Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, last summer, I set out on a tour of Oregon's Seven Wonders to hear from Oregonians in every corner of the State about how to improve access to outdoor recreation. Recreation is a big economic multiplier for my State, and Oregonians are the true experts on--outdoor recreation--it is in our DNA. Oregon's recreation and tourism economy generates an estimated $10 billion a year in direct economic impact for the state and supports more than 101,000 jobs--enough people essentially to fill every seat in Autzen and Reser stadiums, home to the University of Oregon Ducks and Oregon State Beavers. Recreation supports communities and businesses large and small throughout urban and rural Oregon and can have astounding benefits on veterans, youth, and seniors. Not only do you have outfitters and the crafts people who produce recreation products, like canoes, kayaks, bikes, and fishing poles, recreation supports the broader travel and tourism industry including equipment retailers and gear shops. But the benefit doesn't stop when the sun goes down. Then visitors go to the brewpubs and restaurants, and they stay overnight at the hotels and the motels. So what we need to do is ensure that recreation is a higher priority for the future so it can continue to boost economies large and small. Yet on my tour of Oregon's Seven Wonders, I consistently heard one troubling theme that's yanking our recreation economy's potential back down to earth. Simply put, red tape is tying down the opportunities for Oregon recreation and tourism to lift off to even greater heights. Outfitters and guides must navigate confusing permit processes only to wait months or years for their permits to get approved, and outdoor enthusiasts searching for outdoor recreation opportunities often get lost in the paperwork before they ever hit the trails. That is why today I am introducing the Recreation Not Red-Tape, RNR, Act to ensure that recreation is a priority for Federal agencies and to cut the bureaucratic red tape in the recreation permitting process to make accessing outdoor recreation opportunities easier and much more fun. I gathered input from Oregonians who enjoy public lands, entrepreneurs in the outdoor travel and tourism industry, and community leaders from Oregon and across the Nation. The bill focuses on making sure everyone has easier access to the outdoors, recognizing and building on recreation as an economic driver, and making the repair and management of our recreational public lands easier. Additionally, the bill supports improving access to outdoor recreation for veterans, seniors, and youth. My friend and colleague, Representative Earl Blumenauer, is today introducing the House companion of the Recreation Not Red-Tape Act. The bill is supported by over 50 Oregon and national organizations, from American Alpine Club to Vet Voice.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, on December 18, 2015, I placed a hold on the nomination of Dr. Janine Ann Davidson to be Under Secretary of the Navy. As I made clear in my statement at that time, my action was not directed at Dr. Davidson; rather, it was directed at the pending promotion by the Navy of RDML Brian Losey and concerns I had related to findings by the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General concerning Rear Admiral Losey's retaliation against whistleblowers. I have been informed by the Navy that Rear Admiral Losey will not be promoted. Consequently, I am removing my hold on Dr. Davidson's nomination and will support her confirmation. To quickly review why I took this action, the DOD OIG conducted several extensive investigations into allegations of retaliation by Rear Admiral Losey against senior members of his joint command. In three of those investigations, the DOD IG concluded that he wrongfully retaliated against his staff even after he was advised not to do so. The DOD IG also concluded that his immediate subordinates carried out retaliatory actions at his behest in two of those cases. I found the OIG findings compelling. In a January 14, 2016, letter to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, Senator McCain and Senator Reed, in their capacity as chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also cited the OIG findings in support of their request to Secretary Mabus that Losey not be promoted. Notwithstanding Rear Admiral Losey's long service to our country, the Navy would have been wrong to dismiss the OIG findings and promote him. Doing so would have sent exactly the wrong message, namely that retaliation against whistleblowers is acceptable. One of the pillars of our system of government is the rule of law; a principle that applies no less to our military and to the vital principle of civilian control over the military. It is illegal to retaliate against whistleblowers, whether civilian or military, and I commend the DOD inspector general and his staff for their diligence in these investigations. I commend Secretary Mabus and the Navy for taking what I believe is the right course of action in this situation, but my concern with the protection of whistleblowers did not begin with the Losey case, and it will not end with the Losey case. I will continue to work here in the Senate to ensure that those who come forward to expose waste, fraud, or abuse are protected. In the meantime, I encourage the nominee, Dr. Janine Ann Davidson, to focus on the hard work she has before her in addressing whistleblower retaliation issues in the military.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, now that the Senate has passed the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, I wish to take a few moments to reflect on what I believe are going to be additional steps that are needed to really put an end to the horrible opioid epidemic. This is a horrible, horrible health scourge that has carved a path of destruction throughout communities in Oregon and across our country. Now, over the last several weeks, I have traveled around Oregon to spend time listening to experts. We heard powerful testimony in the Finance Committee, and I have spoken with colleagues here in the Senate about the urgency and the important scale of this national crisis. The message has been very clear: Our country is paying for a distorted set of priorities. Our citizens get hooked on opioids, there is not enough treatment, and enforcement falls short. My view is that is a trifecta of misplaced priorities. What it says to me is that our country needs a fresh approach where prevention, better treatment, and tougher enforcement work in tandem. We have to have all three working together to really get on top of this horrible, horrible health scourge. The Congress ought to be working overtime on policies that start moving our Nation towards this tandem approach that I have described. Now, my view is that the bill that was passed by the Senate takes the first step toward updating the country's out-of-date approach to substance abuse. More needs to be done, and that is what I and other colleagues have pushed hard to do. I very much hope that more can be done in this Congress. As ranking member of the Finance Committee, we are required to pay for Medicare and Medicaid. I wish to spend a few minutes talking about the fundamental role that is going to play in stemming the tide of opioid abuse. These are bedrock health programs, and they are expected to account for over a third of substance abuse-related spending in the upcoming years. We are talking about billions and billions of dollars. Medicare and Medicaid have an important role when it comes to preventing addiction at its source, and talking about prevention has to include talking about how these drugs are prescribed in the first place. As I visited with citizens around Oregon, I was struck--and I know of the Presiding Officer's expertise in health care as a practitioner--by what I have come to call the prescription pendulum. Doctors were once criticized for not treating pain aggressively enough, and today they are criticized for prescribing too many opioids to manage pain. So in the days ahead, our country is going to have to look for solutions that get the balance right. During the debate on this bill, the Senate considered an amendment I wrote that would have doubled the penalties for opioid manufacturers who give kickbacks to prescribers and put profits over patients. It has been well documented in recent years that companies are pushing the unapproved use of some drugs at the expense of patient safety. It is high time for real accountability when the manufacturers go too far. My amendment would also have made significant progress to connect those struggling with addiction to appropriate treatment. Some parts of the bill the Senate passed crack down on those on Medicare who are suspected of abusing opioids. It is an enforcement-only approach, and my view is that the story cannot stop there. Without treatment, those addicted to opioids might try to get their pills on the street or turn to heroin. My amendment would have ensured that those who are at risk for opioid abuse are connected to meaningful treatment choices so they can better manage their pain and limit excessive prescriptions. I also proposed an amendment that would have helped some of the most vulnerable Americans, including pregnant women on Medicaid who struggle with addiction. The costs of inaction here add up every single day for moms and their babies. A recent Reuters investigation found that, on average, an opioid-dependent baby is born every 19 minutes. These are high-risk pregnancies that can have lifelong consequences for mothers and their children. Some of these babies tragically aren't going to make it. Many of them are going to be placed in foster care if their mothers cannot break their addiction. So it is critical that these women have and retain full access to pre- and post-natal care as well as addiction treatment. Yet, today, if a pregnant woman on Medicaid receives treatment for drug or alcohol dependency, in certain in-patient facilities, that woman loses her health coverage for the duration of her stay. That just defies common sense. The good news is, the country has a pretty good idea of a straightforward solution. There is no reason someone who is pregnant should lose access to their health insurance. This amendment simply states that no pregnant woman would lose her Medicaid while she receives treatment for addiction. To be clear, this amendment doesn't instruct Medicaid to pay for these treatment services. That charge requires a broader debate. I do believe, though, in the meantime, access to services like prenatal care should not be restricted for pregnant women who want to receive care for their addiction. It is unfortunate these amendments didn't make it into the Senate legislation today, but I have seen a number of times--and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate--that sometimes we don't win on day one, and you have to come back again and again and again. A few weeks ago, a bill I authored well over a decade ago, the Internet Tax Freedom Act, finally got passed permanently into law. So sometimes when something is important, you just have to stay at it, and I want colleagues to know I think the CARA bill is a good start. It focuses on enforcement, but unless you get the prevention and treatment part of it in addition to enforcement, you are not going to get the job done properly. The Congress obviously has some tough choices to make. If prevention and treatment aren't addressed upfront, the costs are going to be even higher--pregnant mothers giving birth to opioid-dependent babies, EMTs in emergency rooms dealing with overdose calls every night, county jails taking the place of needed treatment, able-bodied adults in the streets instead of working at a family wage job. American tax dollars need to be spent more wisely, and it is my view the Senate has to come back to this issue. It has to come back to this issue and get the job done right. I indicated earlier that I am very much aware of the expertise of the Presiding Officer in health care and his involvement as a practitioner, and I look back, as I said, to how the prescription pendulum has moved. It wasn't very long ago when I was of the view that there wasn't enough done to manage pain. As patients began to insist on those kinds of drugs and therapies to help them with their pain, we saw they were able to get relief. The pendulum may have swung the other way now, and there is too much prescribing. I don't pretend to be the authority on how to get the prescription pendulum right, but I do know from listening to practitioners in the field, to citizens, to grieving parents, that you have to have more than enforcement. That is what the Senate has done with the bill that was passed today. The story must not end there. The Senate can do better in the days ahead. The Senate can fill in the rest of the story and ensure that in addition to enforcement, there will be prevention, there will be treatment, and a sensible policy that ensures that these three priorities work in tandem and is what the Senate pursues on a bipartisan basis in the days ahead.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to spend just a few minutes to discuss women's health care because I believe women's health care in America is in trouble--very deep trouble. It is in trouble in Congress, it is in trouble in the courts, and it is in trouble in our statehouses. In these bodies, I think there is a serious risk to women's access to affordable, high-quality health care. There is an assault on women's right to choose their own physicians and their own providers, and that assault is wrong. Drip by drip, State by State, the assault goes on. The latest example is in Florida, where lawmakers seem to be heading down the same road that Texas and Louisiana have traveled, restricting the choices of women. This all began with a Texas law, HB2, that has been challenged all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Arguments were heard just last week. HB2 backers have argued the law is about protecting women's health. My view is that is pretty much fiction. HB2 has very little to do with women's health. It is a thinly veiled scheme to block women's health choices with unjustifiable requirements for abortion clinics. The AMA and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists--people who obviously have expertise on this issue--have said very clearly in a legal brief, an amicus brief, that the restrictions are ``contrary to accepted medical practice and are not based on scientific evidence.'' Despite the advice of the American Medical Association and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Texas went ahead with the law anyway. If it stands, the number of clinics that provide abortion care will drop by more than three-quarters. Now HB2 backers say it is about preventing complications from abortion. Yet they ignore other procedures-- colonoscopies, for example, that have much higher rates of complications. HB2 backers say women who live where these clinics have shuttered could go to other States, but the fact is, we are hearing that really isn't an option for so many women. Louisiana just passed its own version of HB2. Just yesterday the news came down that legislators in Florida have passed a similar measure. The Florida bill goes one dangerous step further by going after funding for Planned Parenthood. Attacks on Planned Parenthood aren't anything new, not in statehouses like Tallahassee or here in the Congress. When you threaten Planned Parenthood in this way, you are going far beyond restricting access to abortion. Here is the list of vital women's health care services which have absolutely nothing to do with abortion, and these services which have nothing to do with abortion are under threat: pregnancy testing, birth control, prenatal services, HIV testing, cancer screenings, vaccinations, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, basic physical exams, treatment for chronic conditions, pediatric care, hospital and specialist referrals, adoption referrals, nutrition programs. The fact is, this assault on women's health care is going to hit disadvantaged, struggling women hard across our country. There are countless women across America enrolled in Medicaid who rely on Planned Parenthood and similar programs for their basic, essential medical care. It is their first line of defense for basic health care, particularly in rural communities in rural Oregon. The women know and trust their doctors at those clinics. Without those clinics, they aren't going to have anywhere to turn for their care. If you are working an hourly job, you have kids to care for on your own, it is pretty clear you are not going to find an easy way to take a day off work and travel far away for medical care. Yet these are the kind of laws that are being passed in States across America. These anti-woman laws are unfair and they are dangerous. This will not be the last time I come to the floor to discuss this. My view is access to health care for women in this country is in trouble, and a number of the services I have talked about are essentially part of what is a constitutional right--a constitutional right. It doesn't just mean it is a constitutional right if you are well-off. It is a constitutional right because the U.S. Supreme Court has said it, and I intend to defend that constitutional right. I intend to do everything I can to build bipartisan support so that instead of women's health services being in deep trouble as I described today, women can know that those essential services are available for them across the country. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the contribution of a young Oregonian whose life was cut far too short, but whose impact will stay with my State forever. Shiloh Forest Sundstrom, a young leader in the field of conservation- based rural development, was tragically killed by a hit-and-run driver in November at age 34. Shiloh was a child of Oregon. He was born in the coastal mountains of western Lane County and lived much of his life enjoying all that rural upbringing had to offer. He loved the horses and cows on his parents' ranch and attended school in the small town of Mapleton. A gifted student, Shiloh was his high school class valedictorian in 2000 and was accepted to Brandeis University. As an undergraduate, he spent a semester abroad at the School for Field Studies in Kenya, where he saw that the struggles of rural communities in Kenya paralleled the problems facing rural Oregon communities. Studying the ways in which the Maasai people of Kenya struggled to balance their efforts to maintain a traditional resource-based economy while benefiting from wildlife conservation and tourism, Shiloh saw that the positive lessons being learned there could be applied back home in Oregon. After graduating with honors from Brandeis, Shiloh came back to his beloved Oregon for his master's degree in forestry at Oregon State University. He then moved to the geography department to work toward a doctorate and returned to Kenya several times to pursue his research. However, Shiloh was much more than a gifted student. He had the rare ability to take his research out of the classroom and work to implement positive change in the broader world. His work with the Siuslaw Institute, founded by his father John Sundstrom, and with the Siuslaw Watershed Council, injected a reasonable approach to often contentious natural resource issues, always with a focus on positive outcomes. Shiloh always strived for success through collaboration--what I like to call the Oregon way. He was involved in the Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition, RVCC, a network that seeks common ground between diverse interests on conservation-based challenges facing rural areas in the West. Shiloh's deep ties to rural Oregon, his stellar scholarship, and his worldwide experience gave him a uniquely powerful voice in demonstrating that conservation and economic development can go hand in hand. The powerful outpouring of sadness at his death shows how deeply Shiloh impacted his community. The lessons that he taught and his leadership will not be forgotten. Shiloh's thoughtful, collaborative approach, his love of the land, and his dreams of a better world will live on in everyone he touched in the short time we were blessed to know him.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3395.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, along with my colleague Senator Schumer, I rise to offer what, in my view, are some needed changes to the amendment Senator Toomey has now offered to the opioid bill. My bottom line for the opioid legislation is that a real solution has to include three priorities: more prevention, better treatment, and tougher enforcement. To be successful, all three priorities must work in tandem. The Toomey amendment, which is often called the Part D lock-in, would allow Part D plans to identify people in Medicare who may be abusing opioids. These people would then be assigned to one prescriber and one pharmacy to get their pills. This is an enforcement policy, and it cracks down on those who game the system. What is important, what is critical for the Senate to understand is that the story does not stop there. If someone is addicted to opioids, they need a path--a real path--to treatment. Without treatment, they may get their pills on the street or they may turn to heroin. This amendment ensures those who are at risk for opioid abuse are connected to meaningful treatment choices so they can better manage their pain and limit excessive prescriptions. Those struggling with addiction need the health care system to be all hands on deck, working to ensure that there is adequate treatment. That means your doctor, your health care plan, and your pharmacy need to come together and develop a treatment plan in order to ensure that Americans are on the road to real recovery. Without access to treatment, the Toomey amendment alone would simply lock persons suffering from addiction into a pharmacy, and they would still be without a path out of addiction. Effective treatment has to be more than handing a pamphlet to somebody struggling with a condition as powerful as addiction. My amendment also aims to end the tide of overprescribing in the first place. It doubles the penalties for opioid manufacturers that provide kickbacks to prescribers in order to boost their profits by promoting the unapproved use of these drugs at the expense of a patient's safety. The inappropriate practices of these companies have been well documented in recent years, and it is high time for real accountability when the opioid manufacturers go too far. I will close by saying that at the Finance Committee hearing, which was held last week, I asked the three panelists--one was a witness chosen by the distinguished chairman, Senator Hatch, one was a witness I chose, and one was an individual that both of us thought would make an important contribution. The panel consisted of a pharmacist, a State assistant attorney general, and a child welfare and substance abuse expert. I asked all of them one simple question, and that question was: Does treatment and enforcement have to work in tandem to solve the opioid crisis? Each one of these witnesses--a witness chosen by Chairman Hatch, a witness chosen by me, and an independent witness-- answered yes to my question. Prevention, treatment, and enforcement must work in tandem, and to do that we have to adopt this amendment. We ought to take action to improve policies in our government that will actually solve the opioid crisis. I hope all of my colleagues will support my perfecting amendment to the Toomey amendment. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this amendment keeps the Toomey amendment on enforcement completely intact and makes two critical improvements. It adds prevention and treatment. Colleagues, this is what the Republican witness in the Finance Committee said is needed. It is what the Democratic witness in the Finance Committee said is needed. We need more prevention, better treatment, and tougher enforcement to work in tandem. The Toomey amendment is about enforcement, but we also need prevention and treatment. If somebody is addicted to opioids, they need a real path out of addiction. This amendment ensures people who need help are connected to meaningful treatment choices to better manage their pain and limit excessive prescriptions. My amendment also aims to end the tide of overprescribing in the first place. It does that by doubling the penalties for manufacturers that provide kickbacks to prescribers in order to boost their profits. I offer this with my colleagues Senator Schumer and Senator Murray. I very much hope we can get this amendment adopted. If we can have a bipartisan effort in the Senate that ensures there is tougher enforcement but also better treatment and better prevention to do that we have to vote for this amendment. I yield back.

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

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. The central issue of this case is an attack by the State of Texas on women's health and the clinics that provide abortion services. I wish to begin by stating clearly that in our country women have a constitutionally protected right to make their own choices about their bodies. That is the law of the land, as guaranteed to women in Oregon and nationwide by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. The 2013 Texas law at the heart of this case, HB2, is a thinly veiled attempt to block women's choice by setting unjustifiable and burdensome requirements on the doctors and clinics that offer abortion care. Despite what HB2 supporters say, it doesn't have anything to do with protecting women's health. And the reality is, complications from abortion procedures are exceedingly rare. In fact, the numbers show that abortion care is far safer than colonoscopies. Yet Texas law doesn't go out of its way to impose comparable requirements on facilities providing colonoscopies. HB2 unfairly targets women's health clinics. To make this point directly, I wish to briefly quote from an amicus brief filed by the trusted experts on these matters at the American Medical Association and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, among others. Their briefs said that the requirements imposed by the State of Texas ``are contrary to accepted medical practice and are not based on scientific evidence.'' The brief continued: ``They fail to enhance the quality or safety of abortion- related medical care and, in fact, impede women's access to such care by imposing unjustified and medically unnecessary burdens on abortion providers.'' HB2 tells clinics, ``comply with these new requirements, or close.'' So in the months since the law passed, the number of clinics that provides such services has, in fact, plummeted across the State. According to reports, if HB2 is upheld, the total will drop by more than three-quarters. Texas, obviously, is a big State, and under HB2 many women are going to have to travel for hours on end to exercise a right guaranteed to them by the U.S. Constitution. The fact is, a lot of working women don't have the luxury of taking a day off or cannot afford a long and expensive trip to a faraway clinic. In effect, women are going to be denied care. You are going to hear people on both sides of the aisle say again and again how vital it is that Americans have access to medical treatment and advice from doctors they know and trust. But HB2 flatly denies many women that protection. I personally find it very troubling that HB2 has become a blueprint for similar restrictive laws around the Nation, bills that masquerade as women's health safety measures. For example, the State of Louisiana now has a nearly identical law on its books. In January, 162 of my congressional colleagues and I wrote the following in an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court: ``A woman's right to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term or to seek critical medical services, including abortion, should be insulated from the shifting political rhetoric and interest groups whose sole purpose is to erode the right to choose to bring a pregnancy to term afforded to women under Roe.'' So here is my bottom line: A limit on the exercise of a woman's right is a limit on the right itself. It is wrong and it is un-American to restrict a person's right because it conflicts with your own views. Texas HB2 should be struck down. The rights guaranteed to women following Roe v. Wade ought to be protected, just as all the others that are guaranteed by the Constitution. My hope is that this ongoing crusade against women's health care, which I have spoken about repeatedly on the floor of this Senate, ought to end here, and it ought to end now. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, tonight the Senate voted to turn its attention to the issue of opioid addiction. Clearly, what we know now is that opioid addiction has carved a path of destruction across America--a path of destruction from Medford, OR, to Manchester, NH. During a number of community forums I held across my State just a few days ago, we talked about how we are going to grapple with this great challenge and what it is going to take to really turn the problem around. My home State has the dubious distinction of ranking fourth worst for abuse and misuse of opioids in America. In my State, citizens made it very clear: They are not going to accept being fourth worst. I know from talking with many of my colleagues that a whole host of States are dealing with this challenge, and what I have been struck by is how opioid addiction keeps manifesting itself in ways we certainly wouldn't have known about even 10 or 15 years ago. At home in Oregon, I was particularly struck with parents who told me about high school athletes struggling with addiction to opioids. When I played basketball, dreaming of playing in the NBA, there was never any talk in the locker room about opioids. Now the next generation of young athletes seems to be getting caught up in this. If they have an injury, young people get down when they are not able to play sports. They get depressed. Maybe they go to a party. Maybe it starts with some alcohol. Maybe it starts with a prescription. But all of a sudden, it mushrooms and grows. This is what parents were telling me at home, and it is clear that Congress cannot sit on the side lines while the opioid addiction problem continues to mushroom. In the coming years, Medicare and Medicaid are expected to account for over a third of substance abuse-related spending. We are talking about billions of dollars each year. As the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, which is required to pay for these bedrock health programs, I want to talk just for a little bit tonight about the critical role these programs are going to play in stemming the tide of opioid abuse. I would like to begin by saying that it is my view that the American people are paying for a distorted set of priorities. Our people are getting hooked on opioids, there is not enough treatment, and vigorous enforcement is falling short. That, in my view, is a trifecta of misplaced priorities. And while it is not all going to be done this week, beginning this week the Congress has the opportunity to develop fresh policies that will begin to right the ship. Last week the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing to discuss the opioid crisis. As I listened to the debate, there was a sense that policymakers are sort of lined up to choose between two sides. One is tough enforcement, which means cracking down on pill mills, fraudsters bilking Medicare and Medicaid with unneeded prescriptions, and unscrupulous abusers who doctor shop for their next bottle of pills. Then there is another side that believes there should be more focus on social services. My own view is that what is needed is a better approach that includes three priorities: more prevention, better treatment, and, yes, tougher enforcement. True success is going to require that all three work in tandem. When it comes to preventing addiction, any discussion has to include how these drugs are prescribed in the first place. I have come to feel, as I got around Oregon and I listened to the testimony in the Finance Committee here recently, what has happened is America, for the last 15 or so years, has been on a prescription pendulum, where doctors were once criticized for not treating pain aggressively enough, today they seem to be criticized for prescribing too many opioids to manage pain. In my view, our challenge is to work on a bipartisan basis to get this balance right. Of course we want our people to have an opportunity for science-based pain management, and we also don't want indiscriminate prescribing of opioids. It is about getting the balance right with respect to this prescription pendulum that our country has been on for the last 15 or 20 years. I am pleased the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is breaking new ground with their guidelines for prescribing opioids. If successful, I believe they could provide a meaningful reduction in overprescribing. I have also been concerned about the influence opioid manufacturers have on prescribing practices. So I have sent to the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee an inquiry to Secretary Burwell to ensure that any potential conflicts of interest have been properly disclosed for members of government panels who are evaluating the Centers for Disease Control guidelines as a result of funding they receive from drug manufacturers. Our physicians ought to have the best information on prescribing these powerful drugs without undue influence from the companies that are manufacturing. In my view, a key piece of solving the opioid addiction puzzle has to be prompt and effective treatment of those who are dealing with an addiction to opioids. The Finance Committee had three witnesses last week: a witness who was chosen by our distinguished chairman, Senator Hatch, a witness I chose, and an expert who was well thought of by all sides. The question was, How do you solve this opioid addiction challenge if you just restrict access to opioids? I personally believe that kind of enforcement regime should be part of a solution, and I support that, but if all you do is restrict access to opioids, each of these experts--the one chosen by Chairman Hatch, the one I chose, independent expert, all of them said if all you do is restrict access to opioids, the addiction does not go away. The addiction doesn't just magically disappear. I hope we can emphasize this as the Senate begins our debate. Any lasting solution is going to have to have enforcement, which this bill focuses on, but it is also going to have to have treatment and prevention. We are going to have to improve access to addiction treatment and mental health services. I know the distinguished President of the Senate, like my State, has a lot of rural communities, and it is going to be particularly important to ensure that they are served. I think the distinguished President of the Senate knows it is not a surprise that some of the rural communities have some of the highest rates of abuse and opiate overdose in the country. Mental health treatment for addiction certainly has gotten short shrift for too long. It is too important to have that kind of policy, and it is high time for a change. For example, Congress ought to also be taking a look at what is called the IMD exclusion, an out-of-date policy from the 1960s that says services like rehab or some emergency mental health stay in an inpatient setting can't be covered by Medicaid. That is a big policy change. I think it is important that we debate it, and I think we all understand finding the vast sums needed for those services would be a unique challenge. Like so many other important issues, at the end of the day, this requires that our Congress make some tough choices. Yet if prevention and treatment are not locked in upfront, we ought to realize that if those are our choices, to not give adequate emphasis to prevention and treatment, the overall bill is going to come in even higher--pregnant mothers giving birth to opioid-dependent babies, EMTs and emergency rooms dealing with overdose calls every night, county jails taking the place of needed substance abuse treatment, able-bodied adults in the streets instead of working in the private sector at a family wage job. America's tax dollars ought to be spent more wisely. So as we begin this debate, we begin the debate by tackling the opioid scourge that has carved the path of destruction, a path of destruction from one end of the country to another. The Senate has to find the right mix between prevention, treatment, and enforcement. It is going to be that kind of strategy, a fresh strategy where prevention, treatment, and enforcement work in tandem. That is going make a real difference for our families and our communities struggling to heal. I hope those who may have followed this speech will recognize that I haven't talked about Democrats and Republicans. I have been talking about a set of approaches we can all work on together. In fact, all three of the witnesses who were before the Finance Committee made it clear that you had to have those three approaches--prevention, treatment, and enforcement--work in tandem if you want to solve the problem. I think it is important Democrats and Republicans recognize what those experts and others have said is going to be necessary to help our families and communities across this country heal. We can do it in a bipartisan fashion. I am committed to working in just that manner. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN. Yes.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this month marks 5 years since Bahrainis of all backgrounds took to the streets in Manama in peaceful protest, calling for reform in their country. As Senators have heard me recount here before, the Government of Bahrain responded with violence and repression, torture and retaliation. In response, the monarchy set up an independent commission: the so-called Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry, or BICI. And I say this is important to recall because many of the BICI's 26 specific, concrete recommendations remain unfulfilled 5 years later. That certainly isn't what the government of Bahrain wants you to believe. In fact, the regime's representatives continue to insist that they have fully implemented all of the BICI recommendations. As they tell it, they have turned the page on that chapter of Bahrain's history. But members of Bahrain's peaceful opposition feel trapped in a never- ending story. Nongovernmental organizations like Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain, Amnesty International, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, and the Project on Middle East Democracy have all documented the regime's ongoing repression. The State Department's most recent annual human rights report for Bahrain states that protestors face ``arbitrary deprivation of life,'' ``arrest and detention of protesters . . . occasionally leading to their torture,'' and ``restrictions on civil liberties, including freedom of speech, press, assembly association, and religion.'' And as some colleagues know, the State Department could last certify that Bahrain had only fully implemented 5 of the 26 BICI recommendations. That is a pretty far cry from full implementation. As the son of a journalist, I want to take a minute to highlight one particular aspect of the regime's repression: the crackdown on speech and expression. As recently as this month, a Bahraini court sentenced an internationally known photographer to serve jail time for participating in an unlicensed protest. The regime has similarly targeted bloggers as well as prominent and award-winning photojournalists for merely capturing Bahrain's ongoing unrest. And just this month, a Bahraini court sentenced a Sunni opposition leader to 1 year in prison for giving a political speech. Despite these concerns, the Obama administration chose last year to resume selling or transferring certain arms to the Government of Bahrain. I was one of the biggest proponents of the arms ban dating back to 2011, and I saw no reason to revisit the policy last year. In fact, I introduced the bipartisan BICI Accountability Act, legislation that would block the administration's decision to overturn the weapons ban until the State Department could certify that all 26 BICI recommendations were fully implemented. I am not here to make broad pronouncements about what the Government of Bahrain should look like--that is very much a conversation for Bahrain's people and its rulers to have. But as President Obama said in 2011, ``you can't have a real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are in jail.'' For Bahrain to move forward, the government will need to release the opposition leaders still languishing in its prisons. The United States and Bahrain have ties that go back decades; our countries are partners and allies. Indeed, I am not disappointed with the Government of Bahrain despite our bilateral relationship; I am disappointed with the Government of Bahrain because of our bilateral relationship. The United States of America has an obligation, it strikes me, to ask more of her friends and allies around the world. And when they falter or fail, the U.S. has a duty to help them live up to their potential. And of course, there is always the real danger that continued unrest or even greater instability could impact the safety of our soldiers in Bahrain or the future of the American presence there. For these reasons, I speak out today against further oppression, and I call again for reconciliation and reform in Bahrain.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to thank our staff who did so much to address what I call the need for a fresh trade policy, for trade done right through the course of this year. Our staff and Senator Hatch's staff have put an enormous amount of sweat equity into this process. I would like to thank some of these terrific and dedicated individuals here this afternoon so that all of the Senate will get a sense of what they did. Over the course of the last year and a half, with the support of Chairman Hatch, we were able to successfully conclude negotiations to introduce four major trade bills: the trade promotion authority legislation; the trade adjustment assistance legislation; the bill that passed overwhelmingly today, the Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act; and the trade preference program renewal and enhancement program. These staff leaders helped manage those bills in the Finance Committee, on the Senate floor, completed conference committee negotiations, and along the way, they did some awfully good work in terms of assembling a bipartisan coalition for this legislation. In my view, the last year has arguably been the most productive in terms of trade policy in decades. In my view, these accomplishments are going to make an enormous difference for American workers, American innovators, and our country's ability to compete in these tough global markets, and the stakes are just enormous. There are going to be 1 billion middle-class people in the developing world in 2025. Frankly, they are just crazy about America's goods and services. They like so much what we make, grow, and produce--whether it is airplanes, transportation equipment or our wonderful wine and cheese, our fruit, bicycles. The list just goes on and on. I am going to be home this weekend for townhall meetings in rural Oregon. I often say that one out of five jobs in Oregon depends on international trade. Trade jobs often pay better than do nontrade jobs. If anybody is interested in a modern economic theory, I say we ought to do more to grow things here, to make things here, to add value to them here, and then ship them somewhere. With those trade-related jobs paying better, that ought to be a strategy that would win bipartisan support. This work doesn't happen by osmosis. It happens because we have a terrific team of people behind these efforts. I would like to recognize the members of that team who have done so much to make this year successful. Greta Peisch is our counsel. She put together the Customs components of the trade enforcement package. Her patience and her ability to work with staff, with industry, with all kinds of organizations--leaders representing workers, consumers--Greta Peisch creatively worked to try to address all concerns as responsibly as possible and what an impressive job Ms. Peisch has done. Elissa Alben has done an extraordinary job in influencing the shape of the final Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. She put in an awful lot of important and valuable exercises in negotiating TPA. Of course, these are the rules under which we conduct trade policy, and in my view she did superb work with the TPA amendments in the trade enforcement package. Andy Heiman is our resident innovation adviser. His contributions have been crucial on Internet tax policy, on the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, trade preference, creating a new program for Nepal--an area where Senator Feinstein has done an awful lot of good work--or improving the African Growth and Opportunity Act. Of course, that legislation involves several of our colleagues--Senator Isakson, Senator Coons, and others--who did very important work on those bills. Jayme White is with me on the floor. He is our team leader. It would be hard to overstate the excellent work Mr. White has done. Over the last 2 years, his ideas, his patience, his leadership, and his ability to get a sense of where we needed to go for the future have been very valuable. My view is we couldn't have had these exceptional accomplishments in this Congress on the trade issue without Mr. White. Now, he is not here on the floor, but I want to say a word about Jeff Michels, our chief of staff. Jeff has been with me since I came to the Senate. I think it would be fair to say there is not a person in the Nation's Capitol who better understands the intersection, particularly on technology and innovation, between policy and politics. We would spend the entire afternoon if we were to talk about the good work Jeff Michels has done on these issues, but in particular, on the Internet tax freedom bill, Jeff Michels was there during those first days in 1998. Our former colleague from the other body, Chris Cox, was the sponsor on the Republican side of the aisle. I was the sponsor of the legislation in the Senate. I had pretty much just arrived in the Senate. We were struck by the idea that somebody might be trying to tax Internet access. If you tax Internet access, you are doing something that is extraordinarily regressive. What it means--for example, in the State of Louisiana--if somebody were to try to do this in one of our States that doesn't already have some kind of grandfathered arrangement, taxing Internet access means that you have new regressive taxes in America--taxes that are especially punitive to working families, families who are trying to use the Internet to find out about educational opportunities or employment or maybe they are using it to learn more about dealing with matters associated with raising children. We wouldn't have the Internet tax freedom legislation, in my view, without Jeff Michels. In addition to the problem with the prospect of taxing Internet access, what we found back then is just out and out discrimination. For example, people would buy a paper snail mail and they wouldn't face a tax. Then they would buy the online edition of the very same publication, and they would face a tax for the online edition. We said: That seems pretty odd, even by Washington, DC standards. Let's ensure that there is, in effect, technological neutrality. So what the Internet tax freedom bill is all about is ensuring that there are no regressive taxes to hit working families hard on Internet access and that we don't reward discrimination against technology and innovation. That work would not have been possible without Jeff Michels. Importantly, Joshua Sheinkman, who is the Democratic staff director, and Mike Evans, our chief counsel, did masterful work in navigating all the pitfalls and landmines of the Finance Committee, the Senate floor, and the other body in the Congress. Their leadership and their experience has been essential to our success on trade and all other policy matters before the committee. Before I wrap up, I want to note that none of this happens just coming from one side of the aisle. Chairman Hatch's trade team and senior staff were absolutely essential to the success of the last year and today. Specifically, I commend Everett Eissenstat, Douglas Peterson, Shane Warren, Andrew Rollow, Jay Khosla, Chris Campbell, the staff director of the Finance Committee, and Mark Prater, whom we have always been very proud of because he is an Oregonian. All of his friends still give me a hard time when we are working out in Southeast Portland at the gym. Mark Prater is a truly talented and thoughtful public servant, and we appreciate his leadership. I would also like to thank a couple of others who have been very helpful in the leadership to work with us. Ayesha Khanna on the Democratic leader's staff and Brendan Dunn have been very helpful in terms of working closely with our team. Finally, there are a couple of alums. These issues have gone on so long, I believe the Presiding Officer was probably practicing medicine when we started some of these battles. A number of alums have also contributed significantly to the work that was completed today. Hun Quach and Ayesha Khanna started working on Customs legislation what seems like eons ago under Chairman Baucus, and Alan Treat helped lay the groundwork for the ENFORCE Act. The ENFORCE Act is really landmark legislation--landmark legislation that Alan Treat helped lay the groundwork for. What we found when we set up a sting operation that demonstrated this is that trade cheats all over the world were basically laundering merchandise. They would get caught violating the trade laws in one jurisdiction, and they would just move to another, slap a label on the box, and off they would go. Alan Treat helped lay the groundwork to get the ENFORCE Act, which I think is going to be a landmark in our ability to get tough with the trade cheats and those who rip off American jobs. So good policy doesn't just get created out of the ether, and it doesn't get advanced unless you have dedicated staff on both sides of the aisle. It doesn't happen just because a Senator has an election certificate. So I wanted to take just a few minutes this afternoon to make sure that the Senate understood that there were very capable staff on both sides of the aisle who gave up nights and weekends, family time, and a lot of opportunities they could have had to catch a movie or a game or go for a jog. It has led us to be able to introduce four major trade bills. So I thank them. They don't get thanked enough. They probably deserve a lot more praise than I have given them this afternoon, but at least what they have heard from me today is a start. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Hatch for his good work and his very gracious comments. I note our colleagues have been very patient, so I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, Senator Alexander be recognized for 7 minutes and, immediately after Senator Alexander, Senator Stabenow be recognized for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. WYDEN. Colleagues, this bill is about coming down hard on the trade cheats who are ripping off American jobs. The truth is, past trade policies were often too old, too slow, or too weak for our country to fight back. This legislation says those days are over. The legislation ushers in a new day and a fresh, modern approach--a tougher approach--to enforcing trade laws that start moving our Nation to a policy that I call getting trade done right. It is about creating tough trade enforcement policies, seeing them through, and standing up to anybody who tries to get around them. No matter how a Senator chooses to vote on a particular new trade agreement, I hope that stronger trade enforcement and fighting back against the trade cheats would be a priority for every Senator. The reality is, the amount of cheating that is going on is staggering. It takes your breath away. We saw it a couple of years ago when we set up a sting operation and in effect invited the cheaters to have at it. We were deluged with those who wanted to skirt the laws, use shell games, sophisticated schemes, and fraudulent records to evade duties. You would smile at some of the inventiveness involved if we didn't see how painful it was for the American companies getting ripped off this way. One of the most common schemes--one of the biggest loopholes involves something called merchandise laundering. In effect, when a company gets busted for violating the trade laws, the countervailing duty laws, in effect they go to another country and slap a label on it and are able to skirt the laws. Because his companies that make honey were victims of this, at one point Senator Schumer, my colleague on the Finance Committee, said: What is going on is honey laundering, but it is not very sweet for the people who are getting ripped off. That is what we seek to change. I could thank a lot of colleagues of both political parties for their good work here, but I just want to single out a few on our side. I know Senator Hatch is going to say more about colleagues on his side. I particularly want to praise Senator Brown. Senator Brown led the fight repeatedly to close outlandish loopholes that allow products made with slave and child labor to be imported into the United States. What the old law basically says is that economics trumped human rights--that if there was an economic reason for using slave and child labor, you could do it. We have closed that loophole. There was bipartisan support for it, and I commend Senator Brown for this. Senator Stabenow made a successful effort to have a more coordinated approach so that the left hand and the right hand would know what was being done in terms of trade enforcement. We now have a trade enforcement center that is going to do that. Senator Cantwell worked to ensure that we have an important new trust fund--a trust fund for trade enforcement. It ought to be a priority to lock in all of the funds necessary to help protect our workers and businesses. Senator Shaheen led the fight in order to ensure that smaller businesses had a bigger seat at the table in terms of the effort to reach new markets. I commend her for it. Senator Bennet in particular did very good work with respect to trade enforcement in the environmental area. The package directs the trade negotiators to act against illegal fishing and the trade of stolen timber--something the Senator from Arkansas and I know a great deal about. I am also very pleased because Senator Bennet and others worked hard to ensure that this legislation goes further than ever before to fight the currency manipulators and stop them from undercutting our workers and our businesses. At the end of the day, Democrats and Republicans came together. There were spirited debates about trade agreements and whether to pass new ones. What this is all about is just the opposite--just the opposite-- of a new trade agreement. This is about making sure we get tough and enforce the laws on the books for what we already have. There shouldn't be any dispute about that, and, certainly in the Finance Committee, Democrats and Republicans were united. Finally, I want to make one last point. I am glad the distinguished Senator from Tennessee is on the floor. I am very pleased that there has been an agreement with the majority leader, the Senator from Tennessee, and the senior Senator from Illinois so that the ideas Senator Alexander wants are going to get heard on the floor of the Senate. His interests are going to be heard and discussed fully. I want to assure him that there aren't going to be any kind of procedural delays and objections when that is done. He is going to have a chance to have his concerns heard and a vote on them, based on what I have been told about the agreement with the majority leader. In this bill, there is a chance for the Congress to finish the job of something I think is also important, and that is to say on a permanent basis--a permanent basis--we are not going to have regressive taxes on Internet access and discrimination, particularly against working families for whom, if there were regressive taxes on working families who rely on Internet access to get information about education and employment opportunities, we would harm those families at a time when they are already walking on an economic tightrope, balancing their food bill against their fuel bills and rent bill against energy costs. We shouldn't have regressive taxes on Internet access. With this legislation, we can ensure that will not happen. It has been a bipartisan effort for nearly 20 years, and with this we can say no to those regressive taxes as a result of the work that was done. As I noted, the concerns Senator Alexander wishes to raise are going to be heard in the future as well. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I agree with Senator Hatch. That is the intent of the provision amending 19 U.S.C., section 1501.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak about a matter that will come before the Senate tomorrow when the Senate votes on whether to invoke cloture on the customs and trade enforcement conference report. Last year, Democrats and Republicans in both Chambers of the Congress came together and said it was time for a fresh policy on international trade--a fresh, modern policy that I describe as trade done right. At the heart of trade done right is a tougher, smarter plan to fight the trade cheats who are ripping off American jobs. Now, the inventiveness of these ripoff artists takes our breath away. It is something I know a fair amount about because a few years back, as chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, we put together a sting operation and in effect invited those ripoff artists from around the world to cheat, and we were just flooded--flooded with those who were interested in skirting the laws. They have extraordinarily inventive ways of moving their operations, concealing their identities, and shipping their products into our country through shadowy, untraceable routes. Sometimes sneaking illegal imports into this country is as simple as slapping a new label on a box. We call it merchandise laundering, and we saw it again and again and again as we conducted this sting operation. So it is long past time to come up with a new and tough approach to enforcing our trade laws. In my view that is what this debate is about and that is what the vote will be about tomorrow. The lingo of trade policy, as we call it, TPA--the trade promotion authority--what are the rules for trade and then the various agreements and what, of course, is being considered now, the Trans-Pacific Partnership--it is hard to keep track of this lingo under the best of circumstances. I think in beginning this discussion, what I want to note for the Senate is this is not--not--about the consideration of a new trade agreement. No trade agreement--no new trade agreement--is going to be considered by the Senate this week. What this debate is about is whether the Senate is going to put in place tougher, smarter, more modern trade enforcement policies, and when we have these policies, actually follow up on them and stand up to anybody around the world who is trying to figure out a way to get around them. My view is that tough, smart trade enforcement ought to be a priority for every Senator, no matter how they choose to vote on a particular new trade agreement. My bottom line is that past trade policies were too old, too slow or too weak to keep up with the trade cheats, but that is what this legislation is going to change. This legislation says those days are over. I wish to take just a few minutes to describe why I believe this package we will vote on is the strongest set of trade enforcement policies the Congress has considered in decades. At its core, what trade law enforcement is all about is rooting out the universe of scofflaw tactics that the cheats rely on. They use fraudulent records and shell games and sophisticated schemes to evade duties and undercut our American producers. Foreign governments bully American businesses into relocating factories and jobs are turning over lucrative intellectual property. They spy on American companies and trade enforcers, steal secrets, and then they lie about it in the aftermath, and they try to undercut American industries so quickly that our Nation has been unable to act before the economic damage is done. With the vote we are going to cast this week, we have an opportunity to say strongly and loudly that we are done sitting back and just watching our companies get their clock cleaned by trade cheats. This country is going to take trade enforcement to a new level to protect workers and businesses in Oregon and nationwide. In my view, the center of this effort is the ENFORCE Act, which goes after what I consider to be one of the biggest of the trade loopholes; that is, merchandise laundering. This is a proposal that a number of Senators have worked for years to get enacted. What it will do is put a stop to the evasion of duties that are put in place to protect our workers, protect our manufacturers, and particularly when it comes to the steel industry, a pillar of American industry. The ENFORCE Act ought to be understood to be clearly a priority matter for those who work in the steel industry and the companies for which they work. Second, the legislation, once and for all, closes a truly offensive loophole that allowed products made with slave and child labor to be imported to the United States. My friend Senator Brown has championed this issue. He and I believe that in 2016 and beyond, the Congress cannot allow for the perpetrators of slave or child labor to have any place in the American economy. So the old system that leaves the door open to child or slave labor, if it is used to make a product that isn't made in the United States, that system has to end and with this legislation it will. The old system essentially said that when it came to child labor, in the past, economics would trump human rights. Economics just mattered more than protecting vulnerable children. Senator Brown said: No way. That is a grotesque set of priorities. And we closed that loophole. It is closed, once and for all. Another major upgrade in this trade package is what I call an unfair trade alert. I have heard for years and years from union leaders, from companies and others that the trade cheats often try to exploit the fact that trade law enforcement moves along at a snail's pace. What happens is that the rip-off artists break the rules. They hope the damage is going to be done before anybody in Washington catches on. That way the factory lights go out at the plant, and the plant is shuttered before our country does anything about it. What we have done with this new unfair trade alert system is to ensure that there are going to be warning bells going off long before the damage is done. Next, the package includes an important initiative from Senator Stabenow to mobilize the institutions of government into a permanent ongoing enforcement center so that we have all hands on deck to fight the trade cheats. With Senator Stabenow's proposal we are going to make sure that when it comes to fighting the trade cheats, the left hand and right hand are working in Congress. The package creates a new trust fund for trade enforcement developed by Senator Cantwell to drive America's investment in fresh ideas and do it in a way that will help protect our workers and businesses. The proposal also ensures small businesses and their employees are going to be able to find an easier path into the winners' circle on international trade. It is going to lower the cost for a lot of small businesses in Oregon and nationwide that import products into our country. For my home State, this effort led by Senator Shaheen, who has done great work on the Small Business Committee, is hugely important because in my State, when you are done counting a handful of big businesses, you have covered the big employers in our State. We are overwhelmingly about small business, and because of the good work of Senator Shaheen, we are going to give small businesses more tools they can use to reach new markets overseas. It is going to help guarantee that all our trade agencies are looking for opportunities to help small businesses grow. I could go on with others. I think Senator Feinstein has done very important work. For example, we have been looking for a model for trade-based humanitarian assistance. Senator Feinstein's contribution has helped us secure that goal, and I appreciate greatly her leadership. When it comes to trade policies, environmental protections are a special priority for me and for Oregonians and for the American people. I want one judgment about this bill to be very clear as we start this debate. This legislation cannot and will not in any way prevent the United States from negotiating a climate agreement. Not only that, the package tackles some particularly important environmental issues head- on. It directs our trade negotiators to act against illegal fishing and fishing subsidies that destroy our oceans. It is going to help guarantee that the Customs personnel are better trained to fight the trade of stolen timber from places like the Amazon. These are big improvements over the old playbook of trade enforcement. Many Senators on both sides of the aisle are very concerned about currency manipulation. In the process of bringing this bipartisan, bicameral package together, it was clear that there were some differences between the Senate and the other body on this legislation and that the other body was willing to go only so far on currency questions. When Senators vote--and I know currency is important to them--I hope that they will reflect on the view that I am going to articulate. This legislation goes further than ever before to fight the currency manipulators. One of the major reasons it does is because of our colleague Senator Bennet. Senator Bennet has been working with all sides diligently on this issue. He has clearly given us a policy that we can build on in the years and days ahead. I intend to work with Senator Bennet and all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle at every opportunity to head off the currency manipulators, to stop them from undercutting American jobs and American businesses. There is no question in my mind that this legislation goes significantly further than ever before to fight currency abuse and manipulation. Now, it has been my judgment for years that a more progressive approach to trade and stronger trade enforcement are two sides of the same coin. Last year, the Senate said loudly and clearly that future trade deals have to raise the bar for American priorities such as labor rights and environmental protection. Because of Senator Cardin, we will now have a new focus on human rights. Now the Senate has an opportunity to stand up for workers and businesses in Oregon and across the country by kicking the enforcement of trade law into high gear. This landmark trade enforcement proposal ought to have strong bipartisan support. Also included in the conference report is a permanent extension of one of the most popular economic policies on the books today, the Internet Tax Freedom Act. Former Congressman Chris Cox and I introduced this bill back in 1998. For nearly two decades, this legislation protected working families, especially against regressive taxes on Internet access. Working families are the focus of this bill. Working families who use the Internet, for example, get information about employment opportunities and educational opportunities. They shouldn't face a wave of new regressive taxes. Clearly, ensuring that they don't get hit by these regressive taxes has saved our working families and our small businesses hundreds of dollars a year. But for all that time, this has been a kind of temporary stop-and-go policy that required its being renewed again and again. My hope is that, as Senators look at this bill, which in my view is the toughest trade enforcement law in decades, and move to the very new approach that I call ``trade done right,'' I hope Senators will see that this legislation also ensures that working families, senior citizens, and others of modest means don't get hit by this big regressive tax simply when they want to access the Internet for the kind of information so important to them, given a modest income and their desire to get ahead. With this legislation and its extension running out this year, it is important for the Senate to act now so that you don't have a situation again at the end of the year with the prospect of the Internet Tax Freedom Act expiring and working families getting hit with these regressive taxes. I urge Senators to support this proposal. There has been an awful lot of work done by Senators on both sides of the aisle to advance this legislation. I am particularly grateful to our colleagues on the Finance Committee with whom I have the honor to serve. I will close simply by saying to colleagues that this is not about a new trade agreement. It is not exactly an atomic secret. There are pretty strong differences of opinion about new trade agreements here in this body. This is about whether we are going to get tough with the trade cheats who are ripping off American jobs. This legislation gives us the opportunity to do it, and I urge your support. I yield back.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jeremy Lagelee, a law clerk on the Finance Committee, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the week.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Marijuana Advertising In Legal States Act to allow small businesses and newspapers in States that have legalized marijuana to advertise marijuana products. In the last few years, voters in Oregon, Washington, Colorado and Alaska overwhelmingly approved initiatives to legalize the adult use and sale of marijuana. Additionally, 23 States, the District of Columbia and Guam have legalized full medical marijuana programs, and 17 more States have approved more limited medical marijuana programs. In many of these States, State-approved dispensaries are up and running, bringing the industry out of the shadows of the black market and creating a safe, regulated system in much of America. Despite passage of these state laws, marijuana remains stuck in the past as a Schedule I substance according to the Federal Controlled Substances Act, CSA. This designation means it is a felony to distribute, possess or consume it. Recognizing this discrepancy, the Obama administration issued a memorandum in 2013 which held: so long as certain enforcement criteria were met, Federal law enforcement entities would not interfere with legal state marijuana activity. Congress then followed suit and barred the Department of Justice from expending resources in contravention of state medical marijuana laws. However, since marijuana is designated as a Schedule I substance, according to Federal law it is still unlawful for anyone to place an advertisement for marijuana, including a medical marijuana product, in any newspaper, magazine, handbill or other publication, even if that activity is legal under State law. This creates a legally conflicted reality in States, like Oregon, where marijuana is legal for those marijuana businesses that seek to advertise in local newspapers, as well as for the many newspapers around the country that rely on advertising revenue. Further complicating the matter, the United States Postal Service, USPS, recently declared that it is illegal to mail any items, including newspapers, which contain advertisements offering to buy or sell marijuana, even if the marijuana-related activity is in compliance with a state law. The USPS stated that if it uncovers any items deemed to be ``non-mailable,'' it would report the item to the Postal Inspection Service, which would refer it to a law enforcement agency for investigation. Despite the 2013 Obama administration memo indicating Federal law enforcement would not interfere, these businesses are concerned. Small businesses and community newspapers rely on the USPS to reach their customers, especially in rural areas. The USPS policy could have the effect of stopping all written marijuana advertisements in states that have already made the decision to legalize marijuana, which would be a blow to newspapers and small businesses that are already struggling financially. My proposal would create a narrow exception in CSA to allow for the written advertisement of an activity, involving marijuana, if it is in compliance with State law. I am pleased to be joined on this bill by my colleague from Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley who has worked closely with me over the years to ensure that the decision that Oregon voters made at the polls is respected by the Federal Government. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.