Jeff Merkley

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, can I ask for 1 more minute to complete my comments?

Mr. MERKLEY. It boils down to this, folks: We should be helping the people of America, not adding $170 billion more when ICE and CBP are sitting on the money. We should be reforming ICE and CBP. We should be helping Americans with the issues of the cost of gas and groceries and healthcare. We should be taking on this vast corruption, defending the integrity of the United States. That would be a great way--each of these--to celebrate our 250th anniversary, but that is not what we are doing today. So let's dump this bill where it belongs: in the trash heap.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I applaud my colleague from North Carolina and other Members on the other side of the aisle who wish to end the massive corruption of the so-called anti-weaponization fund, better known as cash for--well, folks who are--``cash for cronies'' would be a good name for it. But, listen, taking one slush fund and eliminating it and then creating a new slush fund still under the control of the Attorney General is not the way to go. The way to go is to get rid of these slush funds altogether. We have already seen how the administration has an enemies list, how inclined this Attorney General is to use his resources and his offices to go after those enemies, and this is money that lets him do it on a massive scale. So no cash for cronies and no slush fund to have the President and his Attorney General go after their political enemies. Please oppose this amendment.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5512 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, colleagues, Americans love our iconic monuments, from the Lincoln Monument to the White House. And major changes to these beloved places are done in accordance with a congressional authorization. They are not done without one. And, yet, we now have a situation where there is a plan to construct a billion-dollar ballroom, gold-plated, without any action by Congress to authorize it. So some may love that ballroom, and some--including myself--well, we think it is a terrible idea to overshadow the White House with a monument appropriate to Louis XIV. But that is not the point right now. The point is there is no congressional authorization. So this amendment is very simple. It says that congressional authorization is needed to proceed. All of us here have a responsibility to follow the power-of-the-purse responsibility in the Constitution. Let's all support the idea that it must proceed--if it is to proceed--with a congressional authorization.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, because it is so important that we exercise our constitutional power of the purse, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974--

Mr. MERKLEY.--and all budget resolution discipline that applies, I move to waive the point of order for the purposes of the pending measure, and I ask for the yeas and nays. Vote on Motion

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Democratic staff of the Senate Budget Committee for all their hard work in both removing the corrupt provisions of this bill that ignored working families and fighting against tens of billions of dollars being funneled to the President's rogue agencies. Staff includes: Ben Ward, Mike Jones, Jill Harrelson, Josh Smith, Tyler Evilsizer, Melissa Kaplan-Pistiner, Misha Rafiq, Brian Lyons, Anna Barnes, Connor Jennings, Ethan Rosenkranz, Andrew Cobian, Anirudh Srirangam, Fiona Forrester, Lauran Pauley, and Hilary Gelfond-Gross.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to grant floor privileges to my summer interns for their shadow days on the following dates: Gabriela Suescum on June 16, Lily Middleton on June 17, Carmen Vintro on June 23, Tali Greenfield on June 24, Anjali Weerasinghe on July 14, Kainat Deo on July 15, Miguel Tejeda on July 21, Dario Guadarrama on July 22, Lucan Pyle on July 28, and Zuha Murad on July 29.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Alisya Solankhi and Harrison McBride on the Budget Committee minority staff be granted floor privileges during consideration of S. 2.

Mr. MERKLEY

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

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote on a simple question: Will Congress embrace and exercise its constitutional responsibility to decide the question of war? As Madison summarized: The Constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. [The Constitution] has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the [legislative branch]. With studied care. The Founders said that no one person, not even the President, should be able to take this Nation to war. They would observe that throughout history, Executives were inclined to commit troops and treasure to battles that made no sense in a government by and for the people in a democratic republic. So they stipulated there had to be a debate and a vote here in the legislative branch, an act of Congress, a declaration of war, or an authorization by legislation for war. Yet we have had neither. We have had neither. In the 1973 War Powers Act, there is a third option. It is a condition in which the United States has been attacked or is under imminent threat of an attack. Some colleagues have said that imminent threat was real, and therefore the President has 60 days to conduct a war before he is in violation of the Constitution. Now, I disagree. Many of us and many experts believe nothing close to an imminent threat existed that justified that third option--the President having 60 days to respond without action by Congress. But many colleagues across the aisle have said: We will give the benefit of the doubt to the President's contention that there was an imminent threat, but we will reconsider our position when the 60 days has expired. Well, my friends, the 60 days expired on May 1. We are way past that deadline. Now the President has a new excuse. He says: Well, we are no longer conducting acts of war. We are in a cease-fire. But what matters are the facts on the ground. Are we, in fact--have we, in fact, suspended all the acts of war? No, we have not. We are still engaged on a daily basis. The United States is still blockading Iranian ports. That is an act of war. We are still firing on Iranian warships. That is an act of war. We are still firing on Iranian vessels. That is an act of war. Iran is still blockading the Strait of Hormuz. That is an act of war. They are still firing on U.S. Naval vessels. That is an act of war. They are still attacking U.S.-flagged tankers. That is an act of war. Both sides are engaged in a daily war as defined by international law. Is it at a somewhat lower level than the bombing campaign? Yes, I will grant you that. But it is a war by every definition. It has not ended. Our troops have not been withdrawn. So here we are. Are we going to honor that oath to the Constitution? Each and every one of you took that oath. The Constitution is very clear: War can be conducted by the United States only with congressional authorization. We are now past that 60 days, so that excuse, that reason, is gone. How seriously do you take the Constitution? If you don't take it seriously, maybe you shouldn't be serving in this Chamber. It is clear how important that debate is in this Chamber when you look at the catastrophe that has unfolded with this war of choice. Catastrophe. Undermined the reformers. Massively strengthened the hard line--massively. Enriched Russia extensively. We lifted the sanctions on Russia. They are able to sell their oil at a world price--a world price that is double what it was before. We have lost men and women in uniform. We have hundreds that are injured. We are spending $1 to $2 billion a day. Here at home, there are massive increased costs for the American family. People keep saying it is $4 for gas now--$1.50 higher than it was. Well, in Oregon, it is over $5. Diesel is over $6. The cost to a family in the course of a year at this point is about $2,700 additional cash out of hand, posttax dollars--gone. When energy goes up, everything goes up. Our agricultural community is looking at the increased cost for fertilizer on top of the chaos of the tariffs affecting their inputs and their outputs. The inflation index is way up--3.8 percent last month, which is the highest year- over-year in 3 years, and more is coming. We have undermined our alliances. We said to the Europeans: We don't need you. President Trump said: We do not need you. Then he said: Please, please come and help. They said: This war you have embarked on is unwise. You did not ask us for help. You did not consult with us beforehand. This is your choice. It is a big mistake. And, no, we are not going to partner in this massive catastrophe. The enriched uranium is still buried deep underground. There is a path on the uranium question. The path will look something like this: Iran will agree not to enrich for 5 years or so. That would be face- saving for the United States of America. But then they will be free to enrich to a low level, protecting and defending their sovereignty, with international inspections. The enriched uranium--60 percent--they will be in agreement that will be moved to Russia or somewhere else. Those three features--all part of the JCPOA, the agreement that was reached through diplomacy rather than war, the agreement that President Trump tore up in his first administration and created an expanded pathway to more enriched uranium in Iran because he tore up the agreement. So costs at home, deaths of servicemembers, cost to the Treasury, undermining alliances, enriching Russia, failing to retrieve uranium-- mistake after mistake after mistake. That is why the Founders said that a President by himself should not be able to go to war and wrote a Constitution that we each have pledged ourselves to. We are a democratic republic, not an authoritarian power--authoritarian power, the President or the Chief Executive, the dictator, whatever you want to call him. But we have a responsibility, and today, we will test whether or not we honor that oath to the Constitution. Will we? Option 1, have we done a declaration of war? We have not. Option 2, have we passed an authorization for the use of military force? We have not. Option 3, the President has 60 days when there is an imminent threat. So colleagues who have asserted that is a legitimate option, I disagree, but those who have asserted it, 60 days is up. So will you or will you not honor your constitutional responsibility? That is the question that will be in the vote today. Mr. President, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1546(a) and in accordance with section 601(b) of the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act, I move to discharge the Committee on Foreign Relations from further consideration of S.J. Res. 163.

Mr. MERKLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 400, S.J. Res. 156.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, payday loans are notorious short-term loans, often with interest rates of 100, 300, or 500 percent. They put families into a vortex of debt they often cannot escape. Any way you slice it, at those interest rates, it is loansharking. Many States, including Oregon, have outlawed these loans and put reasonable sideboards on it--a good thing to do. But now the industry has changed its language. Instead of calling it a payday loan, they call it an earned wage access product. Instead of calling it a loan, they call it an advance. Instead of calling it a fee, they call it a tip. The CFPB provided some national protection, including what States did separately--basically, Truth in Lending Act fair disclosure. I offer this joint resolution of disapproval to suggest we restore that basic Truth in Lending Act disclosure and other protections the CFPB had provided--just sideboards to help reduce the most harmful aspects of these predatory products. So, quite simply, if you are against unregulated loansharking and want to end it, vote aye. If you are for loansharking, vote no. Vote on Motion to Proceed

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, this Chamber has before it a very important question: Will Congress embrace and exercise its constitutional responsibility to decide, as Madison put it, the question of war? That is a heavy responsibility. It is no small matter to decide whether or not the United States should go to war or to decide whether or not to end a war. It is a question of blood and treasure. The lives of thousands can hang in the balance--the lives of soldiers on both sides, the lives of civilians. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in the deaths of more than 5,000 American servicemembers and the deaths of approximately 250,000 civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq and they resulted in massive use of American treasure, some $8 trillion. It is tempting for Members of this Chamber to shirk this responsibility. The question weighs too heavily on us. ``Let's let the President decide.'' But if you took an oath to the Constitution, as every Member here did, then you know that letting the President decide is unconstitutional. The Constitution did not assign this weighty issue of war to the President. It assigned this weighty issue to all of us here in Congress. As Madison summarized: The Constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war and most prone to it. The Constitution has accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislative branch. With studied care, the Founders said: No one person should decide the question of whether we go to war. The weight of the decision in blood and treasure is too great, so there needs to be debate. There needs to be viewpoints exchanged before such a significant action is taken. And that is why it is assigned to us. Now the modern version of declaring war is to pass an authorization for the use of military force, or an AUMF. That is the system set up in the 1973 War Powers Act following Vietnam where there was no authorization ever granted, and yet a massive calamity for American servicemembers, some 50,000-plus who died and so many injured and so much treasure expended. So Congress by law with the signature of the President said: Let's set up a system to take that constitutional provision where the question of war is assigned to Congress and create a format through which it can be considered. And that law--that 1973 law--says the power of war can only be exercised under three possibilities. One, there is a declaration of war. Second, Congress passes a law and a President signs it into law to create an authorization for war. And that, in fact, is what happened in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq. The President came to Congress and said: Here are the arguments. I want you to authorize war as required in the Constitution. This Chamber and the House Chamber considered this question, and we passed an AUMF, an authorization for use of military force. Those wars were entered into under a constitutional path. And whether or not any one individual agreed with the outcome, at least it was constitutional in that it was the result of studied debate here in this Chamber and down the Hall in the House of Representatives. The War Powers Act creates a third option. Under a special condition--sometimes it is referred to as ``the condition of imminent threat,'' that we are under attack or on the verge of being under attack. The specific language in the War Powers Act says that the power of war can be exercised if there is a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories, or its Armed Forces. But it places a 60-day limit on that. Now many experts would say this option was never triggered in this case because there was not a national emergency created by an attack on the United States. But some Members of this body have said: close enough. The threat from Iran was close enough. We consider that a valid third option. I would disagree, but others had a different opinion and then said: but when that 60 days are up, that is exhausted and the President must withdraw forces as required in the War Powers Act or must come to us with an authorization for the use of military force, which has not happened. So if the President fails to withdraw forces and the President fails to come to us with an authorization for the use of military force, then it is incumbent on us to pass a War Powers Resolution that says: Mr. President, you are in violation of the Constitution, and you must end this war. If you want to continue it, come and ask for constitutional authorization. The 60 days are up. Someone said: Well, the war is not as fierce as it was previously. There is kind of a paper version of a cease-fire in place, and maybe that suspends the clock on the 60 days, a clock that expired on May 1. But, you know, the War Powers Act does not have a provision that says if the war becomes less fierce, it doesn't count against the 60 days. That is not in the law. That is not in the vision under which this was prepared and written for the exercise of our constitutional responsibility. And everybody in the world knows that the war has continued. The Navy--our Navy--has continued a blockade of Iranian ports. That is an act of war. Our Navy has fired on Iranian naval vessels. That is an act of war. Our Navy has fired on Iranian oil tankers. That is an act of war. And Iran, they also have continued the war. They have fired on United States naval ships, including the use of drones, missiles, and bullets; fired on commercial vessels; and fired on regional outposts, including the United Arab Emirates. So the war has continued, and the 60 days has expired. And during those 60 days, a lot has happened; none of it benefitting our national security. We strengthened the Iranian hardliners, virtually what always happens when you assassinate religious and political leaders as we did. We weakened the reformers. We failed to secure Iran's stockpile of more highly enriched uranium, and we have no strategy to extract them. We have shredded moral leadership as champions of human rights. We enriched and emboldened Russia by easing oil sanctions; and not only could Russia then sell their oil legally at a higher price, but the war raised the value they could get from $60-ish to $120. We depleted our munitions stockpile. We increased fertilizer costs. We raised prices at the pump for American families. People keep saying: In our State, it is $4 a gallon and diesel is $5 a gallon. Well, in Oregon, it is $5 for gasoline and $6 for diesel. And we fueled inflation. Last month, April, the highest inflation in 3 years, 3.8 percent. Those fuel costs are already affecting businesses. A number of airlines have cut flights and cut services. Spirit Airlines went out of business, forcing them to lay off 17,000 workers. And all across the country, farmers and small businesses and large businesses are seeing these inflationary effects and certainly American families are feeling the higher prices on everything. And we have spent from our national treasure somewhere around a $1 billion-plus a day. During his campaign, our President said: I am going to end wars. I am going to lower prices. But he has started a war, and he has raised prices. And now, if one embraces the War Powers Act, if one argues that there was an imminent threat--which I do not believe that test was met. But if you believe that test was met and you gave the President 60 days of grace--well, those 60 days are up. And since the President has not come to us and said, ``I now want an authorization for war'' and we are not debating that on the floor, then our responsibility is to exercise a War Powers Resolution that says: Mr. President, end this war. It is the right thing for us to do to defend the Constitution we took an oath to. Failure to do so is to violate the Constitution we took an oath to. So I hope that at this point we will have bipartisan support to embrace the responsibility that the Constitution assigns to us on the question of war. It is a heavy responsibility. It is tempting to shirk that responsibility and let the President decide, but it is neither the moral thing to do nor is it constitutional. Laws are not suggestions. The Constitution is not an option, not for the President and not for us. There is no constitutional path for the continuation of this war unless the President arrives today with a proposal for an authorization to be debated. And that has not happened. The only constitutional path left is to vote aye on the War Powers Resolution. An ``aye'' vote honors the wisdom of our Founders that assigned us this responsibility and honors our responsibility under the Constitution. A ``no'' vote dishonors the wisdom of the Founders who assigned this responsibility to us and dishonors our obligation under the Constitution. Let's carry this weight, however heavy it may be, and in a bipartisan fashion restore and honor considerations that place--the Constitution places with us the question of war. An ``aye'' vote tomorrow is the right vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, my colleague from Idaho made a few points in his presentation on why he would oppose exercising the War Powers Resolution, and I think it is worth noting those points and considering whether or not they hold water. First, he said hostilities have ceased because the President says so, but it is the facts on the ground that matter, and the fact on the ground is that the United States continues a blockade--an act of war-- against Iranian forces. We have fired upon Iranian ships, and we have fired upon Iranian tankers. Iran maintains a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which is an act of war, and they have fired on U.S. Naval vessels, and they have fired upon U.S. commercial ships, tankers. So it may be at a lower level than the massive bombing that occurred before, but there certainly is nothing close to what we would call a cease-fire and certainly not a withdrawal. Now, the War Powers Act says that after 60 days, you have to end the hostilities, and you can ask for another 30 days to withdraw forces. Well, we are in that 30-day period now, and the forces are not being withdrawn from the Middle East. The second factor is my colleague cited article II of the Constitution. What did he mean by that? He referred to the ``Commander in Chief.'' Article II of the Constitution says this in section 2: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service. When called into service. And what does the Constitution say about when it is called into service? Well, that is in article I--article I, the powers of Congress, the enumerated powers of Congress, and those enumerated powers laid out in section 8 refer to many of the assignments given, including things like borrowing money on credit or regulating commerce or coining money or providing for the punishment of individuals, establishing a post office. But the key one--this very sizeable responsibility that Madison said ``with studied care'' the Founders vested this responsibility in the legislative branch, not the executive--that is the power to declare war. That is the responsibility. Yes, once we go to war, the Commander in Chief is the President of the United States, and much of the strategy of the war is conducted accordingly through the Department of Defense and the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of the services. But do not confuse the ability to conduct a war with the ability to start a war. Third, nuclear weapons. My colleague mentioned the threat of nuclear weapons. Well, there is a threat of nuclear weapons maybe, but you have to really kind of understand the framework here, and that is that there was a diplomatic agreement in which Iran enriched to only very low levels, a couple percent, under international intensive supervision with all kinds of monitors in place--not just individuals watching but all kinds of sensors in place. Their enriched uranium that they had previous to that agreement called the JCPOA was stored in Russia. So they didn't have highly enriched uranium. They enriched to very low levels, and they did it under international supervision. It was only after President Trump in his first administration tore up this agreement and unleashed Iran from its responsibilities under that agreement. That is when Iran later said ``Well, we might enrich to higher levels'' and then proceeded to--up to 60 percent. But that condition only exists because of what President Trump did to tear up the diplomatic agreement. Then, in June of last year, the United States participated in a massive bombing campaign, employed our very largest bombs to destroy those places where centrifuges were making the more highly enriched uranium. The President proudly declared that the massive bombs--the largest ones we have, the earth-penetrating bombs, the biggest tonnage--had obliterated Iran's nuclear program. So Iran didn't have a nuclear program en route to a nuclear weapon until Trump tore up the agreement, and even then, the President claimed there was no nuclear program after June of 2025. So here we are. What had been achieved diplomatically was destroyed by President Trump. Now he proceeded to say that he had already taken care of this threat that is being cited by my colleague as a justification for this war. By the way, it was not the justification that President Trump cited at the beginning of this war. No. He said: Israel is going to bomb Iran again, and Iran is going to retaliate against regional sites, and that will involve our interests being hit, so we should join Israel. So Israel was the dog wagging the American tail. Does America not have the spine, the courage, the authority to simply have told Israel no? Well, apparently not--not under this President. I yield to my colleague from Virginia who has been so instrumental in bringing many, many insights to this debate and helping coordinate this series of War Powers Resolutions as we strive--strive--to honor the oaths we took to our Constitution.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to grant floor privileges for my interns on their shadow days, on the following dates: Violet Sheehan on May 13, 2026; Jack Schallich on May 20; Nensi Hayotsyan on June 2; Joseph Novak on June 3; and Aurelia Leowinata on June 10.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. As the Washington Post has pointed out, this is an all-consuming, favorite project of the President. It is a massive, giant ballroom to be built on the ruins of the East Wing, the ``People's House.'' I certainly agree that security for the President is absolutely essential, but this project was not conceived as a security project. It was conceived as a massive ballroom so large that it turns the White House into an auxiliary dwelling unit. It is like the big mansion is the ballroom, and you have this little, tiny house one-fourth the size that is the White House. That is this gilded project the President was undertaking to put his Louis XIV ``I am a monarch'' stamp on the President's grounds. But we took an oath to a Constitution that doesn't have a monarch, and it doesn't have a King, and Trump is not Louis XIV, so I have a number of concerns about this. First, my colleague mentioned that it is going to be paid for by private donations; however, a number of his colleagues have been advocating fiercely that it be paid for out of our Treasury. Certainly $400 million buys a lot of support for education and housing and healthcare--24,000 kids going to Head Start, 52,000 children being able to benefit from childcare, and the list goes on. The argument has been made that this would be a great place for State dinners, but we already have a great place for State dinners. We have the State Dining Room at the White House that seats 140. We have the East Room that seats 200. And State dinners are intimate affairs-- appropriately so--a conversation between leaders of our House and Senate and the executive branch, along with the leaders visiting from overseas--not a massive ``Let's turn out 1,000 people or more'' because of the size of this. Recognize that this is a 3.6 million-cubic-feet ballroom--about four times the volume of the White House. So State dinners certainly aren't a justification for this. When it comes to security--well, the judge that took a look at the legality issues found that there wasn't authority for the President--in fact, this very bill being proposed by my well-intentioned colleague from Montana creates the legal authority that is lacking, and that is why it is being proposed--to be able to create that framework that makes it possible to overrule the court's ruling. But that judge did find that the security work being done below level could proceed because that part was related to the President's security. This project is also about, in the President's mind, holding inaugurations. I am going to tell you that is probably one of the worst ideas President Trump has ever come up with--hide away the inauguration in a ballroom as opposed to doing it on The Mall. I know that President Trump is very sensitive about the fact that a whole lot more people attended Obama's inauguration than his inauguration, so maybe he wants to see those moved inside to avoid any future embarrassment as he ponders whether he is running for a third term, which is not allowed under our Constitution. But what this type of ballroom does do--it is a massive fundraising scheme--a massive fundraising scheme. You can seat 1,000 people at once, all those people who make those massive donations and all of their friends, all those people who donate to campaigns. Oh, let's invite them to come be at this massive ballroom. But that is not a great idea. Philip Kennicott put it this way: Trump has previously been unable to convince the American public that the White House needs an ornate entertainment venue that would dwarf the historic mansion. Now he seeks to convince them he can't be safe without it. This suggests he plans to leave behind not just a radically transformed White House complex but a different conception of the presidency. And what is that conception? That conception is the President has the powers of an authoritarian ruler--of a King. They have a fancy name for it; it is called a unitary executive. And the President has proceeded to utilize 10 different strategies to undermine the checks and balances of our Constitution. But building this Louis XIV, gilded ballroom for fundraising and to symbolize that the President is a King--hell no. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, we are here at this moment to defend the Constitution, and the constitution of any nation is incredibly important in creating the vision of the checks and balances between the judiciary and the executive and the Congress. But what really matters is whether the elected representatives actually honor the Constitution. Do they follow the words and the vision laid out? You know, it is article I, section 8 that delineates powers, and in the course of it, there are three megapowers assigned to Congress. And one of those is the power of the purse: design programs, authorize them, fund them. It is a President's job to execute. The second is the power of taxation, including the power of tariffs. In fact, the first bill ever debated by the Senate was a tariff bill--3 weeks spent figuring out how they could reach agreement on what the tariff would be on a keg of nails or a barrel of molasses. And the third, perhaps the most consequential, is the power of war. You know, it is just three words delineated--``The Congress shall have [the] power,'' and it lays out these responsibilities, and then it says: ``To declare War.'' Three words: ``To declare War.'' Now, if anyone thinks those were just some kind of bureaucratic phrase, you are mistaken. Madison summed it up and pointed out that, in the history of all governments, it is the executive, as the branch of government, ``most interested in war, and most prone to it.'' And then he summarized it this way: The Constitution ``has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature.'' So this is the moment we decide today: Are we going to actually follow the document we took an oath to? Now, some of my colleagues have said: Well, the President also has the power, when there is an imminent threat to our national security, to act. And I don't dispute that. Think about planes on the way to bomb the United States, or forces--a raid across the border on the verge of coming across. But that was not the situation 2 months ago. There was no imminent threat of any kind, of any sort, anywhere near that exception. Perhaps this war really is a poster child for why the wisdom of the Founders was so important, because wars go off in directions you never anticipate, because wars result in carnage--the death of Americans, the injuries of Americans, the death of the combatants we oppose, the death of civilians, and treasure vastly expended. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--those misbegotten foreign adventures so poorly thought through--cost $8 trillion, the lives of 7,000 of our servicemembers, and 50,000 injured. That shows the consequences of war. But in those two cases, Afghanistan and Iraq, at least the President followed the Constitution, and this body, the Senate of the United States of America, insisted that the President follow the Constitution. Where is that insistence right now? Where is the leadership of this Chamber defending the constitutional role of the Senate? Why are they not on the floor at this moment saying: We took an oath to the Constitution, and, damn it, we are going to follow it. This war is another misbegotten adventure. It did not benefit in any way from a President's effort to persuade this Chamber or the Nation or the House of Representatives that this strategy had merit. Every expert said you can count on the Strait of Hormuz to be shut down. Every expert said extracting the highly enriched uranium from deep underground during the middle of war is a near impossibility. ``So what is your mission?'' they asked. But we didn't have those debates here in the Senate. What has this war actually done? It has strengthened the Iranian hardliners; that is not a win. It weakened the reformers; that is certainly not in our interest. It failed to secure the stockpile of highly enriched uranium; so that is a failure. It shredded our moral leadership as champions of human rights; that is certainly a loss. It enriched and emboldened Russia. We actually took off the sanctions, allowing Russia to make even more money on the sale of its oil, at the very time that they continue to attack Ukraine. It raised the prices at the pump. Oregon is at over $5 a gallon of gas. Maybe some of you are complaining about $4 a gallon. Well, it is $5 in Oregon. And diesel is $6. And the agricultural community is suffering from vastly higher prices on fertilizer, and everyone is suffering from increased inflation on everything that energy goes into. And this battle has already cost us in blood and treasure. We already have American servicemembers who have died. We already have more than 100 seriously injured. And it is already costing us directly a billion to $2 billion a day. Now, four times we have come to the floor and said the debate should be now, because the Constitution is clear: There is no 60-day clause when there is no imminent threat, in the law. And four times, it has been a partisan vote. There is nothing partisan about the Constitution. There is nothing partisan about the oath we took to the Constitution. There is nothing partisan at all about ensuring that the high risk of war is duly debated in this Chamber and following the advice of our Founders, including Jefferson and Madison. But the President launched this war in violation of the Constitution, and so now is the time we have to respond. And it is in the War Powers Act that we can put up a resolution that says: Stop. You have violated the law. Come and get the authorization the Constitution demands. Come and do that. That is what this vote is on today. Not only did the President violate the Constitution, but he threatened a bombing campaign that would have resulted in massive civilian deaths. He threatened to bomb Iran ``back to the Stone Ages,'' and he said: ``A whole civilization will die tonight.'' He threatened massive war crimes as part of his unregulated campaign, unauthorized by this body. So, to my colleagues, let's join together--united, Democrats and Republicans. We should have done so when Trump launched this illegal, unconstitutional war. We should have done so when 13 members died. We should have done so when we bombed a school and at least 175 people died--other reports have it much higher--and a whole lot of them schoolgirls. We should have done it when the President threatened to slaughter civilians and conduct war crimes overseas. We should have done it because it is costing us billions of dollars a day. We should have done it when the price at the pump shot through the roof. But most of all, we should have done it because the Constitution says it is our responsibility. I recognize it is an uncomfortable vote because we are perhaps afraid to take this consequential decision and get it wrong, so it is easier to duck the responsibility we have under the Constitution, but duck we must not because it is our responsibility; it is on our desk; it is what the Constitution requires. So let's honor that Constitution and vote yes and put up the stop sign and say: Mr. President, if you wish to pursue a war against Iran, then do what previous Presidents did in Afghanistan and Iraq and come and make your case and try to persuade us that it is in the Nation's interest. I think it is a very, very tough sell, which tells you a lot about what is wrong with this effort and why the Constitution requires that we weigh in. I urge my colleagues: Do your job under the Constitution and vote aye on the War Powers Resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, we are here tonight because our Republican colleagues have introduced a budget resolution. It is a budget resolution that unlocks the reconciliation process. But before we examine this next reconciliation bill, let's recognize that it has been just 10 months since we passed the last one. That was the one that was known as H.R. 1, or in Trump lingo: One Big Beautiful Bill. Of course, most of the Nation called it ``One Big Ugly Betrayal'' because that was a more accurate describer of what it did to families across our Nation. It slashed a trillion dollars from healthcare programs--a trillion dollars from healthcare programs--for families. It kicked 15 million Americans off health insurance. That certainly doesn't help American families. It took food off the plates of more than 3 million families with kids. You know, kids can't really do well in school if they are hungry; making them deliberately hungry--what were you thinking? What were you thinking in destroying healthcare by a trillion dollars for 15 million Americans, taking food off the plates of 3 million families with kids, and to do it to fund tax breaks for billionaires? Wow. That is all about government by and for the powerful. But you know why I love this country? Because it is all about government by and for the people. That is the vision our Nation was founded on. That is the beauty of a democratic republic. But what did we get last year? We got the opposite. We got the opposite--the type of policy that comes out of a strongman state, the type of policy that comes out when the powerful exercise tyranny over the people--the type of tyranny our Founders revolted against when they created our Nation. That is what we saw 10 months ago: families lose and billionaires won. And that is not all that bill did. It also gave 65 billion to Customs and Border Protection and 75 billion to Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE. And that amount of money was about seven times a normal annual appropriation. We can see here in this chart 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, all less than 10 billion; 2025, and there we are. So much more. The annual appropriation, plus this extra for ICE of an additional $75 billion. And anyone looking at the chart goes: Wow. They already prefunded, for multiple years, ICE. They did exactly the same thing for Customs and Border Protection--CBP. So we heard a few moments ago from my colleague at the head of the Budget Committee that ICE is out of money. Oh, really? Not true. That CBP is out of money. Not true. In fact, the President's Office of Management and Budget puts out a monthly report, so go look it up yourself. They are sitting on $103 billion of unobligated funds. So they already have funds for this year and next year and the year after. So the entire premise of this bill is completely false-- completely false. They don't need more money. What they do need are reforms about their conduct across America because they have been terrorizing our communities across our country because this administration said: No longer will you use the standard practices of ordinary enforcement that have been the standard in our Republic and democratic republics across the land. Instead, we are going to start violating those standards. We are going to put on face masks. We are going to rip the ID off the uniform so you can't tell who we are. We are going to use vans that have no label on them, and we are going to sometimes even strip the license plate off in order to disguise who we are, not because we are under cover but because we don't want people to be able to say: Can you believe what happened when those CBP agents came to town or those ICE agents came to town? Hard to say that when they are not identified. But those standards exist because there is accountability to the citizens of the country. Again, government by and for the people, not by and for the powerful. There are things called civil rights that this administration has forgotten about. They proceeded to say: We don't need warrants to break into people's homes. Are you kidding me? Every sixth grader in America has heard about the Bill of Rights and that we have the sanctity of our homes, and the government can't break in without a warrant. But this majority party, led by Trump, said: Yes, you can. Forget the Bill of Rights. Forget the Fourth Amendment. And then when we detain people, you have another right, and that is to contact a lawyer. But we are going to detain you and not let you contact a lawyer. We are going to detain you and not let you contact family. And when family says: Where did my family member go that you-all swept off the street? We are going say: We don't know. We moved them. We don't know where. That is not conduct acceptable in a democratic republic with a Constitution and a Bill of Rights. Well, since ICE and CBP have already been prefunded, since they are sitting on $103 billion of unobligated funds, what is this all about? It is about the majority saying: We want to drive home the point that we are just fine with the way ICE is conducting themselves. We are so fine that we won't reform any of those violations of civil rights or constitutional rights in order to have a normal budget process regarding CBP or regarding ICE. Well, if we are going to have a special reconciliation process when ICE and CBP have already been prefunded, how about we actually address issues that America cares about because that extra money isn't going to help with the border because they are already funded. It isn't going to help improve security because they are already funded. But you know what is not adequately funded? Healthcare is not adequately funded. There isn't a dime in this bill for healthcare. That is important to the American people. There is not a dime in this bill to help with the rising grocery prices that have gone up, up, up under Trump's stewardship--a whole lot of it impacted by his tariffs, which were themselves unconstitutional. There is not a dime in this bill to address the gas prices, which are over $5 a gallon in my State, and diesel is over $6 a gallon. Go talk to a farmer across America and see if they are happy and ask yourselves: If we are doing a special budget process, why not address some help to our farmers who are impacted not just by the high cost of diesel for their tractors, they are being extraordinarily impacted by the tariffs as well. Why not help them? Why not reduce the debt? This bill increases the debt. It is unpaid for just like the Republican war in Afghanistan was unpaid for, the Republican war in Iraq, going after nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, was unpaid for. They launched wars that undermine our security and cost the American Treasury $8 trillion of debt because they wouldn't pay for it, and now that debt is coming home to roost. And it means more interest payments, and it means paying higher interest. It means less money for those fundamentals for families, like healthcare and housing and education--the foundations for families to thrive. So there is not a dime for working families, not a dime to improve affordability, not a dime to reduce a deficit or the debt; but there is, in this bill, the instructions to two committees to spend up to $70 billion apiece. Now, my colleague clarified that they are not really going to ask for $140 billion but, more likely, $70 billion. OK. Well, $70 billion, that is a lot of money. What could $70 billion buy for America's families? Well, it could, every year for 3 years, pay the entire salary of 330,000 teachers across America. Wow. What an impact that would have on classroom size in our Nation--a real investment in our children for the next generation. Or that same $70 billion could hire 200,000 police officers every year for 3 years. What an investment in public safety for communities across this Nation. Or--we have been watching the dream of home ownership die. Back in 2020, the median age for buying a first home was about 33 years of age. Six years later, the median age for buying a home: 40 years. In 5 years, the median age has gone up 7 years because nobody is able to buy a home in America--in part because private equity is buying up all the houses and driving up the prices, and because our economy for the rich billionaires is not providing the type of wages for middle-class America it provided before. So how about downpayment assistance to help people become homeowners? That same $70 billion, that would provide 7 million American families with a $10,000 downpayment grant to help them become a homeowner. So 330,000 teachers a year for 3 years, 200,000 police officers a year for 3 years, 7 million families getting $10,000 downpayment grants. I make these examples to point out how large this sum is and how much need there is in America for us actually to invest in families--not tax breaks for billionaires but in families, in housing, in healthcare, in public safety, in education. That bill 10 months ago--that bill was families lose, billionaires win. Families lost healthcare. They lost nutrition. Billionaires got massive tax breaks. And to help fund those tax breaks for the billionaires, their bill added--get this--$30 trillion to the national debt over the next 30 years. And if interest rates are 1 percent higher than the interest rate used in the Congressional Budget Office's model, it is $50 trillion in additional debt over the next 30 years. So bankrupting America, failing to invest in families, going through this charade for two organizations that are already sitting on $103 billion and obviously pre-funded, that is not about building a better America. That is about families lose and billionaires win. That is about undermining the future for the next generation rather than building a better future for the next generation. There is a better vision for America than families lose and billionaires win. It is families thrive; and billionaires, they pay their fair share. Families thrive; billionaires pay their fair share. Investing in education helps families thrive. Investing in healthcare helps families thrive. Investing in housing and home ownership helps families thrive. Investing in infrastructure helps build the physical infrastructure for the next generation. But this bill says to hell with all of that; we are going to, instead, create this false story about unfunded Agencies that are already sitting on $103 billion. Let's reject this vision that is designed for families lose and billionaires win and instead adopt the vision of families thrive and billionaires pay their fair share. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, time to get this show on the road, so I yield back all remaining time on the Democratic side.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, my colleague from Kentucky is right that this bill is unfunded, that it adds to the deficit and adds to the debt. And maybe the best way to address that is not to send $70 billion to two Agencies that are sitting on top of $103 billion right now of unobligated funds. They couldn't even get started spending that massive amount from H.R. 1 last year. But blindly slashing away at scientific research when China is producing four times the patents that we are producing each year, blindly slashing away at Pell grants, which, under this proposal, would be equal to 2 million individual students losing their Pell grants-- that is the type of detailed work that needs to be done in the authorizing committees and in the Appropriations Committee. This slash- and-hack strategy is way off base.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, the bill cuts $16 billion from education. It doesn't say specifically where, but that is a good example of the type of thing that could happen. Vote on Amendment No. 5378

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5235 and ask that it be reported by number.