You divide 330 million into $4.5 trillion and you could send every family of 4 in America a check for $50,000.

What the insurance companies so often say to all of us is that authorizations are supposed to help patients get better care.

We're going to spend that $4.5 trillion this year on American healthcare.

I'm over my time. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. An important hearing.

This is really a key area for us to look at.

Let's do this, Dr. Cutler, and to all of you. This is very helpful.

I rise this morning to discuss what happened at the end of the debate in the House of Representatives on section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Particularly, I am going to be talking about the sweeping new authorities…

I call up my amendment No. 1820 and ask that it be reported by number. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden], for himself and Ms…

this bipartisan amendment strikes a dangerous provision that was slipped in at the last moment in the House of Representatives and has never been considered or examined here in the Senate. The provision dramatically expands warrantless…

this matter that came from the House of Representatives has not been narrowly drafted. It is not technical. The reason you know that is they keep coming up with exceptions. The rule is so broad, and then they keep adding all these…

I rise in strong opposition to this FISA bill. And, to begin, there is a central question before the U.S. Senate, and that is: Who should be forced to help their government spy? The legislation coming from the other body gives the…

I know of your work. I will tell you I don't think this is a resource issue primarily. It's a question about whether you consider it important.

What kind of a message is DOJ sending when they don't bring cases against bankers who willingly help American clients hide money offshore?

I hope you communicate that to the people at the Department of Justice as well because I've done it on a number of occasions.

I mean it just kind of defies credulity here to believe that they don't know about somebody sitting on $1 billion.

I just named people. We named them and we said specifically we're talking about somebody who hid more than $1 billion from the IRS for over a decade.

I hope you communicate that to the people at the Department of Justice as well because I've done it on a number of occasions.

I know of your work. I will tell you I don't think this is a resource issue primarily. It's a question about whether you consider it important.

I mean it just kind of defies credulity here to believe that they don't know about somebody sitting on $1 billion.

I just named people. We named them and we said specifically we're talking about somebody who hid more than $1 billion from the IRS for over a decade.

What kind of a message is DOJ sending when they don't bring cases against bankers who willingly help American clients hide money offshore?

What kind of a message does it send for DOJ to basically sit back and kind of do nothing.

What you described with the Mirabaud Bank is a very obvious breach of the law.

I will tell you I don't think this is a resource issue primarily. It's a question about whether you consider it important.

What kind of a message is DOJ sending when they don't bring cases against bankers who willingly help American clients hide money offshore?