Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Massachusetts. In fact, I have to leave the floor right now to wrap up business for a very important Finance Committee meeting tomorrow. It is a markup where we are going to be looking at ways as part of the transformation of Medicare--what I call updating the Medicare guarantee--that some of the technologies my friend from Massachusetts talked about are going to be available to seniors. I know our friend from New Hampshire has arrived, and she has been a very strong advocate of principles of net neutrality. I yield the remainder of my time to her.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and good friend, Chairman Hatch, for his courtesies. We have worked very closely together on this nomination. This was a challenging task, and I thank Chairman Hatch for his cooperation. Mr. Lighthizer needed a waiver because he had represented foreign interests. It was extremely important that we work with Senator Manchin and other colleagues to address the enormous needs of the miners, and we had a whole host of Members with a variety of extremely important trade issues--matters like steel, aluminum, and digital goods in our part of the world; we also care about softwood lumber tremendously. Chairman Hatch and I worked with all the members of the Finance Committee. It was a unanimous vote, and I thank him for his cooperation. We have talked a little bit about trade and what a modern trade policy is going to look like. The Lighthizer discussion is the beginning of the debate on trade in this Congress, and I have tried to be clear about my agenda. My agenda is to create more red, white, and blue jobs in America--high-skilled, high-waged jobs. Very often, the trade jobs pay better than do the nontrade jobs because there is more value added in them; there is a higher level of productivity. So my view is, as we set out on this journey to get more high-skilled, high- waged jobs, look to Asia where there are going to be 1 billion middle- class people there in a few years. What we ought to do is focus on growing them in the United States, making them in the United States, adding value to them in the United States, and then shipping them somewhere. That is my idea of a modern trade agenda. So far, the administration's trade agenda amounts to a muddle of 140- character tweets, mixed messages, and overhyped announcements that seem to be backed by not much substance. I think we are going to have to put together a coherent strategy quickly to promote our exports and fight back against trade cheats. That is not exactly what we have seen from the administration to date. We can almost suffer whiplash from the reports about what happens with various trade deals. Late at night, it was reported that the President is about to pull the United States out of NAFTA; then suddenly there is another report saying he has changed his mind after a conversation with the Canadians. Next, at a moment of extreme tension on the Korean Peninsula, it is reported that the President is threatening to pull out of the U.S.-Korea trade agreement. Then suddenly that threat is walked back. So the President has made some major statements with respect to trade deals on the books, but he has yet to give us much in the way of specifics on how he would like to bring that about. If one is trying to run a business in Oregon or around the United States that exports to foreign markets, it is pretty hard not to feel rattled and confused by some of the President's statements and tweets about trade. One might even make the decision not to invest and not to hire additional workers. I hope the President will soon see that some of the uncertainty and confusion that has been stoked as a negotiating tactic is not a recipe for creating red, white, and blue jobs. I do think Robert Lighthizer knows what the challenge is really all about, and I want to tell him I have appreciated our conversations. He is a real pro at this. I have appreciated his views, particularly on digital goods, which I think are so important to our burgeoning technology sector, and his views on Canadian lumber. I would also like to state at this time that I think very highly of Secretary Ross. He has been very constructive in our conversations, particularly on Canadian softwood lumber. Obviously, the U.S. Trade Representative will lead our country in trade negotiations, and that will be Mr. Lighthizer's role. The bulk of the expertise of trade does reside within his office. When Mr. Lighthizer is confirmed, as I hope he will be and expect he will be, this expertise will no longer be silent. I will wrap up simply by way of saying that the United States may be the world's largest economy, but it represents only 4 percent of the world's consumers. Red, white, and blue jobs in the United States depend on our ability to sell to the other 96 percent. The number of middle-class households around the world is going to double over the next decade. This represents a lot of potential buying power for the American brand, the Oregon brand. The fact is, people all over the world love buying the goods and the services we make. It is going to take a lot of hard work to smash through the barriers that block American-made goods and fight back against trade cheats. Lastly, the trade rules in many particulars are out of date, so we have a lot of work to do to promote labor rights, combat human trafficking, crack down on trade in illegally taking wildlife and endangered species, and get the trade system updated so it includes things like digital goods and small businesses that now have an international reach, which is especially important. The trading system has to respond more quickly to countries that break the rules or are unfairly producing basic commodities, such as steel and aluminum. This is especially true with respect to China. As policymakers, we must continue to take an honest look at the trade rules and fix what doesn't work so that American workers aren't left behind. It is long past time to invest more resources in monitoring, litigating, and enforcing our trading partners' obligations, including China's. The United States must respond more aggressively and more rapidly to threats to U.S. workers and businesses. There was a recent example of how this is done right when the Commerce Department said ``enough'' to Canada's unfairly traded softwood lumber. The steps the Commerce Department took were undeniably warranted after mill towns in Oregon and many other States have been clobbered over the last few decades. My first preference is a long-term agreement with Canada, but if they are not going to come to the table, I will keep fighting for our mills and mill jobs, and I will insist the administration do the same. The U.S. needs to carry that same steadfast approach across the board--getting trade enforcement right is not just a lumber issue. That means more resources for boots on the ground: investigators and enforcers. Not just at the office of the USTR but also at Customs and Border Protection and the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Labor, State, and Interior, where investigators are tasked with stopping trade in illegally taken wildlife. Bottom line, trade enforcement requires all hands on deck. If you boost trade enforcers at one agency only to wipe out the trade enforcers at another, you will fail to protect American workers from unfair or illegal imports. So I will be looking closely at the budget that the President submits to determine whether he is serious about delivering real results on trade enforcement or whether the campaign rhetoric and dramatic tweets are just a bunch of hot air, In recognition of the need for a new approach on trade enforcement, Congress recently passed new laws that give the President better tools to respond when trading partners don't follow the rules. It also passed legislation to strengthen domestic laws that enable the U.S. to unilaterally respond when American jobs are under threat, and it provided new direction should the President wish to negotiate new trade agreements or renegotiate past ones. In the coming months, I expect that those tools will not just sit and gather dust while the administration talks tough with respect to trade. It takes consistency, strategy and a lot of hard work to get trade done right. I have confidence that Robert Lighthizer will work to pursue a trade agenda that is coherent, constructive, and will deliver for American workers, and I will support his nomination. However, I want to express reservation on one issue pertaining to this nominee. During his confirmation hearing, Senator Stabenow asked Mr. Lighthizer how he would deal with situations in which he was conducting trade negotiations with a country in which the President has business interests. Senator Stabenow wanted to make sure that the President's personal financial interests wouldn't take precedence over the public interest. Mr. Lighthizer seemed surprised by the question, saying, quote, ``the idea that this President would do anything untoward is . . . far out of the realm of possibility.'' I would like to put Mr. Lighthizer on notice. This is a legitimate issue, and I share Senator Stabenow's concern. Never before has this country faced a circumstance in which our trade representative will be negotiating trade agreements with countries in which the President or his family have active business interests, whether it is trademarks, golf courses, or construction deals. I have introduced a bill requiring the President, when initiating trade negotiations, to disclose whether he has business interests in the country that we will be negotiating with. I intend to press this issue as trade negotiations move forward. Trade should be about fighting on behalf of American workers and businesses. It is not about the President's bottom line. Finally, on an issue that has been closely related to this nomination, I want to commend several of my colleagues for working together to provide relief to retired mineworkers regarding their healthcare costs. Senator Manchin has been a crusader on behalf of the mineworkers. Hardly a week went by over the last several months when I didn't hear from Joe Manchin about how important it was to get the mineworkers the healthcare benefits they have earned. And he has worked hand-in-hand with Senators Brown, Casey, and Warner, all of whom serve on the Finance Committee. Chairman Hatch deserves thanks for working with us to get this across the finish line as well. I see that my good friend, Chairman Hatch, is here to make his remarks. I thank him for the cooperation he has shown. I think the interests of both sides in processing this nomination have been advanced. A lot could have gone awry here. We had challenges with getting the waiver Mr. Lighthizer needed. We needed the space to make sure the miners were protected. Members had strong views. I thank Chairman Hatch for the diplomacy and cooperation he showed me and our side. I think that is why there was a very large vote for Mr. Lighthizer in the committee. I will be voting aye this afternoon and look forward to the Chairman's wrap-up remarks.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 50th anniversary of the Hells Canyon Preservation Council. Without the council and its courageous work, there might be multiple dams despoiling one of the deepest gorges in North America rather than the wondrous Snake Wild and Scenic River flowing through the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area and Hells Canyon Wilderness. The story of the creation of the council begins in 1967 as a conflict simmered for a long time over damming Hells Canyon, an 85-mile gorge on the Oregon-Idaho border. That fight appeared to solely turn on the question of who would get to build the dam in Hells Canyon, not whether to build the dam on what is often called the Grand Canyon of the Snake River. Washington Public Power Supply System, WPPSS, delivered public power and Idaho Power Company was a private power supplier. In 1964, the Federal Power Commission ruled in favor of the private power, WPPSS appealed, and their dispute went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 5, 1967, Justice William O. Douglas read the Court's majority opinion from the bench. The Supreme Court ruled neither for public power nor for private power. Instead, it remanded the entire case back to the Federal Power Commission with instructions to consider whether the best dam in Hells Canyon might be no dam at all. The Supreme Court ruled that the case wasn't about public versus private power. Instead, Justice Douglas said: ``Nor is the test solely whether the region will be able to use the additional power. The test is whether the project will be in the public interest. And that determination can be made only after an exploration of all issues relevant to the `public interest,' including future power demand and supply, alternate sources of power, the public interest in preserving reaches of wild rivers and wilderness areas, the preservation of anadromous fish for commercial and recreational purposes, and the protection of wildlife.'' Within 2 months, the debate over the best use of Hells Canyon shifted from what entity would dam it, to the core question of whether to dam it. Six members of the Idaho Alpine Club met in a Boise living room and formed the Hells Canyon Preservation Council. Joining that group was a young Seattle lawyer and Sierra Club attorney named Brock Evans. Brock soon fell in love with Hells Canyon and northeastern Oregon and vowed that the Snake River would not be dammed. The Hells Canyon Preservation Council soon grew to have more than 2,000 members in all 50 States. Its chapters included one in the little town of Enterprise in Wallowa County, home to half of Hells Canyon. The national attention attracted media personality Arthur Godfrey and folk singer Pete Seeger, along with national environmental groups who wanted to save the great gorge. Their efforts also attracted the attention of Oregon Senator Bob Packwood. From his first day in office, Senator Packwood championed the preservation of Hells Canyon. It took 8 years of hard work by Brock, assisted by Doug Scott, a native Oregonian who replaced Brock as the Sierra Club's Northwest Representative--and so many others inside and outside of Congress; yet that sweat equity paid off in 1975 when Congress passed the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Act. I am proud to say that Brock and his wife, Linda, have recently returned to Oregon, having moved to La Grande, near his beloved Hells Canyon. Oregonians and all Americans are indebted to the Hells Canyon Preservation Council and its allies, including Senator Packwood and many other fine Oregonians, for their tireless advocacy for preserving wild nature for the benefit of all of us today as well as future generations. Thanks to their work, we Oregonians today consider the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, the Hells Canyon Wilderness, and the Snake Wild and Scenic River to be an irreplaceable part of our priceless natural legacy, and we would no more think of damming Hells Canyon than of draining Crater Lake.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am placing a hold on the nomination of Sigal Mandelker to be Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. I will maintain that hold until the Treasury Department provides the Senate Intelligence Committee and Senate Finance Committee information and documents related to Russia and its financial dealings with President Trump and his associates. As announced by Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Warner on Tuesday, May 9; the Intelligence Committee has made a request to the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, FinCEN. I have stated repeatedly that we must follow the money if we are going to get to the bottom of how Russia has attacked our democracy. That means thoroughly reviewing any information that relates to financial connections between Russia and President Trump and his associates, whether direct or laundered through hidden or illicit transactions. The office which Ms. Mandelker is nominated to head is responsible for much of this information. The Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence marshals the Treasury Department's intelligence and enforcement functions to combat financial crimes and threats, including money laundering.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, after some chaotic weeks of hush-hush deliberating, a lot of arm-twisting, and more than a few obvious buy- offs, the House has handed the Senate a healthcare bill that will plunge tens of millions of Americans into suffering. With it, the debate now comes to this side of the Capitol, and my Republican colleagues seem to be competing to find out who can put the most distance between themselves and the House bill. The message is that they are starting from scratch with a partisan working group and a new bill under construction. But I want to make sure that everybody is realistic about where this debate stands. There is not a shred of actual hard evidence that the Senate Republican conference is objecting to nearly $1 trillion in tax breaks for the wealthy and the special interests, paid for by slashing middle-class tax benefits and cutting more than $800 billion out of Medicaid. The dates, the numbers, and the waivers might look a little different when Senate Republicans write a bill, but the underlying framework will be the same. This process, in short, is leading America back to the days when healthcare worked only for the healthy and wealthy. It is clear, when we look at the particulars, that the bill passed by the other body doesn't care whether you are young or old. It poses a threat of pain across all generations. So this afternoon, as I begin what will be a series of discussions here on the floor in the days ahead to discuss these issues, I want to talk about what we are dealing with now. Under the House bill, the youngster who needs special education services could see that set of opportunities disappear with cuts to Medicaid, a key source of funding for special ed school programs. Are the tax breaks in this bill for the wealthy worth depriving kids of the opportunities they need to get ahead in life? Under this bill, the young adult at 18 or 20 who has been through a cancer scare could wear that preexisting condition like a scarlet letter. They could face discrimination by insurance companies for life if their coverage ever lapses for more than a few weeks. Are the tax breaks in this bill worth exposing Americans with preexisting conditions to this danger? The 45-year-old who thought she was home free with an employer- sponsored plan that avoids the worst insurance company abuses could once again face a lifetime limit on certain health coverage. They would be at risk for personal bankruptcy if they suffer the wrong kind of injury or come down with the wrong kind of illness. Are the tax breaks in this bill worth putting insurance companies back in the driver's seat? The 60-year-old, still years from retirement, would get clobbered by what I call the age tax, charged up to five times as much as a young person for insurance coverage. Are the tax breaks in this bill worth reviving insurance company abuses like this? Not even the most vulnerable seniors are spared under this bill. Medicaid helps cover the tab for nearly two out of three seniors in nursing homes. They are people who have done everything right. They worked hard, they scrimped, and they saved. They raised their kids and put them through school. You see them in Ohio communities, and you see them in Oregon communities. But colleagues, growing older in America is not cheap, and these are people who spend down their savings, and that is when Medicaid steps in. But if Medicaid funding is slashed, the nursing home benefit and other critical long-term care services like home-based care are going to be in danger. Every one of us wants their loved ones to be cared for. But the fact is most families are already walking an economic tightrope in this country, balancing their mortgage and their gas bills and struggling to save for college and retirement. Where would working mothers and fathers today possibly find the money to pay for nursing home care for their elderly parents, perhaps $90,000 or more? Are the tax breaks in this bill worth putting seniors' nursing home care at risk? I spent this weekend holding townhall meetings in Oregon, holding healthcare roundtables at home in Oregon. It would be hard to overstate the fear and the tears I heard in conversations about this legislation. Oregonians recognize that in many ways, this proposal is a return to an era when insurance companies had more power and the typical American had less, when women were penalized simply because of their gender, when for many a preexisting condition was a death sentence, when insurance companies deciding what preexisting conditions they would cover constituted a real death panel. Even worse, the system would invite young and healthy people not to buy insurance unless they needed it at that particular moment, which would drive up costs for everybody else. Bottom line: You cannot revive a failed, abusive health insurance system and expect Americans to be very pleased and excited about it, especially when it is part of a scheme to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. That is what my Republican colleagues are attempting. I understand why they are doing it. What they want to do is, in effect, get these tax breaks for the wealthy in a health bill so they can have it teed up to get more tax breaks for the wealthy in a tax bill. That is what this is really all about. Even casual watchers of the debate understand that this bill--the tax cuts, in particular, are stacked in favor of the fortunate few. Every time you get a paycheck in North Dakota or Oregon or anywhere in America, a little bit for Medicare is taken out of that paycheck. Working people can see it; it is right there on their paychecks. A little bit is taken out. Under this bill, the only people who get a break on that contribution are at the very top of the income scale. Furthermore, the tax break on investment income will be swallowed up by the wealthy almost in its entirety. People with incomes over $1 million will get an average break of more than $50,000--almost as much as a typical family earns in an entire year. Most of that tax break goes not to just the millionaires but to those at the uppermost slice of the income scale. They are the fortunate individuals who make money from wealth, not from wages like most Americans. The 120,000 wealthiest families in the United States--those who bring in around $2 million a year, mostly from capital gains, interest, and dividends--would get an average tax handout under the House bill of $207,000. This is according to the Tax Policy Center, a well-respected group who analyzes these matters. I can tell you, even conservative health policy experts are looking at this bill and scratching their heads, trying to determine how this constitutes an improvement over the system that is on the books today. Aside from the wealthy individuals and corporations lining up for these tax handouts, it is hard to see who will be helped by this approach Republicans have taken. It is a worrying sign for anybody who believes in bipartisanship to see that Republicans in this body have decided they don't want any Democratic input. I have been involved in writing bipartisan health bills in the past, and there are more than a few cosponsors of those bills in the Republican conference today. A number of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have joined me in efforts, for example, to have loophole-free, air-tight protection against discrimination against those with a preexisting condition. It is important to understand that a lot of us on this side of the aisle--and my colleague, the President of the Senate, knows it from our work on infrastructure--would very much like to work with colleagues on the other side on bipartisan issues. It can be done. In fact, just today, under the leadership of Senator Schumer, our whole caucus said to the Republicans: Drop reconciliation so we can all come together and get serious about working in a bipartisan way on an issue that ought to be tackled in a bipartisan way for the American people and that I have a long history, in particular, of wanting to be part of. For the next several weeks, I will be on the floor drawing on our past experiences and underlining why the partisan approach underway right now is wrong. People ought to know that TrumpCare is a betrayal of the promises they have heard time and time again. They heard it through hundreds of TV commercials all through the election period, and what they are now seeing is a betrayal of those promises they watched on campaign advertisements over the last year. People ought to know that this is not a real effort at fixing our healthcare system. This is a masquerade. It is a masquerade to try to pretend that what is going on is about healthcare when it really is about making sure taxes can be cut for the most fortunate, while healthcare benefits for the middle class are slashed. TrumpCare is the opposite of good health policy. There is no grassroots campaign I know of clamoring for the Congress to pass another round of the same old handouts to special interests, donors, and powerful individuals. The American people are counting on the Congress to improve the health system and make their care more affordable. Congress ought to be working together on injecting more competition into the insurance markets and reducing out-of-pocket costs for families. We ought to be working especially on bringing down prescription drug prices. In my view, you can't really build a modern health system unless you address the challenges posed by chronic conditions such as diabetes, cancer, and Alzheimer's. We want it understood that Democrats want to work in a bipartisan way to improve the Affordable Care Act. That is the heart of the letter that all Senate Democrats signed today--we all went together--making it clear that we would like to see Republicans drop reconciliation and come together so we can find common ground. That would be in the country's interests, rather than using this go-it-alone process that is called reconciliation but specifically rejects bipartisanship. I am going to be on the floor a lot over the next several weeks. I promised my constituents night and day over the course of last weekend--and people kept saying night and day, day and night--because the country feels that strongly about this. I and others are going to hold our colleagues on the other side of the aisle accountable because we all ought to agree that this country cannot go back to the days when healthcare was for the healthy and the wealthy. Those preexisting conditions could be a death sentence. And that is because if you were healthy, you had no problem. If you were wealthy, you could write out the checks. But if you had a preexisting condition, you were in very serious straits. People told us about losing their homes and everything they had. We are not going back to the days in America when healthcare was for the healthy and wealthy. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, for the second time in an administration that has just crossed the 100-day threshold, Republicans in the Congress have teed up legislation that is going to make it harder for working Americans to save. This time, there is a proposal in front of us that goes after a brandnew program that my home State of Oregon is just now getting ready to launch. Let me make my views on this proposal clear, quickly. This legislation puts the special interests before working people, and it is just that simple. We all understand there is a savings crisis in the country. The typical American who works hard and brings home a paycheck every week or two is struggling to get money set aside for their retirement. Just think of the economic challenges these families are up against every day. Millions of young people are buried under student debt, so the prospect of saving for retirement feels like a dream and will remain so for years and years. Parents raising kids are faced with steep home loans and everyday bills. At the same time, it can seem as if the sticker price of a 4- year college education can match the GDP of a small island nation. The numbers on the savings crisis are just alarming. More than half of workers approaching retirement have nothing. That means zero set aside in retirement accounts like IRAs or 401(k) plans. Tens of millions of Americans do not have access to retirement plans at work. In my view, addressing these kinds of challenges ought to be a bipartisan priority, a priority where both sides of the aisle get together and respond. In response to this crisis, my home State, along with a few others, has looked to find a fresh approach to deal with retirement savings. We want working people and middle-income families--particularly those who don't have access to a savings plan today--to have more opportunities in the future to set money aside. My home State found a way to do it. Oregon found a way to do it in a kind of Oregon tradition that eliminates a lot of hassle. We are one of a handful of States that has passed what is called an auto-IRA law. At home, we call it OregonSaves, and we are going to be launching it in just a few months. What it means for Oregon workers is that when you get a job, you are going to get a retirement account, so that is not really complicated. When you get a job in Oregon, you are going to get a retirement account. You can start setting aside a little bit with every paycheck. By the way--and I want to emphasize this--it is not mandatory. People have the right to opt out. So when people say: Oh, government is going to force people to do this and that and something else, the Oregon plan is just the opposite. It is voluntary in all particulars. What it means for business owners--particularly small business owners--is that they can offer a savings plan without crippling fees or the hassle of dealing with redtape. OregonSaves, what we are about to bring out of the starting gate, is simple. It is easy to understand. In my view, it is exactly the kind of innovative program we need to combat the savings crisis that has hit all parts of the country. Over the years, I have often heard Members come to the floor and glowingly describe the States as the place where the action is. They call them the laboratories of democracy. The theory, of course, is that States ought to be empowered to come up with new ways to tackle challenges. I have to tell you, it is a head-scratcher why the majority here in the Senate would want to make it harder for innovative States like Oregon to put in place a savings program that is voluntary in nature. So after all these speeches I hear about the States and States' rights and that the States are the laboratories of democracy, when it comes to a program that is voluntary in nature, the majority here still seems to think what we ought to do is say no. I know the Presiding Officer cares deeply about how policies relate to rural areas. This is going to be especially hard on rural parts of the country. I talked first about this issue during a debate a few weeks ago. Several employers had written my office to say how important OregonSaves would be for them. I shared a handful of those stories on the floor, and it was striking how many of those employers said that this would be a sea change for rural businesses in terms of recruiting workers. Thanks to OregonSaves, they would be able to compete when it comes to job benefits. The bill we are considering now would put in doubt that program that employers said could make a big difference, particularly in rural areas. OregonSaves and programs like this involve years of discussion, years of effort to work with the Department of Labor. There has been a lot of consultation between the Federal Government and the States to get the legal roadblocks out of the way. Now that work is in danger with this vote. So, colleagues, what I would like to do in wrapping up is to just step back for a minute and talk about what this body has been working on. Even though the majority party has unified control of the government, we are not exactly at this point churning out bill after bill-- certainly not landmark legislation that responds to the challenges facing American families. Mostly to this point, there have been votes on nominations and bills tossing out a bunch of Federal rules that protect the people who have no power or clout in America. An awfully large share of the business of this Congress comes down to taking steps like the one we are looking at today, making it harder for the American people to save. I don't think this is just a step in the wrong direction; this is a sprint in the wrong direction. That is what we are dealing with today in the Senate. Programs like OregonSaves are a commonsense response to a national savings crisis. The Congress should not be passing legislation threatening those programs, making the savings crisis even worse in communities across the land. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided between both sides.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, May 6, 2017, marks a 75-year-old moral stain on Oregon's history. On this day in 1942, the city of Portland was declared free of all Japanese Americans. As part of the Nation's response to the bombing of Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066 in February 1942. In doing so, the President authorized the removal of anybody deemed ``threatening.'' The President's action was based in fear and prejudice rather than any actual threat, and many Japanese Americans paid the price as innocent people were separated from their families and traumatized. The United States would ultimately incarcerate more than 120,000 U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents of Japanese ancestry. The Federal Government deemed Japanese Americans who lived on the west coast a ``threat,'' putting my State of Oregon on the frontlines of this injustice. Forced out of their homes and businesses, many of Oregon's Japanese American families moved into the animal stalls of what was then the Pacific International Livestock and Exposition Center in north Portland. Eventually, a total of 3,700 men, women, and children from Oregon and parts of Washington were held at the center. These families were later sent off with thousands of other Japanese Americans to quickly erected camps across the United States. Despite the anti-Japanese fever burning across the United States, thousands of Japanese Americans were serving valiantly on the battlefields of Europe. We throw around the word ``patriot'' a lot these days, but I can't think of a more patriotic story than those Japanese Americans who signed up to defend the same country that had locked up their families. Units like the famed 442nd and men like my friend and former colleague Senator Dan Inouye displayed an exceptional degree of courage and valor abroad. Back home, Japanese American civil rights leaders like Minoru Yasui and Fred Korematsu were challenging the prejudices that led to Executive Order 9066, the internment, and other injustices faced by Japanese Americans and permanent residents. As the son of Jewish parents who fled Nazi Germany, I feel especially compelled today to remind my colleagues and my countrymen of this dark chapter in our Nation's history. It is especially important to recall this history today because it seems some Americans have slipped back into an era of fear-mongering, bigotry, and hate. I have seen countless expressions of kindness and decency in my years representing Oregon, which is why I have faith that people across our State and the country will continue to stand up and say ``no more.'' That is why I also want to honor the truly courageous Japanese Americans and others who fought the pain and fear caused by Executive Order 9066. They were on the right side of the argument then and now. Finally, I would like to recognize the Oregon Nikkei Endowment for all its work to bring us together to reflect on this day. Thank you to all the partners who have and will continue to fight for the rights of every American. I stand with them in solidarity today and always.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, apparently the Trump administration couldn't let its first 100 days go by without going after America's National Monuments. Anybody who cares about protecting some of the greatest treasures in Oregon and across the country ought to be worried. The President is lining up an Executive order requiring a review of the boundaries of all National Monuments designated since 1996. It might sound bureaucratic, but it is more than that. The President's Executive order is a short-sighted attempt to roll back protections for some of America's most cherished landscapes. The Executive order flies in the face of a century-old tradition that has ensured generations of Americans can enjoy natural treasures like the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument in my home State. Colleagues, for over 100 years, Presidents from both parties have used authority granted by the Antiquities Act to permanently protect special Federal lands as National Monuments, to preserve natural, cultural, and historic values for the benefit of everyone. Two of Oregon's most cherished areas were established as National Monuments through the Antiquities Act: Oregon Caves and Cascade-Siskiyou. Both of these areas have a remarkable diverse range of biological, geological, and historic objects. I am proud to have worked with President Clinton to establish the original boundaries of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument in 2000. I am proud to have worked with Senator Merkley to expand the monument earlier this year and to expand the boundary of the Oregon Caves National Monument in 2014. There are two important points to make about this debate. First, it is important that the individuals who live near and recreate on these lands have an opportunity to make their voices heard. As public lands everywhere, they ultimately belong to all of the people. Some people, the President included, say these monuments are an example of overreach and designated without the right process. On this issue, the President is wrong. These monuments are not the result of administrative overreach. The boundaries of these monuments are based on years of collaboration between the administration, States, and local stakeholders. The second point to make is about rural economies. National Monuments, National Parks, and public lands across the United States are important economic generators for rural communities. According to a report released just this week, public lands generate billions of dollars in consumer spending and millions of jobs every year. In Oregon, the outdoor recreation economy generated $12.8 billion in consumer spending in 2012 and over 140,000 direct jobs. Nationally, the numbers are even bigger; in 2012, the outdoor rec economy generated $889 billion nationwide and over 7 and a half million jobs. Colleagues, there is an agenda behind this Executive order, and it puts some of our greatest outdoor treasures and a lot of jobs in danger. Some members of this administration--including the Secretary of the Interior--have said the right things about public lands, and that was reassuring to millions of people who care about recreation. I hope it wasn't just talk, and I certainly hope the President's Executive order is not the first step in dismantling America's National Monuments and public lands.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes today to honor Alter Wiener, a selfless Oregonian who endured the horrors of the Holocaust and has shared his powerful story with countless students and adults. I would like to share his story with the Senate so that my colleagues can hear how he survived the Nazi atrocities and came to live in Hillsboro, OR, teaching young men and women in my home State the dangers of intolerance and exclusion. Alter Wiener's story begins more than 90 years ago in the Polish town of Chrzanow, where he was born on October 8, 1926. Like many Jewish children, he attended both public and religious school and was taught the importance of family and faith. What was a happy childhood ended abruptly when the Nazis invaded his hometown in September of 1939. Mr. Wiener fled with his mother and siblings, but his father, forced to stay behind, was ultimately murdered by the Germans. Barred from practicing his faith or attending school, Mr. Wiener was eventually ripped from his home in the middle of the night and deported to Blechhammer, a forced labor camp. He saw and experienced unimaginable horrors as he was moved from labor camp to labor camp, spending 3 long years in five concentration camps. When the Russian Army freed him in May 1945, he weighed only 80 pounds. Mr. Wiener made his way to New York City, where he joined his cousins, the only other members of a family that numbered 123 to survive the Nazi atrocities. In New York, he worked tirelessly to rebuild his life, earning his high school diploma at age 38 and then a degree from Brooklyn College. He got married, started a family, and worked as an accountant. Through it all, he rarely spoke of surviving the Holocaust or the atrocities he had witnessed and endured. He says now that he simply didn't feel others would understand. In 2000, Mr. Wiener moved to Hillsboro, OR. The Oregon Holocaust Resource Center asked him to share his story, and, though he hesitated at first, he ultimately agreed to speak at Century High School. To his surprise, Mr. Wiener received hundreds of letters from students thanking him for changing their lives. Mr. Wiener has since gone on to volunteer his time and energy to Holocaust education, giving more than 850 presentations to a wide range of audiences. In 2007, he published his autobiography ``64735: From a Name to a Number,'' detailing his harrowing experiences under the Nazi regime and his life thereafter. Many of my colleagues have heard me talk about my own family's experience: how my parents fled Nazi Germany, how not everybody made it out, how we lost family in Kristallnacht and at Theresienstadt. Tolerance and inclusiveness are issues the Wydens take very seriously. That is why it is so special for me to be able to pay tribute to Alter Wiener today and to honor his work. There is a concept in Judaism called tikkun olam, which means to repair the world. Truly, I can think of no bigger way to describe Alter Wiener's work than repairing the world. Every time he shares his story, more people understand the horrors of Nazi persecution and the inhumanity of the Holocaust. People also understand the importance of tolerance, pluralism, and inclusion, and they see the power of the human spirit to endure. Today I offer my deepest affection and a heartfelt thank you to Alter Wiener for using your voice to teach generations to come to never, ever forget.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President. Every day, Social Security provides vital benefits to millions of Americans who worked and paid into the system. To ensure workers would receive full access to these fundamental lifeline benefits, for many years, the law protected these earned benefits from attempts to recover debts. However, 20 years ago, Congress suddenly reversed course, and made a change to the law that allowed the government to cut Social Security and other hard-earned benefit payments in order to collect student loan and other federal debts, like home loans owed to the Veterans Administration, and food stamp overpayments. Now, more and more seniors are finding themselves subject to government garnishment of their already modest Social Security benefits in order to recoup student loan debts. In fact, the New York Times published an editorial recently titled, ``Haunted by Student Debt Past Age 50'' that highlighted the worsening struggle that seniors face with student debt. Student loan debt is becoming an increasingly serious problem in Oregon and across the Nation, with students and their families burdened by crushing student loan debt. Even in the best circumstances, many families will struggle to pay off crippling loans for years to come. However, for people who rely on benefits like Social Security after retirement, disability, or the death of a family member, making payments on student loans or other Federal debts can become an insurmountable hardship. Because of the lifeline nature of these earned benefits, for more than 40 years the law prevented all creditors from collecting hard- earned Social Security, railroad retirement, and black lung benefits to recoup debts. The only exceptions included unpaid Federal taxes, child support or alimony payments, and court-ordered victim restitution. These protections helped ensure that our social safety net programs were functioning as intended--something I think we can all agree is essential to preserving Social Security and other earned benefits. Astonishingly, when the law changed as part of a 1996 omnibus budget bill, these changes were never fully debated in Congress. This means Members of Congress never had the chance to really explore how this policy would affect beneficiaries. The legislation ultimately included some protections for the most vulnerable, but even those protections have not been updated in 20 years. We now realize what a profound effect the loss of these protections has had on retirees and individuals with disabilities, who often live on fixed incomes. More and more seniors and people with disabilities are having their Social Security and other lifeline benefits taken away to pay federal debts. For example, according to a GAO report, in 2004, about 8,000 seniors were living in poverty after having their benefits garnished to recover a student debt. In 2015, over 67,000 seniors were subject to garnishment for a student debt and living in poverty. Congress should restore sanity to the system, and reestablish the protections that these beneficiaries deserve. That is why I, along with Senators Brown, Merkley, Feinstein, Hirono, Schatz, Leahy, Nelson, Whitehouse, Gillibrand, Sanders, and Warren are reintroducing the Protection of Social Security Benefits Restoration Act. The bill would restore the strong protections in the law that prevented the government from taking away earned benefits to pay federal debts, and guarantee beneficiaries will be able to maintain a basic standard of living by receiving the benefits they have earned. The bill is supported by Social Security Works, the Arc of the United States, Latinos for a Secure Retirement, Puget Sound Advocates for Retirement Action, PSARA, AFL-CIO, the Economic Opportunity Institute, the National Organization for Women, Justice in Aging, Gray Panthers NYC, Alliance for Retired Americans, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, Global Policy Solutions, AARP, the American Federation of Government Employees, and the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW. 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. To ensure workers would receive full access to these fundamental lifeline benefits, for many years, the law protected these earned benefits from attempts to recover debts. However, 20 years ago, Congress suddenly reversed course, and made a change to the law that allowed the government to cut Social Security and other hard-earned benefit payments in order to collect student loan and other federal debts, like home loans owed to the Veterans Administration, and food stamp overpayments. Now, more and more seniors are finding themselves subject to government garnishment of their already modest Social Security benefits in order to recoup student loan debts. In fact, the New York Times published an editorial recently titled, ``Haunted by Student Debt Past Age 50'' that highlighted the worsening struggle that seniors face with student debt. Student loan debt is becoming an increasingly serious problem in Oregon and across the Nation, with students and their families burdened by crushing student loan debt. Even in the best circumstances, many families will struggle to pay off crippling loans for years to come. However, for people who rely on benefits like Social Security after retirement, disability, or the death of a family member, making payments on student loans or other Federal debts can become an insurmountable hardship. Because of the lifeline nature of these earned benefits, for more than 40 years the law prevented all creditors from collecting hard- earned Social Security, railroad retirement, and black lung benefits to recoup debts. The only exceptions included unpaid Federal taxes, child support or alimony payments, and court-ordered victim restitution. These protections helped ensure that our social safety net programs were functioning as intended--something I think we can all agree is essential to preserving Social Security and other earned benefits. Astonishingly, when the law changed as part of a 1996 omnibus budget bill, these changes were never fully debated in Congress. This means Members of Congress never had the chance to really explore how this policy would affect beneficiaries. The legislation ultimately included some protections for the most vulnerable, but even those protections have not been updated in 20 years. We now realize what a profound effect the loss of these protections has had on retirees and individuals with disabilities, who often live on fixed incomes. More and more seniors and people with disabilities are having their Social Security and other lifeline benefits taken away to pay federal debts. For example, according to a GAO report, in 2004, about 8,000 seniors were living in poverty after having their benefits garnished to recover a student debt. In 2015, over 67,000 seniors were subject to garnishment for a student debt and living in poverty. Congress should restore sanity to the system, and reestablish the protections that these beneficiaries deserve. That is why I, along with Senators Brown, Merkley, Feinstein, Hirono, Schatz, Leahy, Nelson, Whitehouse, Gillibrand, Sanders, and Warren are reintroducing the Protection of Social Security Benefits Restoration Act. The bill would restore the strong protections in the law that prevented the government from taking away earned benefits to pay federal debts, and guarantee beneficiaries will be able to maintain a basic standard of living by receiving the benefits they have earned. The bill is supported by Social Security Works, the Arc of the United States, Latinos for a Secure Retirement, Puget Sound Advocates for Retirement Action, PSARA, AFL-CIO, the Economic Opportunity Institute, the National Organization for Women, Justice in Aging, Gray Panthers NYC, Alliance for Retired Americans, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, Global Policy Solutions, AARP, the American Federation of Government Employees, and the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I, along with my colleague Senator Paul from Kentucky, am introducing the Protecting Data at the Border Act, a bill that protects Americans and U.S. Permanent Residents from warrantless searches of their electronic devices at the border. 1n 2014, the Supreme Court established in California v. Riley that law enforcement agencies must obtain a probable cause search warrant before they can search someone's phone or laptop during a ``search incident to arrest.'' Prior to that decision, law enforcement agencies around the country routinely engaged in warrantless searches of phones and other electronic devices. The Supreme Court rightly recognized that we need new, stronger rules to protect digital information. Although the warrant protections from Riley have been the law of the land for the last three years, a significant loophole has remained: the border. The Riley decision left unresolved the question of whether or not U.S. Customs can search the smartphones and laptops of U.S. persons as they leave the country and return home. This is not a theoretical concern. According to recent statistics provided by Customs and Border Protection, searches of cellphones by border agents has exploded, growing fivefold in just one year, from fewer than 5,000 in 2015 to nearly 25,000 in 2016. Five- thousand devices were searched this last February alone, more than in all of 2015. My colleague, Senator Paul and I intend to close this loophole, ensuring that U.S. persons crossing the border do not have lesser digital privacy rights than individuals who are arrested inside the United States. This bill has four main components. First, it requires that law enforcement agencies obtain a probable cause warrant before they can search the laptop, smartphone or other electronic device belonging to a U.S. person at the border. The bill includes an emergency exception to this warrant requirement, modeled after USA Freedom Act section 102, which became law in 2015. Second, it requires informed, written consent before the government may request and obtain voluntary assistance from a U.S. person accessing data on a locked device or account, such as by disclosing their password or otherwise providing access. The bill also prohibits the government from delaying or denying entry to a U.S. person if he or she refuses to provide such assistance. Third, it requires that the government obtain a warrant before it can copy and retain a U.S. person's data, even if the data has been collected without a warrant, during an emergency. Fourth, it requires that the government create and publish statistics on the electronic border searches they conduct. Passage of this bill would ensure that the important privacy rights recognized by the Supreme Court in Riley also apply at the border, while still enabling law enforcement agencies continue to do the important work of keeping our country safe. I thank my colleague Senator Paul for his efforts on this bill, and I hope the Senate will consider our proposal quickly.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I, along with my colleague Senator Paul from Kentucky, am introducing the Protecting Data at the Border Act, a bill that protects Americans and U.S. Permanent Residents from warrantless searches of their electronic devices at the border. 1n 2014, the Supreme Court established in California v. Riley that law enforcement agencies must obtain a probable cause search warrant before they can search someone's phone or laptop during a ``search incident to arrest.'' Prior to that decision, law enforcement agencies around the country routinely engaged in warrantless searches of phones and other electronic devices. The Supreme Court rightly recognized that we need new, stronger rules to protect digital information. Although the warrant protections from Riley have been the law of the land for the last three years, a significant loophole has remained: the border. The Riley decision left unresolved the question of whether or not U.S. Customs can search the smartphones and laptops of U.S. persons as they leave the country and return home. This is not a theoretical concern. According to recent statistics provided by Customs and Border Protection, searches of cellphones by border agents has exploded, growing fivefold in just one year, from fewer than 5,000 in 2015 to nearly 25,000 in 2016. Five- thousand devices were searched this last February alone, more than in all of 2015. My colleague, Senator Paul and I intend to close this loophole, ensuring that U.S. persons crossing the border do not have lesser digital privacy rights than individuals who are arrested inside the United States. This bill has four main components. First, it requires that law enforcement agencies obtain a probable cause warrant before they can search the laptop, smartphone or other electronic device belonging to a U.S. person at the border. The bill includes an emergency exception to this warrant requirement, modeled after USA Freedom Act section 102, which became law in 2015. Second, it requires informed, written consent before the government may request and obtain voluntary assistance from a U.S. person accessing data on a locked device or account, such as by disclosing their password or otherwise providing access. The bill also prohibits the government from delaying or denying entry to a U.S. person if he or she refuses to provide such assistance. Third, it requires that the government obtain a warrant before it can copy and retain a U.S. person's data, even if the data has been collected without a warrant, during an emergency. Fourth, it requires that the government create and publish statistics on the electronic border searches they conduct. Passage of this bill would ensure that the important privacy rights recognized by the Supreme Court in Riley also apply at the border, while still enabling law enforcement agencies continue to do the important work of keeping our country safe. I thank my colleague Senator Paul for his efforts on this bill, and I hope the Senate will consider our proposal quickly.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, most of us have heard the metaphor that small businesses are the engines that power our economy. What we don't hear people talk about as much is the fuel that feeds the engines: capital. Without capital, entrepreneurs cannot see their ideas to fruition, successful business owners cannot expand to meet the needs of the market, and eager job seekers must take their skills elsewhere. Without capital, Main Street falters, and Wall Street keeps the advantage. Today, more than 9 years after the start of the great recession and many policy reforms later, access to capital remains a challenge. This capital drought hampers small business growth, economic development, and job creation in Oregon and across the country. Despite this, government regulation continues to tie the hands of many willing small businesses lenders--namely, credit unions. According to some estimates, credit unions could lend an additional $11 billion to small businesses if Congress loosened restraints on credit union business lending. With this in mind, I am pleased to introduce today the Credit Union Residential Loan Parity Act with Senator Murkowski. This bill would increase access to capital by exempting certain loans from the member business lending cap imposed on credit unions. Currently, loans made for one- to four- person, non-owner-occupied housing are treated as business loans when they are made by credit unions. As such, these types of loans count against a credit union's business lending cap, effectively limiting a credit union's ability to provide loans to small businesses. Our legislation would address this issue by allowing credit unions to treat these types of loans as residential loans--the same treatment these kinds of loans receive when made by other financial institutions. In effect, the bill would exempt residential loans from the business lending cap. This exemption would increase access to capital for small businesses, which in turn would create jobs and grow our local economies. In addition to generally increasing credit union lending, our legislation would directly free up capital for small businesses that make much needed investments in rental housing. I am hopeful that this legislation will be received by colleagues for what it is--a simple step to help ensure America's small businesses have access to the fuel they need to power our economy. It is my hope that the Senate will pass this legislation swiftly. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, most of us have heard the metaphor that small businesses are the engines that power our economy. What we don't hear people talk about as much is the fuel that feeds the engines: capital. Without capital, entrepreneurs cannot see their ideas to fruition, successful business owners cannot expand to meet the needs of the market, and eager job seekers must take their skills elsewhere. Without capital, Main Street falters, and Wall Street keeps the advantage. Today, more than 9 years after the start of the great recession and many policy reforms later, access to capital remains a challenge. This capital drought hampers small business growth, economic development, and job creation in Oregon and across the country. Despite this, government regulation continues to tie the hands of many willing small businesses lenders--namely, credit unions. According to some estimates, credit unions could lend an additional $11 billion to small businesses if Congress loosened restraints on credit union business lending. With this in mind, I am pleased to introduce today the Credit Union Residential Loan Parity Act with Senator Murkowski. This bill would increase access to capital by exempting certain loans from the member business lending cap imposed on credit unions. Currently, loans made for one- to four- person, non-owner-occupied housing are treated as business loans when they are made by credit unions. As such, these types of loans count against a credit union's business lending cap, effectively limiting a credit union's ability to provide loans to small businesses. Our legislation would address this issue by allowing credit unions to treat these types of loans as residential loans--the same treatment these kinds of loans receive when made by other financial institutions. In effect, the bill would exempt residential loans from the business lending cap. This exemption would increase access to capital for small businesses, which in turn would create jobs and grow our local economies. In addition to generally increasing credit union lending, our legislation would directly free up capital for small businesses that make much needed investments in rental housing. I am hopeful that this legislation will be received by colleagues for what it is--a simple step to help ensure America's small businesses have access to the fuel they need to power our economy. It is my hope that the Senate will pass this legislation swiftly. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I don't wish to turn this into a bouquet- tossing process, but I think it is very clear that Senators on both sides of the aisle are very, very pleased to see our friend from Georgia back today. We are wishing him health and Godspeed. We look forward to his full and complete recovery. We are so glad to have him here. I am also pleased that Senator Coons is on the floor, because I think it would be fair to say that Members on both sides of the aisle who have watched how Senator Coons has conducted himself throughout this extraordinarily contentious debate would say that Senator Coons makes all of us very, very proud. It is no secret that he has tried repeatedly to bring both sides together, and he and I have talked often about this. I think there are going to be opportunities for finding common ground on important legislation, breaking out of this gridlock that we all understand is not what the Senate is all about and forging toward more mainstream topics. When we get there, to a great extent, it will be because of the thoughtful comments of my friend from Delaware. Mr. President, the Senate is going to act on one of its most sacred and important constitutional duties, the advice and consent on the nomination of the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. The long tails of these Supreme Court debates stretch through generations and shape our government deep into the future. The choice the Senate makes in this extraordinary debate will have a profound impact, from the broadest governing statutes down to the most specific particulars of the law that affect our daily lives. There are several issues that are particularly relevant to this nominee that have gotten short shrift. I am talking about secret law, and warrantless wiretapping, death with dignity. I intend to discuss these issues shortly. I would like to begin, however, by stating that whether one supports or opposes Judge Gorsuch, our job would have been easier had the judge been more forthcoming in his testimony before the Judiciary Committee. He chose, however, not to do so. So what the Senate has to go by instead is the judge's lengthy record of adhering to a rigid and far- right philosophy that is packaged in the branding of so-called originalism. The originalist says that our rights as a people are contained within and linked to our founding documents. But that viewpoint is plainly incorrect. In practice, originalism becomes a cover for protecting the fortunate over the poor, corporations over individuals, and the powerful over virtually every other American. It is a political agenda that masquerades as philosophy, an agenda whose sole intent is reserving power for those in power and limiting the recognition of the rights reserved to the people. Far from endorsing such a creed, our Constitution is actually a document of constraints, constraints that bind the government, not the people. The full scope of our fundamental rights as a people, as Justice M. Harlan once wrote, ``cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.'' The exact concept is written into the Bill of Rights itself. The Ninth Amendment says: ``The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.'' James Madison, the founder so significant that Americans are said to live in a ``Madisonian Democracy,'' was outspoken about the dangers of future readers or interpreters thinking that the fundamental rights contemplated by the Framers were limited to the Constitution or Bill of Rights. So our founding document and its Framers made clear that rights were not enumerated by the Constitution; they were retained by the people. Individual liberties, from personal privacy to a woman's right to vote, the choice of contraception and abortion, interracial marriage, same- sex marriage, equal protection of the law--these liberties and, let me emphasize, many, many, many more have always existed. In fact, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were silent on much of what Americans consider fundamental to a free people. That silence left the door open for the courts, as we shed the prejudices of a darker age, to recognize the true meaning of the words ``all men are created equal'' and ``inalienable rights.'' The process has been painfully slow. The Constitution, like any document composed by politicians, is fraught with original sin. For example, the three-fifths compromise was a shameful device of political accommodation. Through long stretches of our history, political agendas have left many individual rights unrecognized or unprotected by the courts. They ruled in favor of the powerful and against the disadvantaged and the disenfranchised, often with the justification that their rulings adhered to the text of the Constitution. Nowhere did the Constitution expressly deny women the right to vote, but the Supreme Court ruled against Virginia Minor in 1875. The Federal Government was not expressly granted a right to intern residents of Japanese descent, but the Supreme Court allowed it in Korematsu. There was no constitutional basis on which to deny people of different ethnicities the right to marry. On those issues and more, our judges were wrong. Supreme Court Justices were wrong. In the service of the economic, political, and religious powers that be, the Court has defended slaveholders, denied the franchise, permitted racial, sexual, and other discrimination, and routinely--routinely--elevated the power of the State over individual liberties. Any defense of those rulings as adhering to the text of the Constitution is just plain wrong. Let's look more closely at women's voting rights. In Minor v. Happersett, the Supreme Court found that women did not have the right to vote because that right was not expressly stated anywhere in the Constitution. In a unanimous decision, the Court took the absurd position that a document predicated on voting, organized by voting, and dependent on voting for any amendment, still did not protect the right to vote for all citizens. Such is the intellectual bankruptcy of a long legal tradition sustained by its defense of the status quo. The 19th Amendment was a response to the abridgement of a fundamental right by political parties and their dependent courts, but it did not create a new right. It was a long overdue fix made necessary by an originalist court. If there is a national evolution that extends protection of rights and liberties to disenfranchised and oppressed people, it is because with time, our wonderful country tends to correct its wrongs. It did so with a Civil War and the amendments that followed. It did so with women's suffrage and the Brown decision. It did so more recently with the Obergefell v. Hodges decision. Historically, our country has gradually recognized fundamental rights and liberties. ``Recognition''--I use that word intentionally. It is recognition because there are no new rights, per se. They are inalienable, and those rights are not limited to those spelled out in the Constitution. A jurist governed by that principle would respect individual rights, but that simply isn't the viewpoint taken by many so-called originalists on the far right today. The rightwing originalism looks, in my view, a lot more like the judicial philosophy that trampled on the rights of Americans in days past--a philosophy that throughout our history has left many Americans marginalized, disenfranchised, and oppressed by the State. Unfortunately, after listening very carefully to Judge Gorsuch present his views and after reviewing his writings, including some I will mention that specifically talk about my home State, I have no faith that Judge Gorsuch would be any different from this philosophy that I mentioned that has left so many Americans marginalized in our country. Judge Gorsuch not only has a long record of conservative activism in the courtroom, but he has demonstrated an out-and-out hostility toward the right of individuals to make decisions about their own lives and their own families without interference from the State. In one troubling instance, he went so far as to author a book attacking death with dignity. This of course has been a matter that historically has been left to the States, and the people of my State twice approved death-with-dignity ballot measures and our death-with-dignity laws have been in place for nearly 20 years. The Supreme Court upheld it more than a decade ago in a case known as Gonzalez v. Oregon. But Judge Gorsuch's record and his own words put the will of millions of Oregonians in question. Nothing in the Constitution gives the Federal Government the power to deny suffering Oregonians the right to make basic choices about the end of their lives. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal Government a power to deny people in my State the right to make those emotional, difficult, wrenching decisions about end of life. It is a private matter between individuals and doctors, and when politicians attempt to force regulations through the back door by going after doctors and their ability to prescribe, in my view that is an obvious over-the-line Federal infringement. But my guess is there are probably going to be some folks on the far right that are going to try that route again. Nothing Judge Gorsuch said in his confirmation hearing gave me any indication that he respects the death-with-dignity issue as settled law or that he would rule against Federal abuse of power to intrude on a private choice. The bottom line is that Judge Gorsuch is locked into an extreme rightwing viewpoint on this issue. And there is more. As I have listened to this debate and, particularly, the number of comments that some of those who have espoused the views that concern me so much come back to, part of this is that they are always talking about States' rights. States' rights-- that will be the altar that we really build our views and philosophies around. I will state, however, that when we listen to some of what they are having to say about States' rights, what they are really saying is that they are for the State if they think the State is right. That is not, in my view, what fundamental rights--particularly, ones that have been afforded to States--ought to be all about. As I indicated, I think his views with respect to death with dignity really do involve a Federal abuse of power in its intruding on private choices, but there are other issues that concern me as well. He has made it clear, in many instances, that he favors corporations at the expense of the working people. He has sided with insurance companies to deny disability benefits to people with disabilities, with large companies to deny employees basic job protections, and has even written that class action lawsuits are just tools for plaintiffs to get ``free rides to fast riches.'' No example better illustrates this tendency--and my colleagues have talked about it--than the case of the truckdriver in TransAm Trucking v. Department of Labor. In this case that leaves one practically speechless, Judge Gorsuch sided against a truckdriver who was fired for leaving his freezing cold truck when his life was in danger. I have another significant concern about Judge Gorsuch that came up in the context of his confirmation hearings. It is something that, I think, a lot of Americans and even those in government are trying to get their arms around. I have been on the Intelligence Committee since the days before 9/11, and one of the things we have come to feel strongly about is the danger of what I call ``secret law.'' I want to make sure people know exactly what I am talking about when I describe ``secret law.'' In the intelligence world and in the national security sphere, operations and methods--the tactics used by our courageous men and women who are protecting us and who go into harm's way to protect our people--always have to be secret. They are classified. They have to be because, if they were to get out, we could have Americans die--the people who do all of that wonderful work and, possibly, millions more. Sources and methods have to be secret, but the law and our public policies ought to always be transparent. The American people need to know about them because that is how we make informed decisions in our wonderful system of government. Voters are given enough information to make the choices. Sources and methods and operations have to be secret, but the law and political philosophies have to be public. Judge Gorsuch, as a senior attorney in the Department of Justice, was a practitioner of secret law. As I indicated, the public is not going to know about secret operations; we protect them. But trust in government and in our legal system cannot survive when Americans understand that the law says one thing and then the government or a secret court says that it means another. Secret law prevents the people from knowing whether their fundamental rights are being infringed by an unaccountable, unconstrained government that is aided by compliant courts. Secret law also keeps the Congress in the dark. Congress's job is to represent the people and oversee the government. Congress, barring rebellion, is the only recourse of a free people against an executive- judicial alliance of secrecy that infringes their liberties. It is my view that secret law makes a mockery of the oath that Members of Congress, Justices, and each Senator here has taken to serve, protect, and defend our Constitution. Secret law is fundamentally corrosive to the rule of law in America. As we learned during his confirmation hearings, Judge Gorsuch was a supporter of secret law. In 2005, the CIA was conducting a secret torture program. In May of that year, the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel determined, secretly, that torture techniques, such as waterboarding, were legal. Somehow, it deemed them consistent with statutory prohibitions on torture and the Constitution. This was extraordinary, willful, faulty legal analysis. It was entirely inconsistent with how the Congress and the public would read the law or the Constitution. Then our distinguished colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, who knows a little bit about these issues in his having been subjected to them in the defense of our country, passed the Detainee Treatment Act. Senator McCain understood, in having fought for our country--given fully of himself--that our government had to find a way out of this problem. The McCain law prohibits the cruel and inhumane or degrading treatment that has been at issue here. By any measure, both the law--the language of the law, the clear intent of the Congress--and the context in which it was passed would leave every American to understand that a decision had been made by their elected officials to limit the power of government. Yet Judge Gorsuch, then an employee of the Bush administration's, had a solution. In December of 2005, he wrote to the author of the Justice Department's opinion, Mr. Bradbury, about a Presidential signing statement that would magically transform the McCain law into an endorsement of torture. What Judge Gorsuch wrote was that the McCain amendment that prohibited cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment was best read as, essentially, codifying existing interrogation policies. In other words, according to Judge Gorsuch, John McCain's law--the one that passed 90 to 9 in the U.S. Senate--endorsed torture when it did just the opposite. The issue came up in his nomination hearing. Judge Gorsuch's explanation was that he was making the recommendation as a lawyer who was helping his client, which was the administration. I have to say, if there is one thing we have learned, this ``just following orders'' defense has gone on for far too long in this city. It is a small and feeble excuse and is unbecoming of a judge who has been nominated to the highest Court in the land. A judge who justifies government violations in the law and the Constitution just so his boss can say ``I was following the advice of counsel'' is making a choice to do wrong. The McCain amendment--what we passed here in the Congress--did not green-light torture. It did not codify torture, period. Anybody who has ever heard John McCain talk about this issue and describe his personal, horrifying experiences with torture knows that it, certainly, could not have been his intent when writing the bill. Any lawyer, especially one secretly advising the government, first has an obligation to the law and the Constitution. Judge Gorsuch's failure to recognize that principle and his choice to do wrong, in my view, disqualifies him from having a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Torture is not the only illegal program on which Judge Gorsuch has left his fingerprints. After news broke of the illegal, warrantless wiretapping program, Judge Gorsuch helped prepare testimony for the Attorney General, which asserted that these authorities are vested in the President and are inherent in the office. It added: ``They cannot be diminished or legislated away by other co- equal branches of the government.'' If that were the case, then no action taken in this area by the elected representatives of the people would have any weight. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which has existed since the 1970s, would just be some kind of advisory statement. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which we are going to debate this year, would be little more than wasted paper. Then the USA FREEDOM Act, which ended the bulk collection of law-abiding Americans' phone records, might as well have never been signed into law. Voting for those bills and voting to confirm Judge Gorsuch call into question any Member's commitment to those laws that we passed. In response to a question during his nomination hearing, Judge Gorsuch said that he did not believe the Attorney General's testimony and that, again, he was only acting as a scribe, as a speechwriter. As such, he absolved himself of responsibility for his actions. Again, I think that it is just wrong to use this as an excuse. Like the endorsement of torture, assertions of Presidential authority to override congressional limits on warrantless surveillance rip at the fabric of the rule of law. Judge Gorsuch, a man who chose to get up and go to work every day for individuals who were violating the law, had the power to say no, but he would not make that choice. Colleagues, the Senate is voting to confirm an individual to a lifetime position on the Supreme Court. What Judge Gorsuch has stood for and against over the course of his legal career is all we have to go on in this debate, and we will have to reflect on it. A history of support, in my view, for secret, illegal, and unconstitutional programs is an unacceptable record for someone who is seeking a place on the Supreme Court. I have reminded this Senate of how, time and again, the Supreme Court has rubber-stamped the excesses of our executive and legislature over the years rather than defended individual liberty. That is the record-- the Supreme Court rubbing-stamping the excesses of the executive and legislature rather than protecting the individual liberties of the American people. It is my view that it is our job as Senators to ensure that the Supreme Court does not repeat the errors of yesterday--enshrining disenfranchisement and discrimination and denying equal protection of the law based on prejudice and political agendas. I believe that the only way to prevent this abuse is to appoint judges who recognize that the judiciary is a bulwark against any attempt to infringe on our unalienable rights. The bottom line for me, colleagues, is whether Judge Gorsuch recognizes that rights are reserved for the people. There is no respect for individual rights and liberty to be found in a viewpoint that allows for secret law to justify torture, that favors the powerful over the powerless, or that tramples on the rights of Americans to determine the courses of their own lives. Unfortunately, we have learned over the last few weeks that this is Judge Gorsuch's record. I oppose his nomination. I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I wish to commemorate the retirement of my friend Wayne Kinney. Wayne is retiring as my central Oregon field representative after more than two decades of outstanding service to our State--and more specifically serving at one point or another the residents of Baker, Crook, Deschutes, Gilliam, Grant, Harney, Hood River, Jefferson, Klamath, Lake, Malheur, Morrow, Sherman, Umatilla, Union, Wallowa, Wheeler, and Wasco Counties. Suffice to say, Wayne knows everyone, and most of those folks could spend hours recounting their own tales of this quintessential public servant. Simply put, he will be deeply missed. But before Wayne takes his well-deserved retirement to his native New England--where he can be nearer to family and maintain closer supervision of his beloved Boston Red Sox and New England Patriots--I want to share my personal appreciation for this exemplary public servant, all-around good guy, and wonderfully avuncular curmudgeon. Wayne can forever lay claim to a significant piece of Oregon history. He opened Oregon's first Senate field office east of the Cascades shortly after I first took office in 1996. Wayne opened and ran my eastern Oregon office in La Grande before moving to Bend. In his service to Oregonians, he has put more miles than anybody I know on Oregon roads, at all hours, in all kinds of weather, to towns where there often are more cows than people. Wayne's fierce sense of loyalty and commitment to public service has driven him to cover all the ground he has over the years from Wasco to Wagontire, Ontario to Olene, Joseph to John Day, Bend to Burns, Madras to Mitchell, and all points in between. That loyalty extends to the rural communities he serves and the Oregonians in those communities who might not otherwise have a voice. Wayne always keeps the door open for cattlemen, farmers, and countless others who often feel the government is removed from their struggles. It is Wayne's ability to reach out and make connections with all of those folks that played such a large part in ensuring ``every nook and cranny'' in Oregon gets a voice. Wayne is not just a champion in general for rural Oregon communities. He has also proven to be an able advocate for creating opportunities for rural women that allows them to bring their voices into statewide discussions. Let me tell a couple of anecdotes about Wayne to provide a glimpse into this wonderful character--and all that he has meant to Oregon. For my colleagues who have not been to central and eastern Oregon, I would only note that the distances between towns can be great, but Wayne never let those long drives be a roadblock. In fact, his goal was to be anywhere and everywhere. He achieved that goal by--I believe in his words--making sure that, if anybody was so much as dedicating a new soda machine, he would be there to put in the first dollar. Just as great at times as the challenges of distance in his area are the weather challenges. Again, Wayne never let that be a roadblock. I remember well flying into rural Condon, OR, for a townhall in the snow, and who should I see with the local police chief sweeping the runway of snow? Wayne. It has been said by some that there is an unbridgeable urban-rural divide in Oregon. I know from more than 800 townhalls in every part of Oregon, that is untrue. In fact, I have come to use the term ``the Oregon way'' to describe how it is in our State's DNA to put aside partisanship in favor of civil conversations to find the best solutions. Among the many tributes in recent days in Oregon to my friend, I was struck by something I read about Wayne that captures how he ``lived and breathed'' the Oregon way. On Wayne's Facebook page recently, a Republican posted this powerful praise: ``Had lunch today with a good friend. Politically, Wayne and I are polar opposites. He is a Democrat, an officer with the Oregon Democratic Party and staff member with Senator Wyden, and I have served on the Executive Committee of the Oregon Republican Party, as well as County Central Committee Chairman. Over the years, we have had some great discussions, even disagreements about some very important issues, but we have handled our disagreements respectfully and remained friends. Wayne has announced his retirement and is also leaving our great state to move back east so he can be near family. The Oregon Democrats, and Senator Wyden are losing a tremendous asset, and a great leader of their Party.'' Oregon truly is losing a tremendous asset, and so am I. I will miss Wayne tremendously, but I take heart that his work will live on in the issues he has resolved for Oregon and the relationships he has deepened among Oregonians. As Wayne begins his well-earned retirement, he has my eternal gratitude, and he has Oregon's.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I hear colleagues from the other side of the aisle talk again and again about how they want patient-centered healthcare. That is the refrain--patient-centered healthcare. Make no mistake about what this resolution is all about. It turns that phrase on its head because what it says to certainly women who are patients: You are not free to go get the healthcare you want. It seems like this never ends--another day, another effort to deny women the opportunity to have the kinds of healthcare choices and the healthcare services that they feel strongly about. I am not going to take long; I know colleagues are in a hurry. I just want to say that the next time you hear this lofty rhetoric-- particularly from the majority--about how everything they are going to do in American healthcare is going to put the patients at the center of healthcare, give people more choices, and protect the freedom that they talk about in healthcare--understand, if you vote for this resolution, you are repudiating all of those speeches. I have heard Senator Murray talk about it. She says it very eloquently. The bottom line is that this resolution not only doesn't support that lofty rhetoric about patients being at the center of healthcare, this resolution deprives women of choices and access to healthcare services they want. I hope my colleagues will join Senator Murray and understand the dangerous consequences of what is at stake. Oppose this resolution and save the Vice President the trip to the Hill. I yield back.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, let me thank my friend from Illinois for his very thoughtful and warm remarks about somebody who we all admired very much, Ed Greelegs. I remember so many times talking to him about the rights of seniors, and a lot of us who thought we knew something about the subject didn't know half of what Ed did. This was a guy with a really razor-sharp mind, but he had an even bigger heart, and particularly a heart for people without clout and power. I don't think it was an accident that he gravitated to the senior Senator from Illinois, I might add as well. So I thank my friend for his very gracious remarks about somebody we all admired very much. Mr. President, I am here this afternoon because from the people who brought us TrumpCare, which was so favorable to the fortunate few and the special interests, now comes legislation that is going to make it harder for working people and working families to save for their own retirement. To kind of put that in context, whenever we have a debate about retirement, we always hear people say: You know, you just ought to realize that Social Security, this earned benefit--an earned benefit for Americans--you have to realize it is not going to cover everything. You have to save privately. You have to save for your retirement. And now, what we are seeing is the powerful special interests--the people with deep pockets and great political influence--are talking about restricting the chance for those typical working families to do the very thing that those people usually say is the solution. They say: No, we can't have government programs; you have to save privately for your retirement. And now come along those very powerful special interests, and they want to talk about restricting the ability of working families to save privately. So we are now debating the first of two resolutions that would put a huge dark cloud over the new programs with individual retirement accounts, called auto-IRA programs, that States like mine and a handful of cities are seeking to build. Right now, immediately, it is the locally based programs that are trying to promote private savings, giving the working-class family the chance to do it, and they are the ones who could be undermined. Of course, depending on what happens around here, the State programs could be next. So at this time in American history, when we are facing a very large challenge with respect to savings, when a little over half of the workers approaching retirement age have nothing--zero--saved in retirement accounts such as individual retirement accounts or 401(k) plans, these two resolutions amount to a game plan that would take the savings crisis, which is already bad, and make it worse. Around 55 million Americans don't have access to a retirement plan at work. More often than not, it is the employees of small- and medium- sized businesses who don't have that job benefit, and it is no fault of their own. In my view, this shouldn't even be a partisan question. There ought to be bipartisan interests in helping these workers find new opportunities to save. It ought to be easier than it is today. I see my friend and colleague from the Finance Committee in the Chair, and as he knows, we have had countless committee hearings in the Finance Committee. We have been part of multiple floor debates when I have heard Members on both sides of the aisle talk about the importance of private savings. Yet here we are in the Senate, and yet we are looking at an effort on the part of the majority at this point that wants to ram through resolutions that would make it harder to save, not easier. So juxtapose what is going on today and then think about all of the committee hearings in the Finance Committee, in the HELP Committee, where we hear people talk about private savings. We ought to make it easier; we ought to have smarter policies. Today the U.S. Senate is looking at making it harder for working families to save. Here is a little bit of background about this and what it means to my home State of Oregon, and we are looking at winning the NCAA championship here in a few days, so there are a lot of things we are talking about in Oregon right now. But I wanted to especially come and talk about another area where we are leading right now; that is, trying fresh approaches to retirement savings. Oregonians want as a State to help close the gap for the 55 million Americans without an employer-sponsored plan. After a lot of study and careful planning, my home State of Oregon is one of a handful of States that have passed what has come to be known as an auto-IRA. The actual name of the program is OregonSaves, and it is set to launch this summer. What it means--and the highlight of it is this is a voluntary program--is we are creating a new set of opportunities for workers to actually save. What it means in my State is if you are a worker at one of these businesses, when you get a job, you will get a retirement account, and you will be able to start saving. Now, I want to emphasize that it is not mandatory. Any worker who wants to opt out could do so, but it is designed to be simple and easy to use for everybody involved. I wish to describe for a moment some of my conversations with Oregonians and workers who have been part of these auto IRAs. They come up at townhall meetings in every county of my State--I have had a little over 800 now--and we have discussed savings. They come up often, and they say: I have been hearing about these new IRAs, and I am automatically enrolled in one. Then they say: You know, if they hadn't automatically enrolled me in it, I probably wouldn't have done it because there is always an expense in our household, there is always something we think we probably should do, and we would say to ourselves: We had better do that now, and we can come back and talk about saving later. Those employees have come up and said: We probably wouldn't have done it without this automatic enrollment. But, Ron, I am so glad that we have it because I have seen that this is really beneficial, and it in effect has persuaded me that I have to take a very disciplined approach. I am glad this is automatic, and I especially like the fact that I have the last word on the subject. In other words, if I feel for one reason or another I can't do this automatic savings, there would be an opportunity for me to opt out. It is automatic, and it provides this path for people to start saving. It is cost-effective. It is straightforward for employers. It eliminates a lot of redtape and administrative hassle. Most importantly, it gives the worker the last word--the right to opt out of this. The Trump administration says it wants to cut redtape that burdens business. In my view, this legislation does the opposite. It makes it harder for small businesses to provide retirement savings programs for their workers. One after the other, Oregon employers are raving about the opportunity the program represents for them, especially when it comes to recruiting and retaining top-notch employees and helping those workers build a nest egg. I just gave a little bit of empirical evidence from these community meetings I hold where workers say they particularly like what this does. It is almost like a little bit of a nudge to save and build a nest egg. Judi Randall, the finance director of an affordable housing provider in Roseburg, OR, says it would make a big difference for a rural nonprofit organization like hers to have OregonSaves available to help employees secure their retirement. Joy Andersen, another Oregon leader, is the administrator at the Asher Community Health Center in Fossil, OR. I had my first community meeting in this small town of about 500. Joy has talked about how important it is to her to have an attractive retirement plan to recruit employees to come work in Fossil in eastern Oregon. Kevin Max runs Statehood Media in Bend, a small company with big aspirations. He notes that there is no better State in the country than Oregon when it comes to employee recruitment. He says that OregonSaves gives companies like his another leg up with an even better package of benefits. I believe it defies logic that in light of all of these positive returns from employers and from workers, that the Congress would want to stamp out a program like OregonSaves which has so much potential, but the resolution going after State initiatives--and there are two-- would pose that kind of threat. My view is that these are not easy programs for States or cities to set up. There are legal issues that date back decades that have to be worked through. There is a lot of heavy lifting at the Labor Department to get the legal roadblocks out of the way. If these resolutions pass, it would wipe out months and months of work that has gone into making this kind of State- and local-based partnership possible. This particular issue ought to be a no-brainer. Saving in the private economy is the right thing, as I have said, for a host of reasons. People scrimping and saving to set aside money for retirement is the key to a healthy retirement policy so everybody is in a position to have a dignified retirement rather than stretching every penny they have, relying just on Social Security, family members, and food banks to make ends meet. I believe our people want the opportunity to save, and they like the idea of this automatic IRA because it is fair to workers and fair to employers. My view is that the Senate ought to stand up and recognize that by voting against these ill-advised resolutions, this is a chance to support the interests of working people who would like to save in the private economy, ahead of special interests. I hope the Senate will do the right thing for those hard-working people and their families and vote these resolutions down. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I just want to commend my colleague from Massachusetts for an excellent presentation. He has really outlined A to Z with respect to what this issue is all about. I commend him, and I also commend the ranking member of the committee, Senator Nelson, our colleague from Florida, for his excellent job. Before he leaves the floor, picking up on the remarks of our colleague from Massachusetts, I am particularly struck by the fact that I have always thought that it is a classic conservative principle to empower the individual--to empower the individual to make fundamental choices about what would be important to them and their family and their wallets and all of the activities that are central to the life of a working class family. What we have been touching on--very eloquently by my colleague from Massachusetts--is we are going to be voting in a little bit to strip rights from individuals, to retreat from that classic conservative principle of empowering individuals and families to make decisions. I think, for all of the reasons that my colleague from Massachusetts has talked about and that Senator Nelson has been talking about, this idea of stripping from individuals the right to make these fundamental decisions and allowing the gatekeepers of the internet to collect, share, and profit from personal information of consumers without their consent is an extraordinary mistake for our country at this time. I serve on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. I think, for many people, these issues have, in effect, converged with respect to privacy policy as it relates to the private marketplace, which is what this ill-advised proposal that we are going to vote on today is all about. We are constantly offered up ideas that suggest that you really are faced with what amounts to a flawed set of choices. In the intelligence area, we are consistently told: Well, you just have to give up a little bit of liberty to have security. And the reality is that liberty and security are not mutually exclusive. Smart policies give us both. They give us security and liberty. Unfortunately, around here, we are coming up with policies, like weakening strong encryption, that are reducing both--reducing security and reducing liberty. I think what we are dealing with here on this ill-advised resolution in the Senate, with respect to the FCC rule, is yet another set of false choices--that you can either have internet access or privacy. They are not mutually exclusive. Just as we can have security and liberty, we can have internet access and privacy for all of the reasons that my friend from Massachusetts has been outlining. Now, the FCC acted on the responsibility given to them by the Congress to protect browsing history--arguably the most intimate, personal information imaginable. Browsing history makes what the Senate did in the past with metadata look like small potatoes. Browsing history is really a picture into your personal life. I have appreciated the support of my colleagues for making sure that in the intelligence field, without court oversight, you couldn't get access to people's browsing history. The Congress, in effect, told the Federal Communications Commission to protect browsing history, favorite applications, and even locations of American broadband users, and the FCC acted on it. Before that time, there were no rules in place outlining how an internet service provider--those are the ISPs that we always hear Senators talking about--may use, share, or even sell their customers' private information. So, just as the FCC has done for wireline phone customers, the FCC said it was going to keep up with the evolution of telecommunications networks by ensuring privacy protections would apply to broadband internet use. This struck a lot of us as just common sense. Again, building on the conservative principle of empowering the individual, the judgment was that by creating what are called ``opt- in'' consent agreements, where the consumer makes an affirmative decision about what they want--it is not what government wants, it is not what big companies want, it is what the consumer wants. The judgment was that by creating this opt-in consent agreement, the consumer would get a clear understanding of what the broadband provider knows about them from, for example, their computer or from their smartphone. The big internet service providers are in a unique position to see where information flows over the networks and can see more of Americans' data than probably anybody else in what we might call the internet ecosystem. The websites we visit, what we look for, what time we are online--all of this, even our location--would be considered highly personal and highly sensitive information. The responsibility of the internet service provider is to protect consumer privacy. It is compounded by the fact that the majority of broadband consumers have only one option for fast internet service to their home. There is only one company offering them service. So it seems to me what we are talking about--what Senator Markey has outlined--really looks like bad news for folks in rural areas where they are only going to have one provider, and, frankly, I think in a lot of metropolitan areas, particularly where there are modest-income individuals. Without these protections in place, most consumers are left with the choice of giving up their browsing history for an internet service provider to sell to the highest bidder or to have no internet at all. So think about what that means for, say, an older person. By the way, under what is being considered in the other body on healthcare, people between 50 and 64 aren't going to have a lot of extra money laying around. Those are people who are going to get clobbered--clobbered--by the healthcare bill that is being considered in the House today. What is being considered in the House today--talking about the wallets of people between 50 and 64--would allow the insurance companies to charge people who are pre-Medicare five times as much as younger people. So they are already going to be paying thousands of dollars more out-of-pocket. Now, given what may happen in this body, we would have consumers left with the choice of giving up their browsing history for an internet service provider to sell to the highest bidder or have no internet at all. So we are socking it to them in terms of their healthcare premiums, and then we are socking it to them in terms of essential communications as well. I just think this is unacceptable and certainly contrary to the whole notion of classic conservatism, empowering the individual. And it is certainly taking away these rights from folks in rural America--most of my towns in Oregon have populations of under 10,000 people. This proposal that is being discussed here is going to strip consumers of basic rights that are practically a requirement for economic success in the 21st century. I am going to close by picking up on another point that I think Senator Markey said very well, and I believe I heard Senator Nelson, our ranking member, touch on as well. It looks to me like a subject that should not be in controversy: basic transparency and accountability for the individual, and individual empowerment. It shouldn't be controversial. It shouldn't be a contentious matter. My colleague and I served in the other body for a number of years, and we built coalitions of people all across the political spectrum around the principles we are advocating today. Providing transparency and empowering the individual shouldn't be a contentious issue. Under these regulations, internet service providers can still collect and use their subscribers' information. The rules simply ensure that internet service providers receive consent--receive permission from an empowered consumer--that it is OK to reuse or sell their information, and the companies would provide the consumers an explanation of how their data is collected and where it is shared. These rules are about transparency, plain and simple. Customers, especially those, as I have indicated, who are captive to one internet service provider, deserve to know how their internet service provider is using their data. The broadband privacy rules are not some kind of attack on monetizing consumer data, but simply a recognition of the importance of consumer consent. I will close by saying that more and more in this area, the American people are getting presented false choices. They are being told, as I see on the Intelligence Committee, that you have to give up some of your liberty to have your security. Those are false choices. They are not mutually exclusive. Everyone in America, everyone paying attention to this debate ought to know that they have a right to both. Don't ever, ever let a politician tell you that you have to give up some of your liberty to have your security. You have a right to vote, and it is our job, colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to come up with policies that do both. Today, we ought to make sure that people aren't presented with another false choice--that to have Internet access you have to give up your privacy rights. You can have both, and the Federal Communications Commission has sought to come up with a sensible policy to do that. So I join my colleagues, particularly my friend from Massachusetts, who knows so much about this field, and our terrific ranking minority member, Senator Nelson, in urging colleagues to oppose a harmful resolution that, in my view, turns class conservatism on its head and strips consumers of their rights in a truly ill-advised manner. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the technology fellow on my staff, Christopher Soghoian, be granted privileges of the floor for the remainder of this Congress.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate the National Historic Oregon Trail Interpretive Center in Baker, OR, on its 25th anniversary and to recognize the cultural and historical importance of this special place. Twenty-five years ago, volunteers, philanthropists, and community leaders came together with the Bureau of Land Management to make this dream a reality, and today I want to honor them for their dedication to their community and the State of Oregon. Since 1992, the Interpretive Center has brought to life the story of the Oregon Trail. Through life-size displays, historical artifacts, and live performances by historical interpreters, visitors to the center are transported back in time to the first days of Baker City. What started as a small goldmining town grew through the years as more emigrants arrived. These pioneers had fought through challenging conditions and traveled thousands of miles to reach Oregon, but had they not persevered, the growth of this State could never have taken place. We owe it to those who blazed the trail before us to listen to their story, and we owe it to ourselves to take their lessons of perseverance, innovation, and community spirit to heart. It is no coincidence that the community that came together to make the Interpretive Center possible, shares the characteristics of their ancestors. In the 1970s, Baker City was struggling to keep up with a changing economy. It took the innovative vision of modern-day pioneers, who recognized the cultural importance of this place, to bring its rich history back to life. Joining forces with the Bureau of Land Management, community leaders worked together to create the Interpretive Center and jumpstarted Baker City's growing tourism industry. Over 25 years, this community has continued to contribute to the sustained success of the Interpretive Center. From the hard-working caretakers of the center's 4 miles of interpretive trails, to the philanthropy of individuals like the late Leo Adler who help sustain the center financially, the people of Baker City demonstrate every day the same spirit as the pioneers they honor. In this way, the story of the Interpretive Center mirrors the very story it tells. It stands today as a living testament to the value of learning from our past. Therefore, I wish today to not only celebrate this milestone, but to encourage us all to reflect on the example set by both the pioneers of the Oregon Trail and those who continue to blaze new trails for their communities every day.