Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following members of my team be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Congress: Lindsey Williams, Tracey Henry, Poki'i Balaz, Sujith Ramachandran, Jack Pitsor, Robert Walsh, Samantha Fein, Shannon Rogers, Eoghan Stafford, Yezi Yang, Helin Unal, Eric LoPresti, and Ian Hunter.

Madam President, at some point, the Senate will vote on the nomination of John Ratcliffe to be the Director of the CIA. I am here to outline for just a few moments why I oppose this nomination.

Let me begin by saying I often vote for nominees who have different policy views than I do. However, my concerns with Mr. Ratcliffe are much deeper than that.

In 2020, I opposed his confirmation to be Director of National Intelligence because I believe his partisanship and willingness essentially went to the proposition of doing what would please Donald Trump. Unfortunately, his actions as head of National Intelligence only confirmed my concerns. Today, I want to focus on John Ratcliffe's commitment to the law and his truthfulness with Congress. I will give a couple of examples to illustrate my concerns.

In 2019, the Congress passed a law requiring the Director of National Intelligence to submit an unclassified report on who was responsible for the brutal murder of Washington Post reporter and U.S. resident Jamal Khashoggi. In 2020, after John Ratcliffe was nominated to be the head of National Intelligence, I asked him at his confirmation hearing whether he intended to follow that law. He responded that he needed to take a look at the underlying intelligence to see what could be released, and that is not the same as saying he would do as the law required.

After Director Ratcliffe was confirmed as DNI, he decided that nothing more could be declassified about the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. The effect of that decision was to cover up the fact that Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman approved the operation to capture or kill Khashoggi. The public only has the facts today because after the 2020 election, then-head of National Intelligence Avril Haines abided by the law and released the report.

But while John Ratcliffe was Director of National Intelligence, the Saudi leadership was protected from public accountability. While he was Director of National Intelligence, Director Ratcliffe wrote to multiple Members of Congress saying that he had completed his review of the intelligence and determined that nothing more could be released. Despite the fact that the Congress passed a law, Director Ratcliffe insisted that there was only marginal public interest in declassification. He said this in three letters to me, to Acting Chairman Rubio and Vice Chairman Warner, and to the chair of the House Intelligence Committee. To me, this raises questions about John Ratcliffe's commitment to the law.

Basically, I have concerns about his truthfulness with the Congress. As part of this nomination process, I submitted a written question asking him why he didn't obey the law. He responded that a review had been necessary to determine what could be declassified and I quote here:

This review was not completed until after I left office.

Madam President, that statement by Mr. Ratcliffe just wasn't true. Mr. Ratcliffe wrote three letters to the Congress saying that the review had been completed. That fact was even included in the ODNI's representations to a court in a FOIA case.

So here is why I am opposing the Ratcliffe nomination. If John Ratcliffe is willing to make representations to the Congress that are contradicted by what is in the public record, imagine how easy it would be for him to misrepresent classified matters behind a veil of secrecy.

There are other aspects of John Ratcliffe's record as DNI that are troubling. He said during his confirmation hearing he would tell truth to power. The record suggests otherwise. For example, at the end of September 2020, he released intelligence about Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. That was even though the intelligence community didn't know if it was accurate or the extent to which it was fabricated or exaggerated by Russian intelligence. Needless to say, this was a major break from standard practice, and it is hard to escape the conclusion that it was done for partisan political purposes, particularly given the timing.

I asked Mr. Ratcliffe whether he had ever taken any actions that were actually in conflict with the positions of the President. His response was simply to offer nothing.

Madam President, my concerns in 2020 that John Ratcliffe was too partisan to be confirmed as the head of an intelligence Agency have been validated by these specific examples I have cited today. As I said, he also now has a record of ignoring a law passed by the U.S. Congress and then misrepresenting basic facts about that decision.

So when the Senate does vote on the Ratcliffe nomination, I want the record to show that I strongly oppose the nomination.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my strong opposition to Republicans' so-called Born-Alive bill.

I want to commend Senator Murray and all my colleagues who have done so much good work on this. This is not the first time the Senate has debated this bill on the Senate floor, and I doubt it will be the last.

Republicans claim this legislation will protect women and children. The foundation of this Republican bill is that babies are forced to go without basic medical care after they are born. This is a disgusting, stomach-churning lie that is pedaled to fearmonger the American people.

No child born alive in the United States is denied the healthcare they need to survive. It is already illegal to do so. In reality, what this bill does is turn what is already an impossibly difficult situation for countless expecting parents into a living hell.

Imagine you and your spouse get the good news that you are expecting. You are over the Moon until a few months later when you get the worst news you could possibly imagine receiving during pregnancy. For reasons out of your control, your baby has developed a terminal medical condition and will not survive once they are born. On top of that, to force the mother to continue carrying the baby to term would most likely be deadly for her.

Many women and couples are all too familiar with the gut-wrenching decisions that come next. What a statement about Republican priorities that this is one of the first pieces of legislation brought to the Senate floor just a few hours after Donald Trump was sworn into office.

Republicans talk a big game about being ``pro-life'' and being the party of family values. Their actions show reality couldn't be any further from the truth. For example, the Republicans recently blocked a bipartisan expansion of the child tax credit that would have really helped to lift kids out of poverty. Now they are gearing up to cut food stamps so kids go hungry. They put Medicaid and health insurance for millions of children on the chopping block.

If Republicans really care about helping women and children, they would be using their new-found majority to vote on legislation that cuts housing and childcare costs or grocery bills and keep moms safe.

Let me close this way, Mr. President, and colleagues. This deeply flawed Republican Born-Alive bill is the real Republican agenda on full display. While Republicans are full steam ahead with their crusade against reproductive freedom, all my colleagues who are here today, led by Senator Murray, are focused on fighting inflation, bringing down costs, getting to work for working families. I am proud to be associated with their efforts.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, earlier this week, Democrats and Republicans from both the House and the Senate made a deal that struck a blow against the healthcare middlemen that manipulate our healthcare system to enrich themselves.

Unfortunately, the very first act of the second Trump administration--or should I say, the first Musk administration--was to step in and strip out the bipartisan agreement that stops the drug middlemen known as pharmacy benefit managers from ripping off taxpayers and seniors.

We all understand that healthcare is an unavoidable expense for most American families. That is why I went into public service. Healthcare is not a Democratic or a Republican issue; it is a family issue. And we know if you or your loved ones don't have their health, everything else in the house goes by the board.

Unfortunately, the chaos sown by the President-elect and his billionaire ``mini-me''--though, again, it is hard to tell which is which--they serve to protect the middlemen, the pharmacy

benefit managers, and insurance companies that take money out of the system while our families are stuck with big medical bills and substandard care.

Donald Trump has spent the last 2 weeks telling everybody who will listen that he wants to take on the drug middlemen. Let me quote Donald Trump here. He said:

They're rich as hell.

We're going to knock them out.

Well, at the very first opportunity to do that, he abandoned that pledge in order to follow Elon Musk's lead.

You don't choose to do business with pharmacy benefit managers, but I will tell you, they are dining out on your paycheck, nevertheless. These PBMs squat between Big Pharma and the insurance companies. While they are supposed to negotiate coverage and the price of prescription medicine for your insurance plan, they have ended up favoring higher priced drugs by taking a fee that is linked to the price of the drug.

The effort to reform these PBM practices has been bipartisan from the get-go. It ought to be a no-brainer. I think I told the President of the Senate, the Senator from Idaho, Senator Crapo, and I kicked this effort off 2 years ago when the Senate Finance Committee passed a bill 26 to 0 and the House of Representatives has worked in a similarly bipartisan way.

Our legislation would end the practice of profiting off higher prices in Medicare by ensuring that a PBM can only receive a flat fee from drugmakers. That is going to save taxpayers' and seniors' hard-earned dollars because, finally, these pharmacy benefit managers are going to have an incentive to pick lower priced drugs.

Let me just pause on that point for a second. These middlemen are not the good guys. Earlier this week--and I heard my colleagues talking about matters involving opioids--the New York Times reported that in negotiations with opioid manufacturers like Purdue Pharma, the pharmacy benefit managers traded away protections designed to reduce the rate of opioid overdoses and addiction in order to make yet another fast buck. These are the people Donald Trump is letting off the hook at Elon Musk's direction.

The bipartisan agreement, I might also add, is particularly important for us Westerners because we have seen our small, independent community pharmacies hit so hard. These small businesses have been closing their doors at an alarming rate over the past decade, again, in large part, due to the practices by these PBM giants. The pharmacy benefit managers are able to pay independent pharmacies whatever they feel like and then the little pharmacy in Arizona or Oregon or Idaho or anywhere else--the small pharmacy has to accept what the PBMs will pay.

What we do in our bipartisan legislation, what a number of committees in the Senate have worked on--what has been the effort in the House and what our program is all about is giving the small pharmacies a chance to fight back by reporting unreasonable contract terms to a Federal watchdog who is in a position to enforce a fair contract.

That is going to mean that independent community pharmacies are paid what they are owed and keep their doors open in rural America without having to pay off the PBMs by gouging customers.

Beyond the drug middlemen--I am just going to mention several other areas that the bipartisan legislation cracks down on in terms of helping the American people. The bipartisan legislation goes after ghost networks that are blocking Americans from getting the care they need. What these ghost networks are all about is, essentially, the insurance companies take your money, and then there aren't any providers, there aren't any navigators, there isn't anybody to help you get your coverage.

So under what we are calling for in a bipartisan way, the insurance companies would have to have a list of doctors that actually are going to make care available so Americans who need care can contact them, make an appointment, and not have to pay extra costs by going out of the healthcare network they paid for.

Too often, based on investigations conducted by the Government Accountability Office, as well as the investigative staff in the Finance Committee, we have found that, essentially, these ghost networks mean there is no: There, there. You paid your money, and you can't get access to real care. Either the doctors don't take new patients, nobody picks up the phone, you aren't able to get what you paid for.

Finally, the bipartisan agreement--that Donald Trump has directed be rejected. The bipartisan agreement strengthens requirements for insurance companies that sell Medicare Advantage plans to make sure that their directories are actually up to date.

Once again, we are seeing an area that cries out for reform because Americans across the political spectrum are sick and tired of paying premiums for health insurance, only to find they can't actually get care when they need it. So Medicare Advantage, ghost networks, these are the areas that we are strengthening in our bipartisan effort.

I will close by saying there is a lot more to like in the legislation when it comes to healthcare, like continuing access to telehealth and Medicare.

Again, Mr. President, bipartisan.

The late Senator Orrin Hatch negotiated with me the Chronic Care bill, which had telemedicine provisions which became the foundation for what we did to fight COVID--again, during the Trump administration.

But we are not getting the benefits of telehealth if we reject this bipartisan agreement, as Donald Trump is urging. Telemedicine is in our package and higher funding for community health centers.

I want to commend Senator Sanders and Senator Cassidy for working in a bipartisan way on that. And we also have improvements to help moms and kids and Americans with disabilities and seniors with Medicaid coverage. Those, of course, are the dual eligibles, the folks who are eligible for Medicaid and Medicare.

I come to the floor simply to say, we have the holidays coming up. Everybody understands that. But there is another gift we can give to the American people, and that is a more fair shake in American healthcare.

We are spending enough money, Mr. President. We are spending over $4 trillion. There are 330 million of us. Divide the 330 million into $4 trillion, you could send every family of four in America a check for more than $50,000 and say: ``Get your healthcare.'' We are not spending it in the right places. I will tell you, in many instances, the reason that is the case is because of these middle men. They made sense 30 years ago when you didn't have all the technology and all the data and people who knew how to use it. But today, these pharmacy benefit managers are, in too many instances, ripping off seniors and taxpayers. And I hope Donald Trump will see that our bipartisan bill is important to do now; important to do before we go home and get some relief to seniors and taxpayers.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this is a truly historic moment for my home State of Oregon because the Owyhees, which are really Oregon's version of the Grand Canyon, really should have had secured protection years ago. But, finally, as a result of the bipartisan support that my friend from Wyoming and I have--working with the incoming chair of the committee Mike Lee, and the current leadership, we have been able to pass these important pieces of legislation.

The timing for my home State is really just extraordinary because just yesterday, the Congressman from rural Oregon, Congressman Bentz from the Second District, and I put out a joint statement about how next year we intend to work together and with our constituents to come up with legislation that our whole State--urban and

rural--could come together on to protect the ranching way of life in Malheur County and also our incredible treasures.

Congressman Bentz and I said we would work with our representative Chambers' leadership to pass the bill into law. Then, overnight, and to the great excitement of people in our State, due to the ending hours of Congress, when Members are trying to find some common ground, we have been able to work with our leadership in the U.S. Senate today, in this Chamber, to get started on what Congressman Bentz and I told our constituents yesterday would happen next year.

This did not happen by osmosis. The incoming ranking Senator, Martin Heinrich, and the incoming chair, Mike Lee, said that my bill, which cleared the Energy and Natural Resources Committee--S. 1890, the Malheur Community Empowerment for the Owyhee Act--that they would allow it to pass the U.S. Senate tonight as an indication of the goodwill that all parties have pledged for next year.

As the chairman of the committee has noted--in fact, all the chairs, past and present since I was the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee at one point, understand that that is the key to really making some history in this extraordinarily important committee.

In our conversations with the incoming chairman, Mike Lee, he was particularly interested in the fact that Congressman Bentz and I are going to be working together to get this bill in shape so that people across Oregon will support it.

When he indicated that that was a priority for him, I basically said that is exactly what we have in mind as Oregonians, what I have in mind as Oregon's senior Senator.

I am very happy to state tonight publicly to the incoming chair of the committee, the Senator from Utah, that I intend to work very closely with Congressman Bentz to make this become law.

So, everybody in Oregon understands, this bill does not become law tonight, but what its passage does is send a message from the U.S. Senate that when you get people of goodwill and a willingness to find common ground, you can make real action happen. The Owyhee legislation that I have worked on for years with ranchers and hunters and fishers and environmental folks has now passed the U.S. Senate. That is something that, after decades of debate about the future of the Owyhee, nobody thought was going to happen anytime soon. In fact, yesterday people said: Well, we will have to wait to see what happens. Now the U.S. Senate has acted and acted, as I say, to protect the ranching way of life in rural Oregon and also our natural treasures.

I hope that tonight's action will give all parties interested in the protection of the treasures of the Owyhee and interest in preserving the ranching way of life, that it should give folks at home the chance to know that we are going to be in a position in 2025, with the leadership of the Senate and the House behind this effort, to be in a position to make this important legislation the law of the land, and the protection for the Owyhees will be permanent and will be in the text of black-letter law for all to see.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I want to spend a minute saying a special commendation to Senators Brown and Casey, two exceptionally valuable members of the Senate Finance Committee who are going to be departing the Senate at the end of the year.

Nobody in the Senate understands the importance of Social Security for seniors and Americans with disabilities better than Senators Brown and Casey. They have been leading the fight for years to protect and strengthen Social Security for current and future generations of Americans, and they have done it for their entire careers. That includes battling those who would want to privatize the system, those who would raise the retirement age or advance schemes that would otherwise cut benefits.

It strikes me as particularly fitting that one of the final votes this body takes--and the first time the Senate votes to increase benefits in decades--will be a vote to ensure everyday Americans receive their earned benefits.

I was director of the Oregon Gray Panthers for almost 7 years before coming into public life, and I long ago decided that protecting Americans' earned benefits has been a lodestar, and Senators Casey and Brown have followed that through their public service.

This vote is also a chance for the American people to see clearly who is fighting for middle-class families, because what the Senate is doing is preventing across-the-board cuts to Social Security benefits for public servants like firefighters and nurses and busdrivers and police officers and teachers. These are all individuals who work in crucial professions, paying into Social Security out of every paycheck. They went into their line of work not to strike it rich but to answer the call to serve their communities.

As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I would urge all Members of the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, to stand with Senators Brown and Casey and all our colleagues who have been working to pass this legislation. It is long overdue.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, just very briefly, the House rejected the Cruz proposal by a wide margin. Voting for this amendment, sending it back to the House right before the 118th Congress adjourns is, in effect, a vote to kill the bill. I would urge the body to reject this Hail Mary attempt to kill the bill.

I yield back.

Vote on Amendment No. 3360

Madam President, the public should know that the Senator is raising concerns about the financial impact of this bill while he and other leaders in his party are vowing to use every budget gimmick under the Sun next year to avoid paying for their tax bill.

Second, we have long had a tale of two tax codes in America, where firefighters and teachers pay with every check while the wealthy can avoid taxes. Now we have the tale of two deficits, where deficits don't exist when it benefits the wealthy, but any changes benefiting firefighters have to be paid for.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 3331

Notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills en bloc: Calendar No. 586, S. 2160 and H.R. 7938, which was received from the House and is at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment, where applicable, be agreed to; that the bills, as amended, if amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Madam President, I am very pleased my legislation has just passed.

I particularly want to express my thanks to my colleague and friend, my neighbor, Senator Barrasso, and staff John Tanner and others--Jack and Vincent and Kristin and Tori and

Sam--who have been a big help in this effort.

This legislation, by my Republican colleague from eastern Oregon, Congressman Bentz, is a companion bill to my bill, S.482, which would uphold promises made by the Federal Government to farmers and Tribes in the Klamath Basin. The Klamath Basin is the subject of one of the largest river restoration projects in history.

As a result of this work, new habitats are being opened up to recover culturally important fish and wildlife and provide more flexibility for managing water deliveries to farmers in the Klamath Basin. The promise that was made to agricultural communities and agreed to by stakeholders in the Klamath Basin is that they would receive support for the work that must now be completed to avoid conflict, work like putting fish screens on water diversions.

I commend the House for passing this legislation on suspension, and I am really pleased that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are going to allow us to make sure that we don't lose this critical and timely opportunity to finally live up to a promise made to these local communities nearly a decade ago.

I will close with this. I promised that I would have an open-to-all townhall meeting in every county in my State. I just cleared townhall meeting No. 1,100. That means that 1,100 times, for 90 minutes, we just said we are going to throw open the doors of government and listen to folks. I am not giving any speeches or using any teleprompters or whatever, just letting people share their views.

And it was there that I heard about this idea, this idea that is being advanced now on a bipartisan basis. Congressman Bentz, my colleague from eastern Oregon, myself, my home is in southeast Portland, urban and rural, Democrats and Republicans, coming together to do something that makes a lot of sense.

And I want to also, while I am making these remarks, thank my senatorial colleague Senator Merkley, who is a senior member of the Appropriations Committee. He has been doing so much good work on the Klamath over the years.

The passage of this legislation tonight is a good win for rural Oregon, long overdue.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, before he leaves the floor, let me just thank the Senate majority leader. We have talked about this often. And I am particularly struck by the readings of the Founding Fathers because several of the Founding Fathers seem to think that a free press was at least as important as government. So the case that you are making today, Mr. Leader, is well stated.

Madam President, in a few minutes, I am going to ask unanimous consent to pass my bipartisan bill, the PRESS Act. And this legislation is deeply personal to me.

I am very proud to be the son of Peter Wyden, who was an award- winning journalist. My dad fled the Nazis in the 1930s, and members of his family died at the hands of the Nazis.

In the United States, my dad became such a good writer, he became part of our Army's elite group, the Ritchie Boys, that wrote the propaganda pamphlets that we dropped on Nazis.

Growing up, my dad always mentioned that several of our Founding Fathers--as I indicated to the majority leader here--stressed how important the free press was to our country. And my dad emphasized how important it is that American journalists can do their jobs without unneeded government interference.

So our bipartisan bill shields journalists from being forced by the courts to disclose their sources or information provided by their sources, with--as the majority leader and I have emphasized--key exceptions exist in our legislation for national security and other critical matters. And our bill also does not otherwise limit the government's ability to pursue leakers.

So this is so common sense that nearly every State in the country has some form of reporters' shield on the books. Democratic and Republican State legislators alike have found value in preserving the free flow of information and codifying these fundamental freedoms.

My bill, with Senator Lee--and I want to thank our colleague on the other side of the aisle on all his good counsel here. Our bill would finally ensure that these protections make it to the Federal level. This is a bill--and I note this. My colleague, the Presiding Officer, knows that sometimes it is pretty hard around the Congress to be able to get folks to agree to order a 7 Up or something. This bill passed this House unanimously and has the support of both the chair of the Judiciary Committee and ranking member Senator Graham. Not only that, but our bill has been endorsed by people from across the political spectrum.

I would say to my friend from Nevada, Tucker Carlson is on board. FOX News is on board. This is about as bipartisan as you can get. Past administrations, both Democratic and Republican, have exploited the lack of a Federal shield law to curtail the freedom of the press and, in some cases, even jailed journalists who have refused to break their journalistic ethics and reveal their sources.

It is long overdue that these abuses be stopped. So my substitute amendment that I put together with Senator Lee addresses feedback that we heard on this Senate floor and elsewhere.

My colleague from Arkansas, a member of the Intelligence Committee, spoke about this before, and we heard feedback from the Department of Justice that they wanted some key national security exceptions for section 702 and threats to critical infrastructure, and ensuring that the Federal Government can still respond to cases that require exigency.

I want it understood that, between the time this came up on the floor previously and today, we have reached out for feedback that addresses a number of the concerns that I heard from my colleague from Arkansas, a member of the Intelligence Committee whom I work with, that I hope addresses his concerns.

So as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 4250 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the Wyden substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, let me be brief here.

This legislation that we have been discussing passed the House of Representatives early this year, and it was unanimous. So for people who are following the debate, every single Republican--everyone in the other body--in effect, approved this legislation.

Why did they do that? Because it clearly is sensitive to these national security concerns. We put in express exceptions for national security, including an area my colleague and I know a lot about, section 702 of FISA.

My colleague was very kind to me. He said, gosh, if I wasn't here, he would miss me. Well, that is very kind and thoughtful, but what we are really missing is the overwhelming support from Republicans for this legislation. I spoke about the Members in the other body, and no one else is objecting here.

I just think that, if we look at the writings of the Founding Fathers and their importance of a free press, what we ought to be saying is, yes, we should be listening to each other. That is why I made those changes since the last time my colleague from Arkansas objected. This is going to also--and I think my colleague and I would agree on this-- protect citizen journalists who don't have the legal budget to fight subpoenas the way big newspapers can. That is why my bill has been endorsed by independent journalists like Catherine Herridge.

I understand that we don't have unanimous consent today. I think it is unfortunate. I think America would be stronger and freer if we were passing this legislation today, but we will be back, and my hope is that we can work with the Senator from Arkansas to get his support.

I want it understood from the standpoint of good faith that I listened the last time. My colleague and I were here on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and I thought he made good arguments. I am not here to say he is without good arguments. That is why I went out and I told our staff and all the folks on the Intel Committee and the people who work with us on it to make these changes to see if we can come aboard.

I realize we don't have unanimous consent this afternoon, but I would just say to my colleagues this is about as important as it gets. Free speech is fundamental to what makes our country so special. I have had more than 1,100 townhall meetings at home, and people always come and say: I don't agree with you about ``this,'' or I don't agree with you about ``that,'' but we are using our First Amendment. We are making sure we can always be heard.

I will tell my colleague, my door is open, and we will be talking to your folks to see if we can get this resolved. As I say, I made those changes since the last time we were on the floor for the express purpose of our being able to see if we could find agreement.

So I respect my colleague's right to dissent in spite of the fact that every single House Republican voted for it, and I am going to be coming back and seeing if we can find ways to work it out.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am announcing my intention to object to any unanimous consent request to proceed to S. 2492, the Ending Improper Payments to Deceased Act.

I support my colleagues' efforts to identify opportunities to reduce Federal improper payments by indefinitely extending the cooperative data exchange agreement between the Social Security Administration and the Department of the Treasury's Do Not Pay (DNP) working system, as established by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (P.L. No. 116-260). However, this bill rushes to make this data exchange permanent without evaluating the efficacy of the data exchange.

As my colleagues may know, the purpose of the 2021 law was to expand access to the State-owned death information to Federal Agencies for the purposes of reducing improper payments while ensuring Social Security Administration and States are fully reimbursed for the cost of creating, compiling, and maintain the data. To ensure those goals were achieved, we established a 3-year trial period so we could evaluate the performance, usefulness, and downstream effects of the exchange with DNP and to provide us the opportunity to determine the best path forward for Federal Agencies' access to State death data.

As required by law, the SSA-DNP exchange began operating on December 27, 2023, less than a year ago. In my conversations with the Treasury Department and the Social Security Administration, both Agencies acknowledged they do not have sufficient data to evaluate the efficacy of the data exchange, including whether SSA is fully reimbursed for the costs of collecting and maintaining the state death data. Without that information, it is difficult to determine whether this exchange is the best path forward for Federal Agencies' accessing State death data. For these reasons, I will object to any unanimous consent request in relation to this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 3 minutes.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration and the Senate proceed to S. Res. 74.

Mr. President, for more than 40 years, this body has been passing resolutions condemning the Iranian Government's persecution of the Baha'is.

This nightmare is not going away. In fact, the government of Iran has only intensified its ruthless agenda against the Baha'is.

Over the last 16 months, attacks against women and violent home raids have increased, hate speech has spread, and scores of Baha'is remain behind bars on arbitrary, trumped up charges.

Furthermore, Baha'is face ongoing employment and educational discrimination, as well as intrusive surveillance and invasive monitoring. The Baha'is are even denied the right to bury their dead, and when they do, their cemeteries are often vandalized or destroyed. Men, women, and children

bear the brunt of the Iranian Government's fear mongering day in and day out, with no end in sight.

It is crucial for the Senate to pass my resolution today and strongly condemn the repressive Iranian Government. The Iranian Government's long history of harassing, dehumanizing, and persecuting the Baha'i community in all forms is only getting longer and worse.

The Wyden family knows firsthand about authoritarian regimes targeting and persecuting individuals on the basis of religion. This issue is personal to me.

I have been promised for years that this resolution would receive consideration through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but the committee hasn't taken up this important issue.

My resolution, which has strong bipartisan support, condemns the government of Iran's state-sanctioned persecution of the Baha'i community and its continued violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.

My resolution further calls on the Iranian Government to release all people detained or imprisoned solely on account of their religion, end their campaign of hate against the Baha'is, and reverse policies that deny Baha'is and other religious minorities equal opportunities, freedoms, and rights under law.

My resolution also calls on the Biden administration to condemn these human rights violations, push for the release of religious prisoners, and use its authorities to impose sanctions against those responsible for these deplorable human rights abuses. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this crucial resolution to hold Iran's government accountable for its heinous repression of religious minorities.

Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the resolution.

I ask unanimous consent that the Wyden substitute amendment at the desk to the preamble be agreed to; that the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

The amendment (No. 3312) to the preamble in the nature of a substitute was agreed to as follows:

(Purpose: To amend the preamble)

Strike the preamble and insert the following:

Whereas, in 1982, 1984, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996,

2000, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017,

2018, 2020, and 2022, Congress declared that it deplored the

religious persecution by the Government of Iran of the Baha'i

community and would hold the Government of Iran responsible

for upholding the rights of all Iranian nationals, including

members of the Baha'i faith;

Whereas, since 1979, Iranian authorities have killed or

executed more than 200 Baha'i leaders and more than 10,000

Baha'is have been dismissed from government and university

jobs;

Whereas June 18, 2023, marked the 40th anniversary of the

execution of 10 Baha'i women by the Government of Iran, each

witnessing the hanging of those hanged before her in a final

failed attempt to induce abandonment of their faith after

over 6 months of imprisonment and violent abuse, with the

youngest only 17 years old;

Whereas, on December 19, 2023, the United Nations General

Assembly adopted a resolution (A/C.3/78/L.41) calling on Iran

to carry out wide-ranging reforms and expressing serious

concerns for its escalating human rights abuses, including--

(1) ``severe limitations and increasing restrictions on the

right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, or

belief'';

(2) ``restrictions on the establishment of places of

worship, undue restrictions on burials carried out in

accordance with religious tenets, attacks against places of

worship and burial'';

(3) ``increased harassment, intimidation, persecution,

arbitrary arrest, and detention of, and incitement to hatred

that leads to violence against, persons belonging to

recognized and unrecognized religious minorities, including

Christians (particularly converts from Islam), Gonabadi

Dervishes, Jews, Sufi Muslims, Sunni Muslims, Yarsanis,

Zoroastrians, and in particular, Baha'is'';

(4) ``denial of and restrictions on access to education,

including for members of the Baha'i faith''; and

(5) ``particular'' persecution of members of the Baha'i

community ``who have been subjected to a continued increase

in persecution, including attacks, harassment and targeting.

. .on account of their faith and have been reportedly

subjected to mass arrests and lengthy prison sentences, as

well as the arrest of prominent members and increased

confiscation and destruction of property'';

Whereas, in the 2024 Annual Report of the United States

Commission on International Religious Freedom issued in May

2024, it is reported that in 2023--

(1) the Government of Iran ``conducted individual and mass

arrests of Baha'is across Iran taking them to undisclosed

locations and imposing excessively long prison sentences'';

(2) ``security officials beat and brutalized Baha'is during

raids and searches of private homes'';

(3) ``security forces arrested scores of Baha'is in cities

including Hamadan, Mehrshahr, Yazd, Karaj, Alborz, and

Tehran'';

(4) the ``government has targeted Baha'i women in

particular'' and that ``[a]pproximately two-thirds of Iranian

Baha'i prisoners are women'';

(5) authorities ``targeted Baha'i cemeteries in Arak,

Alborz, and Golestan''; and

(6) local ``municipalities seized and confiscated Baha'i

land, restricted Baha'i access to burial grounds, and

declared intentions to sell Baha'i-owned property exclusively

to Muslims.'';

Whereas the Iran section of the Department of State's 2022

Report on International Religious Freedom issued in May 2023

provides, in part--

(1) ``[I]n July and August, security forces in cities

across the country conducted multiple raids of Baha'i homes,

confiscated property deemed `illegitimate wealth', and

arrested Baha'is in their homes or workplaces on

unsubstantiated charges including `causing intellectual and

ideological insecurity in Muslim society.' '';

(2) ``Authorities reportedly continued to deny members of

unrecognized religious minority groups access to education

and government employment unless they declared themselves as

belonging to one of the country's recognized religions on

their application forms. UN experts reported universities

rejected more than 90 Baha'i students between January and

August.''; and

(3) ``Government officials and government-affiliated

organizations continued to disseminate anti-Baha'i and

antisemitic messages using traditional and social media.'';

Whereas, in response to a surge in persecution in June and

July 2022, involving the subjection of over 100 Baha'is to

arrests, arraignments, sentencing, and raids on their homes

and businesses across Iran, including the sentencing in June

of 26 individuals in the city of Shiraz to a combined total

of 85 years in prison, the Department of State's Office of

International Religious Freedom issued a statement on August

2, 2022, indicating that ``[a]mid a continued rise in

arrests, sentences, and imprisonments, the U.S. urges Iran to

halt its ongoing oppression of the Baha'i community and honor

its international obligations to respect the right of all

Iranians to freedom of religion or belief'';

Whereas, on November 21, 2022, Mahvash Sabet and Fariba

Kamalabadi, 2 former members of the informal 7-person

leadership group of the Baha'is of Iran, who each served 10-

year sentences from 2008 to 2018, and have been detained

since July 31, 2022, in Evin prison, were sentenced to 10

years in prison each after a summary trial lasting 1 hour;

Whereas, on December 11, 2022, the Baha'i International

Community organization stated that ``Dr. Shirin Ebadi, the

Nobel laureate and defence lawyer for Mahvash and Fariba

during their first trial, said in 2008 that `not a shred of

evidence' was offered to prove the national security charges

or other allegations. Nor was any new evidence forthcoming at

this latest trial'';

Whereas, on January 12, 2024, the Baha'i International

Community organization reported increasing incidents of

persecution accompanied by intensified violence perpetrated

against the Baha'i community by the Government of Iran, for

example--

(1) ``since the beginning of October [2023] more than 200

incidents of persecution, including over 50 arrests and

imprisonments, have occurred in various cities such as

Shiraz, Yazd, Isfahan, Hamadan, and Karaj'';

(2) government agents have perpetrated ``increasingly

violent home raids, disproportionately affecting women and

the elderly, and have even resulted in hospitalizations and

traumatic separations of mothers from their children.

Notably, over two-thirds of those arrested and detained have

been women, predominantly in their twenties and thirties,

highlighting the escalation of attacks against women in

recent months.''; and

(3) government agents have instigated a ``conspicuous rise

in hate speech, where Baha'is have been accused of being

behind the September 2022 protests, promoting permissiveness,

being against Islam and Shiism, being spies for Israel and

the West, and being part of a political movement that seeks

to undermine the state'';

Whereas Iran is a member of the United Nations and a

signatory to both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

among other international human rights treaties, without

reservation;

Whereas section 105 of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions,

Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (22 U.S.C. 8514)

authorizes the President to impose sanctions on individuals

who are ``responsible for or complicit in, or responsible for

ordering, controlling, or otherwise directing, the commission

of serious human rights abuses against citizens of

Iran or their family members on or after June 12, 2009''; and

Whereas the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights

Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-158) amends and expands the

authorities established under the Comprehensive Iran

Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (Public

Law 111-195) to sanction Iranian human rights abusers: Now,

therefore, be it

The preamble, as amended, was agreed to.

The resolution, with its preamble, as amended, reads as follows:

S. Res. 74

Whereas, in 1982, 1984, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996,

2000, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017,

2018, 2020, and 2022, Congress declared that it deplored the

religious persecution by the Government of Iran of the Baha'i

community and would hold the Government of Iran responsible

for upholding the rights of all Iranian nationals, including

members of the Baha'i faith;

Whereas, since 1979, Iranian authorities have killed or

executed more than 200 Baha'i leaders and more than 10,000

Baha'is have been dismissed from government and university

jobs;

Whereas June 18, 2023, marked the 40th anniversary of the

execution of 10 Baha'i women by the Government of Iran, each

witnessing the hanging of those hanged before her in a final

failed attempt to induce abandonment of their faith after

over 6 months of imprisonment and violent abuse, with the

youngest only 17 years old;

Whereas, on December 19, 2023, the United Nations General

Assembly adopted a resolution (A/C.3/78/L.41) calling on Iran

to carry out wide-ranging reforms and expressing serious

concerns for its escalating human rights abuses, including--

(1) ``severe limitations and increasing restrictions on the

right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, or

belief'';

(2) ``restrictions on the establishment of places of

worship, undue restrictions on burials carried out in

accordance with religious tenets, attacks against places of

worship and burial'';

(3) ``increased harassment, intimidation, persecution,

arbitrary arrest, and detention of, and incitement to hatred

that leads to violence against, persons belonging to

recognized and unrecognized religious minorities, including

Christians (particularly converts from Islam), Gonabadi

Dervishes, Jews, Sufi Muslims, Sunni Muslims, Yarsanis,

Zoroastrians, and in particular, Baha'is'';

(4) ``denial of and restrictions on access to education,

including for members of the Baha'i faith''; and

(5) ``particular'' persecution of members of the Baha'i

community ``who have been subjected to a continued increase

in persecution, including attacks, harassment and targeting .

. . on account of their faith and have been reportedly

subjected to mass arrests and lengthy prison sentences, as

well as the arrest of prominent members and increased

confiscation and destruction of property'';

Whereas, in the 2024 Annual Report of the United States

Commission on International Religious Freedom issued in May

2024, it is reported that in 2023--

(1) the Government of Iran ``conducted individual and mass

arrests of Baha'is across Iran taking them to undisclosed

locations and imposing excessively long prison sentences'';

(2) ``security officials beat and brutalized Baha'is during

raids and searches of private homes'';

(3) ``security forces arrested scores of Baha'is in cities

including Hamadan, Mehrshahr, Yazd, Karaj, Alborz, and

Tehran'';

(4) the ``government has targeted Baha'i women in

particular'' and that ``[a]pproximately two-thirds of Iranian

Baha'i prisoners are women'';

(5) authorities ``targeted Baha'i cemeteries in Arak,

Alborz, and Golestan''; and

(6) local ``municipalities seized and confiscated Baha'i

land, restricted Baha'i access to burial grounds, and

declared intentions to sell Baha'i-owned property exclusively

to Muslims.'';

Whereas the Iran section of the Department of State's 2022

Report on International Religious Freedom issued in May 2023

provides, in part--

(1) ``[I]n July and August, security forces in cities

across the country conducted multiple raids of Baha'i homes,

confiscated property deemed `illegitimate wealth', and

arrested Baha'is in their homes or workplaces on

unsubstantiated charges including `causing intellectual and

ideological insecurity in Muslim society.' '';

(2) ``Authorities reportedly continued to deny members of

unrecognized religious minority groups access to education

and government employment unless they declared themselves as

belonging to one of the country's recognized religions on

their application forms. UN experts reported universities

rejected more than 90 Baha'i students between January and

August.''; and

(3) ``Government officials and government-affiliated

organizations continued to disseminate anti-Baha'i and

antisemitic messages using traditional and social media.'';

Whereas, in response to a surge in persecution in June and

July 2022, involving the subjection of over 100 Baha'is to

arrests, arraignments, sentencing, and raids on their homes

and businesses across Iran, including the sentencing in June

of 26 individuals in the city of Shiraz to a combined total

of 85 years in prison, the Department of State's Office of

International Religious Freedom issued a statement on August

2, 2022, indicating that ``[a]mid a continued rise in

arrests, sentences, and imprisonments, the U.S. urges Iran to

halt its ongoing oppression of the Baha'i community and honor

its international obligations to respect the right of all

Iranians to freedom of religion or belief'';

Whereas, on November 21, 2022, Mahvash Sabet and Fariba

Kamalabadi, 2 former members of the informal 7-person

leadership group of the Baha'is of Iran, who each served 10-

year sentences from 2008 to 2018, and have been detained

since July 31, 2022, in Evin prison, were sentenced to 10

years in prison each after a summary trial lasting 1 hour;

Whereas, on December 11, 2022, the Baha'i International

Community organization stated that ``Dr. Shirin Ebadi, the

Nobel laureate and defence lawyer for Mahvash and Fariba

during their first trial, said in 2008 that `not a shred of

evidence' was offered to prove the national security charges

or other allegations. Nor was any new evidence forthcoming at

this latest trial'';

Whereas, on January 12, 2024, the Baha'i International

Community organization reported increasing incidents of

persecution accompanied by intensified violence perpetrated

against the Baha'i community by the Government of Iran, for

example--

(1) ``since the beginning of October [2023] more than 200

incidents of persecution, including over 50 arrests and

imprisonments, have occurred in various cities such as

Shiraz, Yazd, Isfahan, Hamadan, and Karaj'';

(2) government agents have perpetrated ``increasingly

violent home raids, disproportionately affecting women and

the elderly, and have even resulted in hospitalizations and

traumatic separations of mothers from their children.

Notably, over two-thirds of those arrested and detained have

been women, predominantly in their twenties and thirties,

highlighting the escalation of attacks against women in

recent months.''; and

(3) government agents have instigated a ``conspicuous rise

in hate speech, where Baha'is have been accused of being

behind the September 2022 protests, promoting permissiveness,

being against Islam and Shiism, being spies for Israel and

the West, and being part of a political movement that seeks

to undermine the state'';

Whereas Iran is a member of the United Nations and a

signatory to both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

among other international human rights treaties, without

reservation;

Whereas section 105 of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions,

Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (22 U.S.C. 8514)

authorizes the President to impose sanctions on individuals

who are ``responsible for or complicit in, or responsible for

ordering, controlling, or otherwise directing, the commission

of serious human rights abuses against citizens of Iran or

their family members on or after June 12, 2009''; and

Whereas the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights

Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-158) amends and expands the

authorities established under the Comprehensive Iran

Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (Public

Law 111-195) to sanction Iranian human rights abusers: Now,

therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate--

(1) condemns the Government of Iran's state-sponsored

persecution of the Baha'i minority in Iran and the continued

violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and

the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;

(2) calls on the Government of Iran--

(A) to immediately release the imprisoned or detained

Baha'is and all other prisoners held solely on account of

their religion;

(B) to end its state-sponsored campaign of hate propaganda

against the Baha'is; and

(C) to reverse state-imposed policies denying Baha'is and

members of other religious minorities equal opportunities to

higher education, earning a livelihood, due process under the

law, and the free exercise of religious practices;

(3) calls on the President and the Secretary of State, in

cooperation with responsible nations, to immediately condemn

the Government of Iran's continued violation of human rights,

and demand the immediate release of prisoners held solely on

account of their religion; and

(4) urges the President and the Secretary of State to

utilize available authorities to impose sanctions on

officials of the Government of Iran and other individuals

directly responsible for serious human rights abuses,

including abuses against the Baha'i community of Iran.

Madam President, while he is on the floor, let me thank Senator Padilla for our partnership, these many months, and also to Senator Cassidy. And we Westerners have really strong views about this because the fires of the West today are not your grandfather's fires. They are bigger. They are hotter. They are more powerful. They are leaping over rivers. And the families that my colleague and I are talking about feel like they have been hit by a wrecking ball.

And after getting clobbered, they are saying to themselves, why can't I get a fair shake from the government? Why are they hitting me again, even though I don't have any income--as my colleague has said so well. These are people who have truly been visited by a disaster. Their homes and their businesses are burned. Their possessions and livelihood are gone.

And finally, the Federal Government is showing some common sense. That is what my friend from California has spelled out. Our effort is going to lift a big tax burden off these victims of wildfires and other natural disasters. We are getting rid of a totally unfair tax on legal fees associated with settlements after disasters. And by the way, we are fixing something that went haywire in the Republican's 2017 tax bill.

Now, we have been pushing our colleagues in a bipartisan way for months to do a bill that addresses this and other issues. I see in the Chair another very valuable member of the Finance Committee, our friend from New Hampshire Senator Hassan. And she and I and others had a bill that got 357 votes in the House of Representatives that included this important legislation that Senator Padilla and Senator Cassidy and I have worked on.

I told my colleague that we had our 1,100th townhall meeting where the victims came and said: Ron, will it ever get done?

And I said: You bet it is going to get done. It is going to get done in the lameduck session.

They said: Why hasn't it happened earlier?

And the reality is, it should have happened earlier because you don't get 357 votes very often over there in the House of Representatives. It doesn't happen by osmosis. It is because my colleagues here are working in a bipartisan way and wanted to get this done.

So, we wanted, frankly, to do more. We wanted to do it earlier. But I say to my colleagues that we are going to keep going on the things from that package that got 357 votes in the House, like research and development expensing, which our friend from New Hampshire has championed, and ending double taxation between the U.S. and Taiwan.

But tonight, is an evening when Senator Padilla and I have said, finally, after all this waiting, we are going to see relief for these people who have been clobbered by these huge infernos--because that is the only way to describe our fires, Senator Padilla. These are infernos. It gets hot and dry on the forest floor. Somebody drops a match, maybe there is a lightning strike. Kaboom--and those people are finally tonight, through the work that has been done by my friend from California, and our friend from Louisiana, and a lot of Senators-- Senator Schatz is another example--we are going to be able to tell folks in the West--it is only 5 o'clock or so in California and Oregon--who have been hit by these big fires, they are going to be able to go to bed tonight with a little relief that the Federal Government has finally come to its senses and made sure that they are not going to have this additional tax burden.

So, I want to thank my friend from California for his good work. He has been a terrific partner. I think it is very fitting that the Senator from New Hampshire is in the Chair because she, more than anybody than I know of on our committee, was really putting in the sweat equity for a bipartisan bill.

This is a good night for the people that we represent in the West. It is a good night for a lot of other people in this country. And I want to thank my colleague and the person who has led us on so many of these issues from New Hampshire, Senator Hassan, because we are finally getting justice and a fair shake for people who did nothing wrong who have been visited by these fires and these disasters.

And the Federal Government is showing some common sense, which most of them, I think, would agree should have been shown quite some time ago. I thank my friend.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I take seriously the stories of so many people who have had their lives torn apart by nonconsensual intimate imagery (NCII), and I share their urgency in addressing this scourge. To that end, I was happy to see the Senate pass the SHIELD Act earlier this year. I am all for taking on the criminals who terrorize others with nonconsensual or

deepfaked images. And I do not oppose incentivizing platforms to take this slime off their platforms when noticed of it. For these reasons, I am not objecting to the TAKE IT DOWN Act.

However, I have concerns that the bill could threaten the availability of strong encryption, which is the single best tool to protect the privacy and security of all internet users. Specifically, the notice and takedown mechanism described in the bill could be understood to place a mandate on end-to-end encrypted communications providers to delete messages they cannot technically access. This would give providers no choice but to weaken their communications services to comply.

I also have concerns that the takedown system could allow bad actors to take advantage of the system to remove legal, legitimate speech from the internet.

These are solvable issues, and I regret that the bill's sponsors did not address them. If the TAKE IT DOWN Act becomes law, I will do everything within my power to hold the Federal Trade Commission accountable if it strays from the important mandate this bill creates and instead unfairly targets encrypted communications providers.