans' healthcare better for American families. Again and again we were turned down. So on the Senate Finance Committee, everybody knew this day was coming, long before Donald Trump took the oath of office. Now the crisis is here, and I am here to say our door is still open. The Senate Finance Committee has a track record of getting bipartisan work done. Senator Crapo and I wrote a bill that transformed how pharmacy benefit managers work in Medicare. It passed the Finance Committee 26 to nothing. Despite this track record, Republicans still refuse to sit down and even have a conversation about how to help these Americans afford their premiums. That is why we have all been out on the floor today. I am in a fight for Bart and Carla from Eugene, OR, a few years away from Medicare. They have had long careers as a carpenter and a teacher. They worked hard. Now the rug is being pulled out from under them. They have been paying $400 a month in premiums. Without an extension of the credits, they are going to pay $2,200 a month. That is an increase they just can't handle. My Republican colleagues have provided a host of excuses about why they can't work with us, but the excuses don't hold water. For example, there have been allegations of fraud--the same straw man that they used to make the largest Medicaid cuts in history. Republicans pretend they are fighting for us, but, really, they are just pushing up costs and kicking working people off their health insurance. So to, again, try to bring everybody together, we introduced legislation that would prevent bad-actor brokers from enrolling or switching people into plans without their knowledge. That way we could slap fraudsters with criminal penalties when they harm consumers. On the Republican side, after all the talk, no cosponsors. Finally, there has been an excuse that says this policy was created during COVID, and now that the pandemic is passed, the tax credits ought to lapse too. It doesn't make any sense to me. I don't see Republicans coming down to the floor, for example, to say that telehealth benefits for seniors on Medicare should expire because they were created during the pandemic. This is something I feel strongly about. As my friend from Minnesota knows, I wrote that with the late Orrin Hatch on a bipartisan basis. And the first Trump administration used them to great success. Just because a good healthcare policy was created in a crisis moment doesn't mean it ought to be ripped away from Americans once the crisis is passed, especially when ending that policy would create a new crisis for over 20 million people who no longer will be able to afford good quality healthcare. Those are just a couple of the Republican excuses. But the bottom line is, over here, we want to protect families' healthcare and keep premiums from rocketing into the stratosphere. Unfortunately, the Republicans haven't shared that view. My hope is--and we have had an important conversation. I appreciate the leadership of Senator Klobuchar. We have had an important conversation about trying to get our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to do the right thing. Join us. Join us, as we have done so often in the Senate Finance Committee, and lower Americans' healthcare costs. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Would my colleague yield for a question?

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, what my colleague seems to be stressing-- and it is something I share--is that there is an urgency here. In my State, we have a couple with premium hikes of 500 percent. They feel like they are getting hit by a healthcare wrecking ball. And what I am also deeply concerned about--and we have talked about it in the Finance Committee--is that with all these cuts in public programs, we are going to have a massive shift to those who have employer-sponsored coverage. It is 154 million people. For 60 percent of working age Americans with coverage, it comes from their employers. They are going to have a massive shift onto them. And what I believe my friend is saying and what he is stressing and seeing in Vermont is the urgency of this. If you could speak to that as we review this first of what I think may be other colleagues coming to speak.

Mr. WYDEN. Would my colleague yield briefly?

Mr. WYDEN. I think the remarks my colleague has made are thoughtful. He knows that since my days as director of the Gray Panthers, I have always wanted to work in a bipartisan fashion. But how do you do it if, in fact, in the Finance Committee, we have not had, by my calculus, a healthcare hearing in 400 days? Isn't that what my colleague is saying, is that we ought to have these hearings and we ought to work in a bipartisan way? That is what we did in the PBM bill, where we got a 26- to-nothing vote. I see my friend from California, a new Member. You can't get a vote around here 26-to-nothing to order a can of Sprite but it was because colleagues like Senator Welch wanted to find some common ground and get going. Isn't that what my colleague is saying, is that we want to work with Republicans in a bipartisan way and we are available 24/7 to do it? Is that correct?

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise to promote the passage of S.J. Res. 88, a resolution to repeal Donald Trump's price-hiking global tariffs. American families are being squeezed by prices going up and up and up. More than three-quarters of families say their monthly expenses have increased by more than $100 a month. There is however, colleagues, something the Senate can do today. Today, it is possible for the Senate to focus on bringing families relief to their wallets. Congress can vote to repeal Donald Trump's trade taxes and stop taking money out of Americans' pockets. Trump imposed these global tariffs by declaring an economic emergency. In my view, Donald Trump's actions clearly go beyond what the law allows, which is why I am urging passage of this bill to finally end the President's unlawful tariffs. The average family will see about $2,800 in higher costs because of the Trump tariffs and taxes. The Senate ought to cancel that tax hike. Let's cancel this tax hike. Let's cancel this tax hike. Donald Trump won't do it. He is paying for tax cuts for billionaires on the backs of working families. Fortunately, Congress, not the President, has got the final word on tariffs and taxes and trade. Senators can vote today to end the harmful and dangerous global tariffs. It has been 6 months since the Senate tied 49-49 on this same proposal. Since then, our Nation's trade policy has looked pretty much like a dog chasing a squirrel: more tariffs threatened, added, taken away. Thousands of packages are being destroyed because the Customs Service wasn't prepared. There are secretive deals to lift tariffs for certain companies and products that have influence with the White House. People across the country are being harmed by tariffs. In my State, tariffs take a chunk out of the bottom line of everybody, from blueberry farmers to brewers, to small manufacturers, to our crucial semiconductor industry. Thousands of good-paying jobs in my State are under pressure because of tariffs. In many ways, red States and rural areas are being hit the hardest. In Columbus, IN, thousands of jobs depend on manufacturing, mostly diesel engines for export markets. They also use parts from overseas to make the engines. The mayor of Columbus and business leaders warned that tariffs are causing economic damage that will take years--years-- to recover from. Farmers are getting a double whammy from the Trump trade taxes. They have to pay more for fertilizer and tractors and a variety of inputs, while their markets overseas evaporate. In Kansas, farmers harvested a bumper crop this year, 20 percent more of sorghum than normal. Farmers called it a ``blessing,'' but they are not better off. Trump's trade war drove buyers to Brazil and Australia. Prices for American sorghum are less than half of what they were in 2022. Let me close by way of saying--and I thank my colleague Senator Kaine. He and I have been on this floor for days talking about the need to get rid of the Trump taxes. And we are going to wrap up by saying potato farmers in Oregon, Idaho, and across the West say the same thing. Buyers in Canada, Mexico, and China have slashed orders for french fries, hash browns, and a variety of other frozen potatoes. The Senate is not a spectator to the workings of the Federal Government. When it comes to international trade and tariffs, in particular, the U.S. Congress has clear authority--not authority that is up for grabs, not authority that hasn't been addressed. It is clear authority. This is Congress's job. It is not a partisan issue. It is a jobs issue, a kitchen-table issue. I urge all Members to support this resolution. Roll back the arbitrary global tariffs. I thank Senator Kaine. We have been partners in this effort for months now. This is the big issue. This is going to affect people not just in our country but all over the world, and we will be better positioned to get more jobs in America if we get rid of these global tariffs. I yield to my friend.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Rhode Island, as well as Senator Klobuchar and Senator Kaine. We have all been teaming up to terminate Donald Trump's blanket tariffs on products Americans buy from Canada. Once again, we have an opportunity to cancel a Trump trade tax and put money back into the pockets of the American people. This is a chance for Senators to show our constituents that we are going to act for them, not for special interests or some new Presidential obsession. Unlike many of the nations Trump has slapped with taxes, there is already a comprehensive trade deal between the United States and Canada. It was written with input from the Senate Finance Committee, and it was bipartisan. USMCA was a trade deal negotiated by Donald Trump himself, and it got a significant bipartisan vote. Congress approved the deal, put it into black-letter law, and we made sure--with Senator Brown, in particular, leading the fight--to have a bill with tough enforcement--enforcement teeth--to make sure the United States could hold Canada and Mexico to their commitments. This is the only way to ensure that farmers, workers, and businesses get the full benefit. But Trump's trade taxes aren't addressing enforcement issues with Mexico and Canada, or making the USMCA work better. Instead, he is unilaterally undermining supply chains across the board. He has imposed new tariffs on scores of products we buy from Canada, making groceries, housing, energy, and cars more expensive. He put a 50-percent tariff on steel and aluminum, a singularly bad idea. Beer, appliances, auto parts--all of them--are getting hammered by that tax. There are 8 million American jobs that depend on trade with Canada. Canada is the biggest export market for 32 American States. With this trade war, Trump is destroying jobs and harming America and making our people poorer. Since national security was one of the rationales for the Trump trade taxes on Canada, I have to point out that his trade war against our close ally is making American allies and us less safe. For one, Canada is a reliable source of energy, raw materials, and critical minerals that China has repeatedly used as a bargaining chip in trade talks. Critical minerals are essential to manufacturing in the high-tech and defense industries. The Trump administration has invested millions in developing the Canadian critical minerals industry as an alternative to China's near monopoly. But here is a key point: instead of developing Canada as an alternative to China for raw materials, Donald Trump is driving our closest ally straight into the arms of China. The Canadian Prime Minister said last week that his country is looking to reengage with India and China to find new markets and new allies that are more reliable than the United States. America would get better results on trade by buying spells from an Etsy witch. Trump's stated reason for blowing up commerce is fentanyl trafficking. Now, I don't take a backseat to anybody when it comes to cracking down on the scourge of fentanyl. Oregon is no stranger to the devastating effects it has wreaked in our communities. But, in reality, there is no crisis at the northern border. Less than 0.2 percent of fentanyl entering the United States comes from Canada. Some of my colleagues on the other side have voiced concerns about tariffs but said they want to give Donald Trump more time to strike a deal. I would ask: what in the past 6 months makes you think that this is somehow magically going to get better? Instead of negotiating, Donald Trump spends his energy having tantrums about TV ads that accurately quote Ronald Reagan's position on tariffs. He has already increased these tariffs on Canada once. He is now threatening to jack up Canada tariffs by another 10 percent because one of their provinces--just one--took out the Reagan ad. Who would make a deal with a person who acts like this, who ignores a deal that was made just a few years ago and who constantly threatens to annex their country? That is what Donald Trump has done with Canada. These tariffs are doing nothing to help Americans. They are unrelated to trade disputes. I hope every Senator will vote to repeal the taxes on Canadian goods and help lower costs for our constituents. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise to support my colleagues Senator Kaine and Senator Paul on their joint resolution to terminate Donald Trump's order placing blanket tariffs on products Americans buy from Brazil. I am going to start with the impact on Americans. Donald Trump's unilateral tariff spree is an unprecedented tax on American families who are already struggling. The tariffs on Brazil are no different. We get lots of coffee from Brazil, and coffee prices are up 21 percent from a year ago. Ground beef is up 13 percent from last year--that is according to FOX News--and Brazil is a major supplier. But instead of getting rid of these tariffs, Donald Trump is sending $40 billion to subsidize ranchers in Argentina. I recently held townhall meetings at home, and surprisingly not a single Oregonian told me they wanted to pay more for their morning coffee, or more for a hamburger. In all, Donald Trump's tariffs are going to cost the average American family more than $2,000 this year, according to the Yale Budget Lab. That, Mr. President, is the what--higher prices on coffee, beef, and building materials Americans get from Brazil. Now I am going to talk about why. Donald Trump didn't unilaterally slap those 40 percent tariffs on things we buy from Brazil to help the American worker. No, America had a $7 billion trade surplus with Brazil last year. And while food prices in the United States are shooting up, Trump's tariffs have lowered food prices in Mexico and Brazil. The real reason--and this is what is crucial--the real reason Donald Trump is imposing these tariffs, by his own words, is to settle personal scores, and pressure the Brazilian Government to let their corrupt former President off the hook. In his letter announcing the tariffs, Donald Trump called the prosecution of former President Bolsonaro ``a witch hunt.'' Colleagues, Mr. Bolsonaro was convicted of masterminding a failed coup. There is no way that taking money out of Americans' wallets to protect one corrupt politician in South America makes even a bit of sense. This is a brazenly illegal and corrupt effort by Donald Trump that, in my view, is directly hurting the American people. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Kaine-Paul resolution to end the Brazil tariffs. This body is going to vote on more of these resolutions in coming weeks. I see my friend from Kentucky here, who is joining me in a crucial one of those. My legislation with Senator Paul would repeal all of Donald Trump's global tariffs. I am committed to seizing back Congress's constitutional role over trade, which is spelled out in the Constitution. It is my hope that colleagues on both sides of the aisle will exercise their best judgment on these crucial, key tariff issues, listen to constituents, and vote for Americans instead of for Donald Trump and corrupt foreign strongmen. I yield and look forward to hearing my colleagues talk further today on this issue.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following members of my team be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Congress: Christopher Stille, Madeleine Vea, Meredith Shea, Eric Gitson, Matthew Trone, Ethan Lukas, Christopher Adair, Cara Levy, Steven Kasparek, and Rami Major.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague very much. I just want to make sure, from a parliamentary standpoint, would the Senator from Oregon yield for my question?

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President and colleagues, I want to start by commending my partner from Oregon, who has now been on the floor for close to 18 hours. What he is doing is ringing the alarm bells about authoritarianism in America. It is an important public service. Let me begin by saying, the Wyden family certainly knows a thing or two about watching a democracy slide towards authoritarian rule. I wrote in my book about how the courageous women in my family, in the face of the Nazi takeover of the German republic, recognized the very real threat of the growing authoritarianism in Germany. They pushed the rest of the family to recognize what was happening to their democracy when some of the men didn't want to face reality. Because of the vigilance of women, I am standing here today in the Senate. Now, further, on this point, as my colleague knows, during the protests in Portland this past weekend, Federal agents dragged a 4- foot-6 blind man named Quinn across a driveway and detained him for over an hour. Apparently, they thought he didn't move out of their way fast enough. It is hard to imagine--it has been reported in publications, in the Oregonian and the like--how anyone could see Quinn as a threat. As he put it: I think they wanted to make a point, so they picked the weakest person they could find and made a big show about it. What Donald Trump and the Vice President are offering us is, indeed, an authoritarian playbook: Attack the weakest in order to intimidate the rest of us. That is why it is the obligation of all Americans to pay attention to all of the discussions on this topic and to speak out and not yield. The American abolitionists told me that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty to keep the powerful from stealing from the many for the few. Senator Merkley, I am interested in what you think Americans should do to secure the benefits of liberty for themselves and their families and future generations and what do you want Americans to take from your speech today?

Mr. WYDEN. That is correct.

Mr. WYDEN. Senator Merkley, you have said it very well. It seems to me America is the last bastion of liberty in the world. There is nowhere to flee to, no mighty republic that stands if American democracy fails. I want to commend my partner from Oregon for taking this exceptionally important stand. This is a message, particularly for all of America, and it is high time it be made on the Senate floor, and I commend my colleague.

Mr. WYDEN. I know you have to ask permission. I just want to say that today has been an extraordinary day for Oregon and for the country. We look forward to continuing this discussion. And would the Senator yield?

Mr. WYDEN. Would the Senator be willing to continue this discussion in the days ahead? Because I think this has been extraordinary. It has begun to lay out the implications of what this is really all about in terms of authoritarianism. It is important for our State. It is an important debate for the country. Would the Senator be willing to carry out further kind of discussions? And it might not necessarily be here on the floor of the Senate, but elsewhere as well?

Mr. WYDEN. My colleague has richly earned a few hours of sleep tonight, but I am going to make sure that here in the Senate and across the country, people understand that this is the beginning of further discussion, not the end. I want to thank my colleague for taking this time today to play out what this is really all about in terms of this issue.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I join my colleagues, today, in standing up for Americans' basic constitutional rights. Donald Trump has again deployed agents and troops to my hometown of Portland, OR, and to other American cities. He announced this authoritarian occupation with orders for Federal agents to use ``full force.'' Since then, he has deployed Federal law enforcement from the Department of Homeland Security, and he has activated 200 Oregon National Guard members, over the objection of the Governor of Oregon, local leaders in Portland, and local law enforcement. He has tried to deploy an additional 300 troops from California--from the National Guard there--and 400 troops from the Texas National Guard, all to my hometown. Colleagues, during this government shutdown, our Guard members will not even be paid for this unnecessary, unwanted deployment. Activating the Oregon National Guard alone is going to cost $10 million and will pull Guard members away from much more important work. If Donald Trump truly wanted to help Oregon or Illinois or California, the money would be better spent cracking down on fentanyl traffickers, ending his tariffs that are gutting small businesses, and holding down health costs. Instead, Donald Trump says U.S. cities like Portland ought to be used as ``training grounds'' for the military. I would say to the Senate: Let that one sink in. The President of the United States thinks it is acceptable to use American cities as training grounds for the military. In my view, that is unconscionable. My hometown is a vibrant and peaceful city. It doesn't require any deployment of Federal troops or additional Federal agents to keep our community safe. In fact, the Federal judge, who was appointed by Donald Trump himself, has ruled repeatedly against a troop deployment. She said there was ``no showing that military help is necessary to protect law enforcement or the one federal building for ICE.'' Portland's police department has said there is no need for Federal agents in our city, as well, and that the administration's deployment of ICE agents is making it actually harder for them to do their jobs and keep our cities safe. The notion that my hometown is somehow a war zone in need of saving is a fantasy made up by Donald Trump and far-right trolls. Oregonians have taken to social media to show that my community is really peaceful. You see it in our gardens, in our vegetable stands. You see it in musicians playing on the sidewalks. My constituents have long engaged in peaceful First Amendment activity. The Governor and mayor of Portland have the appropriate resources to maintain peace and order in our communities. My view is this Trump unilateral action is an abuse of Executive authority. He is clearly hoping that he can incite violence and undermine the constitutional balance of power between the Federal Government and our States. In addition to the judicial ruling in Oregon last month, a Federal judge in California ruled that the Trump administration actually violated black letter law through the deployment of troops to Los Angeles. His Los Angeles deployment violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which explicitly limits the power of the Federal Government to use the military for domestic purposes. Unfortunately, none of this is new to my hometown. Five years ago, Portland experienced the consequences of an unnecessary and outrageous Federal deployment under Donald Trump's first Presidency. In the summer of 2020, the White House unleashed Federal agents on Portland. It was like an occupying army, complete with military-grade equipment and violent tactics that were totally unacceptable on American soil. Federal agents shot at Portland residents, tear-gassed families, drove in unmarked vehicles, and grabbed people off the street without an explanation. Federal agents didn't identify themselves. They didn't wear uniforms. They beat up on those who asked them basic questions about their actions. There is no question in my mind that another deployment by this administration is going to result in similar abuses, similar violations of Americans' constitutional rights. Inciting violence is clearly Donald Trump's intent. And I want to make it clear: As Oregon's senior Senator, I am going to continue doing everything to work with my colleagues to fight back against Trump's Federal occupation and show America, from coast to coast, the beauty and the strength of my hometown. I yield the floor, and I note my partner in the Oregon congressional delegation. He and I have teamed up every step of the way and will continue to do so. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, shortly, the Senate will vote on an important resolution put forward by our colleague and friend Senator Kaine on the topic of U.S. energy production. As my colleagues know, Senator Schumer and I led the development of the clean energy tax credits, which set in motion the possibility of hundreds of billions of dollars of investment in clean energy and, particularly, a policy that would keep prices down and keep good jobs up. It had policies and ideas in it like technological neutrality that created an opportunity for good science to reign and create incentives for development. Donald Trump came into office huffing and puffing because he didn't like that. He didn't like that kind of energy dominance based on consumer choice and marketplace forces. He said our economic problems would go away with one thing: ``Drill, baby, drill.'' Here is the reality. Like so much of his agenda, it doesn't add up, and everything he does is rooted in a sweetheart deal for his wealthy contributors. Back in February, he signed the Executive order declaring an energy emergency. That is the subject of today's floor action. The emergency declaration has nothing to do with energy dominance, but it has everything to do with giveaways for Big Oil. Donald Trump is looking out for the same oil and gas companies that he solicited for big checks for years and years. His offer to them was: Give me your money. Get me elected. I will let your companies run the show. I will give you this: Donald Trump kept his promise to Big Oil. He has gutted American energy production, ceded ground to China on the clean energy arms race, and rigged the system. There is no technological neutrality, Senator Kaine. It is all about fossil fuels, to the exclusion of everything else. After declaring this energy emergency, Donald Trump and Republicans took a wrecking ball to American energy production by gutting the tax credits for wind and solar energy in their budget bill. I was struck, as we were making the decisions, when natural gas leaders came and essentially told the Energy Committee, which at one point I chaired: Look, we are for natural gas, but with AI and all the energy needs for growth, we need solar and wind. These are the gas people. They are not repudiating gas. They said: We need more energy. My guiding principle has been crafting that legislation--that legislation that took, really, a decade to put together. After cap and trade went down, it was all about the need to create good-paying jobs and secure a clean energy future--and that those two are not mutually exclusive; you can have both. They go hand in hand. The tax credits helped to kick off a manufacturing boom in America-- as I mentioned, hundreds of billions of dollars, not through government but through the private sector--hundreds of thousands of jobs. New factories went up around the country. Battery technology, clean vehicles, energy-efficient products for businesses and homeowners--it was already bringing down energy costs for consumers. In terms of the global arms race for clean energy jobs and investment, the United States went from the middle of the pack, under our efforts, to the front basically overnight--until, at Trump's direction, Republicans destroyed all of that. All of that progress was destroyed, at the first opportunity, by Donald Trump. Why? To pay for more tax cuts for corporations and his wealthy friends. When Republicans were gearing up to pass a reconciliation bill, I said this would be a bloodbath for clean energy. Fast-forward 3 months: Manufacturing projects are being canceled, jobs are being lost, and utility bills are going up. Their budget bill was a wrecking ball for clean energy, and those workers are going to lose their jobs as a direct result. Last week, the administration announced plans to cancel over $7 billion in funding for clean energy. Almost every one of those projects was located, as Senator Kaine and I have talked about, in a blue State. Oregon alone had over $400 million in funding canceled. Are the Republicans stopping there? No way. They have derailed management of our public lands, and now they want to do it to prop up coal. Oregonians see this for what it is--a gobsmacking attempt to hurt American families just to score points with campaign folks they have been close to. Now, the United States is barreling toward a self-inflicted energy crisis manufactured entirely by Republicans. Energy demand is skyrocketing. Utility bills are rising. Keeping costs low and meeting demand is going to require an all-of-the-above approach based on technological neutrality. Instead, Republicans are focused on giveaways to billionaires--Americans' bank accounts be damned. It is as clear as our beautiful Crater Lake at home that all the talk from Trump and Republicans about American energy dominance never was going to be a reality. It was just a hollow campaign slogan. The Republican energy agenda is a level of economic self-sabotage that leaves you slack-jawed: How can you make such an unforced error? It is going to take a huge toll on the economy. Our people thought they were voting for cheaper groceries, utilities, gas, and good-paying jobs and haven't gotten much of any of that. They didn't vote for an energy crisis that benefits nobody except big oil investors. So beginning, colleagues, with Senator Kaine's resolution, the Senate now has an opportunity, a chance to go to innovation and modernization and bring an end to Trump's manufactured energy crisis. This is a chance for the Senate to use innovation to fight for lower prices, more jobs, and greater energy security, while Donald Trump stands in contrast trying to undermine all that. I urge my colleagues, when we vote, to strongly support Senator Kaine's resolution. I yield the floor.