Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Coons for his work, his very thoughtful statement, and I particularly appreciate his emphasizing the fact that this effort began long before November 8. This has been a bipartisan effort for some time, with Democrats and Republicans across the political spectrum saying: Look, the country wants policies that make us safer and protect our liberties, and if we are not careful, we are going to get policies that don't do much of either and in fact set us back. I very much appreciate what my colleague is doing. It is a simple proposition that Senator Coons advances today; that is, when you are talking about a monumental change--one judge with one warrant making it possible to hack thousands of computers--this is not just a modest alteration in the way business is done in Washington, DC, this is an enormous public policy shift. The idea the Congress--without even one hearing, without even one debate, without even one opportunity for Members to weigh in formally, in my view just defies common sense and our responsibilities. I very much appreciate what my colleague is doing. Suffice it to say, this was important before the election, but right now, when we have scores of Americans wondering about the very future of the core constitutional protections they rely on, the bill Senator Coons is offering makes it clear those basic values and the sanctity of the courts and due process and the rule of law are not going to be values that are going to be set aside because of what happened on November 8, and there are going to be Democrats and Republicans working together in the Senate. I remember when Senator Paul, who has made very valuable contributions on this and other issues, began to discuss some of these matters with me on the Select Committee on Intelligence. We, in effect, said: It is almost like we have a Ben Franklin caucus around here. Ben Franklin famously said: Anyone who gives up their liberty to have security doesn't deserve either. It seems to me my colleague is picking up on those principles. Mr. President and colleagues, I will be brief. The Coons bill addresses the cold fact that without urgent action this month, the government is going to have unprecedented authority to hack into the personal phones, computers, tablets, or whatever devices Americans use. This would be a massive expansion of government hacking and surveillance powers, a vast expansion of Executive power. To do it without even a congressional debate would be just a monumental mistake. What ought to be done, as Senator Coons has suggested, is allowing the Congress and the American people to have a chance to weigh in on the very substantial constitutional questions surrounding government hacking. I sit on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. I think having joined before 9/11, I am now, I believe, the longest serving member in history, along with Senator Feinstein, and we can tell you there is no question it is a dangerous world. Go into the Select Committee on Intelligence, and it becomes pretty clear there are a lot of people out there who do not wish the people of our great country well. It is obvious, as my colleague from Delaware has noted, that law enforcement faces very substantial challenges because technology is constantly evolving. So we want to make it clear, those of us who are supporting the Coons bill, that we don't take a backseat to anyone in giving our agents the tools they need to demonstrate that security and liberty are not mutually exclusive. We can have both. That is why I wrote section 102 of the Freedom Act, which actually expanded the government's ability to move when there was an emergency. We have had a lot of discussions about our ability to protect our country in the event of an emergency situation. That was a provision that I added and I felt particularly strongly about because I wanted to amplify on what my colleague has said; that we are interested in both liberty and security and in coming up with policies that are compatible. What we have seen, and why the Coons review is so important, is that too often government agencies have cast too wide a net and swept up information from millions of Americans instead of focusing on the real threats--the criminals, the terrorists, the hackers. Our point with respect to this review bill is that our job consists of more than just having a ``trust us'' policy from the Justice Department. Our job is to ask the tough questions. My late father was a journalist. That is what he said. Nobody wants to ask the tough questions. It takes more time and it makes people uncomfortable, but that is what we are supposed to do, and particularly right now, when so many Americans are concerned about the threats to their liberty and the security of our personal information. What Senator Coons is talking about this morning is a more important check on the executive branch than we have had to debate in the past. That is why my colleague's work is so timely this morning. This change would also effectively--if it were to go through in its current form, Rule 41--turn innocent victims of computer attacks into the victims of additional government hacking. Again, this was alarming before November 8, but now we need to consider the prospect of an administration led by someone who openly said he wants the power to hack his political opponents exhibited by the Russians. It is troubling how little the Congress knows about how the government currently uses its hacking authority and what it plans to do with expanded powers under Rule 41. Is it going to clean all the botnets in the world, like the one that recently attacked the Internet backbone company? If that is the case, what is the software going to look like? This kind of good-guy hacking is risky, incredibly risky, even when you have individuals with the best of motivations in your corner. As Senator Coons indicated, we put together a letter late in October, before the election. This is a theme Members are going to hear. Before the election, many of these concerns were raised, and we said to Attorney General Lynch that we have some basic questions, such as: How does the government intend to prevent forum shopping by prosecutors seeking court approval to hack into Americans' devices? How is the government going to prevent collateral damage to innocent Americans' devices of electronic data when it remotely searches devices such as smartphones or medical devices? What the latest numbers indicate is that a major source of cyber attacks are our wonderful medical facilities. The questions we asked in that October 27 letter speak to that. We want to know whether the government intends to use its new authority to search and ``clean'' American computers? How is the government going to maintain a chain of custody when searching or removing evidence from a device? How is the government going to notify Americans who are the subject of remote government searches? I am very troubled by the language in the current proposal, which suggests the notice process will be very different than what Americans have traditionally thought about in kind of the physical world with respect to notice. The Coons bill is important business because we have not yet, our bipartisan group of 23, gotten answers to these questions. We are going to keep trying to learn more about why it might or might not be necessary for the government to have the authority. I will wrap up this discussion with Senator Coons--which I thank him for leading--by way of saying that I have issued warnings before on the floor and have seen what happens when those warnings aren't heeded. I just want to say this morning that I believe if the Senate fails to stand up for our constituents now and do what Senator Coons is talking about, which is our job--vigorous oversight, asking the hard questions, getting the facts about new technological questions that are evolving-- I believe there are going to be problems with Rule 41. I believe there are going to be problems at hospitals, at power grids, at major American institutions and that if we do nothing, except what Congress does best--which is nothing--and let this go through, I think our constituents are going to come back when there are problems, and they are going to say to each of us: What were you thinking? Why did you vote to allow policies that would permit hacking in this fashion? Colleagues are going to say: Gee, we didn't vote at all. They are going to say: You didn't vote at all? You must have had some meetings. Well, we didn't have any meetings. We didn't have any debates. We didn't have any discussion. Then they are going to say: You allowed mass hacking by just kind of dropping the ball and saying you have other stuff to do? I think the American people are going to react very badly if that is, in fact, what happens. So I commend Senator Coons. He consistently comes to the floor and appeals across the aisle. I so appreciate it. I hope we will see action on the Senator's very thoughtful bill. I am proud to be a cosponsor. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sophia Vogt and Emily Douglas, legislative fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of this Congress.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, last month, Democratic staff on the Finance Committee put out a report documenting the staggering shortage of treatment services in America for those suffering from opioid addiction. This report surveyed a cross-section of American communities and found there is a yawning treatment gap keeping many from getting the help they need. Nearly 90 percent of Americans suffering from opioid addiction, according to the most current analyses, are not receiving the treatment they need--90 percent. The treatment gap is caused by a shortage of available treatment services across the country, and even where these services do exist, they are overwhelmed by demand. This gap is straining rural communities that are already struggling to provide other essential medical services. Asking these communities to provide care when they are stretched in such incredibly thin ways forces them into impossible choices. The result is even more lives in America are lost to opioid addiction. Earlier this year, after Congress passed legislation called CARA authorizing anti-addiction programs, Members did an awful lot of celebrating, an awful lot of victory laps, and fired off a forest of press releases, but that act didn't put a penny into these essential treatment programs. I just wanted to come to the floor because we are looking at another crucial time to help those suffering from addiction. The press releases don't do anything for people suffering from these horrible illnesses who might turn next to heroin, and when nearly 9 out of 10 addicted to opioids aren't getting treatment, clearly there is much more that needs to be done so it is critical in this lameduck session to follow through with funding. I have been encouraged by several of the conversations that have taken place over the last few days about finding a path forward to ensuring there be real funds for treating opioid addiction, but I have seen some of these debates before, and I have been encouraged before only to see the chance for progress stall out. I would like to note that I believe there is a special reason right now to stand up for patients and make sure they have access to treatment, that they have what they need. In the next few weeks, the Congress is going to consider another piece of legislation called the 21st Century Cures Act. This will be a bill designed to encourage research and scientific development of new pharmaceuticals, fast-tracking the development of pharmaceuticals. I don't take a backseat to anyone when it comes to supporting innovation and scientific research. In fact, early in my Senate days, I chaired the Senate's Science Subcommittee so I know how important it is. At the same time, this piece of legislation will also offer a great benefit to the large pharmaceutical companies in America. The Congress will be considering the Cures bill with the backdrop of so many who are addicted to opioids not being able to get access to treatment, and they are going to be concerned about how there will be more research for new drugs because we want to see these cures. They are going to ask: How are we going to afford them? We want the cures, but we also want to be able to afford these medicines. Every time we look at a football game, we see dozens of ads for blockbuster drugs, but Americans watch those ads and say: Yes, we want those cures, yes, we want the scientific progress, but please, Congress, think about policies that are going to allow us to get those drugs. It is no wonder a recent editorial pointed out it was cheaper to fly round trip to India for a hepatitis C treatment than to get it here in the United States. People see these bills piling up. If they are able to afford their medications today, they are saying: Are we going to lose access tomorrow? To me, here is the bottom line for the fall. Here is the bottom line for where we ought to go. Yes, we should support medical breakthroughs and research into cures, but let us not keep the patients out of the debate. Let us make sure we add the funds needed for treatment for those who are addicted to opioids, and as we look at this issue of cures, let us also look at policies to make sure people can afford their medicines. The Committee on Finance has been looking at these issues. For example, recently, I raised a serious objection when I learned a panel meant to be studying how to turn the tide on opioid addiction was stocked with people closely tied to opioid manufacturers. We blew the whistle on that and four nominees to the panel were dismissed. We have a lot to do this fall. I know time is short, but, yes, let us promote these new cures; yes, let us make sure people who are addicted to opioids have new opportunities for treatment; and as we look at drug development, let us make sure we don't see so many Americans on the outside looking in as prices go up and up and up. There is more work to be done on both fronts: ensuring access to new science, ensuring access to treatment services, ensuring access to affordable medicines. That is what we ought to be focusing on this fall. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, Congress has just passed a funding measure that will prevent a shutdown at the end of this week. As headlines across the country noted as the debate over this bill played out, it was delayed partly due to partisan attacks against women's health and one provider in particular--Planned Parenthood--that were shoehorned into the debate once again. Colleagues, this year Planned Parenthood turns 100 years old. You cannot look at the last 100 years and deny that monumental progress has been made with respect to women's health and rights--thanks to strong allies like Planned Parenthood. But that progress is what some members of this body want to roll back. When the first Planned Parenthood opened in 1916, it was illegal for women to get information about how to prevent a pregnancy. It is not surprising that at the time, one of the leading causes of death for women in the United States was complications from pregnancy and childbirth. From the get-go, Planned Parenthood said that women in America have a fundamental right to information about their reproductive health and access to care. It was about the right of all women to a healthy life and the pursuit of happiness. In 1965, Planned Parenthood Connecticut fought and won the Supreme Court decision that made birth control legal for married women. In 2010, Planned Parenthood was at the front lines of the battle, along with a lot of us here in the Senate, to ensure that birth control would be covered under the Affordable Care Act. Today, an estimated one in five women in America has been to a Planned Parenthood clinic for care at some point in her life. Eight out of ten Planned Parenthood patients live in or near poverty. As tough as it is for them to make ends meet, Planned Parenthood is a place they can turn to for important medical care from a provider they trust. Planned Parenthood at 100 years old has racked up some impressive points on the scoreboard. Each year Planned Parenthood provides educational programs to 1.5 million people. Planned Parenthood has doubled the number of health services it provides to men and has led the way in expanding access to health care for LGBT Americans. It has more than 650 health centers across the country and served two and a half million women and men last year. In my home State of Oregon, more than 70,000 Oregonians are served by 11 Planned Parenthood centers. I know firsthand from visiting with Planned Parenthood officials throughout Oregon in Portland, in Lane County, in central Oregon, how important these centers are to the health care of Oregonians. Planned Parenthood is at the heart of the revolution in women's health care over the last 100 years. It is the first place millions of American women turn to for health care--women from Portland, OR, to Portland, ME. Here are some of the services Planned Parenthood provides: birth control and counseling; pregnancy tests; prenatal services; HIV tests; safe, legal abortion services; breast cancer screenings; HPV vaccinations; cervical cancer screenings and prevention; ovarian cancer screenings; PAP tests; exams for sexually transmitted diseases; treatment for urinary tract infections; basic physical exams; adoption referrals; family practice services; and nutrition programs. Despite all these critical services Planned Parenthood provides, every day, legislators attack Planned Parenthood. The fact is this crusade against Planned Parenthood is a crusade against the fundamental and constitutionally-protected right of women to make their own decisions about their bodies. Time and time again on the Senate floor and in debates with the other side, my Democratic colleagues and I have had to beat back the attempts to defund Planned Parenthood. Here is my bottom line colleagues. This country has made 100 years of progress on women's health, and it's not going to move backward. I urge my colleagues to honor the commitment to women's health and rights that Planned Parenthood has shown in the last 100 years by working in a bipartisan way to improve access to women's health care, instead of limiting it. Let us allow more women and men to access the health care they need and deserve, no matter who they are or where they live. Let us work to uphold the fundamental right of all women to make their own reproductive choices and access quality health care. Let us continue funding for Planned Parenthood and end these partisan attacks against this bedrock American health provider. Today, I am joined by 17 of my colleagues in introducing a resolution to formally recognize Planned Parenthood's immense contributions to progress for women's health and quality of life in America. It is time to end the unfounded attacks against Planned Parenthood and allow it to continue to provide critical health services for the next 100 years.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Merkley and Senator Peters for their courtesy to speak for a few minutes. In a few days, it will be exactly 1 year since the tragic shooting that took nine innocent lives and left nine more injured at Umpqua Community College, outside of Roseburg, OR. Senator Merkley and I will be there in a few days. We understand that for the families and the friends of those lost or injured--the students, faculty, and staff-- this time is going to be a painful reminder of an extraordinarily difficult day. Senator Merkley and I are so proud of that community. We call it ``UCC Strong.'' Yet we want to remember those individuals whose lives were ripped away that day and all in the community who have been suffering. Oregonians everywhere have had these victims and their families in their thoughts, and those thoughts are going to be uppermost throughout Oregon in the days ahead. Senator Merkley and I have spent a lot of time in Roseburg over the last few months. Folks there will tell you they do all they can to go forward, but the trauma doesn't really disappear. Whether it is a walk past Snyder Hall or the sight of a student running on campus, the painful memories just keep rushing back. As the school presses on, there are a lot of exciting developments on the campus. There is a new college president hard at work. The school just opened its doors to the new Bonnie J. Ford Health, Nursing, and Science Center, with state-of-the-art classrooms. Extraordinary resilience is being seen at UCC and Roseburg, but this is going to be a very difficult few days as we reflect on this horrendous shooting. Of course, the sad reality is that the shooting takes place on a long list of such shootings--horrible mass shootings targeting the innocent. Families and across the country scarred by the shootings share a sorrowful bond. I know that Roseburg and the movement we know as UCC Strong and the whole State of Oregon have come together over this last year to support the families, the victims, and those who were injured. Over the next few days, Senator Merkley and I are going to dedicate and redouble our efforts to do all that we possibly can to reach out again to folks in Roseburg and be supportive and do everything we can as Senators, honored to represent Oregon in the U.S. Senate, to prevent more shootings such as the horrible one that took place at UCC in Oregon. I yield the floor to my colleague Senator Merkley. I very much appreciate the chance to work with him and our delegation on this. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, how much time remains on the Franken- Klobuchar request to speak on this issue?

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I know Senator Brown feels very strongly about this, as well, so I am going to make a few remarks and leave time for him. I want to commend Senator Franken and Senator Klobuchar, who have talked to me about this issue many times. Today in the Finance Committee, with a significant bipartisan vote, we were able to pass the miners legislation to address the health care and retirement needs of those miners. As my two colleagues have pointed out, at its heart, this is the same emergency. Today it is the mine workers. Tomorrow it could be the truckers. The next day it could be the construction workers and the woodworkers in my part of the United States. As my colleagues have said, the reason that is the case is that for generations of Americans, getting a good-paying job came with a simple bargain: You worked hard, you earned a wage and benefits, and those benefits wouldn't be taken away. Today, bit by bit, that bargain is crumbling. There are two points that I would touch on so that Senator Brown can have some time, if his schedule permits. I think Senator Klobuchar has made a very good point about how important it is that Congress address this issue because, with respect to troubled systems like Central States, Congress is partially responsible for creating the problem. As Senator Klobuchar noted, 2 years ago Congress passed a bill--a bill that I was very much opposed to--the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act. It was slipped into a must-pass government funding package, and it gave a green light to slashing benefits in a lot of struggling multiemployer plans. In effect, for a generation of workers, it said: Sorry, times have changed. The benefits that you earned are no longer going to be protected, and the weight of this economic transformation in America is going to fall on you. It wasn't fair and it wasn't practical. I certainly share the view of my colleagues who said it was a good thing Treasury rejected the proposal that would have cut benefits earlier this year. Obviously we are going to have to take more steps to shore up the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which is a financial lifeline for 10 million workers, and we are going to have to look at a variety of approaches. I very much share the views Senator Franken spoke about, which Senator Klobuchar supports as well, when he talked about this rotting economic carcass known as the Federal Tax Code and how unfair it is to working families. My colleagues have just pointed out one example. Let me say that at the heart of the bipartisan tax reform proposals I have written over the last decade is my sense that we now have a tax code that really represents a tale of two systems. If you are influential and well connected, you can pretty much decide what kinds of taxes you are going to pay and when you are going to pay them. A fortunate few basically have that kind of opportunity. But the people my colleagues have been talking about--for example, truckers--don't have a tax code like that. Once or twice a month, those truckers have taxes extracted from their paychecks. They see it on their paychecks. There are no loopholes or anything that states about whether it is carried interest or derivatives or half a dozen other things; they just have their taxes extracted and there are no writeoffs or any kind of figuring out what you are going to pay and when you are going to pay it. It comes right off your paycheck. We have a lot of heavy lifting to do. Today, it seems to me that Congress began the task. I can tell my colleagues that there is so much work to do to modernize these pension and retirement systems. Chairman Hatch agreed to a proposal that I made today to allow people to contribute to their IRAs after they are 70\1/2\ years old. That proposal was adopted, as Senator Franken may know, sometime in the early 1960s. I won't pretend to be anywhere near as humorous as my colleagues, but I finally said--I thanked Chairman Hatch for adopting my proposal that let's people over 70\1/2\ contribute to their IRAs because people are living longer and feeling better. It doesn't seem that it makes much sense to have so many Senators and working Americans younger than the retirement laws that were adopted for a different time. We have a lot to do. First and foremost, we have to shore up Central States. We will be looking at a variety of approaches on how to do that, and, as both of my colleagues have said, a fundamental part of what we are going to have to do is fix this broken tax system. When I start talking about the Tax Code as a rotting economic carcass, my wife always says: Will you just stop there, dear, because you are frightening the children? We have small children. The reality is, this Tax Code is infected with loopholes and the inversion virus. It just goes on and on. As my colleagues have said, it is not right for working families-- particularly those who are depending on Central States pensions--to sort of hang in suspended animation, hoping that somehow there is going to be a piece of legislation that will pass through here so that they will get something resembling what they were promised--a dignified retirement based on the pension they earned. I commend my colleagues for doing this. This comes at the end of the day where at least we began the long push to pension reform with a successful bipartisan effort on miners, but, as my colleagues have said, this work has just begun. I thank Senator Franken and Senator Klobuchar for their commitment and their eloquence. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, before he leaves the floor, I note the very fine statement of the dean of the Senate Democrats, and I would just like to say that I want to ascribe to Senator Leahy's views and also be a charter member of the ``Tim Mitchell caucus.'' What a great name to give his public service. I thank you, Senator Leahy.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President and colleagues, I come to the Senate floor today to discuss S. 2979, the Presidential Tax Transparency Act. I am very pleased to see that my colleague on the Finance Committee who is such a valuable Member, Senator Cardin, is here as well. In America, nobody forces you to run for President. You volunteer to run for President, and this year we have had a bumper crop of volunteers. Since Watergate, there has been a bipartisan tradition honored by all candidates that they would release their tax returns. Every Democrat, every Republican, every liberal, every conservative has subscribed to honoring this particular tradition. Why is it so important? Tax returns say so much about a candidate for the world's most demanding job. Rather than the spin and deception that counts as messaging in a Presidential campaign, the tax returns are legally required to be an accounting in black and white of a candidate's honesty, integrity, and their personal priorities. A return can show whether a nominee has intimate connections to powerful interests in foreign governments whose priorities run contrary to the interests of typical Americans. A return highlights important questions about integrity. Are you the person giving to charity or, as some have wondered, are you converting another donor's gift into your own? Are you using charities for personal gain? A return shows if you pay any taxes at all or if you use the complexity of this Byzantine Tax Code to hide your income while working Americans have their taxes taken out of their paycheck. Today--and I made it clear I am going to shortly try to get support for the Presidential Tax Transparency Act. Today honest taxpayers who dot every ``i'' and cross every ``t'' are faced with a major Presidential candidate who refuses to show even one single page of his tax return. This flouting of a tradition honored by every candidate since Watergate is just too dangerous to ignore. So shortly I will ask unanimous consent that the Senate pass S. 2979, the Presidential Tax Transparency Act. It is a straightforward proposal. It says within just over 2 weeks of becoming a nominee, at a party convention nominees are required to release at least 3 years of tax returns. If they refuse, the Treasury Secretary provides the returns to the Federal Election Commission and they are put online automatically. Since I introduced this bill in the spring, I was asked again and again what was behind my thinking. I remember talking to Senator Cardin, my colleague on the Finance Committee, about it. I said at home, through town meetings, and to colleagues here: Oh, how I wish this bill was not necessary. I think certainly millions of Americans say: Hey, there are lots of laws already. Why do we need more laws? I think we all could feel very proud of this 40-year, bipartisan voluntary tradition that all the candidates have honored. I have waited to bring this bill up in front of the Senate, until it was clear the tradition would not be honored this year. I believe it is time for the United States Senate to act on S. 2979, the Presidential Tax Transparency Act, to protect honesty, accountability, and transparency in our Presidential election process. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be discharged from further consideration of S. 2979; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object----

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Madam President. First of all, it is with great disappointment and regret that I note that Senate Republicans are willing to throw aside a 40-year tradition of honesty and openness in our Presidential elections by blocking the Presidential Tax Transparency Act. With respect to their own proposal, I want to be clear on this point. The bill that I have authored, S. 2979, the Presidential Tax Transparency Act, affects all the candidates for President in an attempt to preserve the tradition of openness and accountability that is no longer being honored. The proposal offered by my colleague from Texas, on behalf of Senate Republicans, responds with a bill targeted at one candidate, a proposal that all our true national security experts have said would harm America's security. The briefing of our Presidential candidates is not just for their benefit, it is for the benefit of the American people so we have a smooth, democratic transition of power without risk to our national security. This attempt to hide the violation of a tradition of openness and accountability behind a political witch hunt ought to tell Americans all they need to know about Senate Republicans at this point. For that reason, I object.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, if ever there were an issue that ought to be bipartisan, it is tackling the Zika virus because this virus, of course, is taking an enormous toll on our country. What we are seeing is women and men getting infected, research stalling out, and babies being born with deformities and severe disabilities. My view is there shouldn't be anything partisan about tackling this. It ought to be common sense. The Senate ought to come together, and we should have done it quite some time ago. Yet Republican leaders seem to be putting this into slow motion because they want to limit access to the very health services pregnant women depend on for their care. When you listen to their view, it is almost like giving pregnant women cans of bug spray and wishing them good luck. In my view, that defies common sense. What I have always felt--and this has been true throughout my time in public service--is that with the big public health issues where the safety and well-being of so many Americans is on the line, you say: What we are going to do is we are going to do our job, we are going to come together, and we are going to do it in a bipartisan fashion based on what researchers and public health authorities say makes sense. Yet here the Senate is on an issue that is at the forefront of the minds of millions of American women and families, and what we are being told by Republicans is that the price of dealing with the Zika virus is limiting women's rights and reducing access to reproductive health care, and so much of that agenda is a preventive agenda, which is exactly what the public health authorities say is most important. My hope is that this Congress is very quickly going to say that we are going to set aside the anti-women, anti-family language, and, as part of a must-pass bill, that we are going to say we are going to come together as a body, Democrats and Republicans, and address what are clear public health recommendations of the leading specialists in this country and do the job that Americans told us to do, which is, when you have something that affects millions of Americans and their health and safety--I had a number of forums on the Zika virus this summer in Oregon. It is a great concern. For example, the Oregon Health Sciences Center, our premier health research body, is very concerned about the research agenda stalling out. I would say to my colleagues, let's set aside this question of trying to find ideological trophies as part of the Zika legislation. Let's address the clear public health recommendations we have received. Let's do it in a bipartisan way. Let's do it in a way that reflects common sense, and let's do it quickly. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, shortly I will ask unanimous consent that the Senate pass S. 2952, the Stopping Mass Hacking Act. Colleagues, the bill is just one sentence long. What it does is simple, but in my view it is extraordinarily important. If the Senate does nothing, if the Senate fails to act, what is ahead for Americans is a massive expansion of government hacking and surveillance powers, and it will take place automatically on December 1 of this year. The legislation that I seek to pass, which has been bipartisan in the Senate, would stop this automatic expansion of government hacking and surveillance powers. I have said it before and I want to say it again this afternoon: There is no question that it is a dangerous world out there, and I take a backseat to none when it comes to making sure our law enforcement and intelligence officers have the tools they need to keep America safe. In fact, I was actually able to add the specific provision expanding emergency powers for our government to act when there is a threat so that the government could move to protect the American people and come back and get the warrant later. But that is not what we are talking about here. What we are talking about here is a staggering expansion of government hacking and surveillance authority. These are major changes to Federal policy that are going to come about through amendments to rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. This is the kind of major issue that traditionally comes before the Judiciary Committee. I see that two of my colleagues with whom I enjoy working very much are here. Chairman Grassley is here and also Senator Cornyn, a member of the Judiciary Committee and a distinguished member of the Finance Committee. We have big policy issues that come before the Finance Committee and that come before the Judiciary Committee. We work on them. We work on them in a bipartisan fashion. Chairman Hatch and I meet every Wednesday afternoon to work on these kinds of matters. That is not what is going to happen with this massive expansion of government hacking and surveillance authority. Colleagues, these rules are going into effect on December 1 if Congress doss nothing. If Congress just says, ``Oh, gee, we have other things to do,'' these rules will go into effect. I guarantee you there are going to be many Americans who are going to be very unhappy, and they are going to ask their Members of Congress what they did to stop this ill-advised approach. By the way, in the other body, some of the most senior Republicans-- Congressman Sensenbrenner, the distinguished Congressman from Wisconsin, is very concerned about this issue. The American people want security and liberty, but these amendments don't give them much of either. This major policy change is going to make it easier for the government to hack into the personal devices of Americans and collect more information about them. They are going to do it by using computer programs called malware. The ``mal,'' in my view, is like ``malevolent.'' It is going to make us less safe, not more. Allowing the government to use secret, untested malware could end up damaging not only our personal devices but the power grid or hospitals and nearly any other system connected to the Internet. Get your arms around that--hospitals in Iowa, Texas, and Oregon being damaged not because the Congress made a policy decision but because something was done automatically as a result of a change in the rules of criminal procedure. I just want to say to my colleagues that I think there will be a lot of unhappy Americans if that is the case. The rule change says that the government can potentially search millions of computers with one single warrant issued by one single judge. There is no difference, in terms of law enforcement access, between the victims of a hack and the perpetrator himself. These changes will make people the victims twice over--once by a hacker and once again by their government. You wouldn't punish the victims of a tax scam or a Ponzi scheme with a painful audit. It just doesn't add up. I understand that passing legislation by unanimous consent is a difficult task. These days, you can hardly get unanimous consent to drink a soda at lunchtime. But this isn't an issue where the Senate can do some kind of ostrich act and ignore the problem. By sitting here and doing nothing, the Senate will be giving consent to a substantial expansion of government hacking and surveillance authority. By not acting, the Senate would give a stamp of approval on a major policy change that has received no hearing, no oversight, and no discussion in spite of the fact that some of the most important companies in America are speaking in opposition to this. In my view, the limits of search and seizure are unquestionably an issue for this Congress to debate. The Justice Department should not have the power to change the practical meaning of the Fourth Amendment without the people's elected leaders weighing in. Instead, the Senate ought to be doubly concerned by the fact that the administration wants to conduct proactive cyber security policy through some kind of obscure bureaucratic process like rule 41. There aren't folks in Oregon, Texas, Iowa, or anywhere else who are following the details of something called rule 41, but I am telling everybody that they are going to be very concerned about the expansion of the government's hacking authority. So I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bipartisan, bicameral legislation. If this bill does not pass today by unanimous consent, I look forward to having a hearing on this issue. I know there has been bipartisan interest in the Judiciary Committee. Leaders of the Judiciary Committee have talked about it, and I hope that hearing will take place shortly so that Americans can have a chance to understand exactly how devastating this proposal would be for them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2952; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am going to yield in just a moment to Senator Daines, but just so we are clear in terms of my response to the distinguished Senator from Texas, he has--as some have tried to do-- sought to characterize this as kind of a routine kind of matter; that this was a rule of criminal procedure of no great import and without any far-reaching consideration. I can tell you that cyber security experts around the country have spoken out virtually unanimously about the consequences of the government accidentally breaking their computers without telling them. I don't know of anything that is routine about this at all. Under this change, the government can search potentially millions of computers with one single warrant issued by one single judge. And, tragically, there is no difference, in terms of law enforcement access, between the victims of a hack and the perpetrators themselves. So we are talking about clobbering victims twice. First they get clobbered by a hacker and then they could get hurt by the government. The distinguished Senator from Texas seeks to portray this as some kind of far-out kind of matter. Virtually all of the major technology companies in this country have written in opposition to this. Scores of cyber security experts have written in opposition. One of the key points they make is that you don't punish victims twice in America. You wouldn't punish the victims of a tax scam or a Ponzi scheme with a painful audit. That is what can happen here. The idea that a change of this magnitude would be made without any debate, consideration--there has been no hearing on this matter. I know of no meetings. I would like to hear any Member of the Senate tell me about some meeting they went to. I know of no sessions where the public voice could be heard. I am very hopeful, and I intend to come back to this floor again in an effort to make sure the public is at least brought into this. I can tell you that Senator Daines and I represent a lot of rural hospitals, for example. Well, certainly if you heard some of what we have been told could happen in terms of what it could mean to computer systems at hospitals and other kinds of facilities, they are going to ask their Senators: What did you do about that? Why did you just let that rule go through that would damage those systems that are a lifeline for Americans? So we are going to be back. As I mentioned before, my colleague in the other body was starting to make a fair amount of progress. Jim Sensenbrenner, who is a very influential Member of the other body, has taken a great interest in this, as have a number of colleagues on both sides. So we will be back. I am going to yield now. I know my colleague from Montana has been a wonderful partner in this effort, and he has some comments to make that will highlight once again the bipartisan concern about the magnitude of this change that would take place without any involvement, none, here in the Senate--no hearings, no debates, no discussions. This is a big change, and I hope we will discuss it. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I concur with Senator Hatch and also congratulate the USITC on its centennial and commend the agency for its service over the last century. Established by the Congress as the U.S. Tariff Commission on September 8, 1916, the agency was reconfigured and redesignated as the USITC by the Trade Act of 1974. As mandated by Congress, the USITC performs three principal functions: No. 1, fairly and objectively administer U.S. trade remedy laws within its mandate; No. 2, provide the Congress, the President, and the United States Trade Representative with independent analysis, information, and support concerning matters related to international trade, tariffs, and U.S. competitiveness; and No. 3 maintain the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. By successfully executing these functions, the USITC performs a valuable service to the U.S. Government and the American people. Those of us in Congress particularly appreciate the highly technical data and analyses that the USITC provides to help inform our formulation of U.S. trade policy.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, with a weeks-long recess upon us, sometimes opportunities to make history get lost. I am going to take a few minutes to describe an historic opportunity to help vulnerable families and children at risk. I hope my colleagues rise to the occasion when Congress resumes its legislative work in September. The bipartisan, bicameral legislation called the Family First Prevention Services Act would give new hope to hundreds of thousands of children and their families. It would, for the first time, allow States to permanently invest Federal foster care dollars to safely keep families together, instead of ripping them apart. It passed the House by voice vote at the end of last month, and in my view, it ought to be an easy bipartisan win. I remain hopeful the Senate will come together to pass it in the months ahead. I want to take a few minutes to look back at how this proposal came together before describing what it can accomplish. In the mid-1990s, there was a debate in the Congress as to whether sending kids to orphanages was the right idea. It was obvious, in my view, that there had to be better alternatives. Along with many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, I saw an opportunity for our child welfare policies to empower and unite families, so I authored the Kinship Care Act. It said that aunts or uncles or grandparents who met the right standards would be notified and have first preference when it came to caring for a niece or nephew or grandchild. It was the first Federal law of its kind. And over the past two decades Congress, in a bipartisan manner, has built on that framework. Two years ago, I became chairman of the Finance Committee, and I wanted to continue that progress and keep building on those values because, even though the 1990s are long gone, the foster care system is still badly flawed. When you look at the child welfare policies on the books today, you see big incentives for breaking families up. You don't see anywhere near enough incentive for keeping families together and helping them heal and thrive. It is a system that boxes families into two often bad options: foster care or nothing at all. So 2 years ago, I began working on legislation to change that. I put forward a proposal in 2015 called the Family Stability and Kinship Care Act. In the months that followed, I worked with Republican and Democratic colleagues in the Senate and the House on a bipartisan path forward. Last month, Chairman Hatch and I, along with Ways and Means Chairman Brady, Ranking Member Sander Levin, and Congressman Vern Buchanan in the House, introduced our bipartisan, bicameral bill. Here is what our legislation would do. First, it takes the current system that is rife with flaws and turns it on its head. Instead of paying a dollar for families to be split up, the bill says, let's see if it is possible to use that dollar to help a family stay together. Let's see if that dollar can keep a youngster safe at home, where he or she is most likely to be healthy and happy and succeed in school. Remember that most youngsters in foster care aren't there because of physical or sexual abuse. Kids predominantly wind up in foster care because of circumstances that lead to neglect. Maybe Mom or Dad needs help dealing with a child's behavioral issues. Maybe they need substance abuse treatment. Maybe a relative could step in and help, especially if they have support. It provides critical assistance to families struggling with addiction to opioids or other substances. It invests in programs that help fight child abuse and neglect. And lastly, it takes what I believe are vital steps to prioritize safety by setting basic standards for foster care facilities and group homes. I want to focus on that last point for a moment. Some troubled or abused youngsters have been through such severe trauma that they need the kind of help they can only get in a temporary, high-quality treatment facility. They are kids who struggle with mental health illnesses or behavioral problems, young people recovering from addiction, or victims of sex trafficking. The support they need is unique, and they need access to reliable care in a safe place. But those placements need to be an intervention, not a destination. In my view, when they are able, children should have the opportunity to reunite with kin or join a foster or adoptive family. For the first time, our bill would lay down basic standards so that youngsters don't have to face the prospect of growing up in those circumstances. These are standards guided by the states and laid out to protect kids. They are designed to raise the bar for group homes and make sure that children aren't sent away and forgotten. In my view, this policy is a no-brainer. I understand a small handful of States have raised concerns about this legislation. The concerns essentially revolve around three common points. First, I have heard concerns that there will not be enough family foster homes to meet demand. It is true that across the country, many states are facing severe shortages in family foster homes. That is why the bill invests new funding for competitive grants to improve foster parent recruitment and retention. Moreover, the whole premise of the bill is to prevent children from unnecessarily entering foster care in the first place. States across the country have shown they can safely reduce foster care and in so doing, reduce the demand for foster homes. And let's not forget, States would have over 3 years before these new group home standards come into effect giving more than adequate time to plan for the changes. A second concern I have heard is that there is there is too much rigidity when it comes to licensing standards, accreditation, and assessment requirements for children placed in residential treatment programs for youth in need of higher levels of care. The sponsors of the legislation as well as the Department of Health and Human Services have made it abundantly clear that there is significant flexibility in these provisions of the bill. With respect to child welfare law, there is no statutory or regulatory definition for what constitutes ``licensed clinical and nursing staff.'' A wide variety of models could be used to meet these criteria. What we must not lose sight of is the fact that the terminology in this bill is based on what we know is in the best interest of children. The standards laid out in this bill are supported by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, the American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the Children's Defense Fund, and over 130 other organizations. A third concern I have heard is that the time frame for assessing youth to determine whether they need residential treatment is too short. Under the legislation, a State can receive a Federal match for up to 2 weeks for any foster care placement that is allowable under current law. That means placements like child care institutions, shelters, group homes, and family foster homes for up to 2 weeks. After those 2 weeks, in order to receive a Federal match for room and board, a child may only be served in a family foster home, a supervised independent living placement for youth 18 and older, a facility specializing in serving pregnant and parenting youth, or a qualified residential treatment program. If a child is served in a qualified residential treatment program, the State still has up to 30 days to perform an assessment. That means the State has up to 6 weeks to perform assessments to determine the appropriateness of a child's placement. And even then, if the residential treatment program is deemed NOT to be in the child's best interest, the State has an additional 30 days to receive Federal funding on behalf of that child to find a more appropriate placement. That adds up to nearly 3 months for the States to continue to receive Federal funding while determining the best placement for a child. Let me tell you, 10 weeks is a long time in the life of a vulnerable kid and should be plenty of time to find an appropriate placement. In addition to these technical questions, some just say the change is coming too fast. For example, a newspaper recently reported that officials in one particular State warned the bill ``could worsen the state's already worrisome shortage of foster care beds. . . .'' and that it could ``disqualify about 3,000 slots in group homes and institutional settings'' from Federal financial help. To my mind, it can be too easy in this debate to lose sight of the fact that right now, a lot of vulnerable youngsters are in desperate circumstances. So let's focus for a moment on the question of group homes in that particular State. Last year, the State in question lost a class-action lawsuit over its foster care program. The lawsuit found that the State violated the constitutional rights of foster children by exposing them to unreasonable risks in a system where children ``often age out of care more damaged than when they entered.'' I want to repeat that finding because, in my view, it speaks volumes, that children ``often age out of care more damaged than when they entered.'' The U.S. district judge who wrote the decision directed the State to stop placing certain children in unsafe settings such as foster group homes that lack 24-hour supervision. At question was whether group homes should continue to operate at all, given concerns that they cause ``an unreasonable risk of harm'' to foster children. The court heard testimony that, in foster group homes that mix younger children with older children, sexual abuse ``is usual rather than unusual.'' The court heard stories of one foster boy who was ``sexually abused almost every night by one of the bigger boys in the home,'' while the caretakers were asleep on the other side of the house. So in my judgement, if that is the way things are now, then that is a situation that cries out for change. It is time to take a fresh approach that will do a better job of protecting kids and families. Here is my bottom line. The weight of the status quo is severe, and it falls heaviest on the thousands of foster kids living in quiet struggle. Doing nothing is easy, I realize that. But it is long past time for the Congress to overcome the inertia of the status quo. And the fact is most of the reforms you are seeing today are incremental--foisted upon States in decrees, settlement agreements, and court orders in class action lawsuits. My home State of Oregon is no exception. Oregon's Department of Human Services was just hit by a $60 million lawsuit. Too often, States fail to provide for the most basic safety for these vulnerable kids, and that is why advocates are turning to the courts for change. In recent years, the advocacy organization Children's Rights has filed class action lawsuits in Arizona, Connecticut, D.C., Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. Absent reforms and partnership with the Federal Government, unfortunately, these types of lawsuits that produce only slow improvements will continue to be one of few clear avenues to drive change. It is time Congress stepped up. The standards laid out in this bill are supported by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, the American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the Children's Defense Fund and countless others. The experts agree with our premise, that group home care should be used only when it is clinically necessary. This bill is not perfect, but no legislation is ever perfect. I have been clear that there will be opportunities--both through the regulatory and legislative processes--to strengthen this legislation and build on it. But in my judgement, this bill gets us closer to a world where foster care is needed less often, a system where the priority is keeping children and families together. If this bill were to come before the Senate in an up-or-down vote, I believe it would sail through on a bipartisan basis. It is the right policy for kids, and it is the right policy for taxpayers, whose investments in foster care today aren't helping children and families the way they should. I urge my colleagues to support the Family First Prevention Services Act. The Senate can and must get this done in the months ahead and send it to the president's desk. As civil rights icon Marian Wright Edelman said, ``Don't make our most vulnerable children wait longer'' for the help they need.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to take a moment today to stress the importance of providing young people with safe places to learn during the summer months. Summer is in full swing, and families are deciding how their children's time will be spent while school is out. Unfortunately, not all families in America can afford enriching experiences like summer camps and summer tutors. That gap between families who have resources and those that do not is expressed clearly in their children. Evidence shows that students who lack access to summer learning, informal or structured, start the school year behind. When many kids are having to review last year's lessons, then all the kids have to spend that time reviewing last year's lessons. This puts all our kids behind. Simply put, the long summer break should not be a long break from learning. With Oregon's 4-year high school graduation rate at an alarmingly low 74 percent, it is long past time we shine a spotlight on summer learning loss and its impact on our students' path toward graduation. Summer learning loss has consequences that can damage a child's long- term academic and career success. That is especially important in my State where one in four teenagers doesn't make it to graduation on time. Research by the National Summer Learning Association shows that most students lose math and reading skills during summer break. And unfortunately, students from low-income families fare even worse. The sad truth is that most students lose about 2 months of grade level equivalency in math computation skills over the summer months, and low- income students lose an additional 2 months in reading achievement. As parents, community leaders, educators and policymakers, we must provide every resource possible to bridge that gap for disadvantaged and low income students. I have long fought to close the achievement gap and support all students on a path toward high school graduation and beyond. I know so many great education advocates in Oregon who share these goals, and I want to commend Oregon's tremendous educators who work on this effort every single day. My good friends at Oregon Afterschool for Kids have made a strong commitment to keep kids learning all summer long. Their efforts to open up school libraries and school cafeterias in Woodburn, Salem, Eugene, and around the State have truly made a difference in children's lives by providing them with a safe and welcoming learning environment during the summer. I have often seen parents bring their children for a free lunch and stay for the free books. This year, I hope to see even more communities come out and support our students by hosting summer learning activities. Even if you cannot attend events to serve lunch and read stories to classrooms full of children, remember that supporting summer learning is easy. Volunteering your time or donating books or crayons to neighbors is another way to support young learners. More ideas can be found in the ``Summer Learning Tip Sheet for Parents'' provided by the National Summer Learning Association. As I have traveled around my State having conversations in high school auditoriums and school gyms, I have heard so many good ideas on how to help students succeed in school. Oregonians agree that we must support all aspects of a student's life to improve their outcomes, and I will add that this rings true all year long. I have seen firsthand that our communities are ready to come together and support students who need it. This is truly the Oregon way. I am committed to helping more of our students get their high school diplomas and increase the rate at which our students are graduating from high school. Fighting summer learning loss is one way we can keep all students on a path toward a bright future.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this year marks the 90th anniversary of the Hollywood Theatre in Portland, OR. Now a nonprofit organization, the Hollywood Theatre is an important Oregon landmark with a rich cultural history. Today I want to honor the Hollywood Theatre's 90 years of educating, entertaining, and bringing the community together through film. The Hollywood Theatre was built in 1926, at the very end of the silent movie era. It was designed in an opulent Spanish Colonial Revival style, featuring extravagant interiors and a recognizable terra cotta exterior. Ninety years ago, it opened its doors to thousands of Oregonians who flocked to the luxurious theater to see its first show, ``More Pay-Less Work,'' for a quarter. It thrived during cinema's transition to ``talkies,'' hosting not only films but also community events such as bond drives during WWII and annual Rose Festival ceremonies. It was such a popular destination that the Northeast Portland neighborhood surrounding it became known as the Hollywood District. In the 1960s, the popularity of television caused the Hollywood Theatre to fall on hard times. Although it was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1983, it slipped into a period of disrepair and nearly burned down. Fortunately, it was purchased by Film Action Oregon, a local nonprofit, in 1997. Its new management returned the theatre to its historic appearance and renewed its status as a Portland jewel and community hub. The Hollywood Theatre now plays independent films and hosts film festivals, comedy shows, lectures, and continues the tradition of hosting community events. It is recognized by the national film community for its exceptional selection of films and support for local filmmakers through funding and consultation. Later this summer, travelers will be able to witness the theatre's newest project, a small theatre in the PDX airport, which will showcase short films by local artists. What better way to wait for a flight than to grab a local microbrew and enjoy a local short film? No other airport in the Nation can boast such a treat. The Hollywood Theatre is a testament to the Oregonian values: supporting small businesses, building and engaging local communities, making art accessible, and respecting and reviving historic landmarks. It exposes patrons to a wider variety of films than those offered by larger cinemas, often offering thought-provoking alternatives to blockbusters. In an age of multiplex theaters and in-home streaming services, it has taken a lot of passion for the Hollywood Theatre to pursue its mission and a lot of local support to keep it viable and flourishing. I would like to congratulate everyone who has been a part of its success. Hollywood Theatre. Thank you for inspiring countless people through film and community.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to address two issues which the Senate Finance Committee has spent a considerable amount of time on, and both of them are examples of how the Senate is leaving important work undone on its way out the door. I am going to begin by discussing the opioid bill. If ever there were an issue that ought to be unifying the Congress and bringing Democrats and Republicans together to surmount an important challenge, it ought to be opioid addiction in America. This is a crisis indiscriminate of geography and politics. The reality is that opioid addiction is ripping through our communities like wildfire. A recent editorial in one of my home State newspapers captured the extreme urgency of the opioid struggle, the addiction, with this statement: ``Opioids are winning.'' After months of work, the Senate and House have come up with an opioid bill. I can give my assessment in a sentence: It is a half- measure. The job is far from complete, and certainly nobody ought to be taking victory laps. The reality is that this opioid bill leaves many opportunities to fight and successfully win the battle against opioid addiction on the negotiating table. A landmark study dealing with opioids came out a few months ago and found that 80 percent of those who were addicted to painkillers or heroin weren't getting treatment. I want everybody to understand that under this bill, those waiting lines are not going to get much shorter. The thousands of babies born each year with an addiction to narcotics--this bill won't be enough to bring that number down to zero, where everybody knows it should be. And there is a moral imperative to actually get it to zero. That is why there are headlines stating that opioids are winning the war. The package before the Senate certainly has the kernels of a meaningful game plan, but, in my view, there is just not enough there. There are programs being established that could be a big help to those who are struggling to get their lives back on track, but there aren't the tools to deliver on that promise. Senators should know that doing only half the job now means that Members are going to be leading with their chins when the appropriations process returns later this year. The reason I say that is there are some programs that are going to be bumping up against the uncertainty of the appropriations process. There is a program for pregnant women and new mothers suffering from an opioid-use disorder. There is a program to help States take important strides when it comes to monitoring prescription drugs. There is better tracking within the VA. There is a plan to strengthen the network of support in American communities that is best equipped to reach out to those who need support in fighting addiction, which includes physicians, employers, the criminal justice system, and more. The bill green-lights the National Institutes of Health putting new energy into the development of safe, nonaddictive, effective, and affordable drugs and treatments for chronic pain. The bill establishes a task force and grants for States to construct what I believe could be a fresh approach to pain management and opioids, including education programs, treatment, recovery efforts, prescription monitoring, and strategies to prevent overdose. Getting those proposals off the ground is a first step, but with the Senate on its way out the door, it seems to me that you also have to do more than just leave the strategy for actually winning against opioid addiction to the uncertainty of the appropriations process in the fall. There are other questions about this bill. I am very concerned about the provision that gives $75 million in special kickbacks to the manufacturers of opioids that are considered under the bill ``abuse deterrents.'' I believe it is wrong for the bill, which only does half the job for Americans struggling with addiction, to then turn around and give an unjustified windfall to big drug companies. I offered an amendment to get rid of the windfall, and it was very simple. I said: Let's give that money to pregnant women who are enrolled in Medicaid, women of limited means who are struggling to fight addiction. But the choice was made to give the windfall to the drug companies rather than to help those vulnerable women who are trying to get their lives back on track. We shouldn't be giving funding to programs that really help women and others who are trying to overcome addiction and then turn around and give a $75 million windfall to drug companies. That, in my view, is an imbalance that does not pass the smell test. The bottom line on the opioid legislation is that there is an awful lot of heavy lifting to do before anybody ought to think about taking a victory lap. My State--and it pains me to say this--is the fourth worst State in the country when it comes to opioid abuse. I hear from Oregonians who have gone from pills, to heroin, to a tragic ending. I hear accounts that nobody could have ever dreamed of. I was blessed to go to school on a basketball scholarship. Nobody heard about basketball players who had an injury getting hooked on opioids and having tragic, premature endings and opportunities choked off. We didn't hear those stories then, but we hear them now. I have heard from doctors and pharmacists about the dangers drugs pose and the difficulty of treating pain safely. I hear from community leaders who are trying fresh approaches to reach out to young people. My sense is that every single Member of the Senate is hearing these kinds of stories. I want it understood that the opioid addiction crisis is going to keep raging unabated. Lives are going to continue to be lost and families are going to continue to be torn apart until the Senate finishes the rest of the job, and the rest of the job is still ahead of us. Nomination of Mary Wakefield Mr. President, I have unfinished business that needs to be addressed, and that is the yearlong obstruction in front of the Senate Finance Committee on a supremely qualified nominee, Dr. Mary Wakefield, who is the President's choice to be the Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services. Her nomination has been sitting in purgatory longer than any other such choice in history, and it is for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with her qualifications. I am going to talk about what is causing the holdup, but I want to spend a little bit of time talking about Dr. Wakefield and the important role she has been nominated to fill. She is up for the No. 2 spot at Health and Human Services, which would make her the chief operating officer of a Department that is taking on some of our most important health challenges, including opioid addiction. They manage the most important health programs in the country. This Department is on the frontlines in the battle against Zika. They run the Centers for Disease Control, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, child welfare programs, family support programs, and it goes on and on. I felt from the outset that she was the right person for this job. She is somebody who has seen the American health care system from all sides. She comes from rural America. She hails from North Dakota and sought out more opportunities to help individuals by working in policy and managing programs. She was a nurse, and she said: I want to do more, and I am going to be able to do it by learning more about these health policies. So she earned a master's degree, a Ph.D., and then she served as a legislative assistant and chief of staff in the Senate. She has proven herself most able as the head of the Health Resources and Services Administration. This is almost a textbook case of somebody qualified to do this job. When the Finance Committee met in February to discuss her nomination, she was winning plaudits from both sides of the aisle. My friend, Chairman Hatch, said Dr. Wakefield has an ``impressive background and a reputation for being a problem solver.'' Those are not my words. They are the words of Chairman Hatch. Senator Hoeven, who introduced Dr. Wakefield at that hearing, said, ``She is a dedicated public servant and a hard-working health care advocate.'' And Senator Hoeven, whom we all respect, like Senator Hatch, made the important point that Dr. Wakefield is an advocate especially for rural America. She believes Americans deserve access to high-quality health care, regardless of their ZIP Code, and she has certainly walked the walk as a nurse and as a practitioner. Senator Hoeven encouraged the Finance Committee to support Dr. Wakefield's nomination and ``send her to the full Senate for confirmation.'' Unfortunately, this process of moving this highly qualified nominee has ground to a halt. There have been kind of two stages of this process. First, in February, Senator Grassley indicated he would put a hold on the nomination on the ground that he and other Republican Senators had not received adequate responses to the questions they had raised about Planned Parenthood. Now, these questions had absolutely nothing to do with what Dr. Wakefield had been involved in. Senator Grassley's questions were answered months ago, but as soon as that was accomplished, there was another objection. In March, the Republican members of the Finance Committee sent a letter to the inspector general raising questions about a complaint against the State of California regarding what is the so-called Weldon amendment. The amendment prohibits recipients of appropriated funds from discriminating against health care providers who do not cover abortion services. We were told the Wakefield nomination could not be considered until those issues with respect to California and the Weldon amendment were resolved. Once again, we are seeing issues raised that have absolutely nothing to do with Dr. Wakefield, a nurse, someone who hails from rural America, who Republican Senators say is eminently qualified, to be held up for matters that had nothing to do with her nomination. She wasn't the subject of the investigation. She didn't work in California. There has been no allegation she has been involved in any way in the matters being investigated. Several weeks ago, the Office of Civil Rights concluded their investigation of California and the Weldon amendment. It concluded the Weldon amendment had not been violated, really not even implicated, because none of the parties bringing the complaint were even covered by the amendment. So as a matter of law, there was no violation. Now, one would normally think that would finally clear the decks; no issues left related to Dr. Wakefield's nomination. Even the issues unrelated to her nomination had been resolved. So one would think we would be ready to go, ready to forward the nomination. That has not been the case. My understanding is, on the other side of the aisle, Republican members of the Finance Committee are still unwilling to favorably report the nomination. So a highly qualified nominee is being needlessly blocked for reasons that--and I have spent a lot of time digging into this--are completely unrelated to her qualifications and the position she has been nominated to. It just seems to me the people we represent deserve more when it comes to the consideration of vital nominees--vital nominees like Dr. Wakefield--and legislation that ought to really shorten those waiting lines for opioid treatment and respond fully to the challenge of opioid addiction. The Congress ought to be doing its job. It ought to be doing more than making political points and passing half measures. I will close by way of saying that I think as much as any Member of this body, I have made a commitment to working in a bipartisan way. It is what I want to be the hallmark of my time in public service. I will just close by way of saying that I think both fighting opioid addiction and making sure that qualified people who have been recommended by senior Republicans can actually be considered here in both instances. The Congress and the Senate owe more to the American people. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Taylor Harding, an intern in my office, be given floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes tonight to discuss the Intelligence authorization bill for fiscal year 2017. The Senate has been asked to provide unanimous consent to move forward on this legislation, and I have objected to doing that and want to take just a few minutes to outline why I feel very strongly about this. The reality is, this legislation contains a number of valuable provisions, but once again it is being driven by the same issues the Senate looked at last week, and that was the McCain amendment, which involved a major change with respect to national security letters. My colleague is a valuable member of the Intelligence Committee and knows what I am talking about. But to set the backdrop is again, I want it understood how important it is to make clear that it is a very dangerous time. Those of us who sit on the Intelligence Committee are acutely aware of that. A couple of times a week we go into that special room and come away with a very clear recognition that there are people out there who do not wish our country well. So that is not in question. This is a dangerous time. Given these dangers, it is especially important--critically important-- that law enforcement and intelligence authorities have the tools they need to protect the American people. Tonight, I wish to start with where we really left off with the amendment from the Senator from Arizona, the McCain amendment involving national security letters, because that amendment deals with the very same concern that has led me to object to the Intelligence authorization bill tonight. I don't take a back seat to anybody--not anybody--in terms of making sure our intelligence and law enforcement officials have the tools they need to protect our country at a dangerous time. That is why in 2013, I began working for it then, and we got it into the USA FREEDOM Act. I wrote the provision that became section 102 of the USA FREEDOM Act. It said that when our government--the FBI or our intelligence and law enforcement community--believed it has to move quickly and it has to move immediately, our government could do that. It could go get the information that has been in question--the email materials, the text message logs, the chat records, and all of these digital communications. Under section 102, the government could move immediately to get this information and then come back after the fact and settle up with the court. Never once has the court denied the government. I recall that during the debate over the McCain amendment, the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee said that he was concerned that the FBI might have to wait around for a month--no way, absolutely no way, out of the question. Under section 102, there is not going to be any dawdling. There is not going to be waiting around. The government can move and move immediately to protect the American people. Given that the government has those tools for the FBI and intelligence officials--making sure that we have the tools needed to protect the security and well-being of the American people--that is a reason for being very careful about thinking through big changes in these national security letters and what the changes would be, specifically. This was in the McCain amendment. It is in the Intelligence authorization bill. An FBI field office could issue a national security letter, in effect, administratively. It is an administrative subpoena without any court oversight. For example, the national security letters could be used to collect what are called electronic communication transaction records. This would be email, chat records, and text message logs. I have had Senators come up to me to ask me about whether this could be true. When I was responding to questions at home about that this weekend, folks or people asked: Does this really mean that the government can get the Internet browsing history of an individual without a warrant, even when the government has the emergency authority if it is really necessary? The answer to that question is: Yes, the government can. The government can get access to Web browsing history under the Intelligence authorization legislation, under the McCain amendment, and they can do it without getting a warrant--even when the government can go get it without a warrant when there is an emergency circumstance. The reality is Web browsing history can reveal an awful lot of information about Americans. I know of little information that could be more intimate than that Web browsing history. If you know that a person is visiting the Web site of a mental health professional or a substance abuse support group or a particular political organization or a particular dating site, you know a tremendous amount of private, personal, and intimate information about that individual. That is what you get when you can get access to their Web browsing history without a warrant, even, as I have said, when the government's interest is protected in an emergency. The reality is that getting access to somebody's Web browsing history is almost like spying on their thoughts. This level of surveillance absolutely ought to come with court oversight. As I have spelled out tonight, that is possible in two separate ways. There is the traditional approach with getting a warrant. Then under section 102, which I wrote as part of the USA FREEDOM Act, the government can get information when there is an emergency and come back later after the fact and settle. The reality is the President's surveillance review group has said that they believe court oversight should be required for this kind of information. In effect, now we have some law enforcement and intelligence officials saying that we ought to go in exactly the opposite direction. By the way, George W. Bush agreed that we ought to be careful about gathering this information. He didn't want this particular power. Maybe somebody could argue that, well, intelligence and law enforcement officials ought to be able to do this because it is more convenient for them. To tell you the truth, if we were talking about convenience or protecting the American people in an emergency, I would be pretty sympathetic to the government's argument. But that is not the choice. As to the government's interest, given the safety of the American people being on the line, the government goes to get that information immediately--the Web browsing history, the chat records, and the email. The government gets it immediately under the specific language of section 102. What this really comes down to is that we have had this horrible tragedy in Orlando. So we are all very concerned about the safety and the well-being of the American people. When we are home, there is no question--as I am sure it is in the case of the Presiding Officer of the Senate, my colleague from Ohio, and myself--that the American people want policies that protect their security and their liberty. They want policies that do both. Frankly, they don't think they are mutually exclusive. They think the government ought to be doing both. After a tragedy--and you can almost set your clock by it-- increasingly, proposals are being brought up that really don't do much of either. They don't do much to advance security. In this case, you protect people's security with that emergency authority when the well- being of our people is on the line and the public wants their liberties protected. They are certainly going to be very concerned about someone being able to see their Web browsing history with an administrative subpoena and no court oversight. I am going to touch on one other section of the Intelligence authorization bill that concerns me, but I will say that I supported that emergency authority very strongly. I was the first to propose it in 2013. I did so because I said I wanted to make sure--since I am one of the longer serving members of the Intelligence Committee, and I am very pleased to have the Presiding Officer of the Senate on it--and I wanted to be able to say that my focus has been to show that security and liberty are not mutually exclusive. We can do both. I think, with what we have outlined this afternoon, we can, in fact, do both. That is why section 102 of the USA Freedom Act is so important. It spells out how and when the well-being and safety of the American people is on the line. There isn't anybody going to be dawdling around. What the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee said about people waiting for a month to get a national security letter is not going to happen--not if you use section 102. We are making it clear how important security is. But we are also saying that we are not going to needlessly erode these sacred and vital constitutional protections of the American people, which is what you would be doing if a field office of the FBI, administratively and without court oversight, could go out and scoop up scores of browsing records. That is why I have objected to giving unanimous consent to the intelligence authorization bill. We always do it publicly. That is why I am on the floor tonight. I will tell my colleagues that this bill, on the key issue of national security letters, is essentially a redo of the vote that took place last week on the McCain legislation. I close by saying that while the Intelligence authorization bill does contain other provisions that I think are quite constructive, I am troubled that the bill also would erode the jurisdiction of the independent privacy board for the second year in a row. Here, in particular, is where we all want to concentrate on U.S. persons. That is what is so important--focusing on U.S. persons. At a time when telecommunications systems around the world are beginning to merge--and this will increasingly be the case in the digital domain--the individual's U.S. or non-U.S. status is not always readily apparent. So I am concerned about some of the restrictions that are in the authorization, as well that I think they really ignore the way in which telecommunications systems have changed around the world and the difficulty in recognizing quickly an individual's U.S. or non-U.S. status. With that, I note our friend and colleague is on the floor to give his remarks. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. He and I have worked on this. He is really outlining the hypocrisy behind what has been going on over the past few days. Mr. President, due process ought to apply as it relates to guns, but due process wouldn't apply as it relates to the Internet activity of millions of Americans. My view is that the country wants policies that promote safety and liberty. Increasingly, we are getting policies that do not do much of either. Supporters of this amendment, the McCain amendment, have suggested that Americans need to choose between protecting their security and protecting their constitutional right to privacy. The fact is, this amendment doesn't improve either. What it does is, it gives an FBI field office new authority to administratively scoop up Americans' digital records, their email and chat records, their text message logs, Web-browsing history, and certain types of location information without ever going to a judge. The reason this is unnecessary--and it is something I believe in very strongly and worked hard for it in the FREEDOM Act--there is a very specific section in the FREEDOM Act, which I worked for and authored in a separate effort in 2013, that allows the FBI to demand all of these records--all of the records I described--in an emergency and then go get court approval after the fact. So unless you are opposed to court oversight, even after the fact, there is no reason to support this amendment. The FBI has not, in any way, suggested that having this authority would have stopped the San Bernardino attack or the massacre at an LGBT nightclub in Orlando. That is because there is no reason to think that is the case. The Founding Fathers wrote the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution for a good reason. We can protect security and liberty. We can have both. Somehow, the sponsors of the McCain amendment have said: You can really only have one or the other. Mr. President and colleagues, the other argument that was made yesterday--some have said, we have to have this amendment because it will just fix a typo in the law. That is not true. I urge colleagues to take a look at the record on this. The record makes it clear that this provision was carefully circumscribed, was narrowly drawn. The notion that this is some sort of typo simply doesn't hold water. The fact is, the Bush administration--hardly an administration that was soft on terror--said this was not needed, this was not something they would support; that the national security letter statute ought to be interpreted narrowly just the way the authors in 1993 envisioned. I see my friend, the distinguished chair of the Intelligence Committee. I know we are going to hear how this is absolutely pivotal in order to protect the security of the American people. I will recap. No. 1, never once has the FBI suggested this would have prevented Orlando; No. 2, in the face of an emergency under the legislation I authored, the government, in an Orlando or San Bernardino issue, can go get the records immediately and then after the fact settle up; No. 3, this was not a typo. This was what the authors had suggested; No. 4, the Bush administration, hardly soft on terror, didn't believe what this amendment was all about was necessary. This is an amendment that would undermine fundamental American rights without making our country safer. In my view, undermining the role of judicial oversight, particularly when it doesn't make the country safer and we have a specific statutory provision for emergencies to protect the American people, this amendment defies common sense. I hope my colleagues will oppose it. I urge my colleagues to do so. I think it is going to be very hard to explain to the American people how an approach like the one behind this amendment, that would allow any FBI field office to issue an administrative subpoena for email and chat records, text message logs, web-browsing history, location information--that you ought to be able to do it without judicial oversight, when you have a specific law that says government has the right to move quickly in an emergency. I think it is going to be pretty hard to explain to the American people how you are going to have an arrangement like this that does not make us safer and certainly jeopardizes our liberties. I am for both, and this amendment doesn't do much of either. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague for the time.