Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in the wake of the violent and senseless murders of multiple lawmakers and political advocates, I rise to seek passage of legislation that will provide a real measure of protection to all Americans for their privacy and security. Before I do, I also want to point out that I am just back from the so-called ``war-ravaged hellhole'' of Portland, OR--my hometown--and somehow I made it out unscathed. I will have more to say, but I want to make clear that my hometown of Portland is safe; it is vibrant; and Portlanders do not want Federal troops and do not need Federal troops. Now, with respect to privacy, as it stands today, data brokers have amassed vast amounts of Americans' personal information, which they are willing to sell to anyone with a credit card. Would-be murderers can often find the home addresses and other personal information about their targets within a few search results on Google. Indeed, the assassin who murdered Minnesota State representative Melissa Hortman and shot State senator John Hoffman repeatedly used ``people search'' websites run by data brokers to learn the home addresses of the victims. I also recognize that Members of Congress receive untold numbers of violent and harassing threats as a result of our jobs, and I want to credit the bipartisan effort in the Senate Commerce Committee to provide privacy protections for Members of Congress. I do not intend to stand in the way of their legislation. The bill I offer today takes the privacy protections against data brokers in the Commerce Committee's bill and extends them to all Americans. Protecting everyone is the most effective way to protect U.S. military and intelligence personnel, including undercover officers. There have been numerous press reports over the past few years revealing how data brokers are selling sensitive location data collected from U.S. personnel who are working at military bases and other sensitive facilities and that they are willing to actually sell this data to foreign buyers. Members of Congress should not receive special treatment. Our constituents deserve protection from violence, stalking, and other criminal threats. For that reason, Mr. President, as in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 2850; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas has offered to do a hearing on my proposal, and I do appreciate that. I simply believe it is unfortunate when the Senate will pass privacy protections for ourselves but not for all Americans and that only shady data brokers, would-be murderers and stalkers, as well as foreign adversaries buying data on U.S. Government officials, are actually going to benefit from blocking this bill.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to tell my colleague from Texas I look forward to the hearings on legislation that would ensure that all Americans have these protections because, as you and I have talked about, I think it is critically important there not be a double standard in America. I thank my colleague for the offer of the hearings. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to recognize and honor an exceptional Oregonian. For 27 years, Kathy Ottele has served as a volunteer for the American Cancer Society and has been instrumental to the work and accomplishments of this unique organization. The mission to eradicate cancer is deeply personal to Kathy. She is a seven-time skin care survivor, and she lost her dad, her mom, and her two younger sisters to this horrible disease. Kathy understands the importance of sharing her story. From local community events to the halls of government in both Oregon and the Nation's Capital, she has made it her personal mission to connect with as many people as possible about the critical work at the American Cancer Society. I have personally seen through my time with Kathy how her advocacy has helped families in a very positive way. Oregonians will long feel the positive impact of her tireless dedication to finding a cure for cancer. At home, we call it the Oregon Way. She has also made it a personal priority to raise awareness and funding for the cause each year. I could stand here all day and announce a long list of things she has achieved during her 27 years of service. I will name just a few. Through her efforts, she has consistently been one of the American Cancer Society's top fundraisers. Last year, she raised over $17,000 for this cause. In recognition of her steadfast volunteer and advocacy efforts to help make cancer a national priority, she was named the State Lead Ambassador by the American Cancer Society's Cancer Action Network in 2020. She has also been a member of the American Cancer Society's organization in Oregon and Southwestern Washington. She has been on the board of directors for the last 7 years. Part of the reason why she is so deserving of all these important honors and responsibilities has been because of her advocacy and fight for early cancer detection blood testing--hugely important--such as in the bipartisan bill that I sponsor with our colleagues Senators Crapo and Bennet. It is one of the best ways we know of to make sure people can stop cancer early and save lives. For the last 5 years, Kathy aimed her advocacy efforts at promoting groundbreaking early cancer detection advances--known as Multi-Cancer Early Detection tests--to help more cancer victims learn their diagnosis far earlier and survive the disease at far higher rates. Kathy actually participated in a clinical trial of the new technology conducted at Oregon Health Sciences University, and she came away from that experience committed to winning broader access to this lifesaving, groundbreaking advance. Kathy has played a critical role in educating community and policymakers in Oregon about the importance of access to multi-cancer early detection screening coverage, and I am proud to be a lead sponsor with Senators Crapo and Bennet, S. 339, the Nancy Gardner Sewell Medicare Multi-Cancer Early Detection--MCED--Screening Coverage Act that will help ensure access to screenings that can detect cancer at earlier, more treatable stages. As a testament to Kathy's advocacy, every single Member of the Oregon delegation serves as a cosponsor of our legislation. As Kathy celebrates her 27th year as a Society volunteer, she shows absolutely no signs of slowing down. Her rigorous dedication in service continues to make a lasting impact on the mission to ending cancer as we know it, and she does that for everyone. I know that I speak for Oregonians in every nook and cranny in our State as we express our gratitude for her commitment, her talent, her mentorship, her leadership, and particularly in the constant effort to better cancer research and treatment. So on behalf of our whole State, this afternoon here on the floor of the U.S. Senate, I would like to thank Kathy Ottele for her tireless work and service. She has literally dedicated her life to this cause, and the people of Oregon are better for it. I look forward to our continued partnership on these important efforts as I work as a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, and she continues her incredible volunteering at home. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the GAO opinion letter dated August 27, 2025.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, we have been looking at this for well over 3 years now, and what I would like to do with my colleague Mr. Merkley, with all of my colleagues, is make an important point. I wanted to just take stock of where things stand. The Trump administration came in promising radical transparency on Jeffrey Epstein. Now the fact is that the Epstein files are being suppressed, and the administration is obstructing oversight from the Congress. The President's story about his relationship with Epstein changes by the day, and that is true of his administration as well. His personal lawyer went to talk to Ms. Maxwell, and who knows what was said in that conversation. What we do know is that Maxwell has been moved--Epstein's partner in crime--to a minimum security prison without giving any good reason as to why a child sex trafficker deserves that additional comfort. House Republicans seem no longer interested in having Maxwell testify. Yesterday, it was reported that a member of Donald Trump's inner circle gave a high-paying job to another close Epstein associate, a man named Darren Indyke. That sounds about as bizarre and wrong as you can get. My colleagues and I believe it is a big mistake for the Senate to go out of session without making real progress on real transparency on the Epstein issue. There are a number of ways you can do that. Let me say a little bit about our investigation, which began 3\1/2\ years ago, so it has been looked at by Democrats and Republicans alike. From the outset, it has been built on the fact that you have to follow the money to be at the core of this global sex trafficking operation, which, on the basis of what we have seen, has been funded lavishly. We began by examining the financial ties between Mr. Epstein and a Wall Street titan named Leon Black. We found that Black paid Epstein $170 million over just a couple of years. He said it was ``for tax and estate planning.'' The central claim, though, is what is noteworthy. The claim was that Mr. Epstein was a financial wizard, some superstar in terms of looking at taxes and estates, and he could perform accounting miracles. It appears this kind of work for Black and others was one of Mr. Epstein's biggest sources of income. Now, here is the catch: Epstein wasn't an accountant or a tax attorney at all. And Leon Black, who is extraordinarily well off, already employed the best tax advisers in the business. He didn't need Mr. Epstein to handle his money. Black's lawyers even told our investigators--let me just keep it brief--that Epstein's work wasn't very impressive. He made mistakes, and his work needed to be double- checked by people who were actually tax experts. But, Mr. Black was paying Mr. Epstein more than double the income of the average Fortune 500 CEO. Mr. Black wasn't the only one paying Mr. Epstein top dollar for this so-called financial advice. That is where we have to go to follow the money. Last year, my investigators went to the Treasury Department and reviewed thousands of bank documents related to Mr. Epstein's financing. I have spoken at length about those documents here on the Senate floor. There is a whole set of Epstein files in the possession of the Treasury Department, above and beyond the files in the possession of the Department of Justice. So that is a key point. You have to look, if you are going to follow the money, at the Treasury Department, not just at the Department of Justice. We have been trying to get those documents. The Trump administration has been blocking us. We have demanded answers from the new head of the IRS about why its criminal investigators didn't look into Epstein's work for Leon Black or whether they did any investigation of Epstein at all. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars paid by ultrawealthy individuals to a known sex trafficker for the purpose of dodging billions in taxes. It is unthinkable that those transactions were never audited or investigated. A deep dive on this, starting with the IRS criminal investigations operation, could have blown the lid off Epstein's cover story about being a financial genius quite some time ago. It could have helped uncover the financing behind these horrific crimes. One last point in terms of an update. There are all kinds of pundits out there chattering about whether this is the right political issue to focus on. My message is blunt: This is not about politics. This is not about Democrats and Republicans. I just want to make it clear, this is about whether there is going to be justice for the victims of a notorious sex trafficker who did not abuse these women and girls alone. This is about whether there is going to be accountability for the people who enabled and participated in Epstein's crimes. The question really is, as I close: Who is the government looking out for, the rich and powerful, even those who do horrible things, or the powerless, the victims of abuse who have been neglected for too long? Donald Trump wants this to go away without any accountability. And for him, that might be about self-preservation. But it is clear the Trump administration, based on our detailed work, doesn't want to do the right thing here. I am 3\1/2\ years into my investigation of one aspect of the Epstein story because there ought to be accountability and justice for the victims. I am here to bring my colleagues up to date on the investigation. There will be more this summer, particularly about the Treasury Department, which is sitting on thousands and thousands of Epstein documents of its own, and they shouldn't be allowed to skate on this. We are going to keep investigating. We are going to keep putting the pressure on. This is not about blue. It is not about red. It is about doing the right thing and making sure something like this doesn't happen again. Senator Merkley and my colleagues are doing the right thing today. I want it understood, as somebody who has led this investigation for more than 3\1/2\ years, I support them strongly. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from New Hampshire and my colleague from Vermont for both giving extraordinarily thoughtful comments. The reality is, when you talk about these deals, what you are really talking about, the Trump agreements is essentially giving our country a few lines scratched on a napkin. There is very little ``there'' there. And I so appreciate my colleagues seeking to free our citizens from crushing new trade taxes, courtesy of Donald Trump's tariffs. He slapped tariffs on things people buy from scores of countries. So he has hit cars and car parts, aluminum, beer, food, and clothing. The list goes on and on. That means just that Americans are going to pay more to buy the things they need because Trump taxes jack up the price. This month, Donald Trump has been announcing these so-called trade deals from a handful of countries. So as I indicated, these are really much. The USMCA, which was something that Donald Trump participated in, was a real trade deal, was the result of intense negotiations, a transparent process, a bipartisan vote in the Congress. I was honored to be the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee as we worked together to get this passed. That deal produced real wins for the American people, like Oregon potato growers were able to ship potatoes to Mexico for the first time in decades. Donald Trump's latest deals mostly consist of a tariff number, 20 percent on products from Vietnam, for example, with some sort of fake or vague promise that the rest will be figured out later. Instead of having an enforceable, binding agreement that opens markets to U.S. farmers and manufacturers and small businesses now, as I say, we get a little bit of verbiage put on a napkin or a piece of paper. Not surprisingly, when Trump describes the deals, his story is often enormously different from what these countries say they agreed to. For example, Japan says it will provide up to $550 billion of financing in the United States. That is fine. Donald Trump claims Japan promised to create a $550 billion fund that will be spent at his direction-- essentially, a personal slush fund. Meanwhile, Vietnam has not even confirmed that it has agreed to the deal Donald Trump announced. What does our country get in exchange for these higher tariffs that are paid by our people? Significant economic pain. U.S. workers and employers are already getting battered by the trade chaos of Donald Trump. The big three U.S. automakers all announced plunging profits. General Motors lost more than a billion dollars due to tariffs. Instead of making U.S. automakers better off, the new tariff scheme is going to make our cars and trucks more expensive compared to Japanese competitors. It is going to get worse. Because of Donald Trump's endless flip- flops on tariffs, the real cost of his trade taxes are going to go fully into effect in coming months. Donald Trump can do all this because he, basically, goes off, does his own thing, and is claiming emergency powers to pursue the tariffs. My colleagues and I are proposing straightforward legislation to clarify the President's emergency powers. We say they have got to be used in emergencies and can't be used to put tariffs on things Americans buy from other countries. A number of our Republican colleagues have supported Senator Shaheen's proposal in the past. Putting a check on the President's power to land us in trade wars didn't used to be a partisan effort. Senator Welch, Senator Markey, a number of my colleagues, and I want to exempt small businesses from having to pay Trump's emergency tariffs. That is because these small businesses are the least able to absorb big new government taxes on the materials they need to make their goods. The bill my colleague Senator Shaheen and I are trying to pass today would rein in some of Donald Trump's worst impulses. The Shaheen legislation would clarify that the laws on the books were never meant-- never--to be a blank check for the President to abuse tariffs by using them as a punishment against a country--maybe multiple countries--that are hurting his feelings. At the same time, my home State of Oregon is fighting these tariffs in court with arguments that will happen tomorrow. Donald Trump and his billionaire allies aren't going to feel the impact of higher tariffs. So I guess that may be why they don't care about the millions of Americans who do care deeply and can't afford higher costs. Congress and the courts have to make clear that the tariff roller coaster in America has got to be stopped. I thank my colleagues for their leadership on this issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, for several years now, I have urged the release of an unclassified report by independent cybersecurity experts that is titled ``U.S. Telecommunications Insecurity 2022.'' Congress and the American people deserve to be able to read this report. And I may be the only Senator who has read this report. This report contains shocking details--let me repeat that--shocking details about national security threats to our country's phone system that require immediate action. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency permitted my staff to read the report at their office, and this was done in 2023. However, they have marked this unclassified report ``For Official Use Only'' and have refused to provide copies of the report to Congress or to make it public in response to Freedom of Information Act requests. So I asked then-Director Easterly to release the report. When she didn't act on my request, I wrote to President Biden--that was in February of 2024--urging him to address the serious national security threat posed by foreign governments exploiting U.S. phone carriers' weak cybersecurity. The Biden administration took no action. CISA's top telecommunications security expert was so concerned, he actually filed a whistleblower report with the Federal Communications Commission. He cited his access to nonpublic reports and other ``very concerning information,'' and told the Federal Communications Commission that ``there have been numerous incidents of successful, unauthorized attempts to access the network user location data of communications service providers operating in the USA.'' He added that foreign surveillance went beyond location tracking and included ``the monitoring of voice and text messages'' and ``the delivery of spyware to targeted devices.'' CISA's multiyear coverup of the phone companies' negligent cybersecurity enabled foreign hackers to perpetrate one of the most serious cases of espionage--ever--against our wonderful country. Had this report been made public when it was first written in 2022, Congress would have had ample time to demand mandatory cybersecurity standards for phone companies in time to prevent the Salt Typhoon hacks. CISA and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have confirmed that the Chinese Government hacked multiple phone companies and accessed vast troves of sensitive call records. They even co-opted the system designed for law enforcement to conduct wiretaps and accessed phone calls of politicians and other high-value targets. Vice President Vance said his communications and President Trump's were compromised in this hack. The press reported that then-Leader Schumer was also targeted. This espionage incident was the direct result--the direct result--of phone carriers' failure to follow cybersecurity best practices, such as installing security updates and using multifactor authentication. I know the Presiding Officer is very interested in this technology area as well. This is Cybersecurity 101--101--and yet Federal Agencies failed to hold these companies accountable. As far as I am aware, and I touched on this, I may be the only one in the Senate to have read this report. But the contents of the report directly impact Congress, both regarding the security of the Senate's communications and issues that have been the subject of prior Congressional oversight. When Chinese Government hackers broke into the major phone networks last year, their targets included several Senators. The report also directly discusses issues that have been the subject of oversight by Senators. In 2021, I wrote to the Federal Communications Commission, with several of our colleagues, raising concerns about foreign companies remotely administering rural U.S. telecommunications carriers. Our group said: We are also concerned by media reports suggesting that managed service providers may be partnering with for-profit surveillance companies, creating the possibility that these companies could provide their authoritarian clients with trusted access to U.S. telecommunications networks. I am going to close with this. None of these security vulnerabilities have been addressed--that is the bottom line--either by government or the private sector. The Federal Government still does not even require U.S. phone companies to meet minimum cybersecurity standards. So, in my judgment, we are sitting here now recognizing that it is too late to prevent the Salt Typhoon hack, but there sure is an urgency to prevent the next horrendous incident. So that is why, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2480.

Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to highlight a true example of what we at home call the Oregon Way. At a recent open-to-all townhall meeting--I have held more than 1,100 of them--and this one was in Union County, and I was pleased to run into my friend Tim Cook. He is the president of Clackamas Community College, over 250 miles away on the other side of our State from my hometown in Portland. I was glad to see him, and still my curiosity got the better of me. I had to ask why he was so far from home. Here is Tim's story. He has been in the process of running to every one of Oregon's 17 community colleges to raise awareness for community college students about how challenging it is for them to meet the basic needs that they have to address as students. Tim kicked off his ``Running for Oregon Community College Students'' campaign at Treasure Valley Community College in Ontario on the Idaho border. He plans to run 32 miles each day to reach each community college in our State. He is on track to complete this 1,500 mile--let me repeat that--1,500 mile journey by August 11. Tim told me he was inspired by so many students that have shared their stories with him about the hardships--particularly the financial hardships--they have endured while attending school. That includes William Morehead, a Portland Community College student who said he has had virtually no family support, and he had no help as a young adult yearning for an education. So there he was with zero support, and William decided he could make a better life for himself through training and education. He signed up for welding classes and attended regularly. He did that while living in his car. Despite these roadblocks, he persevered and graduated with an associate's degree in welding and had a 3.9 GPA. He was nominated to serve as the student commencement speaker at graduation. Now William is learning AI ethics, and he said recently: In welding you use metal and fire, and in computing you do the same thing but in a digital realm. I want to apply this degree to evaluating Artificial Intelligence systems that interface with the public and make sure it does it in a way that's beneficial and not harmful. The story I tell about William isn't unique. Many young, promising Americans are not living up to their best potential and not for a lack of trying, but there has really been a lack of support. When adults lecture young people to ``pull yourself up by your bootstraps,'' they often miss the point that some students were never even provided with the boots. They didn't have the boots to yank themselves up. Getting any degree is expensive enough, but it is even further out of reach for so many young people when you factor in everything a student needs to succeed beyond tuition--things like transportation, housing, food, books, access to technology, and an array of other necessities. Many talented and promising students can't fulfill their potential and suffer in a system that lacks the potential to see that and see it and get them the opportunity for them to get ahead. And now, with deep cuts to programs like SNAP and Medicaid under the Republicans' disastrous recent budget bill, coupled with high housing costs and rising prices from the Trump tariffs, the safety nets for students who fly solo are being slashed. Donald Trump and DOGE are even trying to take a sledgehammer to funding for key programs like JobCorps, which help young people get the resources they need to secure a degree and a good-paying job. So President Tim Cook is running not for office, but he is running for his students. He is pounding the pavement in the summer heat to highlight that when students' basic needs are met, they can focus on their education and create a brighter future for themselves, their families, and their communities. That is why I am here on the floor today. I want to be part of sending Tim a powerful message that Congress agrees with him and must not leave students behind. The world's next Einstein--and I say this to all my colleagues--may be in your town, scraping together a way to earn an education and make a positive impact on the community and the world. Let's help light the beacon of opportunity for those students. For America to be great, we have got to make sure that everybody in our country gets a fair shot. So I will close by saying I am gratified by the passion and insight that Tim Cook and other Oregonians are bringing to this cause. They understand the importance of investing in our kids because that draws a map to a brighter future for all of us. It may not be possible for everybody to run 32 miles a day for nearly 2 months, but as Senators, we can certainly make a difference. This country needs more commonsense policies that put students first and prepare us all for a brighter tomorrow. That is what Tim Cook is bringing us. Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to support these educators and others for helping students. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following members from my personal office and the Senate Finance Committee teams be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Congress: Sara Korniewicz, Sabina Lee, William Wyden, Gabriel Ritter, and Jackson McFadyen-Ray.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, Donald Trump has made some farfetched statements over the last few months, but a stunner in the last few days was his claim that the Jeffrey Epstein matter was a ``hoax'' and a ``scam.'' Here is why the President is wrong. The figure at the center of this story was an ultra-rich, well-connected sex trafficker. He was a serial rapist of women and young girls. And for some reason, the Trump administration that claimed they would be the most transparent administration ever turned on a dime. The President had run on a campaign with a promise to expose the Epstein files. Now, he and the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, say, nope, nothing to investigate when it comes to Epstein and sex trafficking. All these claims are just ludicrous. I want the American people to know that is wrong. If you want to know why, just look at the latest report from our investigators that was discussed in the New York Times this morning. Somewhere in the Treasury Department, locked away in a cabinet drawer, is a big Epstein file that is full of actionable information--``follow the money''--details about his financing and operations that await investigation. Last year, the Biden administration allowed our investigators to look at portions of the file. We did that at the Treasury Building. Here is what it says. Treasury's Epstein file details 4,725 wire transfers. Let me repeat that--4,725 wire transfers--adding up to nearly $1.1 billion flowing in and out of just one of Mr. Epstein's bank accounts. If you ask me, that is more than 4,000 potential lines of investigation right there. Hundreds of millions more flowed through other accounts. That is even a lot more to investigate. The file shows that Mr. Epstein used multiple Russian banks, which are now under sanctions, to process payments related to sex trafficking. A lot of the women and girls he targeted came from Russia, Belarus, Turkiye, and elsewhere. One shudders to think about the kinds of people who must have been involved in trafficking these women and young girls out of those countries and into the Epstein web of abuse. Again, these are all potential leads the Department of Justice ought to be digging into. This is about years and years of international sex trafficking. None of this is a hoax. None of it is a scam. I would like to say, I consider it insulting to the intelligence of the American people for the Trump administration to simply say there is nothing to investigate here. When the Trump administration came in with a lot of fanfare about transparency and openness, I said I am going to follow up on that. So I wrote to the Attorney General, Ms. Bondi; Treasury Secretary Bessent; FBI Director Patel, and I asked them all to produce the Epstein file to the Senate Finance Committee so it could be reviewed. In fact, I made that request multiple times. The Trump commitment to transparency based on the response didn't mean a whole lot because they just refused. Here is what one Treasury official wrote back to me: The Department of Treasury has previously made documents available relating to the matter in response to your inquiries. Accordingly, we understand that you have the information you seek from the Treasury related to this request. We thank you for your attention to this important issue. For anybody who is familiar with how these discussions go in Washington, DC, what I just read was code for the bureaucrats saying: You are asking for information. Go pound sand. The Trump administration may be trying to close the books on the Epstein sex trafficking, but I want it understood, as a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, where we spend a lot of time looking at where substantial sums of money are going, particularly if they may be promoting wrongdoing and helping to evade taxes, we are going to stay on this fight to hold the wealthy individuals accountable for the harm that they, clearly, were involved in, injuring the young women and others in this sex trafficking. I am going to have more follow-up for Attorney General Bondi very quickly. As for today, if she doesn't want to do the investigating, doesn't want the DOJ to do it, let me just reinstate my original demand: Have that Treasury information given to the Senate Finance Committee and have us, on a bipartisan basis, do our work. That is what we do in important investigations. If the Trump people believe they need additional authority to carry out the requests that I make, again, this afternoon, let me offer to help them write the bill myself. The idea that there is nothing more to investigate--not when you have 4,000 wire transfers, many of them associated with the possibility of wrongdoing and sex trafficking promoting--the idea that you have that and there is nothing to investigate when it comes to the Epstein sex trafficking operation is ridiculous. Pam Bondi was the attorney general in the State of Florida where a lot of the Epstein crimes were committed. The Attorney General ought to know better, of all people. I can't begin to understand the President's handling of this or why he thinks this is just going to go away. But I am here to say that our investigators have spent 3 full years looking into this. And the reason why is because we feel so strongly about the horror of sex trafficking and our commitment to root it out. The President of the Senate is new to this body, but I am sure he has dealt with these issues before. You can't have a much bigger horror in front of you than sex trafficking abuse. So we are talking about real evil--real evil--done to women and girls by Jeffrey Epstein. And, Mr. President, nobody gets to sweep that under the rug. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, in reserving the right to object, I want everybody to understand what is going on here on the floor of the Senate. Last week, the Republicans passed a gigantic bill that was full of massive cuts to healthcare and food assistance as well as huge tax handouts to big corporations and the ultrawealthy. It also included a lot of smaller scale policies that didn't get a lot of notice. In a lot of cases, they were just half-baked, poorly written, and now I see Republican Senators walking all over the Capitol, saying they didn't even know anything about this policy and this process. The Republican bill is full of special carve-outs for some groups and new taxes on others. The fact is, when you rush a process like this in this way and cram in all of these policies that you haven't really thought about, you risk some consequences for people back home, and that is what is going on here in this attempt by our colleague to pass this special tax carve-out for one institution--just one--in his home State. The Finance Committee's Democratic staff already litigated this issue in bipartisan meetings with the Parliamentarian. We knocked this proposal out of the Republican bill specifically--specifically--for one reason: It is a special carve-out, and it is plain and simple that that is what is going on. My own view is, if my Republican colleagues want to exempt their home State colleges and universities from the endowment tax, they shouldn't have passed this deeply flawed bill in the first place. So I strongly support our colleague from Nevada's efforts. I oppose the amendment proposed by our Finance Committee colleague Senator Young. I close by way of saying: It is just not right to give a special home State tax carve-out a free ride on an entirely separate proposal. Therefore, I object.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, let me thank Senator Durbin for his work on this and on so many issues exactly like this. What Senator Durbin's career has always been about is making sure that communities are stronger, more inclusive, and give everybody a shot at getting ahead, and I just want to thank him for doing this and all the times over the years that we have had a chance to work together. Now, as Senator Durbin has indicated, a few days ago, Republicans rammed their budget bill through the Senate. In the coming weeks, they will force a vote on yet another dangerous piece of legislation. Any day now, the Senate is going to vote on a bill that will let Republicans revoke previously approved Federal funding for key services and key programs that our people rely on--all so they can follow through on Donald Trump's illegal and disastrous funding freeze he tried to implement earlier. Under their bill, Republicans want to gut over 70 percent--7-0--70 percent of funding for public broadcasting. Now, when you hear the words ``public broadcasting,'' a lot of people, of course, think about the beloved characters Elmo and Big Bird, who are wonderful. I remember that with our kids. At the same time, public broadcasting is a lot more than that. Over the last several years, local newspapers and radio broadcasters have been sidelined in many parts of the country. They just don't have the funds to keep their doors open. Many are getting bought up by private equity funds and corporate and media conglomerates that sanitize and repackage local reporting to fit their own media narrative. Oftentimes, these new owners close the doors of local papers altogether. This is especially true, as Senator Durbin eloquently mentioned, and a challenge in rural areas. There, broadband access is often unreliable and often too expensive to get out far into these communities. Meanwhile, news is increasingly driven by the interests of big cities sitting behind pay walls or requiring high-speed broadband to access it. Now, this issue is a personal one for me. I am a journalist's kid. I grew up with a front-row seat seeing the importance of protecting reporters and the vital work they do. That work is central to our democracy. My home State hasn't been immune to the changes in the media landscape. More and more, Oregonians turn to public TV and radio programs like Oregon Public Broadcasting for news and information. In some of my State's most rural areas, like, say, Halfway in Eastern Oregon, Oregon Public Broadcasting is the only broadcast station residents can access. These programs are literally a lifeline for Oregonians during a time when local journalism is dying off. Not only do these programs provide news that is trustworthy, they also serve as linchpins in State and local emergency alert programs. Oregon Public Broadcasting is a State primary station for our State's emergency alert system. The broadcasters work closely with Oregon's Office of Emergency Management and other first responders to monitor and alert residents about statewide, regional, or national emergencies. In 2024 alone, Oregon Public Broadcasting helped notify Oregonians about child abductions, severe storms, and flash floods. Unfortunately, just this past weekend, we saw the devastating impact of underfunded emergency alert systems with the deadly flash flooding in Texas. As more details emerge, there is one area that seems to me to be clear: More could and should have been done to bolster the local emergency alert system to help avoid and limit the horrendous tragedies that we have watched nightly for the last few days. As extreme, deadly weather events like this become more and more common, local, State, and Federal governments need to be investing in, not shrinking, systems like public TV and radio. These programs play such an important role in emergency situations, helping to get the most up-to-date information to their viewers and listeners. Instead, Republicans are watching the catastrophic situation unfold in Texas and still plowing ahead with plans to essentially defund these local emergency alert systems anyway. Cutting off this funding is going to be a death sentence for one of the most reliable sources of news and information that our people rely on. And rural areas that aren't served by big corporate media companies are going to be hit the hardest. Defunding public broadcasting is going to take news even farther away from local communities. And I know the people of my State don't want to be dealt with by somebody from a town on the eastern seaboard in a high rise. I am going to close with this: Everything Republicans have done since gaining their trifecta of power has been with the goal of helping corporations consolidate power and profits on the backs of everybody else. And, for me, this is a regular reality because I see it as the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over taxes and trade and healthcare. This bill is no different from what we have seen over the last few weeks in terms of corporations consolidating power and benefiting from legislation. If it passes, this bill is going to take a wrecking ball to the services that Americans across this country rely on. It is going to make communities less safe just so Republicans can brag about another partisan ideological trophy. So that is what we are dealing with here. When Donald Trump says: We are going to do this, Republicans say: How high should we jump? By passing this legislation, Republicans would send a message, once again, that they are willing and eager to give up their congressional power to the executive branch. I so appreciate Senator Durbin bringing this issue to the floor of the Senate to open a lot of eyes on what is on the line because I know he--and we have talked about this before. We believe in a government that gives everybody a fair shot, gives everybody a chance to get ahead. You have made that point today; that government is not just supposed to be about the mighty and the powerful and the people with money. And I thank you for this and all your wonderful service. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate Rev. Dan Fowler and First Presbyterian Church of Ashland on 150 years of commitment to welcoming and accepting people through all walks of life into your community of faith. Ever since Rev. Moses Allen Williams organized the First Presbyterian Church of Ashland on August 18, 1875, this church in southern Oregon has remained dedicated to--in their own words-- ``honoring the teachings of Jesus and being a safe haven for all who walk through its doors.'' First Presbyterian Church celebrates its 150th anniversary as a diverse church family that includes families, professionals of all kinds, including artists, college students, and people struggling with homelessness, all of whom come together to walk with God and serve their community. Since 1875, First Presbyterian Church of Ashland has been committed to serving the local and global community and has prided itself on being a welcoming and affirming place for all. Their specific forms of aid include overnight parking spots for those facing homelessness, a free pantry, emergency transportation and food aid, and free answers to medical questions. The church's continued service to our community represents the very best of Oregon's spirit of commitment, service, and dedication. First Presbyterian Church of Ashland's impact extends far beyond just the people they have directly helped; it ripples outward to make Oregon a better place for all of us to call home. The church's willingness to remain engaged and active in service exemplifies the values that we, as Oregonians, hold dear. It is an honor to represent First Presbyterian Church of Ashland in the U.S. Senate and congratulations again to the church on its 150th anniversary.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, when the Senate considers the reconciliation bill, H.R. 1, it is my intention to make the following motions to commit the bill: 1. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance of the Senate with instructions to report changes that would prevent changes in policy that will lead to increased electricity prices for American families and small businesses, while protecting American energy jobs. This motion to commit is supported by Senators Cantwell, Bennet, Warren, Smith, Lujan, Warnock, Welch, Booker, Gallego, Heinrich, Hickenlooper, Rosen, Schatz, Schiff, Schumer, and Shaheen.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask that further reading of the motion be dispensed with.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this is a motion supported by all Finance Democrats to send the bill back to the Finance Committee to strike all the Medicaid cuts and ensure that big corporations and the ultrawealthy pay their fair share in taxes. It is now clear that there is bipartisan opposition in the Senate to the Medicaid cuts in this bill. That is because it is the biggest Medicaid cut in history and represents the largest transfer of wealth in history. It is caviar over kids, hedge funds over healthcare, Mar-a-Lago over the middle class. These Medicaid cuts are going to reach down into every corner of our Nation's healthcare system. We have heard from rural America: Rural hospitals will close their doors. Seniors are going to lose care at home and be left with fewer nursing homes and fewer nurses. Kids with disabilities will lose healthcare. We saw them on the steps of the Capitol last night. Never have I seen legislation--

Mr. WYDEN.--focused on denying healthcare to eligible Americans.

Mr. WYDEN. This amendment is an opportunity to take these awful Medicaid cuts off the table and find another way forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Blackburn amendment penalizes innocent people who are eligible for Medicaid coverage and they are waiting to cut through a thicket of redtape and get healthcare. This can go on for months and months and defies basic fairness and common sense. The Parliamentarian has already ruled that the Federal Government, if it does this, it would be coercive and not acceptable under the reconciliation rule. This is a distraction from Republican attempts to decimate Medicaid benefits. Point of Order And I therefore raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates the Byrd rule, section 313(b)(1)(D) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and I ask for the yeas and nays. Motion to Waive