Jeff Merkley

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you to my colleague from Vermont. I appreciate your points, and I do share them, yes. You expressed them thoroughly and compassionately. And thank you for your advocacy. I see that my colleague from Virginia is on the floor. Would my colleague from Virginia consider asking a question?

Mr. MERKLEY. I will yield for a question, yes.

Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you so much, my colleague for Virginia, for laying out this story, which is then quite presented because of its extraordinary nature, to have U.S. attorneys basically fired in short order because they stood up for the principle of the rule of law, rather than agree to be part of a political persecution or prosecution team. And I must say they are candidates to go up on my wall of heroes. And I so respect--now here, as you said with Todd, he wasn't coming from the blue side of the aisle. And he wasn't just a newbie to the house. He was the leader of the house Republicans. When they were in charge, he was the speaker. Now, I was the speaker as well. I have a little affection for the speakers, but I know how difficult it can be to run a chamber. So you have to be deeply, deeply connected to your colleagues and your caucus as you manage that process. So this individual, just by that resume, clearly, was coming with a set of values deeply rooted in the Republican Party. The value he didn't have was to screw over innocent people. And thank goodness we still have people willing to stand up for justice not, if you will, injustice. Because that is what we are seeing. We see it in the form of the enemies list that the President is going after, but we also see it--and more hidden normally--the firing of individuals, the tossing of individuals who aren't willing to take a loyalty test. Their loyalty is to the Constitution, not to the President. So I think it says a tremendous amount about how far we are into the authoritarian state. This is kind of standard operating procedure for an authoritarian. You mentioned kind of creeping authoritarianism. I would say we are on full-stream authoritarianism because so much is happening in terms of the firing of employees who are failing the loyalty test; the decimating of programs at the whim of the President, rather than by the laws being passed here; ignoring laws that apply to the Executive, like the fact that you can't fire inspectors general unless it is for cause and 30 days. The attack on due process and free speech and free press, the weaponization, in general, of the Justice Department--which is kind of a facet of it--and then the effort to get court decisions that enable the President to deploy the military in the streets, when there is no insurrection, no rebellion, and no invasion. And this last piece, I think, is extraordinarily dangerous, not yet an issue that has come to your home in Virginia, but it has come to Southern California and to DC and to Portland, OR, and to Chicago, IL. And there will be others because the whole intent is to have the court decisions resolved that provide the precedent for deploying troops when and how the President wants, according to his definition of what a rebellion is or an insurrection is, as opposed to the realities. So there are no checks on that use of military. These are all so many things happening all at once. Remember, we are simply 9 months into this administration. Wow. I mean, it is breathtaking. You had to have--the team had to have a careful plan, ready to roll, things that were going to be done every day. And that is why they had Project 2025. That is why they have Russ Vought at the head of OMB, being the engineer of that Trumpian trainer. And we are in big trouble, so we are ringing the alarm bells. You are ringing the alarm bells. The people--they are 7 million strong on the weekend--were ringing the alarm bells in the biggest demonstration in U.S. history in a single day, but that is so important right now if we are going to save our Republic. And thank you for being a core part of the rescue team. I yield for a possible additional question.

Mr. MERKLEY. Yes, I will yield for another question.

Mr. MERKLEY. Well, thank you for the question. I thought when you were going to hand me this I was going to have a Rorschach test or something of that nature. But I knew within seconds what this was, as soon as I realized it was machinery and not parts of a bridge. But this is the demolition at the White House to prepare for some $300 million ballroom. At least that is what I am nominating as my answer, and I would yield to you a question if you would like to follow up.

Mr. MERKLEY. I will indeed allow a question.

Mr. MERKLEY. You are asking such a cerebral and philosophical question here as I am in the 20-whatever hour of the day. But here we have evidence of the President tearing down a symbol of our Republic and building a symbol that is really a symbol about authoritarian power, about a government that serves the rich. Just the fact that we are spending money on a $300 million ballroom-- which I can't even imagine how it cost that much--when at the same time, the President will not come as requested by the minority leader in the House and minority leader in the Senate and sit down and work on it. I am sure they are willing to go to him, sit down, and work on the fact that we are facing 20 million people who are going to have their healthcare costs doubled. But instead of addressing that, the President is tearing down part of the symbol of our Republic, a President, and building a symbol of a King. I yield the floor. I thank my colleague from Oregon for this important conversation and for your stamina and patriotism.

Mr. MERKLEY. My stamina is getting a little shaky. I see my colleague from California standing behind me. I will get out of the way. I ask if you would care to ask a question.

Mr. MERKLEY. I will yield for a question.

Mr. MERKLEY. Well, I so appreciate the question from my colleague from California. I must say this is a pretty comprehensive list you put forward, and I was checking them off in the order of issues that I have been raising over the many hours through the night last night, but I think the one that I didn't have that I actually agree with very much is your final point of the firehose of falsehoods, because we are just adrift in a sea of misinformation and disinformation. Then added into that toxic brew is a whole lot of just basic propaganda in a place it doesn't belong. When you go out to the Portland airport, you will not hear the tape that Noem wants played. She wanted it played in airports all around the country, and a group of airports, led first by Portland, OR, said: No. It is breaking the law. It is breaking the Hatch Act; it is breaking the Anti-Lobbying Act; and it is breaking some other act on the list. In a situation where the administration does not care what the law says, the philosophy is this: We are the unitary executive. We are in charge, and we can do whatever the hell we want--a ``take us to court if you don't like it'' attitude. Then we see the deliberate crushing of rights, and we see the deliberate grabbing of the power of the purse from Congress. The difference between an authoritarian government--and there are many differences, but one way to describe the difference between an authoritarian government and a democracy is, in a democracy, the representatives of the people decide what the programs are, how they will be funded, and how they will be run. In an authoritarian government, all of those powers--``What are the programs? How much money will we put into them? How will they be run?''--transition to the executive, the all-powerful executive. So every time we hear Trump or his Cabinet members saying, ``I am canceling that grant'' or ``I am defunding that program because it doesn't act consistent with the priorities of this administration,'' that is an authoritarian statement, and we are deep into this authoritarian crisis. The poster behind me says: Ring the alarm bells. I thank you for helping to ring these alarm bells in a very cogent and extensive way. I thank the 7 million people who went out and protested on Saturday for ringing the alarm bells because what we know is that, if we do not confront tyranny in its first year and if we do not find a way to have a strong rebuttal in the next election, then it becomes entrenched, and it is our responsibility--our oath to the Constitution--to not let that happen. Thank you. I notice we have a colleague from Vermont on the floor, if the colleague might be interested in asking a question.

Mr. MERKLEY. I would yield for a question.

Mr. MERKLEY. Well, thank you for that question. I am on the verge of falling over. Mr. WELCH: And the staff. Mr. MERKLEY: But I have got an hour more before we are going to wrap up this effort. I am so pleased that so many have been able to come from the caucus and help ring the alarm bells, because this is the most perilous moment for our Republic since the Civil War, and never did I expect it to be in my time. I thought, yes, we argue over housing policy, and how can we best have a decent home in a decent community? Yes, we argue over education policy, and how can there be a pathway for every child to have a full and productive life? All of these are foundations.

Mr. MERKLEY. Oh, another question. I would yield for another question. Yes, I would.

Mr. MERKLEY. Make it a long one.

Mr. MERKLEY. Well, I appreciate the question from my colleague from Vermont. I must say soybeans have come up several times today, as has Argentina, and this is so troubling. Now, I will tell you, when I met with my Farm Bureau, everyone has a little bit of queasiness even if tariffs haven't touched them yet, but the tariffs are changing all the time. So how might it suddenly affect the market if another tariff change is inputted and so forth? Everyone in the agricultural world is terrified that, if they lose their market, even temporarily, those relationships deteriorate. When new relationships are forged, it is hard to get people back. If you have let people down once, then what happens next? So this is the situation--this double deal, I guess I will call it, with Argentina--with our, well, having a trade war with China. So China doesn't buy a single thing. You said not a single bushel, and I have heard, yep, nothing, nada. Senator Murray of Washington was down here, saying: We have got all of these beans that normally travel through Washington State before they get exported. Where the hell are they going to be stored? I don't know, but what I do know is that a lot of folks may not have a place to store them. I look forward to learning more about what is going to happen to this massive crop that there is no customer for because China went to Argentina. Then you mentioned a second part of the Argentina deal to which the President says: Do you know what? I want to bail out this far-right government down there because they are in trouble--and we don't want to let a far-right government be in trouble--with $20 billion and maybe $40 billion. Think of how much money that is. That is $100 for every single person in the United States of America. You know, if I went door-to-door in Oregon and personally asked everybody, ``Would you like to give $100 to Argentina?'' do you know how many takers I would have?

Mr. MERKLEY. I think I would get zero takers. By the way, where is the legislation that gives the President the power to give $20 billion or $40 billion to Argentina? I haven't looked it up yet. I am going to look it up, but I think it is exactly a feature of an authoritarian government that he wants to self-help a fellow authoritarian government but with a twist. The twist is that, apparently, a group of well-placed colleagues--maybe friends of the Treasury Secretary, I believe, that I may have read, but I won't say that definitively--bought up some of the debt in Argentina. They bought it at a discount. That is my understanding. Again, I have not double-checked this. So I am saying it with some caution. But what happens when you do that, and then there is a bailout, and you get face value? Let's say you pay 25 cents on the dollar. When you get face value after a bailout and you make a 400-percent return, well, that is great for the richest of whoever they are in America whom Trump wants to help out.

Mr. MERKLEY. I will yield, but it has to be in the form of a question. I will yield for a question.

Mr. MERKLEY. Well, thank you for that question. I must say it reminds me of a townhall because, every now and then, I realize I am way over my head in what I actually know to be the facts. So I am going to stop before I dig a bigger hole because I have not personally researched it or read up on it. I have heard a variety of comments, almost in passing, from colleagues who were so disturbed about this arrangement, disturbed about what is going to happen to soybeans, disturbed that China is buying them from Argentina, disturbed that we are sending a bailout to Argentina, and disturbed that they have heard that a lot of that money may come back to some very rich people in the United States of America. But I do not know the details, and I am going to leave it as a bit of a conjecture, and when we talk soon, I will have the answers.

Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you. I notice my colleague from Illinois has returned to the floor. If he would like to, I would be happy to entertain a question, should he have one.

Mr. MERKLEY. I am going to interrupt you for just a moment because the protocol team is not sure whether you asked me if I would yield for a question.

Mr. MERKLEY. I will yield for a question. Thank you.

Mr. MERKLEY. I thank the Senator of Illinois for the question. As you are telling this story, I was thinking about a story from Oregon in which a woman who has been there for a long time--she has legal status in the United States. Her mother visits from Honduras, and her sister lives in Canada. There is a park on the border between Washington State and Canada where people can go into the park and meet. They have to leave by the same entry they came in. They have done this before, and so her mother gets to be with her, and then with her sister, the three of them and four children--7-year- old triplets and a 9-year-old, I believe. And the children are U.S. citizens. So they do what they have done before: They go up to meet the Canadian sister in this park. While they are hugging, she gets arrested. Arrested why? For smuggling her sister into the United States. But they are in this park that is set up for that purpose. She is still being held. The children were released, and they are with a family friend. And the grandmother was released, the mother's mother, but the mother, Jackie--mother of the four American children-- is still being held. We keep protesting, writing, calling, and she is still being held. The case against her was dropped. Why? Because you can't arrest somebody for hugging in a park set up for that purpose. This is my understanding of the case. But think about how that story says everyone is at risk all the time. Everyone is at risk. So there is fear and trepidation. Individuals who have other documentation are afraid that they may make a move that may lead to some extended family member or someone else who has documentation being arrested, just like this woman had documentation. So it is a regime of fear. The argument Trump made was that when someone is here and undocumented and they do a violent act, they are going to be deported. I don't think many Americans would argue with that. But we should also recognize that our immigrants commit violent acts at a lower rate than native-born Americans. Portraying immigrants with this false story of being criminals, rapists, murderers, and so forth, is simply, well, to quote a district judge on a different topic, ``untethered to the facts.'' We are in a deeply disturbing period where more children are being separated, and communities are being terrorized. I think how you have brought forward time and time again that we needed to resolve the status for Dreamers in a more solid way, put bills forth, and we fell short how many times? Six times? I am not sure.

Mr. MERKLEY. Or more. And this body can't even come together and address children brought here through no fault of their own, who know no other country, who speak no other language, who grew up here and are productive citizens. Many of them, when we first started--the first I was aware of it so long ago--they might have been little kids. Now they may be out of high school, out of college, fully employed in the community, and still we haven't resolved their status so they can kind of feel like fully productive members of our community.

Mr. MERKLEY. I would yield for a question.

Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you, Senator. I not only agree, but I so admire what you accomplished. It is so frustrating. Why can't we accomplish that again? I know one of our Members worked hard with my colleague across the aisle to do a bill that may have been a slimmer version, and President Trump--then-Candidate Trump--said don't take that immigration bill forward last year because he wanted to keep this as an election issue. If people want to keep chaos rather than to solve problems, how are we to address a better path forward for our Nation, a more productive path? So I hope what you accomplished can be reinvented. I am not sure that I have any confidence that it is possible. It may be harder now than it was then, but let's try. And you have my full backing in that effort.