Ron Wyden

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.

Mr. WYDEN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about the Energy bill and, particularly, a very important and missing part of the Energy bill. But before I turn to that subject, I want to particularly note, with our colleague Senator Stabenow on the floor this afternoon, that I think she is doing extraordinary work on behalf of Flint and the people of Flint. I commend her and also her colleague Senator Peters for trying to tackle this issue. It seems almost unconscionable that in this age, when there is all this information and technology at our fingertips, a community is put at risk the way Flint has been put at risk. The idea that innocent children would suffer this way is why it is so important that we move now to address this issue. This is urgent. There are questions we deal with in the Senate that if we take another few months or a half a year even, Western civilization isn't going to exactly change, but what my colleague from Michigan has said is that what we know about youngsters--and particularly brain development--if we don't get there early and we don't get there quickly, we play catchup ball for years and years to come, everything we know about neurological development. My friend knows that my wife and I are parents of small kids. We are so lucky they are healthy and have what a lot of youngsters in Flint aren't going to have. They are not going to have the kinds of problems that my colleague has brought to light here. I saw one report in the news--it is almost beyond comprehension--that a State nurse told a Flint patient, ``It's just a few IQ points. . . . It is not the end of the world.'' The idea that a health professional-- who I guess has been in a number of the national publications--just highlights how important it is that this Congress move, and move now. My colleague and Senator Peters, who is also doing a terrific job on this, have indicated there are some procedural and constitutional questions for the Finance Committee on which my colleague serves so well. I want her to know I am with her and the people of Flint every step of the way--not just this week and this month. This is going to be a challenge that is going to go on for some time. I just so appreciate what my colleague is doing. I am with her every step of the way. Mr. President, I turn now to the Energy bill before us. I also want to commend the chair, Senator Murkowski, and the ranking member, Senator Cantwell, who have put together a bipartisan bill in the Energy Committee, which is something I know something about because I was the chair of the committee. I think my chairmanship began and ended before we had the opportunity to work more directly with the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Colorado. I look forward to working with him in the committee and very much appreciate our colleagues putting together this important package. If there is one backdrop to this debate, it is the extraordinary challenge of climate change. In order to meet that challenge and beat back the threat of irrevocable damage that has climate scientists ringing such loud alarm bells, there are going to have to be some serious changes in energy policy. The legislation in this bipartisan bill moves in that direction, the details of which I intend to get into in a minute. I do want to first discuss a part of this bill that frankly is missing. It is missing to this debate. That is because the reality is the heart of America's energy policy is in the Federal Tax Code. The last big energy tax proposal to become law passed in 2009. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 5 of the 7 hottest years in recorded history have come since then. On the books today is an outdated, clumsy patchwork of energy tax incentives that in my view is anti-innovation and nothing short of a confusing, incomprehensible policy that does our country a disservice at a time when we have these great challenges. There are 44 different energy tax breaks, and they cost about $125 billion each decade. Some industries--the oil and gas industry in particular--have some certainty about their taxes with permanent provisions. The fact is, renewable energy sources don't have that certainty. Some technologies get a lot of support. Others get little or none. It is a disjointed system that has far outlasted its sell-by date, and it is ripe for simplification. The amendment Senators Cantwell, Bennet, and I submitted replaces this tattered quilt of tax rules with a fresh approach, an approach I hope will appeal to colleagues on both sides of the aisle. The Presiding Officer and I have talked about energy policy being more market oriented. The kind of proposal we have made here does just that. It supports innovators with fresh, creative ideas. Particularly, I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, because we talked about it often when I was chairman of the committee and also on the Finance Committee--concern about subsidies, a big concern about subsidies, and I am very concerned about that as well. The amendment we will be offering cuts the $125 billion pricetag in half. So when colleagues say we ought to be cutting back on tax subsidies, that is exactly what this proposal does. It replaces wasteful tax rules with a new, simple group of incentives that have just three goals: cleaner energy, cleaner transportation, and greater energy efficiency. Gone would be the system where oil companies get a direct deposit out of the taxpayer account each year while expired renewable incentives just sort of hang in limbo. For the first time, fossil fuel-burning plants would have a big financial reason to get cleaner by investing in high-tech turbine or carbon-capture technology. So that means everybody benefits by getting cleaner. Everybody in the energy sector--renewables, fossil fuel industries, everybody gets the incentive to be cleaner under the amendment I am offering. The amendment is all about harnessing the market-based power of the private economy to reward clean energy, promote new technologies, and attack climate change. My view is this Congress ought to be doing everything it can to fight the steady creep toward a hotter climate. When we have legions of scientists lining up to warn the American people about the dangers of climate change, and when we have policymakers, business leaders, and investors worldwide saying that clean energy is the 21st century gold rush, this is a bold energy policy transformation. The proposal I offer with Senators Bennet and Cantwell ought to become law. This may not happen in the context of the Energy Policy Modernization Act. I think we all understand the rules of the Senate, but I am very much looking forward to working with my colleagues to build support for this proposal in the days ahead. In my view the lack of tax provisions in this legislation is unfortunate. They ought to be in there. Tax policy is right at the heart of energy policy, but it certainly doesn't undermine my support for a great deal of what is in the overall package. That includes several provisions I authored and my colleagues and I on the Energy Committee included. One focuses on geothermal energy. It is a proposal that is all about bringing the public and private sectors together to figure out where geothermal has the most potential in getting the projects underway. Another proposal in the package is the Marine and Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Act, which says that with the right investments and innovations, our oceans, rivers, and lakes ought to be able to power millions of homes and contribute to the low-carbon economy. Note those words because we talk a lot in the Energy Committee about these issues. My view is there is an awful lot of bipartisan support for a lower carbon economy in this country, particularly one that grows jobs in the private sector, and this legislation does that. In addition to promoting low-carbon sources of energy, the legislation will help communities be significantly more energy efficient. It will spur the development of a smarter electric grid that cuts waste, stores energy, and helps consumers save money on their utility bill. Finally, it will permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and that in my view is a win-win for the rural communities of my State and rural communities across this country. The Land and Water Conservation Fund brings more jobs and more recreation dollars to areas that need an economic boost, and it ensures that future generations of Americans are going to be able to enjoy our treasures for years and years to come. I noted my concern about help for the city of Flint. I think it is so important that in the days and months ahead, when we come back to talk about important public health legislation--because that is really what this is, a public health crisis--I hope what we will say is we made a start, we made a beginning. We said it was too important to just delay moving ahead to address these enormous concerns that the families and the children of Flint are dealing with this evening. We have to ensure that this Congress takes action on this public health crisis quickly. I am committed to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and as a member of both the Finance Committee and the Energy Committee I will have two opportunities to do it. I think we need to make this bill bipartisan and bicameral as quickly as possible. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, last year more acreage in our forests burned than ever before. I know the Presiding Officer understands what this has been like in the West over the last few years. Senator Crapo and I have dedicated something like 5 years of our professional lives to coming up with practical approaches to deal with this mushrooming problem. There are a whole host of issues that go into making a sensible forestry policy to make sure that we can protect our treasures in the West, have jobs in the woods that are sustainable, and keep our forests healthy. In order to do that, one of the most important reforms that are necessary is the one that Senator Crapo and I have been working on. I really began on this before I was the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Senator Crapo and I literally have teamed up now for half a decade to end a particularly inefficient and harmful economic and environmental policy that we call fire borrowing. Fire borrowing takes place when Congress fails to budget enough money to fight wildfires, forcing agencies to raid their other accounts, including accounts to prevent wildfires. Obviously, there may be some listening in who don't represent western communities. But what Senator Crapo and I have tried to convey to our colleagues is that fire borrowing doesn't just threaten fire prevention and suppression. It is quicksand that is dragging down all of the programs at the Forest Service: timber sales, stream restoration, trail maintenance, recreation, and many more. So Senator Crapo and I said that this was too important to have yet another issue that gets thrown around, batted around like another bit of cannon fodder for partisan kind of drills. We have put together legislation with 21 cosponsors in the Senate and 145 in the House to end fire borrowing. Our legislation is supported by a coalition of more than 250 groups of anglers, sportsmen, environmentalists, and timber companies. It is pretty hard to get more than a handful of people to agree on much of anything here in Washington, DC. What Senator Crapo and I have been talking about now has more than 250 organizations behind it. Despite the overwhelming support for this effort, the bill has been stuck. Tonight what Senator Crapo and I are going to talk about is how we can work together with our colleagues to unstick this and to get it done. We felt that all along we had been doing what it took to make this happen. We talked to our colleagues of both parties. We negotiated. We talked to House Members. We talked to Senate offices. We talked to the administration. We talked to timber and environmental people. All we said is that it makes sense, even though there are a whole host of changes that you can pursue for a sensible fire policy to end fire borrowing for good, to end the erosion of the Forest Service budget, and to start focusing on prevention. Wouldn't it make more sense to concentrate on prevention, going in there and thinning out the forests and using sensible fire prevention strategies rather than not to do the prevention and have the forests get hot and dry? Then we have lightning strikes in our part of the world. All of a sudden you have an inferno on your hands, and they don't have enough money to put all these fires out. So you borrow from the prevention fund and the problem gets worse. What Senator Crapo and I said is that we will work with all of the budget authorities. We were very much involved with Chairman Enzi in this. We could come up with some budget process issues that would be acceptable here in the Senate and also to our colleagues in the House. There was a colloquy last week among the chairs of the Energy, Budget, and Agriculture Committees that indicated that they very much want a resolution of the issue. I am pleased that they are interested in hearings and working on legislation and moving in February and March. I felt that this was a promising start to the year because that is what Senator Crapo and I were after last July when we got a great many Senators together and we said that we were going to try to get this worked out so that it could have been done last fall. We all said that we were going to get together and get this resolved. Obviously, for a variety of reasons it didn't happen. But I think what we heard last week strikes me as a beginning to finally getting this unstuck, and I have been so appreciative of working with the Senator on this now for something like 5 years. I would be interested in the Senator's reaction with respect to this situation.

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

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Idaho, and in wrapping this up I wish to convey what the bottom line really is here. Senator Crapo and I do not want to be back on the floor of the U.S. Senate in the winter of 2017 once again talking about how something got stuck or somebody didn't agree with somebody on one small aspect of this, and as a result fire borrowing is still in place. What Senator Crapo and I are saying is we want to work with all sides. It is going to have to be bipartisan and it is going to have to be bicameral. Those are probably the most important words in this whole discussion. It is going to have to be bipartisan and it is going to have to be bicameral. We have lots of committees involved. We have the Energy and Natural Resources Committee that I am on and the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, and the Budget Committee that both of us have been on. We have lots of committees in the Senate, and we have partners in the House who have also played a meaningful role. I would like to think that Senator Crapo and I were able to move that bipartisan, bicameral process a fair way down the road at the end of last year, but what we are saying is: Let's now vow, as a body and working with our colleagues, to make sure we are not back here in the winter of 2017 after yet another horrendous fire season and once again saying: You know, this Forest Service practice is a textbook case of inefficiency, and we are explaining what fire borrowing is and how it does so much damage in the forest and to forest health. This is about the betterment of rural resource-dependent communities, especially in the West and around the country. Senator Crapo and I have worked together on other past efforts, such as the secure rural schools legislation and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. We were both involved in those efforts and they were, in fact, bipartisan and bicameral. Tonight our hope is, as a result of this discussion and what we heard on the floor of the Senate last week, that in fact after more than 5 years of effort on this issue, that this time the Congress, on both sides of the Capitol, will come together and will work with the administration. They indicated support for what we were doing last year and will indicate support early on for efforts that are bipartisan and bicameral. The sooner we can get on with that, the better. That is why it is good news that the committees will be starting hearings and legislative consideration shortly, and we look forward to working with our colleagues. I yield at this time.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the House message to accompany H.R. 2029, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, colleagues, this bipartisan package is the biggest tax cut for working families and the biggest anti-poverty plan Congress has moved forward in decades, and it is the biggest bipartisan tax agreement in 15 years. All together, 50 million Americans are going to benefit from the child tax credit and the expanded earned-income tax credit because they are made permanent. And on a permanent basis, students will be able to count on the American opportunity tax credit to cover up to $10,000 of a 4-year college education. That is a lot of money they won't have to borrow. This also includes a permanent tax break for research and development, which for the first time will be available on a widespread basis to help small businesses and startups pay wages--a booster shot for the innovation economy in America. There will be permanent small business expensing that is going to help our employers invest and grow. To just wrap up, it will include permanent small business expensing to help many employers invest and grow and create new highways and high-skilled jobs for our people. I believe, finally, this clears the deck for us to move to comprehensive bipartisan tax reform because it provides the breathing room Congress needs to throw the broken Tax Code into the trash can and get bipartisan tax reform. So I urge my colleagues to waive the budget point of order, give millions of families across this country the predictability and certainty they need on their taxes, and put this Congress on a path toward achieving bipartisan comprehensive tax reform in the days ahead. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am taking this opportunity to notice my objection to the Senate proceeding to the nomination of Janine Anne Davidson of Virginia to be Under Secretary of the Navy. My concern is not with Ms. Davidson's nomination, per se, but with a larger matter concerning the Navy and its policies and practices with regard to retaliation against whistleblowers. On October 21, 2015, the Washington Post reported that the Navy plans to promote RDML Brian L. Losey, even though the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General, OIG, has found on multiple occasions that he retaliated against perceived whistleblowers in response to whistleblower complaints and, in some cases, simply the belief that such complaints had been made. According to the article, the OIG has reported that Rear Admiral Losey went so far as to make a list of suspected whistleblowers and intentionally target them for discipline, demotion, and internal investigation. In several instances, the OIG recommended personnel action be taken against Rear Admiral Losey for these actions. However, the Navy appears poised to ignore those findings and promote Rear Admiral Losey. On November 13, 2015, I joined with seven other Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, in a request to Jon T. Rymer, the inspector general for the Department of Defense, for the OIG investigation reports related to Rear Admiral Losey's conduct. Those reports were provided to me and to the other Senators signing the November 13 letter just 3 days ago, on December 15, 2015, in redacted form. Until I have had an opportunity to thoroughly review the inspector general's findings related to Rear Admiral Losey and until I have received assurances from the Navy that it will address those findings specifically and has policies in place to sanction retaliation against whistleblowers more broadly, I will object to the Senate proceeding with the Davidson nomination. (At the request of Mr. Lee, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes this afternoon to talk about the tax provisions in the agreement before us. I want to start by making sure that people understand what this is really all about. This is the biggest bipartisan package that provides real tax relief for working families in literally decades. It is the biggest anti-poverty program Congress has moved forward in decades. So being able to do all of this for working families and help millions of Americans find their way out of poverty is, in my view, something particularly important--the largest bipartisan tax agreement in 15 years. I want to spend a few minutes describing how this came together, why it is such an important piece of legislation, and what it means for the cause of tax reform. Hundreds of thousands of Oregonians and millions of families across the land count on the child tax credit and the earned-income tax credit to make ends meet. More than 100,000 Oregon students and millions of students nationwide count on the American opportunity tax credit to help them pay for college. These are concerns Senator Merkley and I heard directly from students at the roundtables we held recently at the University of Oregon and at Southern Oregon University. In my view, they are bedrock priorities for working families when it comes to taxes. Starting more than a year ago, all of my Democratic colleagues on the Finance Committee came together around the principle that when Congress took up the temporary tax cuts known as extenders, these vital individual tax incentives for working families would be our special priority. If our colleagues on the other side insisted on making certain business-related tax breaks permanent, we were going to make clear at every single opportunity that the tax cuts for working families and students would have to be made permanent as well. Back in 2009 when these working family tax cuts were actually expanded, there were some Members here in the Senate who said they would never allow them to become permanent. In effect, what they said is that working families would get a little bit of relief back then in 2009 but that would be it for those working families. We said that is not good enough. We said that without the certainty of permanent extensions, too many families across this country would be thrown into the dark as the provisions expired over and over again. Advocates for those who walk an economic tightrope, balancing their food against their fuel and their fuel against their medical care--over 130 groups who advocate for those working families wrote a letter urging lawmakers to make the working family credits permanent. They said: Don't keep those families guessing about their taxes; give them certainty and assistance on a permanent basis. That is what this package does. There is a new measure of certainty and predictability when it comes to taxes. The last tax bill in America passed just over a year ago. It had a shelf life shorter than a carton of eggs. What we are doing with this bill is providing an alternative--an alternative with real certainty and predictability on a permanent basis. I see my colleague Senator Brown here. He has done yeoman's work in advocating for working families and their kids. I so appreciate his leadership. Suffice it to say that what we just heard from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is that 16 million Americans, including 8 million children, will be lifted from the depth of poverty or out of poverty altogether in 2018 and beyond because of this legislation.

Mr. WYDEN. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. WYDEN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. President, before Senator Brown leaves the floor, I want to thank my colleague from Ohio, whose advocacy and constant tenacity, coming back again and again to talk about what this means for those families walking on what I call an economic tightrope--we wouldn't be here without that advocacy. I just learned from some of the experts in the field that altogether 50 million Americans are going to benefit from the earned-income tax credit and the child tax credit being made permanent. That is real relief on a permanent basis. Students will be able to count on the American opportunity tax credit to cover up to $10,000 of a 4-year college education. That is an awful lot of money they are not going to have to borrow. There are other important highlights in the package, such as permanent help for the commuter, permanent assistance for low- income housing, permanent tax breaks to encourage charitable giving. That is a huge lifeline for places like the Oregon Food Bank. I was there just a few days ago, and I saw all those young people and volunteers last Saturday morning. They were all pitching in and packing fruit baskets for families to enjoy. They do incredible work to combat hunger. There will be 5 years of assistance for job seekers, including veterans, long-term unemployed, and people with disabilities. Also, 5 years of aid is included for hard-hit communities with the new markets tax credit, 5 years of certainty for solar and wind energy. This is especially important. We have seen the extraordinary interests in climate change. You can debate whether you think there is a serious problem. Based on the numbers from the scientists at NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, I know I certainly do. It is a serious problem, and now we have 5 years of certainty for solar and wind energy, which I think is going to make an extraordinary difference in renewable energy. Here is what the math of this package looks like: 40 percent of the tax breaks goes to families and individuals. That is a huge improvement over the typical math with these tax breaks. When Congress just passes the same old, same old set of tax extenders, as it has done for years, only 20 percent goes to families and individuals. This package doubles the percentage of families who will benefit as it relates to this particular package. There are clearly a number of business-related tax cuts and, by the way, I think many of those make a great deal of sense as well. We have the permanent tax break for research and development. Thanks to the good work of our colleague from Delaware Senator Coons, it is going to be available for the first time on a widespread basis for small business and startups. It is in there. I say to the Presiding Officer--because I have been to his State-- this is going to be a real booster shot for America's innovative economy. Permanent small business expensing is going to help a lot of employers invest, grow, and create new high-wage, high-skilled jobs for American workers. I have town meetings in every county every year in Oregon. When I drive through rural Oregon, I see all of those little businesses that in effect sell farm implement equipment. Last year they were trying to figure out what was going to happen with respect to the expensing rules, and then they saw it only lasted a few weeks. Now we have permanent small business expensing. That is going to help small employers in rural areas. Research and development credits, which are permanent, will help small businesses in rural and urban areas. In many cases, it will help employers pay wages thanks to those new innovation- related programs. I think the tax breaks I have just mentioned, such as expensing for small businesses and permanent research and development breaks, ought to be the kind of thing that both Democrats and Republicans should approve. I want to take just a few minutes and talk about the impact of this legislation on tax reform. I will tell you that my wife always says: Don't describe the Federal Tax Code in your typical way because you just frighten the children, but the reality is the American Tax Code, overall, is just a rotting economic carcass. It is infected with loopholes and inefficiencies. Now we have this version virus mutating and growing. This is really a mess of a system. What this legislation does--particularly by making the breaks for working families and the smart policies that encourage business, innovation, and economic growth in our communities, research and development, and realistic writeoffs permanent, this is going to, in effect, clear the deck for tax reform. This lays out the opportunity by giving breathing room to the cause of bipartisan tax reform. That is something I am particularly interested in because our colleague from Indiana, Senator Coats, and I have written a bipartisan comprehensive tax reform bill. What this legislation does, in terms of creating breathing room for tax reform, is it breaks the chain of just extending these tax extenders every 2 years. What it means is that we have some predictability, certainty, and some breathing room in order to lay out a bipartisan comprehensive tax reform effort. By the way, the fact is, this inversion virus is something that can't be ignored any longer. That alone is an indication that the Congress cannot duck the need to reform the Tax Code comprehensively. Look at those Members who are in key positions in the Congress and have made it clear that they want bipartisan tax reform--both Democrats and Republicans. For example, Chairman Brady, Chairman Hatch, and myself, as well as a number of colleagues on both sides of the aisle, have said they want to do comprehensive tax reform and want to--as I have described it--pass these extenders so we can break the chain of the every year or every 2 years extension. We are not the ``extender'' Congress. I don't want us to have to come back to this every 2 years, doing the same old, same old. We can do a lot better, and this time we have at least laid the foundation for real tax reform. I want to thank a number of my colleagues. In particular, I wish to thank Chairman Hatch, our committee members on both sides of the aisle, and the two leaders--Leader Reid and Leader McConnell--for their efforts. We had an awful lot of dedicated staff people working on this issue. Our diligent tax counsel is here, Todd Metcalf. I thank him for his great work. Our terrific staff director, Josh Sheinkman, our chief counsel, Mike Evans, and the members of our tax team, Ryan Abraham, Bobby Andres, Chris Arneson, Adam Carasso, Danielle Deraney, Kera Getz, Rob Jones, Eric Slack, Tiffany Smith, and Todd Wooten. All of them have worked long hours to get us up to this point. I also want to commend Liz Jurinka and Juan Muchado of our health staff because they joined a very good leadership team. I must thank Senator Reid's chief tax aide, Ellen Doneski, Chairman Hatch, and his staff, led by Chris Campbell, Mark Prater, and Jay Khosla. Brendon Dunn, with Senator McConnell's office and George Callas and Chairman Brady's tax staff were instrumental. All of them came together to help us put this together. I now believe there is a real opportunity to use this bill as a springboard to real tax reform. I have written two bipartisan tax reform bills over the years, first with our former colleague from New Hampshire, Judd Gregg, and the second with our current colleague, Senator Coats, the distinguished Senator from Indiana. I know my wife would always say: I keep hearing about these tax reform bills, dear. Write me when something actually happens. I will tell you, I think the combination of this inversion virus-- which if it keeps growing is going to hollow out America's tax system-- and the fact that we have brought some certainty and predictability to the Tax Code added some very sensible provisions in a permanent way. This really gives us an opportunity now. The table is set for real tax reform, and that is not something we have had before. I just want to close by way of saying that I am so honored to represent Oregon in the U.S. Senate. I was director of the senior citizens Gray Panthers for about 7 years before I came to the Congress. I have had a lot of exciting moments in my time in public service, but to be part of this bipartisan legislative effort that provides the biggest tax cut for working families and the biggest anti-poverty plan Congress has moved forward in decades is particularly thrilling. I thank all of my colleagues and their staff who have done so much to make this possible. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, my friend Chairman Hatch and I rise today to offer our sincere gratitude to Ambassador Michael Moore of New Zealand who is returning to his home country after more than 5 years here in Washington and a long, successful career as a beloved public servant. With roots as a union organizer, he rose to become Prime Minister of New Zealand and later served as a Director-General of the World Trade Organization. He dedicated much of his career to the belief that freer trade can help address some of the most intractable challenges facing impoverished people around the globe.

Mr. WYDEN. As they say in New Zealand, ``He tangeta, he tangeta, he tangeta,'' which translated from the Maori language roughly means, ``people are the most important thing.''

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, every day, Social Security provides vital benefits to millions of Americans who worked and paid into the system. To ensure workers would receive full access to these fundamental lifeline benefits, for many years, the law protected these earned benefits from attempts to recover debts. However, 20 years ago, Congress suddenly reversed course, and made a change to the law that allowed the government to cut Social Security and other hard-earned benefit payments in order to collect student loan and other Federal debts, like home loans owed to the Veterans Administration, and food stamp overpayments. Now more than ever, the loss of these protections is creating a major hardship for American Citizens who rely on Social Security and other earned benefits to make ends meet. Student loan debt is becoming an increasingly serious problem in in Oregon and across the nation, with students and their families burdened by crushing student loan debt. Even in the best circumstances, many families will struggle to pay off crippling loans for years to come. However, for people who rely on benefits like Social Security after retirement, disability, or the death of a family member, making payments on student loans or other federal debts can become an insurmountable hardship. Because of the lifeline nature of these earned benefits, for more than 40 years the law prevented all creditors from collecting hard- earned Social Security, Railroad Retirement, and Black Lung benefits to recoup debts. The only exceptions included unpaid Federal taxes, child support or alimony payments, and court-ordered victim restitution. These protections helped ensure that our social safety net programs were functioning as intended--something I think we can all agree is essential to preserving Social Security and other earned benefits. Astonishingly, when the law changed as part of a 1996 omnibus budget bill, these changes were never fully debated in Congress. This means Members of Congress never had the chance to really explore how this policy would affect beneficiaries. The legislation ultimately included some protections for the most vulnerable, but even those protections have not been updated in 20 years. We now realize what a profound effect the loss of these protections has had on retirees and individuals with disabilities, who often live on fixed incomes. More and more seniors and people with disabilities are having their Social Security and other lifeline benefits taken away to pay federal debts. For example, according to a September 2014 GAO report, the number of individuals whose Social Security benefits were offset to pay student loan debt increased significantly between 2002 and 2013, from about 31,000 to 155,000. For individuals 65 and older with student loan-related Social Security garnishments, the number grew from about 6,000 to about 36,000 over the same period. Congress should restore sanity to the system, and reestablish the protections that these beneficiaries deserve. That is why I, along with Senators Brown, Whitehouse, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Sanders and Warren are introducing the Protection of Social Security Benefits Restoration Act. The bill would restore the strong protections in the law that prevented the government from taking away earned benefits to pay Federal debts, and guarantee beneficiaries will be able to maintain a basic standard of living by receiving the benefits they have earned. The bill is supported by Social Security Works, The Strengthen Social Security Coalition, AFL-CIO, Justice in Aging, Campaign for America's Future, Global Policy Solutions, Student Debt Crisis, the National Organization for Women, RootsAction.org, Project Springboard, The Alliance for a Just Society, the Economic Opportunity Institute, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, The Arc of the United States, The Public Higher Education Network of Massachusetts, the American Federation of Government Employees, and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, every day, Social Security provides vital benefits to millions of Americans who worked and paid into the system. To ensure workers would receive full access to these fundamental lifeline benefits, for many years, the law protected these earned benefits from attempts to recover debts. However, 20 years ago, Congress suddenly reversed course, and made a change to the law that allowed the government to cut Social Security and other hard-earned benefit payments in order to collect student loan and other Federal debts, like home loans owed to the Veterans Administration, and food stamp overpayments. Now more than ever, the loss of these protections is creating a major hardship for American Citizens who rely on Social Security and other earned benefits to make ends meet. Student loan debt is becoming an increasingly serious problem in in Oregon and across the nation, with students and their families burdened by crushing student loan debt. Even in the best circumstances, many families will struggle to pay off crippling loans for years to come. However, for people who rely on benefits like Social Security after retirement, disability, or the death of a family member, making payments on student loans or other federal debts can become an insurmountable hardship. Because of the lifeline nature of these earned benefits, for more than 40 years the law prevented all creditors from collecting hard- earned Social Security, Railroad Retirement, and Black Lung benefits to recoup debts. The only exceptions included unpaid Federal taxes, child support or alimony payments, and court-ordered victim restitution. These protections helped ensure that our social safety net programs were functioning as intended--something I think we can all agree is essential to preserving Social Security and other earned benefits. Astonishingly, when the law changed as part of a 1996 omnibus budget bill, these changes were never fully debated in Congress. This means Members of Congress never had the chance to really explore how this policy would affect beneficiaries. The legislation ultimately included some protections for the most vulnerable, but even those protections have not been updated in 20 years. We now realize what a profound effect the loss of these protections has had on retirees and individuals with disabilities, who often live on fixed incomes. More and more seniors and people with disabilities are having their Social Security and other lifeline benefits taken away to pay federal debts. For example, according to a September 2014 GAO report, the number of individuals whose Social Security benefits were offset to pay student loan debt increased significantly between 2002 and 2013, from about 31,000 to 155,000. For individuals 65 and older with student loan-related Social Security garnishments, the number grew from about 6,000 to about 36,000 over the same period. Congress should restore sanity to the system, and reestablish the protections that these beneficiaries deserve. That is why I, along with Senators Brown, Whitehouse, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Sanders and Warren are introducing the Protection of Social Security Benefits Restoration Act. The bill would restore the strong protections in the law that prevented the government from taking away earned benefits to pay Federal debts, and guarantee beneficiaries will be able to maintain a basic standard of living by receiving the benefits they have earned. The bill is supported by Social Security Works, The Strengthen Social Security Coalition, AFL-CIO, Justice in Aging, Campaign for America's Future, Global Policy Solutions, Student Debt Crisis, the National Organization for Women, RootsAction.org, Project Springboard, The Alliance for a Just Society, the Economic Opportunity Institute, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, The Arc of the United States, The Public Higher Education Network of Massachusetts, the American Federation of Government Employees, and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Menendez speak after me.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I very much appreciate Chairman Hatch's willingness to work with all of us--Senator Schumer, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Menendez, and myself--the many Senators who care deeply about this issue. My view is that the situation in Puerto Rico will get far, far worse, particularly with inaction. That is why it is so important for this body to come together, Democrats and Republicans, and move quickly. As Chairman Hatch has noted, we have been working on this in the Finance Committee. We are appreciative of Chairman Hatch's willingness to listen to colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I think it is fair to say we have made some tangible progress. Recently, the talks have bogged down, in particular because of efforts to change national programs that have nothing to do with Puerto Rico. I wish to emphasize what has been the challenge in recent days. We are trying to deal with the very real and significant questions facing Puerto Rico. Some have said in order to do that, you would have to make substantial changes in national programs. One of the reasons I wanted to speak briefly on the floor this morning is I believe that any legislation to assist Puerto Rico needs to be focused on the territory and not get into unrelated provisions. In addition, any legislation to assist Puerto Rico ought to include some type of debt restructuring authority. Unfortunately, I think things have moved past the point where any sort of austerity in Puerto Rico can allow them to climb out of debt without causing a humanitarian crisis. That is why some type of debt restructuring is so important. Wrapping up, I also wish to point out that debt restructuring and debt restructuring authority does not add a penny to the Federal deficit. In my discussions with Chairman Hatch--and we are very appreciative of our relationship and discussions we have had--that has been very important to him. So I do want to point out that debt restructuring authority does not add one penny to the Federal deficit. This issue is too important to get lost in yet another partisan fight. I am going to work closely with our many colleagues, the two Senators from New York, Senator Menendez, who knows an enormous amount about this issue, and the chairman because, as I touched on in my statement, things will get much, much worse and sooner than people think, in my view, if Congress fails to act. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the amendment that has just been described. Our colleague from Wisconsin is seeking to bring back the so-called grandfathered health plans that existed between 2010 and the end of 2013. My view is that this is something of a health care Frankenstein. All the plans that were grandfathered on December 31, 2013, and disappeared on that date would somehow be magically brought back to life by the Senator from Wisconsin. That is not the way the private health insurance market works in America. Many of the plans that were in existence on December 31, 2013, don't exist anymore. In the private market, which I support, plans change continually. Plans changed in 2014 and they changed again at the beginning of 2015. It seems to me that what this amendment does is it distorts the private marketplace. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. At the end of the year, Mr. President, when there is so much to do, I think it is particularly important for this body to try to find common ground on difficult issues, to try to be bipartisan. I mentioned it yesterday, but literally 24 hours ago, I joined with the senior Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, on a bipartisan effort to deal with this enormous challenge of making sure that when we have breakthrough cures for serious illnesses here in our country, Americans are going to be able to afford them. Senator Grassley and I teamed up for 18 months, reviewed 20,000 documents, did an exhaustive inquiry into the new drugs that have come out to deal with hepatitis C, and they are extraordinary drugs. The question is, Will Americans be able to pay for them? Senator Grassley and I thought it was very important to do it because this is what the future is going to be about. I know the distinguished Senator's son is very interested in these health issues. As we try to get cures for Alzheimer's, diabetes, heart disease, and the question of hepatitis C, it is wonderful to have the cure. The question is, Is it going to be beyond the reach of the people? Senator Grassley and I, for over 18 months, worked painstakingly in a bipartisan kind of way, and it has been very well received. So 24 hours ago we were talking about that, and what I am so troubled about this morning is that when we need bipartisanship more than ever, we are looking at a partisan reconciliation bill that, in my view, will undermine women's health care in this country by denying funding to Planned Parenthood. My view is that to take away health care choices from American women that have nothing to do with abortion--particularly after the horrific act last week in Colorado--is just an act of legislative malpractice that is beneath the Senate. I note that it is going to get a veto if it hits the President's desk. My hope is that this body will not let it get that far. It is long past time, in my view, to end the ongoing campaign to undermine the fundamental right of all women to make their own reproductive choices and access affordable high quality health care. Millions of American women, including tens of thousands in my home State of Oregon, turn to Planned Parenthood for the routine health care services that this bill puts at risk. I have read this list on the floor before, but it appears not to be sinking in. So let me repeat it. This bill, for millions of women, could eliminate access to pregnancy testing, possibly gone; and birth control, possibly gone; prenatal services, possibly gone; HIV tests, possibly gone; cancer screenings, possibly gone; vaccinations, possibly gone; testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, possibly gone; basic physical exams, possibly gone; treatment for chronic conditions, possibly gone; pediatric care, possibly gone; hospital and specialist referrals, possibly gone; adoption referrals, possibly gone; and nutrition programs, possibly gone. When you wipe out Planned Parenthood's funding, you dramatically curb access for women in this country to health care services that have absolutely nothing to do with abortion. I know that there is a smear campaign out there that says that is not the case, but it is. Senator Murray and I have a proposal that has taken a different tack. Our amendment says that instead of putting women's health care at risk, let's do more to guarantee that women in Oregon and Washington and Alaska and across the country get the high quality care they need. Let's help our health care clinics treat more women, and let's help them keep their patients safe when they walk through that door. The proposal that Senator Murray and I have put forward, in my view, is worthy of support from Democrats and Republicans. That has always been the case. I have enjoyed talking to my new colleague from Alaska, and we talked about what has happened to this question of the Senate's historically bipartisan approach, which is why I spent some time talking about how proud I was to team up yesterday with the distinguished senior Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, on this question of making sure that when there are breakthrough blockbuster cures, people can actually afford them and can actually get them. Those kinds of issues, along with women's health, ought to be a bipartisan cause. It has historically been a bipartisan cause. My hope is that my new colleague from Alaska, the distinguished Presiding Officer of the Senate, is going to continue that as we talk about that kind of historical approach where we try to find common ground on issues such as women's health care. I also wish to note, colleagues, the reconciliation bill involves the Senate Finance Committee. Chairman Hatch, of course, chairs the committee; I am the ranking member. We have a significant role with respect to these public health programs, and we have tried to work in a bipartisan way. But this reconciliation bill is a rejection of bipartisanship. It is going to pump more noise into the echo chamber, but my view is it is going to drive the parties further apart in this effort that I look forward to talking to our new colleague about, which is how we are going to get people together to work in a bipartisan way for improving women's health care. When you create such a vitriolic fever pitch, there are obviously real consequences. To me, the politics of hostility and extremism help spark a culture of violence. And amid that dangerous and toxic culture, a man walked into a Planned Parenthood clinic determined to do enormous harm. In my view, it attacks women's health. It is an attack on the American public, and it cannot be tolerated. It must be fought and resisted at every opportunity. At a moment when the Senate has a long list of issues to wrap up before the year's end and many serious challenges to face, my view is that we ought to be in the business of trying to solve problems, not create more of them. It is not as if there is a shortage of things that have to be addressed; we have plenty of stuff. So why in the world would we want to reject the Senate's long tradition of bipartisanship and take a very partisan turn with this reconciliation bill? I hope my colleagues will support the Murray-Wyden amendment when we vote on it, end the campaign against women's health, and do everything we can to restore the historic tradition of this body working in a bipartisan way on women's health. Without going into too much of the history when I was thinking about coming over and thinking about the tradition of the Senate, one of the first things that happened when I came to the Senate is I had the opportunity to work with our former colleague Senator Snowe of Maine, who was a champion of exactly these kinds of issues: choices for women and improvements in women's health care. We can have all of that again--men and women working together in the Senate on behalf of the States that sent us to support improvements in women's health. To do that this week you have to support the Murray- Wyden amendment. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin has offered an amendment dealing with the Affordable Care Act. I have been talking to the staff of both the Finance Committee and the Budget Committee, and frankly it is a real head-scratcher because it appears that our colleague from Wisconsin is seeking to bring back the so- called grandfathered health plans that existed between 2010 and the end of 2013. We are still trying to sort through this, but at this point it looks to me like something of a health care Frankenstein. It seeks to bring the dead back to life by having all those plans that were grandfathered on December 31, 2013, and died on that date magically brought back to life by the Senator from Wisconsin. Many of the plans that were in existence on December 31, 2013, don't exist anymore. Plans continually change. Plans also changed in 2014, and they changed again in the beginning of 2015. I am a U.S. Senator who believes very strongly in the role of the marketplace in American health care, but it seems to me that the amendment by the Senator from Wisconsin, as it is written, distorts marketplace forces. Knowing the Senator from Wisconsin as I do, I can't believe that would be his intent. We have been reviewing this amendment, and our understanding is that this amendment reflects an approach to private insurance that is not the way private insurance in America works. I again come back to my desire to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle and to work in a bipartisan fashion on health care. That is what the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee did over an 18-month period when he was working with me on pharmaceutical issues. Yesterday, we issued an exhaustive report together that was bipartisan. What we were seeking to do was to make sure that the wonderful cures that are going to be coming to America to address horrendous illnesses will also be ones that will be affordable and accessible. The important point is that this is bipartisan, and that is the way the big health care issues have historically been dealt with. But I don't see how you can turn back the clock on the health insurance market and somehow bring a dead period back to life. Plans change. That is the nature of the private insurance market. That is the way private insurance in America works. I am sure we are going to have some more conversations about that, but I do want colleagues to know that at this point, I will have to oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from Wisconsin because I just don't see how we are going to take, as I said, health plans that died and bring them back to life. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I rise today to honor a distinguished Oregonian who made it her life's work to protect many of Oregon's and the Nation's most beautiful and majestic natural places. On November 3, Kate Rogers McCarthy, a lifelong conservationist, activist, and friend, passed away in her hometown of Parkdale, OR. Born in 1917 adjacent to the snow-capped peaks of Mount Hood in Parkdale, Kate spent most of her life in awe of the natural beauty that surrounded her. Kate drew from that passion as she worked to preserve many of Oregon's most iconic outdoor spaces, eventually taking on many leadership roles in conservation groups at the State and national levels. Growing up with the wilderness of Mount Hood as her backyard, Kate learned the value of nature and the importance of protecting our natural treasures. By the time she was in high school, Kate and her younger sister Betty ran an outdoor recreation camp for girls on the family property that introduced those girls to the beauty of Mount Hood. Kate attended Reed College, Yale Nursing School, and the University of Oregon Medical School. After earning her degrees and with new commercial development threatening the preservation of the Mount Hood wilderness, Kate began her lifelong campaign to preserve the lands she loved. In the mid-1970s, with development rapidly expanding into wild areas near Mount Hood, Kate and a group of Parkdale residents began a campaign to encourage county representatives to vote on zoning options. Thanks to her diligence and that of the other residents, the county voted to protect agricultural zones. Agricultural zoning still protects farmland in the upper valley today. In 1977, Kate gathered a few friends and founded the Hood River Valley Residents Committee. The committee grew to 1,200 members under Kate's leadership and continues to protect the natural spaces that are so unique to Oregon. A tireless advocate and conservationist, Kate was involved in a multitude of other conservation groups as well. She served as a member of the Oregon Natural Resources Council, what is now Oregon Wild; the Board of the Oregon Environmental Council; and Friends of the Columbia Gorge. She was also a charter member of 1000 Friends of Oregon. To motivate still greater involvement by citizens in the protection of Mount Hood, Kate helped form Friends of Mount Hood, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting the alpine meadows, wetlands, wildlife, and forests of Mount Hood by working with the Forest Service and the Oregon congressional delegation. In 2002, Kate McCarthy was recognized as a Women of Distinction honoree by the soroptimists of Hood River for making a difference in the lives of women and girls in her local community. She also received the highest award given by the Mazamas Mountaineering Club, becoming only the 41st person given the top award since the club's founding in 1894. For several years, Kate worked closely with local organizations, as well as my office, to protect the north side of Mount Hood and Cooper Spur from a massive destination resort in the Hood River Valley. After years of hard-fought battles, Congress passed the Mount Hood Wilderness bill. The bill protects the more than 200,000 acres of wilderness and rivers in the Hood River Valley, an accomplishment I am proud to have been a part of. Because of Kate's lifetime of work to protect some of our most beautiful wetlands, forests, wildlife, and farms, she has given Oregonians and people from around the world opportunities to experience Oregon's natural splendor for generations to come. Kate McCarthy, a mother, grandmother, great grandmother, friend, and advocate of the natural beauty around her, deserves the utmost appreciation for a life fully lived. I honor the prolific life and career of Kate Rodgers McCarthy and express my gratitude for her everlasting impact on our State and Nation.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I follow Senator Grassley after he has completed his remarks.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, with so many issues to wrap up before the end of this year and so many enormous challenges facing our country, my view is the Senate ought to be embracing bipartisanship at every turn. In fact, earlier today the senior Senator from Iowa and I released an 18-month bipartisan inquiry into Solvaldi, which is the blockbuster drug to deal with hepatitis C, and the reason we did is because these specialty drugs are the drugs of the future for cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, and defeating hepatitis C if people can afford them. Using the company's own documents, there were real questions about whether access and affordability were just kind of an oversight because all they truly cared about was maximizing revenue. A Republican, a senior Member of this body, a good friend of mine, and I as a Democrat came together because we thought this question of making sure the public can get access to breakthrough cures and that they be affordable was something that would require bipartisan effort. I am very proud that the senior Senator from Iowa and I joined in that effort earlier today. We ought to be embracing bipartisanship. I come tonight to unfortunately talk about this reconciliation legislation because I think it is the antithesis of what Chairman Grassley and I sought to do earlier today, which was to take a bipartisan approach. The reconciliation legislation in my view is a rejection of bipartisanship. It is a rejection of bipartisanship because it would, for example, undermine women's health, it would mean millions more Americans go without insurance, and it puts at risk our ability to have affordable health insurance premiums. I think it is going to drive up these health insurance premiums. So I am going to just spend a few minutes tonight talking about why I object to this legislation and again why it really is the antithesis of the kind of bipartisanship that we need. My first concern is that the Senate is looking once again at a plan that would wreak havoc on women's health in our country by denying the funding for Planned Parenthood. It is important to recognize the horrific act of gun violence that happened at a Colorado Planned Parenthood clinic last week. It was another in a long stream of tragedies that have taken place across the Nation, including one in my home State in Roseburg, OR, in October. This time it marked an attack on the public and women's health. Millions of women have sought routine, medical care in Planned Parenthood clinics just like the one in Colorado. More than 70,000 Oregonians are served by the 11 Planned Parenthood centers in my home State. The bottom line is that Planned Parenthood is a bedrock institution for women's health care in America. In my view it is wrong to bring such a misguided, controversial proposal before this body in the wake of the horrible, tragic events in Colorado. These are the services Planned Parenthood offers that would be at risk of disappearing with this reconciliation proposal: pregnancy tests, birth control, prenatal services, HIV tests, cancer screenings, vaccinations, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, basic physical examinations, treatment for chronic conditions, pediatric care, adoption referrals, nutrition programs, and more. This seems to be the latest offering in what amounts to an ongoing, coordinated campaign to regrettably undermine the fundamental rights of all women in our country to make their own reproductive choices and attain affordable, high-quality health care. When you wipe out Planned Parenthood's funding, you dramatically and painfully reduce women's access to services that have absolutely nothing to do with abortion. And I want to repeat that; I have done that on this floor before. What I have talked about are all those important services: cancer screenings, gone; vaccinations, gone; basic physical exams, gone; treatment for chronic conditions, gone; pediatric care, gone. The list goes on and on and has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. So I hope that this campaign against women's health will come to an end. The second objection I want to touch on tonight is the harm the bill threatens to do to millions of vulnerable Americans by repealing as much of the Affordable Care Act, frankly, as Senate procedure would allow. Based on the reports of the bill's contents, this is what is at stake. According to the nonpartisan experts at the Congressional Budget Office, this proposal would mean 14 million more Americans would go without health insurance. For people who shop for their own private insurance coverage, premiums would increase by 20 percent. That is potentially hundreds or thousands of dollars taken out of families' pockets. Emergency rooms would once again be the fallback for people without a doctor. Typical Americans with insurance would once again have to pay the hidden tax of higher premiums to cover the costs of those without coverage. There have been more than 50 votes to repeal or undermine the Affordable Care Act, and there is still no viable plan to replace it. As a Member of Congress, you can object to a law and want to make changes, but America cannot and will not go back to the days when health care was reserved for the healthy and the wealthy. That is what this plan does. Before I came to Congress, I was codirector of the senior citizens group, the Gray Panthers, and I remember what health care was like in those days. In effect, the system truly did work for people who were healthy and wealthy. If you were healthy, you didn't have any preconditions. You didn't have any of these pre-existing conditions. If you were wealthy, you could just pay the bill, but it was care that worked for the healthy and the wealthy. Yet with the Affordable Care Act, that changed. Unfortunately, what this destructive reconciliation bill would do would be to take us back to those days when health care was reserved for the healthy and the wealthy. The fact is, despite raising costs for families, causing turmoil in insurance markets, and raising the number of uninsured Americans by 14 million, this bill doesn't even manage to repeal the Affordable Care Act fully. That is because of the reconciliation process, because of the way it works, which brings me to the final issue I wish to raise today. Reconciliation is a sharp departure from the usual procedure for Senate debate. Usually bills being considered on the Senate floor are subject to an unlimited debate and unlimited amendment. Further, it typically takes 60 votes to pass a bill, assuring that there is at least some measure of bipartisan support. These regular-order procedures give the Senate its unique character. The reconciliation procedure is an exception to this usual approach. Reconciliation imposes tight limits on debate and on amendments, and it allows a vote of a bare majority of Senators--51--to pass a bill. The reconciliation procedure originally was created to facilitate the passage of budget- related bills which can be particularly important and particularly hard to pass. But reconciliation shouldn't be a free pass that allows the majority to pass anything it wants on a fast track. That would undermine the fundamental character of the Senate. I am concerned that the reconciliation process is being misused here. Everybody in the Chamber knows what is happening. This bill is not designed to address budget-related issues; it is all about repealing the Affordable Care Act to the maximum extent possible. Repeatedly, the bill's advocates have proposed to repeal ObamaCare--to dismantle ObamaCare. A few weeks ago, the Parliamentarian advised that the reconciliation process could not be used to repeal the individual and employer mandates. The Parliamentarian said that would violate what is known as the Byrd rule against extraneous amendments because the budgetary effects of the provision would be dwarfed by the health policy effects. In response, the majority has proposed to formally retain the mandates but to completely repeal the penalties enforcing them. That is not a straightforward way to legislate. It is a very cynical approach, and that is not this Senate at its best. The complete elimination of all penalties is tantamount to repeal of the mandates. A mandate without an enforcement system is not a legal requirement; it is a mere recommendation. It is like having speed limits but not fines for violating. By deleting the penalties, the proposal fundamentally alters the character and operation of the law. Finally, I think this would set a very dangerous precedent for this body. These penalties can be eliminated in a reconciliation bill. The door is going to be open to all kinds of proposals to strip away penalties in a future reconciliation bill. For example, you could keep an environmental law on the books, but you could just say: Let's strip away the penalties for violating. That would allow a majority to fundamentally undermine a nonbudgetary law in a reconciliation bill. I have enormous respect for the Parliamentarian and her staff. They work diligently to serve the Senate, and they have to make some tough calls. I will say that this one leaves me disappointed and perplexed. With so many issues--as I touched on earlier--I would hope that the Senate would spend more time doing what Chairman Grassley and I did somewhere in the vicinity of 9 hours or 10 hours ago. We said there was an important issue. It happened to be a health care issue as well-- prescription drugs. We spent 18 months with our very dedicated staffs, Democrats and Republicans working together, to try to find some common ground. It is a hugely important issue, important to the people of Colorado, Oregon, and everywhere else. In effect, we said it was important because it was about the future. The drugs of the future are going to be specialty drugs, exciting drugs with the opportunity for real cures. People are going to have to be able to afford them, and using the companies' own documents, this morning Chairman Grassley and I pointed out how affordability and accessibility weren't actually the issue; the issue was maximizing revenue. But most important--whether you agree with the two of us or not--it was bipartisan. It was Democrats and Republicans coming together on a hugely important issue. This reconciliation proposal we will deal with on the floor of this Senate is a rejection of the kind of bipartisanship that I was part of something like 8 hours or 10 hours ago. It is part of what I believe the Senate is all about--what the Senate is at its best--as an institution that functions in a bipartisan way. That is why I felt compelled to come to the floor tonight and lay out my concerns about a very troubling precedent, and that is the one that is being set with the reconciliation bill. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this afternoon the House of Representatives passed a new version of the Intelligence authorization bill for fiscal year 2016. I am concerned that section 305 of this bill would undermine independent oversight of U.S. intelligence agencies, and if this language remains in the bill, I will oppose any request to pass it by unanimous consent. Section 305 would limit the authority of the watchdog body known as the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. In my judgment, curtailing the authority of an independent oversight body like this board would be a clearly unwise decision. Most Americans whom I talk to want intelligence agencies to work to protect them from foreign threats, and they also want those agencies to be subject to strong, independent oversight, and this provision would undermine some of that oversight. Section 305 states that the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board shall not have the authority to investigate any covert action program. This is problematic for two reasons. First, while this board's oversight activities to date have not focused on covert action, it is reasonably easy to envision a covert action program that could have a significant impact on Americans' privacy and civil liberties--for example, if it included a significant surveillance component. An even bigger concern is that the CIA, in particular, could attempt to take advantage of this language and could refuse to cooperate with investigations of its surveillance activities by arguing that those activities were somehow connected to a covert action program. I recognize that this may not be the intent of this provision, but in my 15 years on the Intelligence Committee, I have repeatedly seen senior CIA officials go to striking lengths to resist external oversight of their activities. In my judgment, Congress should be making it harder, not easier, for intelligence officials to stymie independent oversight. For these reasons, it is my intention to object to any unanimous consent request to pass this bill in its current form. I look forward to working with my colleagues to modify or remove this provision.