Jeff Merkley

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I am taking the floor tonight to ring the alarm bells for our democracy, with grave concerns about the opening up of a casino for betting on our elections. Imagine this. Election day is approaching. Ultrarich Americans and huge corporations bet billions of dollars on the outcome of which party controls the House of Representatives or bet those same billions on who controls the U.S. Senate. But as the election approaches--it is 45 days out; it is 30 days out--and one or two races might make the difference on whether they win or lose that bet, they now have a huge incentive to spend another vast sum smearing the candidate they want to lose. They now have a vast incentive to spread disinformation to get the outcome that they have wagered millions of dollars on or billions of dollars on. That is a profound corruption of our democracy. I am sure you are thinking: That could never happen here in America. That is not government by and for the people. That is not elections as a way of choosing who will best lead us forward or cast the votes consistent with our principles. That is, instead, just turning elections into a casino. But if you think this could never happen here, you are wrong. This isn't fantasy. Last week, less than 60 days before one of the most consequential elections in the history of our Nation, a Federal district judge--a DC district judge--threw the doors wide open for just such a gambling scheme on our elections, allowing individuals and corporations to bet up to $100 million apiece. No, this is not some research project where people can bet $10 to see, kind of, the influence of whether or not the way people bet is a better prediction than polling. No, this is not a research project. This is vast, powerful people betting huge sums and then, with dark money authorized through Citizens United court decisions, being able to put their thumbs on the scale. That is what happened last Thursday. Fortunately, shortly after the ruling was announced, it was appealed by the CFTC, or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, to the circuit court, and the circuit court put a stay on it--a stay that will give them time to think about whether they should allow this casino to go forward at this moment in time. They are going to make that decision, they say, by Thursday, 3 days from now. So I am ringing the alarm bells that there is an enormous threat to the integrity of our elections. It will be based on a decision of a circuit court 3 days from now. Will they, like the district judge, throw the doors open to the casino, allowing individuals to bet millions of dollars--up to $100 million--and do so knowing those same individuals can then spend massively to put their thumb on the scale and affect the outcome of the election? Let's go back a little bit to the lead-up to this moment. In 2020, a Wall Street firm called Kalshi was authorized by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or the CFTC, to do a limited amount of bets or contracts on events, ranging from what the daily temperature will be in Chicago to what countries will have a recession--lots of event contracts. Fast forward 3 years, and Kalshi decided to go way beyond that kind of structure, and they filed paperwork to say they wanted to allow an event contract allowing bets on the outcome of who controls the House and the Senate. Given this unprecedented move and concerns about how this type of action could corrupt the elections, the CFTC initiated a 90-day review period to study the issue and 30 days for public comment. In that comment period, I led a group of fellow Senators to weigh in, urging the CFTC to reject this event contract on elections. The letter stated: Mass commodification of our democratic process would raise widespread concerns about the integrity of our electoral process. Such an outcome is in clear conflict with the public interest and would undermine confidence in our political process. In September of last year, the CFTC agreed, and they rejected Kalshi's request, concluding that betting on elections is contrary to the public interest and would undermine the integrity of our elections. But Kalshi sued, and that is what put it in to the DC District Court that led to the decision last Thursday of a district court judge siding with Kalshi and allowing them to start offering or taking bets on who controls the House and Senate. I have in my hand here some of the legal language for the CFTC. Here is what it says: Under CEA section 5c(c)(5)(C)(i), the Commission may determine that contracts in certain excluded commodities . . . are contrary to the public interest if [they] involve: (1) activity . . . unlawful under Federal . . . law; (2) terrorism; (3) assassination; (4) war; (5) gaming; or (6) other similar activity determined by the Commission, by rule or regulation, contrary to the public interest. Here is the thing. This law clearly gave the Commission the power to proceed to control gaming. And what is gaming but a bet on an event? Despite the clear language that is in the law, despite the fact that gambling and gaming are used interchangeably in all kinds of rules and statutes, a district judge said: No concern about the public interest here. We will just throw the doors of the casino wide open. That is a vast concern, and I am hoping that the DC circuit judges are paying attention to the law having given the power to the CFTC to turn down contracts allowing gaming. Now, we just had, today, an attempted assassination attempt on former President Trump. Do you want to put contracts on assassinations when you know that people can put their thumb on the scale and actually try to assassinate someone? No. That is why the law is written like this. Do you want to be able to have people bet on the outcome of an election and then spend vast sums smearing the candidate they want to lose, corrupting the election from the vision of guiding our country forward into a simple gaming exercise about enriching those who cannot just make huge bets but can influence the outcome of those bets? Absolutely not. That is why the law is written in this fashion. So, at a minimum--at a minimum--the circuit court should stay this decision, not allow this to be unfolding now, less than 60 days before the election, 7 weeks from tomorrow. I think that makes it 43 days--49, 50--50 days, 7 weeks from tomorrow. It is not OK--not OK--to allow corruption of our elections in this fashion. I was thinking about the fact that this law allows insider trading. For example, Exxon--that is the decision of the district court--Exxon, an oil company, could be planning to fund a PAC, and that PAC is going to do a huge amount of ads involving disinformation, involving smearing a candidate--maybe, you know, the last 2 weeks of the election. They know that, but they are not banned from betting. So they can turn around and put a massive bet on the outcome of the election while they have the insider information about the huge campaign the PAC is planning that nobody else knows about. What an incentive to create that type of strategy--a strategy where the very rich and the very powerful can both cast the bet and heavily influence the outcome--not an influence about government by and for the people but about enriching, through a rigged bet, the most powerful people in our country. That is not the purpose of elections. That is why Congress wrote the law the way they wrote it, giving the CFTC the power to turn down this type of event contract. How about Russia, Russian nationals? Maybe they are lent money. They are here in the country. They can bet on the outcome of this election. Maybe they have allies who can donate to a PAC. Do you want to further incentivize public disinformation and election rigging by foreign powers? We already know how much China does. We already know how much Russia does. Do we want to give them such an easy platform to make this happen? There are certain principles core to democracy. One is that citizens have access to the ballot box. A second is the peaceful transfer of power. The third and the theory behind a democracy is that when votes are cast and when campaign donations are made, they are made because the person sees a representative who corresponds to their values. But in this case, it isn't about a person who corresponds to your values. You may, in fact, want somebody to win who is on the right end of the spectrum, but then you make a huge bet thinking the person on the left end is going to win, so you proceed to heavily smear the very person you, according to your principles, want to win because of your pocketbook now being at risk. This profoundly affects the public interest. This is a profound corruption of our democracy. We already have a lot of challenges. Social media is a problem. Cable television presenting different sets of facts in different parts of our universe is a challenge. Bots that create fake commentary, try to create themes that move people and make things appear real that are not real. Voter suppression--that is a challenge. AI, deepfakes are a challenge. The last thing we need is a casino on elections that, at its very core, incentivizes rigged bets contrary to the public interest and election outcomes driven by profit, not driven by values. So that is where we are. So I hope that the circuit court of DC will pay attention about how much is at risk. Now, I have noted that the current contract is about who controls the House and who controls the Senate, but once that is allowed, what is to prevent Kalshi from putting up an event contract on the outcome of a specific Senate race or a specific House race? Then we have a ton of really close races. Do we want those really close races to be affected by people betting--a bet up to a hundred million dollars followed by dark money smear campaigns under Citizens United--determining what the outcome of those races is? I think not--not if you believe in the vision of democracy, not if you believe in the vision of a republic, not if you believe that who comes to stand in this room is to be the person you think will honor our Constitution and work toward a better future. So, Madam President, I will just summarize by saying, just 3 days from today, there could be a decision. It could have a profound impact on the integrity of the coming election. That decision should be a stay that prevents these election contracts. Then this body should get to work and outlaw specifically, in the law, such contracts. It already appears that they have because it says the CFTC has the power to turn down event contracts based on gaming that are contrary to the public interest. But if one district judge has said that doesn't carry the day, there is another judge out there somewhere who will do the business of helping out some corporation trying to open the doors to that casino. So let's here come together--Democrats and Republicans, left and right--and say: We care about the integrity of our election, and we will not let this happen. But, first, we need a stay from the court to prevent it from happening this Thursday. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my interns be granted floor privileges for their shadow days as follows: Mabel Knapick for September 18, 2024; Amelia Nason for September 25, 2024; Sophia Spry for November 14, 2024; Sophie Davenport for November 19, 2024; Donovan Young for November 21, 2024; Max Townsend for December 4, 2024; Karis Rohrer for December 10, 2024; Gissel Narvaez-Santiago for December 12, 2024, and Jordan Montovino for December 17, 2024.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, as a long-standing advocate for public health and environmental protection, I commend the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) for its 20 years of unwavering dedication to ending asbestos-caused disease and to protecting Americans from the devastating effects of asbestos exposure. Since 2004, ADAO has been an indispensable partner in our efforts to reform toxic substance regulations and ban asbestos in the United States. Their work has been instrumental in shaping critical, lifesaving legislation, including the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which amended the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 2016. ADAO's commitment to science-based advocacy and policy reform has been crucial in educating lawmakers, the public, and regulatory agencies about the ongoing dangers of asbestos exposure, of which there is no safe level, and in keeping the issue at the forefront of our national health agenda. Their work has brought stakeholders together to make real change. ADAO has played a pivotal role in the development and promotion of the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act. Since 2017, my distinguished colleague from Oregon Representative Suzanne Bonamici and I have been proud to introduce this critical legislation. Named in honor of ADAO's founder Linda Reinstein's late husband Alan, it represents our shared commitment to finally and fully ban asbestos in the United States. Congratulations to the entire ADAO community on 20 years of lifesaving advocacy. Your dedication inspires us all as we work toward a United States free from the threat of asbestos.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, the Postal Service in the United States has always in the past been about great service. Their motto said all: Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night shall stop these courageous couriers from swift completion of their appointed rounds. That just rings with the ethic of good service. But today the Postal Service is run by a man named Louis DeJoy. Louis DeJoy is the Postmaster General, and I am sorry to report that there is no joy in DeJoy-ville. Smalltown America relies on the U.S. Postal Service. In the Postal Service's own words, it ``operates as a basic and fundamental service provided by the Government of the United States to the American people.'' It continues: Our basic mission is to provide prompt, reliable, efficient mail and packaging service to all Americans, regardless of where they live and at affordable rates. So one can understand, then, why so many Members of this Chamber on both sides of the aisle are alarmed by the growing chorus of complaints about the deteriorating quality of service by the U.S. Postal Service. Postmaster General DeJoy labeled his restructuring plan ``Delivering for America.'' A better name for this plan would be ``Delaying Mail in America.'' You only need to look at what is happening in my home State. Postmaster DeJoy's 10-year ``Delivering for America'' reorganization plan for the U.S. Postal Service calls for consolidating mail processing, which means downgrading regional mail processing facilities, which means sending all the mail to Portland, OR, to be sorted before it is returned to the community it originated in. Now, my State is 300 miles north to south, 400 miles east to west. That is a very large place, so it takes a lot of time if all the processing occurs in Portland. Medford in Southern Oregon was the postal sorting facility. It sorted, postmarked, and distributed millions of pieces of mail every year for Southern Oregon. But now, under ``Delivering for America''-- otherwise known as ``Delaying Mail in America''--now all that mail has to be shipped to Portland, OR, 270 miles to the north, and sorted and then trucked 275 miles back to the south even if you are sending a letter just across town. The Postal Service claims that this doesn't delay mail, but they refuse to explain how adding on 500 to 600 extra miles of driving doesn't delay the mail. Meanwhile, for this deteriorating service, they are raising prices. July 14--a single stamp now costs 73 cents. So, folks, just start to think about, if I want to send a letter, it is going to cost me a dollar, the envelope and the stamp. The Postal Service says: Our new system is more efficient and more cost-effective. It is not more cost-effective if people quit using the service because it is so terrible. You know, these price hikes and these delivery delays--they hit our rural communities the hardest. Smalltown Americans rely on the Postal Service to deliver lifesaving medications, to pay their bills, to run their small businesses. When they get an order, they need to be able to mail out the product. Newspapers in rural and coastal communities rely on the Postal Service for timely delivery. Even large corporations like Amazon and FedEx and UPS rely on the Postal Service to deliver a huge portion of their packages. Reliable, timely mail service keeps our friends, families, businesses--and in vote-by-mail States like Oregon--keeps them connected. That is why I have been raising the alarm about this ``Delaying Mail for America'' plan of DeJoy's over this last year. I called him up to discuss it. He didn't call me back, so I called him again, and he didn't call me back. So I organized a bipartisan group of Senators to send him a letter. Hopefully it didn't get delayed because he took away so many processing centers. Well, we know he did get the letter because we sent a bunch of them, and we did get some replies. But these letters are from bipartisan Senators who have been seeing the challenges that his plan is creating in their communities. The letter said: Stop doing this. Stop taking away our processing centers. That is making mail so much slower. Do you know what? We won a round. He said he will stop taking away these centers at least for the balance of this year--meaning until after the election. Well, that is politics. That is not good business; that is just politics. But in States that have already suffered the downgrade of their facilities--places like Oregon, Georgia, Virginia, States all over this country--we need those distribution centers reopened. We need the sorting machinery reinstalled. We need reliable, affordable mail service restored. The Postal Service has repeatedly said to my team that they aren't hearing about any significant issues for the Delivering for America plan. Well, maybe that is because they are not asking, or maybe that is because the letters of complaint came to us rather than them. So I have collected some concerns from my Oregon constituents. I asked them--particularly in the Medford and Eugene area, where the two service centers were recently downgraded--if they had been affected. I didn't receive one or two letters. You know, if you asked DeJoy, apparently, he would only expect me to receive letters that say how great the Postal Service was doing. I didn't receive any letters like that. I received hundreds of pages of responses, and they are describing--these Oregonians--the same problems that the Postmaster General's inspector general found in his recent report on Virginia. And, right now, the inspector general is preparing a report on Oregon, and I fully expect it will have similar issues documented. But, for now, let me document the issues by citing those letters that my constituents sent to me. A woman in Medford said: I am a 71-year-old disabled senior citizen. I order medicine, food, and household items through the mail. It is consistently late. A constituent in Klamath Falls reported: It's taking 2 to 3 weeks to send mail from Klamath Falls to Klamath Falls. Ridiculous! Her comment, of course, is a reflection of the mail having to be trucked almost 300 miles to be sorted and then trucked back. I have heard from many small-town Oregonians who are concerned about the delivery of their lifesaving medications. An Oregonian from White City shared: My elderly mother relies on mail delivery of her medications. Twice in the last few weeks she's had to go days without necessary inhalers because of postal delays. Miserable, breathless, dangerous days. Patricia Coats, in Waldport, on the coast said: We get our medications through the mail. . . . In some instances it's been delayed to the point that my husband has gone without for up to 5 to 7 days. Antoinette Corrente Evans, in Grants Pass, said: My insurance company will not let me order early to compensate for the delays. So, if I run out before delivery, I need to pay the full price for my expensive medicines. And these delays can seriously affect medical care as well as the delivery of pharmaceuticals. Blanche McKenna, in Ashland, a mother, said: As guardian for my son with severe disabilities, I need to go through mail service to give written consent for his services. . . . It took weeks for a simple consent to get to his provider, delaying much needed services. Those are services for her disabled son. These late deliveries risk lives; they risk livelihoods. Businesses of all sizes depend on the Postal Service. Honora Ni Aodagain, in Grants Pass, said: I depend a lot on the mail as part of my business. . . . Packages are not showing up when they are supposed to. Payments for bills are not getting to the vendor on time. It's a source of major frustration. And that word, ``frustration,'' showed up time and time and time again. Carolyn Rust, in Eugene, described how hard it is to keep the books balanced: Our company has seen our accounts payable deliveries delayed by 5 to 10 days. This has resulted in late fees. We finally resorted [to] paying all of our vendors a week early so . . . our payment would be received within a day of being due. We also have seen checks from our customers take 3 to 4 weeks to be delivered. Now, businesses aren't the only ones getting smacked with late fees for bills they have paid on time; ordinary folks are as well. Nadya Geras-Carson, in Eugene, told me: My bills arrive basically a day before they are due. . . . Which means, even if I mail the payment back on the next day, it is already late, and I am charged a late payment fee. Diana Dillard, in Brookings, said: On March 27, we mailed our Verizon and Geico payments as usual. On April 10, we received notification that our payments had not been received and . . . we were facing [a] cut-off of services. We made arrangements to pay over the phone and were shocked and angered when Verizon charged us $10 to speak to a customer service agent. . . . Extremely frustrating. A woman in Baker City said: I pay my estimated taxes quarterly. . . . More than one time, checks I have mailed never reached their addresses. . . . Local services recommend using a credit card to avoid late payment because of poor USPS service--even just across town. Another constituent, Denise Brooks, wrote to say: I work with a non-profit organization in Medford that provides assistance to the working poor and [to the] homeless. The one-week delivery time can have catastrophic outcomes to families [who are] already struggling. The delays cause late fees of $75 added onto . . . families' rent obligations and the potential for eviction from their rental. Late deliveries are a massive problem for one of the Postal Service's most important customers: newspapers. Timeliness is essential for newspapers. In this fast-changing world, nobody wants to read news that happened 3 or 4 days earlier. That seems like it is almost a month old. It just feels that way. But most small, local, and regional newspapers can't afford to hire a delivery service. So they rely on the Postal Service to deliver the papers. But since July of 2022, the Postal Service has jacked up the delivery prices for newspapers by about 42 percent. It makes it a lot more expensive for small newspapers that are often already struggling from the loss of advertisements for local goods in this electronic age, the loss of classified ads. It makes it much more expensive to deliver their newspapers. We need these smalltown newspapers to thrive. But if the newspapers are delivered late and if the cost of delivery is going up, that is just one more challenge affecting them and making it harder for them to thrive. And when people get their papers late, it isn't just that they are frustrated; it is that they start canceling their subscriptions--again, hitting our small newspapers hard. Publisher Joe Warren, with Country Media, which has community papers up and down the Oregon coast, told my team: Delivery is sporadic. Some weeks local mail--which is guaranteed the same day if we get papers to them by a certain time [of day]--is not happening. . . . Some weeks it's the next day or two. Other publishers have told me that they have taken it upon themselves to hand-deliver papers to some subscribers because the Postal Service simply did not deliver, while still charging them an arm and a leg. Perhaps Matt Hall, who has multiple newspapers in Southern Oregon, said it best when he said to my office: The USPS treats newspapers like a mine. They know we are a reliable source of revenue, but they keep extracting, and soon there will be nothing left. Postmaster DeJoy claims that their service changes are necessary to run the Postal Service like a profitable business. But here is the thing: Profitable businesses thrive by delivering good service. If they don't deliver good service, they don't stay profitable, and, very soon, they are out of business. That is the challenge. This is not a sustainable situation. The challenges reported by my constituents back home in Oregon: late deliveries of lifesaving medications; small businesses and individuals struggling to pay their vendors, struggling to get their checks delivered on time to avoid late fees; newspapers losing subscribers; mail taking weeks to go to a house just down the street because it has to go hundreds and hundreds of miles to be sorted, instead of going to a more local regional sorting facility. Now, we need to reverse DeJoy's downgrades. Now, we need to restore reliable, affordable mail delivery. Now is the time to take the Delivery for America plan and return it to the sender. Let's restore the vision that is so powerful in the USPS--U.S. Postal Service--motto: that rain nor heat nor gloom of night shall stop courageous couriers from swift completion of their appointed rounds. Let's not accept a world where there is no ``joy'' in ``DeJoyville'' and our constituents are so poorly served.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, last fall, Senator Wyden and I had the privilege of introducing Judge Mustafa Kasubhai to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Judge Kasubhai is unquestionably qualified to be the next U.S. district judge for the District of Oregon. I know that he will do an exceptional job for the people of our State and the people of the United States under the vision of equal justice for all. His record on the bench reflects his commitment to the U.S. Constitution, to the rule of law, and to precedent. I will quote the judge directly. He said: I have presided over 5,000 matters in my judicial career, and I have issued over 400 written opinions as a United States Magistrate Judge. My judicial opinions have been upheld over ninety percent of the time. Some in this Chamber have asked: But is the judge in the mainstream? Absolutely you are in the mainstream when you have that type of stellar record. It is no surprise that he brings support from across Oregon, from across the legal profession, and from across the political spectrum to his judicial nomination. He has been endorsed with the ``full support'' of the Oregon Association of Chiefs of Police for his unwavering commitment to supporting crime victims and law enforcement, which, in the police chief's opinion, ``make him an exemplary candidate for this esteemed position.'' He brings bipartisan support. He was nominated by President Biden, and his nomination has been endorsed by appointees of both President George Bush and President Donald J. Trump. President Bush's appointee, a senior judge for the U.S. district court of Oregon, called Judge Kasubhai ``the very soul of fairness.'' Let me tell you about the judge some things that Oregon has known for more than 30 years. His leadership in the law has been grounded in public service since he served as president of the Student Bar Association at the University of Oregon School of Law. After graduation, he went into private practice--not in a high-rise downtown, working for a big corporation, but serving ordinary folks in small towns and rural communities in southern and eastern Oregon. He has seen firsthand the day-to-day difficulties working families face in these rural areas. He brings to the bench a sense of fairness and justice for all. Shouldn't that be the foundation for a judge, that they really understand the perspective of justice for all--not justice for the powerful, not justice for the billionaires, justice for all? His service to Oregon and leadership in the law only increased in the following years, serving as a member of the Oregon Workers' Compensation Board, serving as a judge on the Lane County Circuit Court until, in 2018, he was elected by the active and senior Federal court judges of the District of Oregon to serve alongside them as a U.S. magistrate judge. When you are elected by other judges, you are a judge's judge. It says a lot about how highly he is respected. He was honored in 2022 with the Wallace P. Carson Award for Judicial Excellence, which recognizes those who make exemplary contributions to Oregon's judiciary. He is a standout judicial nominee with sterling credentials, an exemplary record, endorsement of law enforcement, and bipartisan support. He has earned the respect and admiration of his peers and colleagues. He is an outspoken champion for justice for all, a fierce believer in our democratic republic, and a passionate defender of the rule of law. When he visited Washington last fall, he told me he went to the National Archives to, in his words, ``pay tribute'' to the Constitution. He just wanted to see an original copy of the Constitution directly. So it is with some pride in his record in Oregon and a substantial amount of admiration for his service to the people of our State and the service he will give to the people of our Nation that I urge my colleagues to support Judge Mustafa Kasubhai to be the next U.S. district judge for the District of Oregon.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to grant floor privileges to my interns for the following days--these are the days that they are having their shadow day where they accompany me around the Capitol--Mimi Papathanasopoulos on June 18, 2024; Liliana Hernandez Vazquez on July 9, 2024; Amelia Ulmer on July 11, 2024; Oscar Ponteri on July 24; Samantha Castaneda on July 25; Anna Whitworth on July 30; Catherine Bikales on August 1, 2024; and Timothy Withrow on September 11, 2024.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, the Right to IVF Act is simple. It says that all Americans should have access to the tools that they need to start a family, no matter where they live or how much they earn or whether they serve in the military. That all sounds obvious. We shouldn't even need this bill, but we do need this bill. We need this bill because a judge in Alabama ruled that an embryo that is created by basic assistive reproductive technologies like IVF can be considered children. And that even if embryos aren't viable, an IVF provider could be held liable for manslaughter or murder if anything happens to those embryos. We need this bill because the cost for a single round of IVF is enough to bankrupt a family, let alone two or three or four rounds, and many parents are forced to bear all of those costs out-of-pocket. A constituent in Oregon said: Most fertility treatments are considered ``elective'' by insurance companies. I never elected to have a deformed uterus and fallopian tubes. Another parent in Oregon who was a public servant for 22 years added up the out-of-pocket costs: $9,000 to see the Reproductive Endocrinologist, $2,000 for consultation and diagnostic testing . . . $7,000 for medications . . . $3,000 for cryo-preservation and storage fees . . . $5- to 7,000 for genetic testing . . . $2- to 3,000 for embryo transfer. Then, we hope and pray it works. If not, then we do a second round. Again, all cash. Our insurance benefits do not cover ANY infertility treatments. We have nothing left. This is unacceptable. Fertility treatments are medical care that should be covered by insurance, full stop. We need this bill because many of our military servicemembers and veterans have been wounded and lost the ability to conceive, and many more are deployed to dangerous combat zones right now. Infertility rates for our members of the military can be up to three times higher than the rest of the population. They protect our families. Let us protect their ability to have a family and guarantee they have access to IVF and the other fertility care they need. And we need this bill because, as we celebrate the month of June as Pride Month, we know that many of our LGBTQ+ friends and family members rely on IVF to conceive. We shouldn't need this bill, but we do, to protect IVF providers, to cover IVF costs, protect the ability of members of our military, LGBTQ community to start a family. Anyone who has been through IVF knows that someone who is willing to endure the long and heart-wrenching process that involves truly wants to become a parent, to have children, to raise a family. And we should do all we can to support that. So I urge my Republican colleagues to reconsider. Instead of being so anti-family, instead of denying the ability of our community members to have children, join us in this protection. I yield the floor.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, this last weekend, I held six townhalls in six rural counties, and in townhall after townhall, people asked me: What happened to the Supreme Court? How did it become so corrupt? Why hasn't the Chief Justice reined it in? Well, these six townhalls were not an anomaly. I have held 25 townhalls previous to this weekend this year, and again, in community after community, people want to know how has it occurred that the Supreme Court has squandered its integrity. They are alarmed about the members of the Court taking special favors, gifts worth millions of dollars. Wait, did I say millions of dollars? Surely thousands, not millions. Yes, the Justices have taken gifts worth millions of dollars. The Fix the Court group has documented gifts since--let's see, over the last 20 years--2004 valued at $6,592,657 to 18 current and former Justices of the Court, with 1 Justice alone, Justice Thomas, taking 193 gifts valued at over $4 million and with Justice Alito accepting gifts valued at over $170,000. How is it possible that the highest Court in the land has sunk to such a low level? Those gifts--$300,000 luxury RVs, fishing trips to Alaska, superyacht trips to Russia and the Greek isles and Indonesia. Well, the Court did respond. They responded early this year by releasing their own code of ethics--a publicity stunt. It is a code of ethics with no teeth, a code of ethics with no enforcement, a code of ethics that completely fails to address the obvious conflicts of interest and breaches of public trust. Justice may be blind, but we cannot turn a blind eye to these injustices. Congress and the Court are separate but equal branches of power, and it is our job to check and balance one another. The Supreme Court certainly should have issued for itself a compelling code of ethics, but it has not, and so the balance is for us to do it for them. It is our responsibility to do it, to protect them from their own common instincts of taking gifts that they should never touch. The Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act will require a strong and enforceable code of ethics for the Supreme Court so that all Americans can trust that cases before the Court are being decided impartially, based on the facts of the case, the letter of the law, and the principles of our ``we the people'' Constitution, not based on relationships forged on superyachts and fishing trips and gifts of $300,000 RVs. Who here, if you were called to defend yourself at a suit in court, would feel like you are getting a fair hearing if the party who brought the suit against you has been giving thousands or millions of dollars to the judge hearing the case? Who here would think that you are getting a fair hearing? No one. We all understand that this is corruption. We all understand that this is a horrific conflict of interest. And we all understand it is unacceptable, and the Court has failed in its responsibility to the American people. The Supreme Court has to stand for the interests of the people, not the powerful. Think of these life-altering cases being decided by the Court on reproductive rights, on worker rights, on voting rights, on environmental rights, and on LGBTQ rights. So we need--the American people need--transparency. They need legitimacy. They need accountability. We, the American people, need justice unpolluted by gifts from parties having issues before the Court. So I urge my colleagues: Let's all stand together--all 100 of us stand up--for the integrity of the Court and pass the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act. It is my pleasure to yield to my colleague from the State of Delaware, Senator Coons.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that William LaDuca, my intern, have privileges of the floor for the balance of the day.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the privileges of the floor be extended for the balance of the day for my intern, Lucas Rigsby.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, Ann Bancroft, the first woman to reach both the North and South Poles, said: It looks like I do these journeys alone, but it takes great support from people in the wings pushing you along these journeys and helping you. The same can be said of us here in the U.S. Senate. It might look like Senators here in this Chamber lead and legislate alone; but, in fact, we are only able to do our work with support of the people in the wings--our dedicated and our tireless staff. Tonight, I am here to bid farewell to one of the Senate's most dedicated staffers and one of the longest serving members of Team Merkley, my communications director Martina McLennan. Martina, like Ann Bancroft, is a daughter of Minnesota. Martina, like Ann Bancroft, then connected with Oregon--Ann by attending the University of Oregon, and Martina, by serving the people of Oregon for the last 13 years. She joined our communications team in 2011. Back then, President Obama and I were still in our first terms. Social media was still pretty new. Our world and our media landscape have, in fact, changed a lot since then. Along the way, Martina has done every possible role in communications: writing speeches, drafting press releases, creating social media content, crafting op-eds, jotting talking points, compiling newsletters, pitching reporters on both coasts, and reading and translating my handwriting, which may have been the most difficult task of all because I can't read it 5 minutes after the ink dries--all the while thoughtfully advising and gently guiding me. She has been by my side through some of the biggest and most challenging moments of the time that I have been here in the Senate: helping secure more funding for the U.S. Forest Service to fight wildfires in 2012; supporting Janet Yellen, the first woman to chair the Federal Reserve; ensuring that regulators actually implemented our stronger Volcker rule in 2013; mourning with the citizens of Roseburg, OR, after the Umpqua Community College shooting in 2015; ensuring that we led the resistance at rallies and protests following President Trump's election in 2016; preparing and staffing me through the night during my 15-hour-and-27-minute marathon speech against Neil Gorsuch's Supreme Court nomination in 2017; traveling to the southern border with me in 2018 to show the world how the Trump administration was ripping immigrant children out of their parents' arms; writing, editing, and annotating our office's comprehensive 80-page report on the Trump administration's attacks on immigration and asylum in 2019; reorienting our entire communications operation to a virtual operation when the pandemic hit; supporting Oregon communities after the Labor Day wildfires in 2020; cleaning up my hideaway after it was ransacked by insurrectionists on January 6, 2021; and, through it all, finally, for filling in for long stretches when we were down a digital director or speechwriter or a deputy press secretary.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous that my intern Sophia D'Amelio be granted floor privileges for the balance of the day.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. To my colleague from Missouri, thank you for your comments at the beginning where you were talking about process and the need for the Senate to change. This is a very different Senate from when I first came here and saw it function in a fashion where the social contract was: I won't object to other people's amendments because they won't object to mine. And then everybody was able to do their amendments. And also the other factor, just taking it back almost 50 years ago-- it was 1976 when I came here as an intern--cloture motions were not used on motions to proceed. They were not used on amendments. They were only used on final passage. And so now we have the challenge, when a spending bill comes to the floor, that you have a cloture on motion to proceed, a cloture on substituting the Senate bill onto the House vehicle, a cloture motion on final passage, each taking 2 days plus 30 hours, which means 3 weeks are completely wasted time. I appreciated your expression that there is bipartisan energy and interest in making this place work better. It is a message I love to hear. I hope we can find a bipartisan strategy that will enable both sides to have amendments and will enable us to quit wasting 3 weeks of time with no action on every spending bill that comes to the floor. Many colleagues have expressed a desire to see each and every one of the appropriations bills come to the floor. The last one we had on the floor took 6 weeks. Maybe together we can find a better path. Thank you.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, in this Chamber over the last couple of months, we have heard haunting echoes of the past, haunting echoes of Chamberlain going to Munich in 1938 to say to Hitler: Go ahead. Take that slice of Czechoslovakia. We will simply look the other way and declare peace in our time. The parallel is not just haunting, it is scary. Folks advocating for saying to Putin: Just go ahead, take Ukraine. We will look the other way and tackle other challenges. In both cases, you had an authoritarian in Hitler, in Putin, determined to take adjacent land and certainly in Putin's case, determined to crush the democracy of the Republic to the south. Ukrainians speak a language that is a close cousin to Russia. Putin particularly resents the loss of so much territory, so many states that he controlled--or the Soviet Union controlled--not so long ago, and his mission is to reclaim as much as he can. It should be our mission--it is our mission; it is the American mission--to defend democracy in the world, to stand with people who are all about freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and freedom of religion and the freedom to cast a fair ballot to determine their own future. Those are all the values that Putin opposes. So much is at stake here for the future freedom of the people of Ukraine but also for American leadership in the world. If we follow in Chamberlain's footsteps from 1938 and look the other way, where else-- where else--will Putin decide to tackle? And how much partnership will we lose in the cause of democracy and freedom by breaking the pact we have forged so carefully with Europe to support Ukraine? And how much future blood will flow from our sons and daughters as we stand in other battles because of our failure in this case to stand with the people of Ukraine? Xi of China is watching carefully. Can the autocrat simply endure until the American people are tired, endure until the partnership between Europe and the United States breaks down? Can he simply maintain an assault on Taiwan until we fade away with other priorities? It is a vision in the world that we have been proud to fight for, the vision of democracy and the vision of freedom. This is the moment when we have the opportunity to actually secure a bill here in the Senate to fund the people of Ukraine. We are not being asked to shed our blood. We are not being asked to put our soldiers, our men and women, on the battlefield. We are not even being asked to put a huge share of our budget into this battle. It is 1.5 percent of our national budget--one and a half pennies on the dollar of our budget. If we cannot sustain even that modest commitment to stand for freedom, to stand for voting integrity in a Republic, in a democracy, then on what course has the United States gone? Let us stay the course as champions of freedom and champions of democracy and take a strong step forward today to completing the work of making sure we stand with the people of Ukraine, we maintain our partnership with Europe, and we continue to lead for freedom and democracy.

Mr. MERKLEY

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

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, the supplemental emergency package that we are considering addresses a number of issues, including, very importantly, the challenge of supporting the Ukrainian people. It also includes $9.2 billion for humanitarian aid around the world, and some of that aid will assist with the humanitarian challenge in Gaza. But I want to address that challenge in Gaza today in far more detail and argue that we need to do more; that we are so connected to the circumstances in Gaza because of our very close relationship with Israel; that the United States has a moral imperative, a moral responsibility, to launch a massive effort to address the humanitarian challenges in Gaza--to address the shortage of water, the shortage of food, and the shortage of medical supplies. We have worked conscientiously with Israel to try to dramatically increase that aid. We have done so month after month after month, but that effort has produced only a trickle of aid compared to the need, and the circumstances in Gaza continue to deteriorate. So the United States needs to operate or launch ``Operation Gaza Rescue''--or give it some other name but a bold and dramatic intervention in the humanitarian circumstances in Gaza. Let me be clear. Israel had every right to go after Hamas after the horrific assault by Hamas terrorists on October 7 on villages in Israel, but how Israel conducts that war matters. Hamas is Israel's enemy. The Palestinian civilians are not Israel's enemy, and the Palestinian civilians are not our enemy. Israel's approach to the war, however, has produced horrifying, unacceptable levels of deaths and injuries and suffering for those Palestinian civilians. That has to change. It is why I have called for a cease-fire. It is why I have noted, though, that a cease-fire will not endure unless it includes the return of the hostages and an end to Hamas control in Gaza. I salute today the Biden administration's intensive efforts to produce a cease-fire--a 40-day cease-fire and hopefully a permanent cease-fire--but yesterday those hopes were shattered. While such an outcome might still develop tomorrow or the day after, there is no certainty at all that it will come about, and that is why we can't simply hinge our hopes for addressing the tremendous suffering in Gaza on the possibility of a cease-fire. There is no guarantee when those negotiations will be successful, and with each passing day, the situation in Gaza is getting a lot worse. The Netanyahu government's approach to the war has dramatically increased the suffering of civilians. At the same time, they have slow- walked the provision of humanitarian aid. Senator Van Hollen and I went to Rafah crossing, Rafah gate. We met with some of the most seasoned humanitarian workers to be found in the world. They told us about their work, having been in Sudan and in Yemen and on the frontlines in Ukraine. They said the combination of factors that they saw in Gaza made this worse than any other war or conflict they had ever been at--the worst humanitarian catastrophe that a group of seasoned aid workers had ever witnessed. Netanyahu's government's war strategy has inflicted suffering on innocent civilians in multiple ways. President Biden described the Netanyahu government's bombing and shelling as ``indiscriminate,'' and that indiscriminate bombing has resulted in a breathtaking number of civilian casualties and injuries, now counting more than 27,000 dead, not including the estimates of those who might be trapped in the rubble. This number--every few days, it goes up by another thousand people, and more than double that number--some estimated 67,000 Palestinians with significant injuries. Among the dead, among those 27,000, more than 18,000 women and children have died. You know, these numbers, they are just--they are numbers. They are hard to get your hands around. So think about it this way: If 18,000 women and children were lined up, holding hands, they would form a line 13 miles long. Picture yourself going on a hike for 13 miles, and with every stride, another dead child, another dead woman. Or picture it this way: If you were to spend 1 minute with each of those 18,000 individuals before they had passed away, it would have taken you more than 300 hours to have met each of them. And, of course, it isn't just the dead and the injured. We see the huge impact in the form of the challenges faced by expectant mothers, mothers carrying children, mothers delivering children. More mothers are having miscarriages. More mothers are having stillbirths. More mothers are anemic because of malnutrition, and that anemia is producing more postpartum hemorrhaging. More mothers are enduring C-sections without anesthesia. If any of you have had the privilege of being in the room with a woman delivering a child and imagine a C-section without anesthesia, you can imagine just how horrific that is. Of course, the bombing has had devastating impacts on the infrastructure, all kinds of infrastructure. We have an estimated 70,000 homes destroyed, 300,000 homes damaged, 1.7 million people internally displaced inside Gaza--1.7 million out of 2.2 million Gazans. That is just an enormous percentage, an enormous number. That isn't all. Because so little aid has gotten in, hunger is rampant. Of those who are estimated to be at the highest level of hunger in the world, by far, the majority are in Gaza as compared to the rest of the world, the entire rest of the planet combined. Ninety percent of people in Gaza are surviving on less than a meal per day. The impacts of that malnutrition also add to the impacts on new mothers in the form of women who are malnourished and cannot breastfeed. If you can't breastfeed, you need to have clean water for formula. But the U.N. reports that about 70 percent of the people in Gaza are drinking contaminated water. Clean water is extremely hard to come by. If you provide formula with contaminated water, then the odds of a baby surviving drop dramatically. On the medical side, there were 36 hospitals in Gaza before October 7. There are 13 that are still functioning, and they are not functioning well. They are short of basic medical supplies like anesthesia and antibiotics, drug supplies for diabetics or hypertension--the whole host of issues that they face. You know, the supply of food, water, and medicine can be provided through trucks. Before October 7, 500 trucks a day entered Gaza. Over the last 7 days, the U.N. reports that an average of about 170 trucks came in per day. It is not enough to meet even the most basic food, water, and medical issues in Gaza, meaning that with each passing day, the situation is getting worse and worse and worse. Why are there so few trucks? Two reasons. The first is that Israel has set up a very complicated system to inspect the trucks before entering. They had such an inspection system before October 7, and they were able to inspect and allow 500 trucks a day to enter, but they set up a convoluted system now that Senator Van Hollen and I witnessed at Rafah crossing where truckdrivers, after loading up their supplies, often wait up to a week to get permission to pass into Gaza--a week. During that time, they have to wait until they can go to Nitzana to have an inspection. That means traveling down the road and going into Israel from Egypt. There, the load is inspected. Often, all the pallets are taken off, and they are looked at carefully. There are a whole bunch of items that have been precleared because they are medical, food, and water items desperately needed, but at that site, the inspector may simply say ``I am not accepting that item,'' and then not just that item but the entire truck is rejected, and the process starts all over again. Senator Van Hollen and I went to a warehouse full of these rejected items. There were medical supplies and food supplies and bladders that you could put into the back of a pickup truck or on a flatbed to carry water and deliver water--all rejected. In fact, we were told that one of the items being rejected were sanitary kits for assisting in the delivery of a child. I said: How could one reject a kit for the delivery of children? The answer was--the inspector said: There is a scalpel in this kit, and that is a knife, and so these kits cannot be allowed. We have women delivering babies often without going to the hospital because the communications have been shut down, but when they do get to a hospital, not even the basic supplies have necessarily arrived to assist the doctors to provide the right care in the right way at the moment a woman is giving birth. So if you make it through this complicated, bizarre inspection process that is designed to slow everything down; if you finally get permission to go through Rafah gate or Kerem Shalom gate by the U.N.-- trucks going through a separate entry; if you get that permission, then the problem is, how are you going to get from there to the warehouse? How are you going to get from there to the hospital? Because there is a war going on. Bombs are dropping. Shells are being fired. Tanks are shooting shells. So you need deconfliction to be able to deliver humanitarian supplies. And who can deconflict? Only one entity can deconflict, and that is Israel, and Israel has refused to do so. So now imagine the truck comes in. The Egyptian truckdriver says that now it must be transferred to a Palestinian truck and a Palestinian driver. How is the Palestinian driver even going to know there is a truck there when the communications have been shut down? How is the Palestinian driver going to get safely to the truck? How are they going to get safely to the warehouse when there is no deconfliction? So, of course, people have been dying trying to deliver the aid to the hospital or the aid to the warehouse. The failure to have a sane, efficient inspection process--which we know is possible because Israel was able to do that for 500 trucks a day before October 7--in combination with the complete failure of deconfliction has resulted in a very small amount of aid getting in. That is the challenge. That is the challenge truckdrivers face, with broken roads and falling bombs and artillery shells, risking their lives as they do every day and making it extremely difficult. For months, President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken, Defense Secretary Austin, and other senior members of the administration have been urging the Netanyahu government to change course. They have urged the Netanyahu government to adopt a strategy against Hamas that does not produce this tremendous number of civilian deaths, civilian injuries, and massive suffering. And Netanyahu has stiff-armed the American Government. They have made some little changes here and there but the same basic fact--massively insufficient supply of food and water and medical supplies. I have heard how members of the administration, the top teams, have had very testy, very difficult conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu and with his other core leaders. But, you know what, no matter how much we ask, no matter how often we ask, the same result-- massively insufficient humanitarian aid. So President Biden's request to change war strategies has been rejected, President Biden and his team's request to massively increase humanitarian aid have been rejected, and the circumstances get worse and worse and worse in Gaza with every passing day. President Biden is doing the right thing by trying to urge Israel to make those changes, but the Netanyahu government has been very clear in the end that they are not going to do so. So the strategy, however well-intentioned, however passionately carried, has failed. This leaves us, the United States of America--it leaves us in a terrible place. We are Israel's closest partner. The suffering in Gaza now becomes part of our story. It becomes part of our responsibility. As Israel's largest supplier of economic aid, it becomes part of our responsibility. As Israel's largest supplier of military aid, it becomes part of our responsibility. As Israel's largest supplier specifically of bombs and artillery shells that the Netanyahu government has used in that indiscriminate bombing that President Biden talks about, it becomes our responsibility. Thus, if it is our responsibility, we have to act. The United States must act. Asking politely or asking urgently or asking passionately or asking often to Israel is not enough. That strategy--it has failed. That is why it is incumbent on the United States to immediately stand up a rescue operation--Operation Gaza Rescue--to get that massive humanitarian aid into Gaza, to deliver the food, the water, the medical supplies. It is time to make sure that every one of the 13 remaining hospitals--13 out of 36--has all the medicines and medical supplies it needs. We can do that through immediate and sustained helicopter deliveries. We can do that with direct deconfliction with the Israelis because they are not going to shoot down American helicopters delivering aid. How do we know that deconfliction can work in that setting? Because it has already been done. Jordan has been delivering on repeated occasions assistance through airdrop deliveries. If Jordan can do this, the United States, with our massive capabilities, can do so. It is time not just to ensure that every hospital has everything it needs but to ensure there is enough food and water to alleviate the massive hunger and the massive challenge of citizens unable to currently get clean water. We know that dirty water will produce disease. We know that sustained undernutrition or malnutrition-- starvation--will produce significant challenges, illness. The combination is terrible, even before you add in the massive injuries from the bombing and the shelling. We can get that food and we can get that water into Gaza. It is a 40-mile coastline. We have huge assets that can deliver food and water from sea to shore. It is our responsibility to do so. We are at this point--because of our close relationship and partnership with Israel, we, the United States, are complicit in the starvation, the hunger, the thirst, the illness, the brokenness, the suffering of the Gazan people. So I direct my comments to President Biden and his top team: You all worked very hard to find a path through Israel to get the aid in, and it has failed. I commend you for trying. But now it is our responsibility, our moral responsibility, to no longer be complicit in this humanitarian catastrophe. We must act and act now. I encourage President Biden and his team: Meet today. Send the orders to ships today to get offshore. Launch the plans today to be able to provide those medical supplies to those 13 hospitals. Prepare those plans now for sea-to-shore delivery of food and water. Communicate to Israel that we are going to do this because we will not be complicit in this humanitarian catastrophe that is ongoing; that we value the life of every civilian, every Palestinian civilian, we value the life of every Palestinian woman and child, and we, the United States, are going to act. President Biden, I encourage you not to only meet with your team to plan this but to announce it to the American people. The American people are deeply concerned about our close association with this humanitarian disaster. The world is very concerned about our close association and complicity in this humanitarian disaster. So speak to us, the American people, that Team Biden will act not in a week, not in a month, not when the war ends--but now. There is no time to waste, and this is a moral imperative. It is the United States that so often says to the rest of the world: What has gone on here, and why have you allowed it to happen? This is an unacceptable humanitarian catastrophe, and you must address it. That is the United States talking to the world, but now we have a humanitarian catastrophe that is in our hands, our responsibility, and we have to carry that responsibility squarely, directly, and act immediately and boldly. American complicity in the suffering of the Palestinians living in Gaza must end. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 544, which is at the desk.

Mr. MERKLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 12 noon on Wednesday, February 7; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 30, H.R. 815.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 480, Nicole Shampaine, for the rank of Ambassador during her tenure of service as United States Representative to the Organization of the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon table; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, in December, President Zelenskyy came here to Congress. He came to us because he is fighting for his country's future and for his citizens' lives. This supplemental spending bill, the portion for Ukraine, will fulfill our commitments to our allies, defend democracy, and save innocent lives. Let's be absolutely clear about that. Ukrainian civilians will live or die based on what we decide to do here in the Senate, in this Chamber. Are we going to ignore the requests, the pleas, the cries for help from our fellow champions of democracy in Ukraine? President Zelenskyy has told us that Ukrainians will continue to fight with or without us. By that, he did not mean that they don't need us. No, they need us more than ever. With our help, they have pushed back against the Russian invaders. Without our help, they will run out of ammunition to hold back the Russians. Our White House has conveyed this message: We are out of money--and nearly out of time. That is our government speaking. Our White House has warned us that ``while our allies around the world have stepped up to do more, U.S. support is critical and cannot be replicated by others.'' Putin himself told us the deadly stakes. He said: [Ukraine] will only have a week to live when the ammunition runs out. And Ukrainians are running out of ammunition. Now, the United States could choose to stop funding, but the Ukrainians can't choose to stop fighting--nor would any of us if war came to our hometowns. If you had to defend your home, if you had to defend your family knowing that, if you stopped fighting, that death would fall from the sky as bombs and rockets obliterated your communities; that as Russian soldiers marched down your quiet street, your neighbors would be tortured, raped, your children stolen, your family executed, would you stop fighting even if you ran out of ammunition? And those actions are what Russia has already done in the cities and towns they ran over in Ukraine. We know it will continue to happen if they run over other cities. So the Ukrainian people really are fighting for their lives, and we are here debating whether we are going to abandon them. This is a conversation I can't believe we are having. I can't believe, with all of the foreign engagements we have been involved in, that when a fellow Republic which has repeatedly pushed hard to be out from under Russia's thumb, which had the Orange Revolution, which threw a President out of their country who wanted to betray them, who are now fighting in the streets against this Russian invasion--I can't believe we are having this conversation here in the Senate with so many colleagues ready to abandon Ukraine. But this is certainly a critical debate. Ukraine is not some regional conflict on a faraway map. Putin himself put it this way in October. He said: This is not a territorial conflict or even the establishment of a regional geopolitical balance. He continued, and he said: The question is much broader and more fundamental: We are talking about the principles on which the new world order will be based. That is Putin. And what are the principles that Putin champions in that new world order? Well, we know what they are: the end of freedom of speech; the end of freedom of assembly; the end of freedom of religion; the end of citizens, through the integrity of democratic elections, choosing their own leaders and their own futures. And there is another principle that is very much embedded with Putin, and that is the continuation of vile crimes against humanity--of rape, torture, and execution. And Putin is not the only authoritarian in the world with this set of principles. We have got the Ayatollah in Iran to Xi Jinping in China who share his vision, who have closed ranks behind him in this fight, this fight in which they evade sanctions, legitimize tyranny, undermine the precious values of human rights, freedom, and democracy. They are watching the United States very closely. They are watching to see if Senators in this Chamber are going to vote to abandon Ukraine. They are going to see if Senators in this Chamber are going to abandon our partnership and alliance with NATO in support of the people and the republic in Ukraine. They are watching to see if they can outlast our fickle political attention span. They are watching to see if they can invade their neighboring countries, execute the citizens in that country, and take over those adjacent nations, all for more power and more profit. It is so important that democracy stand shoulder to shoulder in this fight. We know that is what we need to do. That is how we won the Cold War. And before that, it is how we won World War II when we defeated another axis of authoritarians bent on repression and conquest. It was in 1940. Germany and Italy signed a pact to support each other. Back then, many Americans believed that we could stay out of war in Eastern Europe by hiding behind the slogan of ``America First.'' And then the bombs fell on Pearl Harbor. The war in Europe then, like the war in Europe today, isn't some regional conflict that we can ignore, not some regional conflict that doesn't affect us. It is a universal struggle about whether people in Ukraine and here in the United States have the right to live in freedom and peace or whether repressive authoritarians can conquer democracies. And the authoritarians in Europe and Asia then, like the authoritarians in Europe and Asia today, were dictators who viewed democracy as a threat--a threat to their power, a threat that must be destroyed. Dictators do not stop. Dictators must be stopped. Putin has ruled Russia for a quarter of a century, and he wants even more time to continue his establishment of those principles against freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, the principles of crushing dissent. Putin has ruled with total and merciless control and power, and he wants even more power. What makes us think that ceding some of Ukraine will be enough to placate him? We have seen this story before. The last time the world naively tried to placate a murderous madman was when British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain went to Munich in 1938. In Munich, Chamberlain told Hitler, like some colleagues in this Chamber today want to say to Putin, that he could have a slice of an adjacent country--in that case, Czechoslovakia--and England would look the other way and declare ``peace in our time.'' But that appeasement of Hitler didn't produce ``peace in our time.'' Instead, that appeasement encouraged his appetite, made him stronger, set the stage for the unimaginable horrors of World War II. Appeasing Putin today is as wrong strategically and morally as appeasing Hitler was 86 years ago. Think of the lives we could have saved and the incalculable destruction we could have prevented had we stopped Hitler in 1938. Well, we have that same question before us right now. Every student of history, every student of politics, if they could go back in time, would tell Chamberlain: Do not appease Hitler. That will not work. For the same reason, every student of history and politics today is telling us: Don't appease Putin. Appeasing Putin would be a mistake of the same magnitude, one that future historians will condemn as the mega-mistake of the 21st century. We must say here in this Chamber--we must say no to another Munich moment. We must say no to appeasement. We must say no to the Neville Chamberlains of our time. Some of my colleagues asked the question: Can we afford to defend democracy? Munich and Pearl Harbor teach us we cannot afford not to defend democracy. A threat to democracy anywhere is a threat to democracy everywhere. Experts estimate that Putin is spending some 30 percent, and possibly quite more, of his government budget to fight this war. We here in the United States, we are spending 1.5 percent of our government budget to support Ukraine. That is pennies on the dollar. A penny and a half of our Federal budget, that is all we are asking. The Ukrainians are fighting and giving with their lives and their injuries to save their democracy. All they are asking of us: 1.5 percent of our Federal budget. We are not putting Americans in harm's way in the process. We are just being asked for 1.5 percent of our government budget. But that 1.5 percent, that is so important. It is that 1.5 percent combined with the European partnership that is supporting the people in Ukraine. It is those pennies, that 1.5 percent, that is ensuring that Ukrainian soldiers don't run out of artillery shells. It is those pennies, that 1.5 percent, so that Ukrainian soldiers won't run out of air defenses. It is those pennies that will ensure Ukrainian soldiers will not run out of ammunition. If Putin conquers Ukraine like Hitler conquered Czechoslovakia, if he sees the United States will not stand with this democratic ally, where will his attention turn next? Where will his attention turn to his next project? He is a frustrated KGB agent who saw the dissolution of the USSR, the Soviet Union, as the biggest calamity of his life, and he wants to do everything in his power to take back as much as he possibly can in his lifetime. That is his mission. So anyone who thinks you can appease Putin the way Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler, you are just wrong. Imagine the costs when Russian tanks roll up to the border of Poland or Estonia or Latvia or Finland. All NATO members are sworn by a treaty to defend each other, and that includes not just our money but our soldiers. It makes so much sense to stand with Ukraine today and stop Putin in Ukraine rather than to hand over Ukraine and then defend the rest of Europe from his aggression that will surely follow. And think about the message that we are sending to China regarding Taiwan. China is watching this very closely. China says: If Putin can outlast the United States and Europe in Ukraine, well, we can certainly outlast them when we attack Taiwan. So standing with Ukraine today is the right stance if you want to deter China from attacking Taiwan tomorrow. We could have stopped Hitler in 1938, just like we can stop Putin today. This is a war between democracy and authoritarianism, and this Senate floor, the battlefield, is right here, right now, this week. The decisions that we make this week about funding Ukraine may be the most consequential of our careers. The United States, in this fight, is the only truly indispensable nation. If we are leaders of the free world, if we are the last best hope for democracy, then we have to actually be that hope for democracy. We have to heed the lessons of history. We have to stop dictators like Putin in their tracks, and we need to do it now. When President Zelenskyy was here before Congress in 2022, he said: This struggle will define in what world our children and grandchildren will live, and then their children and grandchildren. It will define whether it will be a democracy of Ukrainians and for Americans--for all. He continued: This battle cannot be frozen or postponed. It cannot be ignored. My friends, defending Ukraine is not some charitable operation where we can decide to give a little more or a little less and feel good about it. Defending Ukraine is global and national security. Putin and his authoritarian allies want to show the world that democracies don't work. We here in the U.S. Senate, need to show the world that democracies do work. The Senate should debate the supplemental security spending for Ukraine this week in this Chamber; the Senate should vote on this supplemental security for Ukraine this week in this Chamber; and this Senate should pass this emergency funding supplemental for Ukraine here in this Chamber this week for Ukraine's democracy and for our own.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I have one request for committee to meet during today's session of the Senate. It has the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committee is authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: subcommittee on investigations The Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 3:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.