Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Olivia Rockwell, Brian Larkin, Elizabeth Isbey, Benjamin Willis, and Elizabeth Jurinka, legislative fellows in my office, be given floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress.

Mr. President, I wish to honor a rare and wonderful individual known throughout Oregon and the Nation who passed away on April 11 at the age of 94. Chairman Sue Shaffer, of the Cow Creek Band of the Umpqua Tribe of Indians, lived a powerful life as a nonstop advocate for her family, her Tribe, and her community. As a mother, wife, daughter and friend, Sue created an atmosphere of energy, honesty, and kindness wherever she went. For Sue, no person or job was too big or too small to embrace.

Sue was a descendant of one of the seven founding families of the Cow Creek Band of the Umpqua Tribe. She grew up during the Great Depression in rural Douglas County at a time when everything was scarce. Despite her family's own struggle, their door was always open to neighbors in need of food or lodging, and they were always willing to support their community members. As she liked to recall, she grew up in a household where honesty, moral integrity, education, hard work, and helping others were all high priorities. For Sue and her family, life's rewards came from working hard and reaching out to others--and that is just what she did.

Sue's mother, Nellie Crispin, kept records of the Tribe's heritage and passed down to her daughter the desire to fight for Tribal recognition. That vision and determination drove Sue to play an instrumental role in convincing Congress to formally recognize the Tribe in 1982. In 1983, Sue Shaffer became chair of the newly restored Cow Creek Band of the Umpqua Tribe, and for nearly 30 years, she worked with her Tribe and the community and expanded the Tribe's prominence by growing its economic footprint.

Sue served as delegate to the National Congress of American Indians, delegate to the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, and delegate to Indian Women's Leadership White House

Conference, but her leadership in the community was not limited to the Tribe. Sue served on a myriad of boards in the community, including Umpqua Community College, becoming the first woman to chair the board. Throughout her life, Sue was also honored with many awards, including the 1999 President's Award for outstanding contribution to community in economic development by the Roseburg Chamber of Commerce, 2000 Female Citizen of the Year award for ``unselfish devotion and distinguished service'' by the Roseburg Area Chamber of Commerce, and the Eleanor Roosevelt Award in 2003. She was inducted into the Hall of Fame at Umpqua Community College in June 1999 in recognition of the 17 years she served on the UCC board of trustees.

Sue Shaffer was a dear friend, always known for being fair and never one to hesitate to ``tell it like it is.'' I will greatly miss Sue's friendship and good counsel. She was a true dynamo whose eloquent and powerful advocacy helped right the long, tragic history of wrongs inflicted on the Cow Creek and other Tribes in Oregon. Sue gladly led on so many fronts to improve life for the Cow Creek Band of the Umpqua Tribe, create a better Douglas County and a better place for all of Oregon to enjoy. Her indelible legacy of achievement for our State and our Nation will live on to benefit generations to come.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for not just today but all of the years in which he has led this battle. He is right. We have served together now in both Chambers and, in fact, when I was here and he was in the other body, we talked often about why this was such a bedrock principle.

You know, sometimes you listen to the head of the FCC and you get the sense that somehow he is saying that the internet either is broken or is about to break--that some horrendous set of problems are going to ensue without his ill-advised ideas. The fact is that the internet is not broken. The Federal Communications Commission is not trying to help consumers by rolling back net neutrality protections. They are doing it to make it easier for the big cable companies to be in a position to shove out true and real competition. That, I would say to my friend Senator Markey and my friend from Hawaii, Senator Schatz, who has been championing these efforts in the Commerce Committee, is what this is really all about.

You know, the reality is that the internet is now the shipping lane for the 21st century. It is that place--a global marketplace--where you have the free exchange of ideas, and today's rules protect that shipping lane of the 21st century--the freedom for Americans and people worldwide to compete online. It exists so that the powerful interests, those who have the deepest pockets, do not go out and swallow the little guys up every single time.

Now, as we talk about net neutrality and why it is so essential for jobs, free speech, political engagement, education, economic opportunity, and better competition, there are really just three points. First, protecting the free and open internet under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, in my view, is the best way to proceed at this point. It is the only way, at present, to ensure a free and open internet, and that is, by rejecting this idea that somehow the internet is broken and we should upend the current rules. The Federal Communications Commission should not only leave the current net neutrality rules in place, they ought to aggressively move against companies that violate those rules. As my friends from Massachusetts and Hawaii know, there is not exactly a lot of evidence that the Federal Communications Commission is doing that either.

Net neutrality, in short, protects the internet's ability to give a fair shake to every single person in America and literally in the world with a good idea--they don't have to have money. They don't have to have lobbyists. They don't have to have PACs. All they have to have with net neutrality and the internet is an idea to compete with the establishment. This level playing field is a prerequisite for protecting free speech.

A level regulatory playing field means that these powerful interests--the cable companies, specifically--can't pick winners and losers because of their political or personal views. Our colleague, Senator Franken of Minnesota, has correctly said that net neutrality is the First Amendment issue of our time, and I think he is spot-on on that matter.

Finally, because there really hasn't been the competition in the broadband marketplace that would best serve the consumer and the public, what you should definitely do is operate under the theory that you need strong rules. We all know that too many people don't have a choice when it comes to a broadband provider; often it comes down to Comcast or nothing. Without real competition, America needs strong net neutrality rules to prevent Comcast or AT&T from basically tossing consumer choice and free speech in the trash can to rake in even more profits.

A lack of broadband competition and consumer choice is clearly a problem you cannot solve by giving the big cable companies more freedom--freedom to run at will through the marketplace.

So the question now is--and I think my friend from Massachusetts just touched on it--what happens now? What happens now is making the American people aware that this is the time for their voices to be heard.

The fact is, there are two notions of political change in America. Some people think it starts in Washington, DC, and in government buildings in various capitals and then trickles down to the grassroots.

Senator Schatz, Senator Markey, and I take a different view with respect to how you bring about political change in America. It is not top-down; it is bottom-up. It is bottom-up as Americans from all walks of life weigh in with their legislators, weigh in with the Federal Communications Commission. My guess is that pretty soon--probably tomorrow--the future of the internet is going to be in the hands of the Federal Communications Commission.

I just want to wrap up my remarks by talking about how important it is for the American people to go online to the Federal Communications Commission website and file a comment, and visit my website-- wyden.senate.gov--where you can get more information.

I will close with this: I think my friends--certainly Senator Markey and Senator Schatz--may have heard this. I want to talk about the fight against internet piracy because we are all against internet piracy. No one is in favor of that kind of thievery, but we didn't think it made sense to damage the architecture of the internet--the domain name systems and the fundamental principles by which the internet operates-- in the name of fighting piracy.

When there was a bill with a shortsighted view--it was called SOPA and PIPA--and it was introduced, scores and scores of Senators supported it immediately. I put a hold on this bill. I put a public hold on the bill. I chaired a little subcommittee of the Senate Finance Committee. There were close to a majority of Senators already in support of this flawed bill. We began to talk to those around the country who understand what it really means if you damage the internet and its architecture for a shortsighted and, in this case, unworkable approach.

Everybody thought we didn't have a chance of winning. There was very close to a majority in the Senate actually cosponsoring it. So a vote was scheduled on whether to lift my hold on this bill, the flawed PIPA and SOPA bill.

Four days before the vote was to take place on whether to lift my hold, 15 million Americans emailed, texted, called, went to community meetings. They went out all across the country. Mind you, these 15 million Americans were focused and spent more time online in a week than they did thinking about their U.S. Senator in a couple of years.

They said this defies common sense. We are not for internet piracy, but don't destroy the internet.

My hope is, once again, with the odds stacked against our side--the odds stacked against Senator Schatz, Senator Markey, and all the Senators who have been willing, on our side, to speak up against these powerful interests that really would like to gut net neutrality--that those who understand what the freedom of the net is all about, what it means to have this ability to communicate that is so vital to people without clout and power, will take the fight for the consumer, for the man and woman who just want a fair shake when they get an idea. My hope is, just as they did a few years ago in blocking this ill-advised SOPA and PIPA bill, that those who care so much about freedom and a fair shot for everybody will, once again, take the fight to the Federal Communications Commission, knowing that their voices can make a difference. They have made a difference in the past.

It is a real pleasure to be with Senator Markey and Senator Schatz.

I yield.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Massachusetts. In fact, I have to leave the floor right now to wrap up business for a very important Finance Committee meeting tomorrow. It is a markup where we are going to be looking at ways as part of the transformation of Medicare--what I call updating the Medicare guarantee--that some of the technologies my friend from Massachusetts talked about are going to be available to seniors.

I know our friend from New Hampshire has arrived, and she has been a very strong advocate of principles of net neutrality.

I yield the remainder of my time to her.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague and good friend, Chairman Hatch, for his courtesies. We have worked very closely together on this nomination. This was a challenging task, and I thank Chairman Hatch for his cooperation.

Mr. Lighthizer needed a waiver because he had represented foreign interests. It was extremely important that we work with Senator Manchin and other colleagues to address the enormous needs of the miners, and we had a whole host of Members with a variety of extremely important trade issues--matters like steel, aluminum, and digital goods in our part of the world; we also care about softwood lumber tremendously.

Chairman Hatch and I worked with all the members of the Finance Committee. It was a unanimous vote, and I thank him for his cooperation.

We have talked a little bit about trade and what a modern trade policy is going to look like. The Lighthizer discussion is the beginning of the debate on trade in this Congress, and I have tried to be clear about my agenda. My agenda is to create more red, white, and blue jobs in America--high-skilled, high-waged jobs. Very often, the trade jobs pay better than do the nontrade jobs because there is more value added in them; there is a higher level of productivity. So my view is, as we set out on this journey to get more high-skilled, high- waged jobs, look to Asia where there are going to be 1 billion middle- class people there in a few years. What we ought to do is focus on growing them in the United States, making them in the United States, adding value to them in the United States, and then shipping them somewhere. That is my idea of a modern trade agenda.

So far, the administration's trade agenda amounts to a muddle of 140- character tweets, mixed messages, and overhyped announcements that seem to be backed by not much substance. I think we are going to have to put together a coherent strategy quickly to promote our exports and fight back against trade cheats. That is not exactly what we have seen from the administration to date.

We can almost suffer whiplash from the reports about what happens with various trade deals. Late at night, it was reported that the President is about to pull the United States out of NAFTA; then suddenly there is another

report saying he has changed his mind after a conversation with the Canadians. Next, at a moment of extreme tension on the Korean Peninsula, it is reported that the President is threatening to pull out of the U.S.-Korea trade agreement. Then suddenly that threat is walked back. So the President has made some major statements with respect to trade deals on the books, but he has yet to give us much in the way of specifics on how he would like to bring that about.

If one is trying to run a business in Oregon or around the United States that exports to foreign markets, it is pretty hard not to feel rattled and confused by some of the President's statements and tweets about trade. One might even make the decision not to invest and not to hire additional workers. I hope the President will soon see that some of the uncertainty and confusion that has been stoked as a negotiating tactic is not a recipe for creating red, white, and blue jobs.

I do think Robert Lighthizer knows what the challenge is really all about, and I want to tell him I have appreciated our conversations. He is a real pro at this. I have appreciated his views, particularly on digital goods, which I think are so important to our burgeoning technology sector, and his views on Canadian lumber.

I would also like to state at this time that I think very highly of Secretary Ross. He has been very constructive in our conversations, particularly on Canadian softwood lumber.

Obviously, the U.S. Trade Representative will lead our country in trade negotiations, and that will be Mr. Lighthizer's role. The bulk of the expertise of trade does reside within his office. When Mr. Lighthizer is confirmed, as I hope he will be and expect he will be, this expertise will no longer be silent.

I will wrap up simply by way of saying that the United States may be the world's largest economy, but it represents only 4 percent of the world's consumers. Red, white, and blue jobs in the United States depend on our ability to sell to the other 96 percent. The number of middle-class households around the world is going to double over the next decade. This represents a lot of potential buying power for the American brand, the Oregon brand. The fact is, people all over the world love buying the goods and the services we make. It is going to take a lot of hard work to smash through the barriers that block American-made goods and fight back against trade cheats.

Lastly, the trade rules in many particulars are out of date, so we have a lot of work to do to promote labor rights, combat human trafficking, crack down on trade in illegally taking wildlife and endangered species, and get the trade system updated so it includes things like digital goods and small businesses that now have an international reach, which is especially important. The trading system has to respond more quickly to countries that break the rules or are unfairly producing basic commodities, such as steel and aluminum. This is especially true with respect to China.

As policymakers, we must continue to take an honest look at the trade rules and fix what doesn't work so that American workers aren't left behind. It is long past time to invest more resources in monitoring, litigating, and enforcing our trading partners' obligations, including China's. The United States must respond more aggressively and more rapidly to threats to U.S. workers and businesses.

There was a recent example of how this is done right when the Commerce Department said ``enough'' to Canada's unfairly traded softwood lumber. The steps the Commerce Department took were undeniably warranted after mill towns in Oregon and many other States have been clobbered over the last few decades. My first preference is a long-term agreement with Canada, but if they are not going to come to the table, I will keep fighting for our mills and mill jobs, and I will insist the administration do the same.

The U.S. needs to carry that same steadfast approach across the board--getting trade enforcement right is not just a lumber issue. That means more resources for boots on the ground: investigators and enforcers. Not just at the office of the USTR but also at Customs and Border Protection and the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Labor, State, and Interior, where investigators are tasked with stopping trade in illegally taken wildlife. Bottom line, trade enforcement requires all hands on deck. If you boost trade enforcers at one agency only to wipe out the trade enforcers at another, you will fail to protect American workers from unfair or illegal imports.

So I will be looking closely at the budget that the President submits to determine whether he is serious about delivering real results on trade enforcement or whether the campaign rhetoric and dramatic tweets are just a bunch of hot air,

In recognition of the need for a new approach on trade enforcement, Congress recently passed new laws that give the President better tools to respond when trading partners don't follow the rules. It also passed legislation to strengthen domestic laws that enable the U.S. to unilaterally respond when American jobs are under threat, and it provided new direction should the President wish to negotiate new trade agreements or renegotiate past ones. In the coming months, I expect that those tools will not just sit and gather dust while the administration talks tough with respect to trade.

It takes consistency, strategy and a lot of hard work to get trade done right. I have confidence that Robert Lighthizer will work to pursue a trade agenda that is coherent, constructive, and will deliver for American workers, and I will support his nomination.

However, I want to express reservation on one issue pertaining to this nominee. During his confirmation hearing, Senator Stabenow asked Mr. Lighthizer how he would deal with situations in which he was conducting trade negotiations with a country in which the President has business interests. Senator Stabenow wanted to make sure that the President's personal financial interests wouldn't take precedence over the public interest. Mr. Lighthizer seemed surprised by the question, saying, quote, ``the idea that this President would do anything untoward is . . . far out of the realm of possibility.''

I would like to put Mr. Lighthizer on notice. This is a legitimate issue, and I share Senator Stabenow's concern. Never before has this country faced a circumstance in which our trade representative will be negotiating trade agreements with countries in which the President or his family have active business interests, whether it is trademarks, golf courses, or construction deals. I have introduced a bill requiring the President, when initiating trade negotiations, to disclose whether he has business interests in the country that we will be negotiating with. I intend to press this issue as trade negotiations move forward. Trade should be about fighting on behalf of American workers and businesses. It is not about the President's bottom line.

Finally, on an issue that has been closely related to this nomination, I want to commend several of my colleagues for working together to provide relief to retired mineworkers regarding their healthcare costs. Senator Manchin has been a crusader on behalf of the mineworkers. Hardly a week went by over the last several months when I didn't hear from Joe Manchin about how important it was to get the mineworkers the healthcare benefits they have earned. And he has worked hand-in-hand with Senators Brown, Casey, and Warner, all of whom serve on the Finance Committee. Chairman Hatch deserves thanks for working with us to get this across the finish line as well.

I see that my good friend, Chairman Hatch, is here to make his remarks. I thank him for the cooperation he has shown. I think the interests of both sides in processing this nomination have been advanced.

A lot could have gone awry here. We had challenges with getting the waiver Mr. Lighthizer needed. We needed the space to make sure the miners were protected. Members had strong views.

I thank Chairman Hatch for the diplomacy and cooperation he showed me and our side. I think that is why there was a very large vote for Mr. Lighthizer in the committee.

I will be voting aye this afternoon and look forward to the Chairman's wrap-up remarks.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 50th anniversary of the Hells Canyon Preservation Council. Without the council and its courageous work, there might be multiple dams despoiling one of the deepest gorges in North America rather than the wondrous Snake Wild and Scenic River flowing through the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area and Hells Canyon Wilderness.

The story of the creation of the council begins in 1967 as a conflict simmered for a long time over damming Hells Canyon, an 85-mile gorge on the Oregon-Idaho border. That fight appeared to solely turn on the question of who would get to build the dam in Hells Canyon, not whether to build the dam on what is often called the Grand Canyon of the Snake River. Washington Public Power Supply System, WPPSS, delivered public power and Idaho Power Company was a private power supplier. In 1964, the Federal Power Commission ruled in favor of the private power, WPPSS appealed, and their dispute went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

On June 5, 1967, Justice William O. Douglas read the Court's majority opinion from the bench. The Supreme Court ruled neither for public power nor for private power. Instead, it remanded the entire case back to the Federal Power Commission with instructions to consider whether the best dam in Hells Canyon might be no dam at all. The Supreme Court ruled that the case wasn't about public versus private power. Instead, Justice Douglas said: ``Nor is the test solely whether the region will be able to use the additional power. The test is whether the project will be in the public interest. And that determination can be made only after an exploration of all issues relevant to the `public interest,' including future power demand and supply, alternate sources of power, the public interest in preserving reaches of wild rivers and wilderness areas, the preservation of anadromous fish for commercial and recreational purposes, and the protection of wildlife.''

Within 2 months, the debate over the best use of Hells Canyon shifted from what entity would dam it, to the core question of whether to dam it. Six members of the Idaho Alpine Club met in a Boise living room and formed the Hells Canyon Preservation Council. Joining that group was a young Seattle lawyer and Sierra Club attorney named Brock Evans.

Brock soon fell in love with Hells Canyon and northeastern Oregon and vowed that the Snake River would not be dammed. The Hells Canyon Preservation Council soon grew to have more than 2,000 members in all 50 States. Its chapters included one in the little town of Enterprise in Wallowa County, home to half of Hells Canyon. The national attention attracted media personality Arthur Godfrey and folk singer Pete Seeger, along with national environmental groups who wanted to save the great gorge.

Their efforts also attracted the attention of Oregon Senator Bob Packwood. From his first day in office, Senator Packwood championed the preservation of Hells Canyon.

It took 8 years of hard work by Brock, assisted by Doug Scott, a native Oregonian who replaced Brock as the Sierra Club's Northwest Representative--and so many others inside and outside of Congress; yet that sweat equity paid off in 1975 when Congress passed the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Act.

I am proud to say that Brock and his wife, Linda, have recently returned to Oregon, having moved to La Grande, near his beloved Hells Canyon.

Oregonians and all Americans are indebted to the Hells Canyon Preservation Council and its allies, including Senator Packwood and many other fine Oregonians, for their tireless advocacy for preserving wild nature for the benefit of all of us today as well as future generations.

Thanks to their work, we Oregonians today consider the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, the Hells Canyon Wilderness, and the Snake Wild and Scenic River to be an irreplaceable part of our priceless natural legacy, and we would no more think of damming Hells Canyon than of draining Crater Lake.

Mr. President, today I am placing a hold on the nomination of Sigal Mandelker to be Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. I will maintain that hold until the Treasury Department provides the Senate Intelligence Committee and Senate Finance Committee information and documents related to Russia and its financial dealings with President Trump and his associates. As announced by Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Warner on Tuesday, May 9; the Intelligence Committee has made a request to the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, FinCEN.

I have stated repeatedly that we must follow the money if we are going to get to the bottom of how Russia has attacked our democracy. That means thoroughly reviewing any information that relates to financial connections between Russia and President Trump and his associates, whether direct or laundered through hidden or illicit transactions.

The office which Ms. Mandelker is nominated to head is responsible for much of this information. The Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence marshals the Treasury Department's intelligence and enforcement functions to combat financial crimes and threats, including money laundering.

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

Mr. President, after some chaotic weeks of hush-hush deliberating, a lot of arm-twisting, and more than a few obvious buy- offs, the House has handed the Senate a healthcare bill that will plunge tens of millions of Americans into suffering. With it, the debate now comes to this side of the Capitol, and my Republican colleagues seem to be competing to find out who can put the most distance between themselves and the House bill.

The message is that they are starting from scratch with a partisan working group and a new bill under construction. But I want to make sure that everybody is realistic about where this debate stands. There is not a shred of actual hard evidence that the Senate Republican conference is objecting to nearly $1 trillion in tax breaks for the wealthy and the special interests, paid for by slashing middle-class tax benefits and cutting more than $800 billion out of Medicaid. The dates, the numbers, and the waivers might look a little different when Senate Republicans write a bill, but the underlying framework will be the same.

This process, in short, is leading America back to the days when healthcare worked only for the healthy and wealthy. It is clear, when we look at the particulars, that the bill passed by the other body doesn't care whether you are young or old. It poses a threat of pain across all generations.

So this afternoon, as I begin what will be a series of discussions here on the floor in the days ahead to discuss these issues, I want to talk about what we are dealing with now.

Under the House bill, the youngster who needs special education services could see that set of opportunities disappear with cuts to Medicaid, a key source of funding for special ed school programs.

Are the tax breaks in this bill for the wealthy worth depriving kids of the opportunities they need to get ahead in life?

Under this bill, the young adult at 18 or 20 who has been through a cancer scare could wear that preexisting condition like a scarlet letter. They could face discrimination by insurance companies for life if their coverage ever lapses for more than a few weeks.

Are the tax breaks in this bill worth exposing Americans with preexisting conditions to this danger?

The 45-year-old who thought she was home free with an employer- sponsored plan that avoids the worst insurance company abuses could once again face a lifetime limit on certain health coverage. They would be at risk for personal bankruptcy if they suffer the wrong kind of injury or come down with the wrong kind of illness.

Are the tax breaks in this bill worth putting insurance companies back in the driver's seat? The 60-year-old, still years from retirement, would get clobbered by what I call the age tax, charged up to five times as much as a young person for insurance coverage. Are the tax breaks in this bill worth reviving insurance company abuses like this?

Not even the most vulnerable seniors are spared under this bill. Medicaid helps cover the tab for nearly two out of three seniors in nursing homes. They are people who have done everything right. They worked hard, they scrimped, and they saved. They raised their kids and put them through school. You see them in Ohio communities, and you see them in Oregon communities. But colleagues, growing older in America is not cheap, and these are people who spend down their savings, and that is when Medicaid steps in. But if Medicaid funding is slashed, the nursing home benefit and other critical long-term care services like home-based care are going to be in danger.

Every one of us wants their loved ones to be cared for. But the fact is most families are already walking an economic tightrope in this country, balancing their mortgage and their gas bills and struggling to save for college and retirement. Where would working mothers and fathers today possibly find the money to pay for nursing home care for their elderly parents, perhaps $90,000 or more? Are the tax breaks in this bill worth putting seniors' nursing home care at risk?

I spent this weekend holding townhall meetings in Oregon, holding healthcare roundtables at home in Oregon. It would be hard to overstate the fear and the tears I heard in conversations about this legislation.

Oregonians recognize that in many ways, this proposal is a return to an era when insurance companies had more power and the typical American had less, when women were penalized simply because of their gender, when for many a preexisting condition was a death sentence, when insurance companies deciding what preexisting conditions they would cover constituted a real death panel. Even worse, the system would invite young and healthy people not to buy insurance unless they needed it at that particular moment, which would drive up costs for everybody else.

Bottom line: You cannot revive a failed, abusive health insurance system and expect Americans to be very pleased and excited about it, especially when it is part of a scheme to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. That is what my Republican colleagues are attempting. I understand why they are doing it. What they want to do is, in effect, get these tax breaks for the wealthy in a health bill so they can have it teed up to get more tax breaks for the wealthy in a tax bill. That is what this is really all about. Even casual watchers of the debate understand that this bill--the tax cuts, in particular, are stacked in favor of the fortunate few.

Every time you get a paycheck in North Dakota or Oregon or anywhere in America, a little bit for Medicare is taken out of that paycheck. Working people can see it; it is right there on their paychecks. A little bit is taken out. Under this bill, the only people who get a break on that contribution are at the very top of the income scale.

Furthermore, the tax break on investment income will be swallowed up by the wealthy almost in its entirety. People with incomes over $1 million will get an average break of more than $50,000--almost as much as a typical family earns in an entire year. Most of that tax break goes not to just the millionaires but to those at the uppermost slice of the income scale. They are the fortunate individuals who make money from wealth, not from wages like most Americans.

The 120,000 wealthiest families in the United States--those who bring in around $2 million a year, mostly from capital gains, interest, and dividends--would get an average tax handout under the House bill of $207,000. This is according to the Tax Policy Center, a well-respected group who analyzes these matters. I can tell you, even conservative health policy experts are looking at this bill and scratching their heads, trying to determine how this constitutes an improvement over the system that is on the books today.

Aside from the wealthy individuals and corporations lining up for these tax handouts, it is hard to see who will be helped by this approach Republicans have taken.

It is a worrying sign for anybody who believes in bipartisanship to see that Republicans in this body have decided they don't want any Democratic input. I have been involved in writing bipartisan health bills in the past, and there are more than a few cosponsors of those bills in the Republican conference today. A number of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have joined me in efforts, for example, to have loophole-free, air-tight protection against discrimination against those with a preexisting condition.

It is important to understand that a lot of us on this side of the aisle--and my colleague, the President of the Senate, knows it from our work on infrastructure--would very much like to work with colleagues on the other side on bipartisan issues. It can be done. In fact, just today, under the leadership of Senator Schumer, our whole caucus said to the Republicans: Drop reconciliation so we can all come together and

get serious about working in a bipartisan way on an issue that ought to be tackled in a bipartisan way for the American people and that I have a long history, in particular, of wanting to be part of.

For the next several weeks, I will be on the floor drawing on our past experiences and underlining why the partisan approach underway right now is wrong.

People ought to know that TrumpCare is a betrayal of the promises they have heard time and time again. They heard it through hundreds of TV commercials all through the election period, and what they are now seeing is a betrayal of those promises they watched on campaign advertisements over the last year.

People ought to know that this is not a real effort at fixing our healthcare system. This is a masquerade. It is a masquerade to try to pretend that what is going on is about healthcare when it really is about making sure taxes can be cut for the most fortunate, while healthcare benefits for the middle class are slashed. TrumpCare is the opposite of good health policy. There is no grassroots campaign I know of clamoring for the Congress to pass another round of the same old handouts to special interests, donors, and powerful individuals.

The American people are counting on the Congress to improve the health system and make their care more affordable. Congress ought to be working together on injecting more competition into the insurance markets and reducing out-of-pocket costs for families. We ought to be working especially on bringing down prescription drug prices. In my view, you can't really build a modern health system unless you address the challenges posed by chronic conditions such as diabetes, cancer, and Alzheimer's.

We want it understood that Democrats want to work in a bipartisan way to improve the Affordable Care Act. That is the heart of the letter that all Senate Democrats signed today--we all went together--making it clear that we would like to see Republicans drop reconciliation and come together so we can find common ground. That would be in the country's interests, rather than using this go-it-alone process that is called reconciliation but specifically rejects bipartisanship.

I am going to be on the floor a lot over the next several weeks. I promised my constituents night and day over the course of last weekend--and people kept saying night and day, day and night--because the country feels that strongly about this.

I and others are going to hold our colleagues on the other side of the aisle accountable because we all ought to agree that this country cannot go back to the days when healthcare was for the healthy and the wealthy. Those preexisting conditions could be a death sentence. And that is because if you were healthy, you had no problem. If you were wealthy, you could write out the checks. But if you had a preexisting condition, you were in very serious straits. People told us about losing their homes and everything they had. We are not going back to the days in America when healthcare was for the healthy and wealthy.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, for the second time in an administration that has just crossed the 100-day threshold, Republicans in the Congress have teed up legislation that is going to make it harder for working Americans to save. This time, there is a proposal in front of us that goes after a brandnew program that my home State of Oregon is just now getting ready to launch.

Let me make my views on this proposal clear, quickly. This legislation puts the special interests before working people, and it is just that simple.

We all understand there is a savings crisis in the country. The typical American who works hard and brings home a paycheck every week or two is struggling to get money set aside for their retirement.

Just think of the economic challenges these families are up against every day. Millions of young people are buried under student debt, so the prospect of saving for retirement feels like a dream and will remain so for years and years.

Parents raising kids are faced with steep home loans and everyday bills. At the same time, it can seem as if the sticker price of a 4- year college education can match the GDP of a small island nation.

The numbers on the savings crisis are just alarming. More than half of workers approaching retirement have nothing. That means zero set aside in retirement accounts like IRAs or 401(k) plans. Tens of millions of Americans do not have access to retirement plans at work. In my view, addressing these kinds of challenges ought to be a bipartisan priority, a priority where both sides of the aisle get together and respond.

In response to this crisis, my home State, along with a few others, has looked to find a fresh approach to deal with retirement savings. We want working people and middle-income families--particularly those who don't have access to a savings plan today--to have more opportunities in the future to set money aside.

My home State found a way to do it. Oregon found a way to do it in a kind of Oregon tradition that eliminates a lot of hassle. We are one of a handful of States that has passed what is called an auto-IRA law. At home, we call it OregonSaves, and we are going to be launching it in just a few months. What it means for Oregon workers is that when you get a job, you are going to get a retirement account, so that is not really complicated. When you get a job in Oregon, you are going to get a retirement account. You can start setting aside a little bit with every paycheck.

By the way--and I want to emphasize this--it is not mandatory. People have the right to opt out. So when people say: Oh, government is going to force people to do this and that and something else, the Oregon plan is just the opposite. It is voluntary in all particulars.

What it means for business owners--particularly small business owners--is that they can offer a savings plan without crippling fees or the hassle of dealing with redtape.

OregonSaves, what we are about to bring out of the starting gate, is simple. It is easy to understand. In my view, it is exactly the kind of innovative program we need to combat the savings crisis that has hit all parts of the country.

Over the years, I have often heard Members come to the floor and glowingly describe the States as the place

where the action is. They call them the laboratories of democracy. The theory, of course, is that States ought to be empowered to come up with new ways to tackle challenges.

I have to tell you, it is a head-scratcher why the majority here in the Senate would want to make it harder for innovative States like Oregon to put in place a savings program that is voluntary in nature.

So after all these speeches I hear about the States and States' rights and that the States are the laboratories of democracy, when it comes to a program that is voluntary in nature, the majority here still seems to think what we ought to do is say no.

I know the Presiding Officer cares deeply about how policies relate to rural areas. This is going to be especially hard on rural parts of the country.

I talked first about this issue during a debate a few weeks ago. Several employers had written my office to say how important OregonSaves would be for them. I shared a handful of those stories on the floor, and it was striking how many of those employers said that this would be a sea change for rural businesses in terms of recruiting workers. Thanks to OregonSaves, they would be able to compete when it comes to job benefits. The bill we are considering now would put in doubt that program that employers said could make a big difference, particularly in rural areas.

OregonSaves and programs like this involve years of discussion, years of effort to work with the Department of Labor. There has been a lot of consultation between the Federal Government and the States to get the legal roadblocks out of the way. Now that work is in danger with this vote.

So, colleagues, what I would like to do in wrapping up is to just step back for a minute and talk about what this body has been working on.

Even though the majority party has unified control of the government, we are not exactly at this point churning out bill after bill-- certainly not landmark legislation that responds to the challenges facing American families. Mostly to this point, there have been votes on nominations and bills tossing out a bunch of Federal rules that protect the people who have no power or clout in America.

An awfully large share of the business of this Congress comes down to taking steps like the one we are looking at today, making it harder for the American people to save. I don't think this is just a step in the wrong direction; this is a sprint in the wrong direction. That is what we are dealing with today in the Senate.

Programs like OregonSaves are a commonsense response to a national savings crisis. The Congress should not be passing legislation threatening those programs, making the savings crisis even worse in communities across the land.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided between both sides.

Mr. President, May 6, 2017, marks a 75-year-old moral stain on Oregon's history. On this day in 1942, the city of Portland was declared free of all Japanese Americans.

As part of the Nation's response to the bombing of Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066 in February 1942. In doing so, the President authorized the removal of anybody deemed ``threatening.'' The President's action was based in fear and prejudice rather than any actual threat, and many Japanese Americans paid the price as innocent people were separated from their families and traumatized.

The United States would ultimately incarcerate more than 120,000 U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents of Japanese ancestry. The Federal Government deemed Japanese Americans who lived on the west coast a ``threat,'' putting my State of Oregon on the frontlines of this injustice.

Forced out of their homes and businesses, many of Oregon's Japanese American families moved into the animal stalls of what was then the Pacific International Livestock and Exposition Center in north Portland. Eventually, a total of 3,700 men, women, and children from Oregon and parts of Washington were held at the center. These families were later sent off with thousands of other Japanese Americans to quickly erected camps across the United States.

Despite the anti-Japanese fever burning across the United States, thousands of Japanese Americans were serving valiantly on the battlefields of Europe. We throw around the word ``patriot'' a lot these days, but I can't think of a more patriotic story than those Japanese Americans who signed up to defend the same country that had locked up their families.

Units like the famed 442nd and men like my friend and former colleague Senator Dan Inouye displayed an exceptional degree of courage and valor abroad. Back home, Japanese American civil rights leaders like Minoru Yasui and Fred Korematsu were challenging the prejudices that led to Executive Order 9066, the internment, and other injustices faced by Japanese Americans and permanent residents.

As the son of Jewish parents who fled Nazi Germany, I feel especially compelled today to remind my colleagues and my countrymen of this dark chapter in our Nation's history. It is especially important to recall this history today because it seems some Americans have slipped back into an era of fear-mongering, bigotry, and hate.

I have seen countless expressions of kindness and decency in my years representing Oregon, which is why I have faith that people across our State and the country will continue to stand up and say ``no more.'' That is why I also want to honor the truly courageous Japanese Americans and others who fought the pain and fear caused by Executive Order 9066. They were on the right side of the argument then and now.

Finally, I would like to recognize the Oregon Nikkei Endowment for all its work to bring us together to reflect on this day. Thank you to all the partners who have and will continue to fight for the rights of every American. I stand with them in solidarity today and always.

Mr. President, apparently the Trump administration couldn't let its first 100 days go by without going after America's National Monuments. Anybody who cares about protecting some of the greatest treasures in Oregon and across the country ought to be worried.

The President is lining up an Executive order requiring a review of the boundaries of all National Monuments designated since 1996. It might sound bureaucratic, but it is more than that. The President's Executive order is a short-sighted attempt to roll back protections for some of America's most cherished landscapes.

The Executive order flies in the face of a century-old tradition that has ensured generations of Americans can enjoy natural treasures like the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument in my home State.

Colleagues, for over 100 years, Presidents from both parties have used authority granted by the Antiquities Act to permanently protect special Federal lands as National Monuments, to preserve natural, cultural, and historic values for the benefit of everyone. Two of Oregon's most cherished areas were established as National Monuments through the Antiquities Act: Oregon Caves and Cascade-Siskiyou. Both of these areas have a remarkable diverse range of biological, geological, and historic objects.

I am proud to have worked with President Clinton to establish the original boundaries of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument in 2000. I am proud to have worked with Senator Merkley to expand the monument earlier this year and to expand the boundary of the Oregon Caves National Monument in 2014.

There are two important points to make about this debate.

First, it is important that the individuals who live near and recreate on these lands have an opportunity to make their voices heard. As public lands everywhere, they ultimately belong to all of the people.

Some people, the President included, say these monuments are an example of overreach and designated without the right process.

On this issue, the President is wrong. These monuments are not the result of administrative overreach. The boundaries of these monuments are based on years of collaboration between the administration, States, and local stakeholders.

The second point to make is about rural economies. National Monuments, National Parks, and public lands across the United States are important economic generators for rural communities.

According to a report released just this week, public lands generate billions of dollars in consumer spending and millions of jobs every year. In Oregon, the outdoor recreation economy generated $12.8 billion in consumer spending in 2012 and over 140,000 direct jobs. Nationally, the numbers are even bigger; in 2012, the outdoor rec economy generated $889 billion nationwide and over 7 and a half million jobs.

Colleagues, there is an agenda behind this Executive order, and it puts some of our greatest outdoor treasures and a lot of jobs in danger.

Some members of this administration--including the Secretary of the Interior--have said the right things about public lands, and that was reassuring to millions of people who care about recreation. I hope it wasn't just talk, and I certainly hope the President's Executive order is not the first step in dismantling America's National Monuments and public lands.

Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes today to honor Alter Wiener, a selfless Oregonian who endured the horrors of the Holocaust and has shared his powerful story with countless students and adults. I would like to share his story with the Senate so that my colleagues can hear how he survived the Nazi atrocities and came to live in Hillsboro, OR, teaching young men and women in my home State the dangers of intolerance and exclusion.

Alter Wiener's story begins more than 90 years ago in the Polish town of Chrzanow, where he was born on October 8, 1926. Like many Jewish children, he attended both public and religious school and was taught the importance of family and faith. What was a happy childhood ended abruptly when the Nazis invaded his hometown in September of 1939. Mr. Wiener fled with his mother and siblings, but his father, forced to stay behind, was ultimately murdered by the Germans.

Barred from practicing his faith or attending school, Mr. Wiener was eventually ripped from his home in the middle of the night and deported to Blechhammer, a forced labor camp. He saw and experienced unimaginable horrors as he was moved from labor camp to labor camp, spending 3 long years in five concentration camps. When the Russian Army freed him in May 1945, he weighed only 80 pounds.

Mr. Wiener made his way to New York City, where he joined his cousins, the only other members of a family that numbered 123 to survive the Nazi atrocities. In New York, he worked tirelessly to rebuild his life, earning his high school diploma at age 38 and then a degree from Brooklyn College. He got married, started a family, and worked as an accountant. Through it all, he rarely spoke of surviving the Holocaust or the atrocities he had witnessed and endured. He says now that he simply didn't feel others would understand.

In 2000, Mr. Wiener moved to Hillsboro, OR. The Oregon Holocaust Resource Center asked him to share his story, and, though he hesitated at first, he ultimately agreed to speak at Century High School. To his surprise, Mr. Wiener received hundreds of letters from students thanking him for changing their lives.

Mr. Wiener has since gone on to volunteer his time and energy to Holocaust education, giving more than 850 presentations to a wide range of audiences. In 2007, he published his autobiography ``64735: From a Name to a Number,'' detailing his harrowing experiences under the Nazi regime and his life thereafter.

Many of my colleagues have heard me talk about my own family's experience: how my parents fled Nazi Germany, how not everybody made it out, how we lost family in Kristallnacht and at Theresienstadt. Tolerance and inclusiveness are issues the Wydens take very seriously. That is why it is so special for me to be able to pay tribute to Alter Wiener today and to honor his work.

There is a concept in Judaism called tikkun olam, which means to repair the world. Truly, I can think of no bigger way to describe Alter Wiener's work than repairing the world. Every time he shares his story, more people understand the horrors of Nazi persecution and the inhumanity of the Holocaust. People also understand the importance of tolerance, pluralism, and inclusion, and they see the power of the human spirit to endure.

Today I offer my deepest affection and a heartfelt thank you to Alter Wiener for using your voice to teach generations to come to never, ever forget.

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 and more seniors are finding themselves subject to government garnishment of their already modest Social Security benefits in order to recoup student loan debts. In fact, the New York Times published an editorial recently titled, ``Haunted by Student Debt Past Age 50'' that highlighted the worsening struggle that seniors face with student debt.

Student loan debt is becoming an increasingly serious problem 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 GAO report, in 2004, about 8,000 seniors were living in poverty after having their benefits garnished to recover a student debt. In 2015, over 67,000 seniors were subject to garnishment for a student debt and living in poverty. Congress should restore sanity to the system, and reestablish the protections that these beneficiaries deserve.

That is why I, along with Senators Brown, Merkley, Feinstein, Hirono, Schatz, Leahy, Nelson, Whitehouse, Gillibrand, Sanders, and Warren are reintroducing 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 Arc of the United States, Latinos for a Secure Retirement, Puget Sound Advocates for Retirement Action, PSARA, AFL-CIO, the Economic Opportunity Institute, the National Organization for Women, Justice in Aging, Gray Panthers NYC, Alliance for Retired Americans, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, Global Policy Solutions, AARP, the American Federation of Government Employees, and the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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 and more seniors are finding themselves subject to government garnishment of their already modest Social Security benefits in order to recoup student loan debts. In fact, the New York Times published an editorial recently titled, ``Haunted by Student Debt Past Age 50'' that highlighted the worsening struggle that seniors face with student debt.

Student loan debt is becoming an increasingly serious problem 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 GAO report, in 2004, about 8,000 seniors were living in poverty after having their benefits garnished to recover a student debt. In 2015, over 67,000 seniors were subject to garnishment for a student debt and living in poverty. Congress should restore sanity to the system, and reestablish the protections that these beneficiaries deserve.

That is why I, along with Senators Brown, Merkley, Feinstein, Hirono, Schatz, Leahy, Nelson, Whitehouse, Gillibrand, Sanders, and Warren are reintroducing 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 Arc of the United States, Latinos for a Secure Retirement, Puget Sound Advocates for Retirement Action, PSARA, AFL-CIO, the Economic Opportunity Institute, the National Organization for Women, Justice in Aging, Gray Panthers NYC, Alliance for Retired Americans, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, Global Policy Solutions, AARP, the American Federation of Government Employees, and the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I, along with my colleague Senator Paul from Kentucky, am introducing the Protecting Data at the Border Act, a bill that protects Americans and U.S. Permanent Residents from warrantless searches of their electronic devices at the border.

1n 2014, the Supreme Court established in California v. Riley that law enforcement agencies must obtain a probable cause search warrant before they can search someone's phone or laptop during a ``search incident to arrest.'' Prior to that decision, law enforcement agencies around the country routinely engaged in warrantless searches of phones and other electronic devices. The Supreme Court rightly recognized that we need new, stronger rules to protect digital information.

Although the warrant protections from Riley have been the law of the land for the last three years, a significant loophole has remained: the border. The Riley decision left unresolved the question of whether or not U.S. Customs can search the smartphones and laptops of U.S. persons as they leave the country and return home. This is not a theoretical concern. According to recent statistics provided by Customs and Border Protection, searches of cellphones by border agents has exploded, growing fivefold in just one

year, from fewer than 5,000 in 2015 to nearly 25,000 in 2016. Five- thousand devices were searched this last February alone, more than in all of 2015.

My colleague, Senator Paul and I intend to close this loophole, ensuring that U.S. persons crossing the border do not have lesser digital privacy rights than individuals who are arrested inside the United States.

This bill has four main components.

First, it requires that law enforcement agencies obtain a probable cause warrant before they can search the laptop, smartphone or other electronic device belonging to a U.S. person at the border. The bill includes an emergency exception to this warrant requirement, modeled after USA Freedom Act section 102, which became law in 2015.

Second, it requires informed, written consent before the government may request and obtain voluntary assistance from a U.S. person accessing data on a locked device or account, such as by disclosing their password or otherwise providing access. The bill also prohibits the government from delaying or denying entry to a U.S. person if he or she refuses to provide such assistance.

Third, it requires that the government obtain a warrant before it can copy and retain a U.S. person's data, even if the data has been collected without a warrant, during an emergency.

Fourth, it requires that the government create and publish statistics on the electronic border searches they conduct.

Passage of this bill would ensure that the important privacy rights recognized by the Supreme Court in Riley also apply at the border, while still enabling law enforcement agencies continue to do the important work of keeping our country safe.

I thank my colleague Senator Paul for his efforts on this bill, and I hope the Senate will consider our proposal quickly.

Mr. President, today I, along with my colleague Senator Paul from Kentucky, am introducing the Protecting Data at the Border Act, a bill that protects Americans and U.S. Permanent Residents from warrantless searches of their electronic devices at the border.

1n 2014, the Supreme Court established in California v. Riley that law enforcement agencies must obtain a probable cause search warrant before they can search someone's phone or laptop during a ``search incident to arrest.'' Prior to that decision, law enforcement agencies around the country routinely engaged in warrantless searches of phones and other electronic devices. The Supreme Court rightly recognized that we need new, stronger rules to protect digital information.

Although the warrant protections from Riley have been the law of the land for the last three years, a significant loophole has remained: the border. The Riley decision left unresolved the question of whether or not U.S. Customs can search the smartphones and laptops of U.S. persons as they leave the country and return home. This is not a theoretical concern. According to recent statistics provided by Customs and Border Protection, searches of cellphones by border agents has exploded, growing fivefold in just one

year, from fewer than 5,000 in 2015 to nearly 25,000 in 2016. Five- thousand devices were searched this last February alone, more than in all of 2015.

My colleague, Senator Paul and I intend to close this loophole, ensuring that U.S. persons crossing the border do not have lesser digital privacy rights than individuals who are arrested inside the United States.

This bill has four main components.

First, it requires that law enforcement agencies obtain a probable cause warrant before they can search the laptop, smartphone or other electronic device belonging to a U.S. person at the border. The bill includes an emergency exception to this warrant requirement, modeled after USA Freedom Act section 102, which became law in 2015.

Second, it requires informed, written consent before the government may request and obtain voluntary assistance from a U.S. person accessing data on a locked device or account, such as by disclosing their password or otherwise providing access. The bill also prohibits the government from delaying or denying entry to a U.S. person if he or she refuses to provide such assistance.

Third, it requires that the government obtain a warrant before it can copy and retain a U.S. person's data, even if the data has been collected without a warrant, during an emergency.

Fourth, it requires that the government create and publish statistics on the electronic border searches they conduct.

Passage of this bill would ensure that the important privacy rights recognized by the Supreme Court in Riley also apply at the border, while still enabling law enforcement agencies continue to do the important work of keeping our country safe.

I thank my colleague Senator Paul for his efforts on this bill, and I hope the Senate will consider our proposal quickly.