Jeff Merkley

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, when I was wrestling, along with Mary, my wife, about whether to run for the Senate, I had the chance to meet the Senator from Ohio and his wife at a gathering in Massachusetts, and I came away believing that service here could matter. When I learned of your background and your fight, Sherrod, I thought that is my fight, too. I want to be here and join you in this effort. You know, with my dad a mechanic and my mother a secretary, I don't know how the hell I ended up here on the floor of the Senate, but it is because of believing in the vision of America that you referred to at the close of your speech. While I can't quote it exactly, it was along the lines of: If you love America, you fight for America's worker--or: You fight for the workers who make America function. We are in a system now that is so rigged with liars and lobbyists and dark money, but the antidote is individuals like yourself who say: Public service matters. I am not here to help the rich become richer or the corporations become stronger. I am here to fight for the foundation for every family to thrive--on healthcare, on housing, on education, and on a good-paying job, with an honest day's pay for a fair day's work. I then saw you in action on the Banking Committee. Now, Elizabeth Warren had this idea for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but she wasn't here in the Senate yet. But on that committee, in working on Dodd-Frank, we collectively delivered that and so much more through that process, including taking on the false mortgages--the predatory mortgages--that were turning the dream of homeownership into a nightmare. There is probably a dozen powerful factors in there for America's workers. We made a difference in those years--you made a difference--and I was so happy to see you lead the Banking Committee. I can't tell you what a loss it is to this Chamber and what a loss it is to the workers of America that I will no longer see you in that chair, but I know I will see you somewhere down the trail, fighting the good fight. Thank you.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I just wanted to note first that I really appreciate Senator Mike Braun's support on our effort to protect American's privacy and take on the rapid expansion of TSA use of facial surveillance. Stopping the establishment of a national surveillance system is very important to freedom and privacy in America, and I much appreciate his partnership in undertaking this topic and wish him all the best in his return to be Governor of Indiana.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise to say a few words about S. 1351 and ask for its passage, as amended. But before I formally ask, I just want to know what this is all about; and that is, across our country, there are institutions that say they will help with your troubled teen. In fact, this has been become known as the troubled teen industry. Now, some of these institutions are long established, huge amounts of oversight, the best practices and the best results, and we certainly need these types of places to assist families when they are challenged in the family setting by the difficulties experienced by their children. But we also have a whole series of companies that have sprung up, whether for-profit or nonprofit, without the expertise, and saw an opportunity to make a lot of money and jump into a space without the proper foundation for actually being beneficial to teens. We had an experience with one of our Oregon children who died at just such a facility. One of the individuals--really the individual who proceeded to draw attention to this largely unregulated troubled teen industry is Paris Hilton. Paris wrote a memoir, and she shared in it, as summarized by, well, the summary of her book, that her childhood was shattered by 2 years of strip searches, isolation, beatings, restraints, and brainwashing in this troubled teen institution. Her story is not alone. There are multiple stories of broken bones, of sexual assaults, of solitary confinement, even stories, as with our child in Oregon, of them dying in these institutions. We found that there really is a lack of detailed information about what is going on across America, so 12 Democrats and 12 Republicans have come together to sponsor this bill to say: We need to understand and therefore have recommendations on how to avoid the horrendous outcomes at some of the institutions. So this bill calls for just such a study. This bill proceeds to say: We want our kids safe. We want our kids respected. We want our children to have the very best care. I am struck by the tragedy that occurs when parents searching for help for their children strive to send them to a safe place and end up sending them to a very dangerous place. This is unacceptable. This bill says: Let's get a complete map of these institutions. Let's understand where they are and what they look like and what they cost and how long kids are staying there and how children are treated, how they are treated in ways that are inappropriate, and how, in some institutions, the gold-star institutions, how their best practices should be shared across the Nation, and how we should inform decision makers and policymakers across the country with the findings. So that is the simple story of this bill, and I am pleased that I am able to come to the floor now with a lot of support: Senator John Cornyn, a lead on the Republican side, and a lot of help from Tommy Tuberville. Senator Cassidy, who is ranking member of HELP, was involved in helping this bill go forward. I am thankful for the information we received from the Florida Sheriffs Youth Ranches, an institution that is highly respected and that has been in operation since 1957, providing support and help to literally thousands of young boys. Actually, that is the type of information we want collected--institutions that are working well, that have those best practices. So, Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration of S. 1351 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Merkley-Cornyn substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I failed to mention my appreciation for the conversations I have had with Senator Rick Scott, who helped facilitate dialogue with the Florida Sheriffs Youth Ranches and their contributions to how we should go forward. With that, I am really excited that we are getting this bill done. Thank you. Hopefully, the House will be able to expedite it, and we will start to understand an industry that we need to understand and America needs to understand so children are helped, not hurt. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, in 1978, between my junior and senior years in college, I hitchhiked through Israel and the West Bank. I made Israeli friends. I was invited to stay at a kibbutz. I explored the old city of Jerusalem. I negotiated the ancient tunnel built by King Hezekiah in the face of advancing armies. I climbed a snake path to the top of Masada. I swam in the Sea of Galilee and the Red Sea and the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean Sea. I was so impressed by the energy for building a new nation, for planting forests, for making the desert bloom with new irrigation systems, constructing cities and roads. And, in addition, peace was on the horizon. Nine months before my visit in November 1977, Anwar Sadat had visited Jerusalem to address the Knesset and pursue a path to peace. And then, just weeks after I left, he was shaking hands with Menachem Begin and Jimmy Carter at Camp David, and a peace treaty was signed the following year in March. I was all in on America standing in partnership with this new nation perched on a little sliver of land surrounded by hostile neighbors. And I voted here in the Senate time and again for economic support for Israel, for military support for Israel. I have believed in the vision that it was the right way to help Israel thrive, the best path to peace and security. As many of us reasoned, if Israel's economy was thriving and their military strength ensured their security, they could, with confidence, negotiate a secure and peaceful future with their neighbors. They could, with confidence, negotiate parameters for a Palestinian State so the Palestinians could thrive as well. Not so long ago, just over a decade, I traveled to Israel with former Senator Mark Begich of Alaska and Kay Hagan of North Carolina, and we met around a little table with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. And at that time, now 12 years ago, he expounded eloquently on his thesis that the only path for Israel's peace and prosperity was two states for two people. In the dozen years since, much has changed. Prime Minister Netanyahu has become a public and vocal opponent of a Palestinian State. Israel has engaged in a de facto annexation of the West Bank, land essential for a Palestinian State. They have done this through settlements. They have done this through legalizing outposts. They have created innumerable checkpoints. They have created settler-only roads. In addition, Netanyahu has formed his government now with Bezalel Smotrich, as Minister of Finance, someone who has said the Palestinian people do not exist and called for a Palestinian town to be erased; Itamar Ben-Gvir, Minister of National Security, celebrated Baruch Goldstein's slaughter of 29 Palestinians at the Cave of Patriarchs massacre in 1994. Today, the policies of the Netanyahu government are very different than the policies 12 years before. Under this government, attacks by Israel's West Bank settlers against Palestinian villages have become more frequent, violent, and often condoned by the Israeli Defense Forces. Events on October 7, a year ago, took a terrible turn. Hamas terrorists attacked Israeli communities. They slaughtered 1,200 Israeli men, women, and children. They abducted 240 hostages, and the whole world was with Israel. We recalled 9/11. We grieved with Israel. We grieved with the Jewish communities in our home State. And we defended Israel's right to respond with a campaign targeted at destroying Hamas. But I am here on the floor today because the way a war is conducted matters. And Israel's bombing campaign, described by President Biden as indiscriminate, has reduced Gaza to rubble and ruin. This destroyed most of the infrastructure needed for survival: schools, hospitals, homes, the power system, the communications phone system, the internet system, the water system, the transportation system. Most significantly, the bombing campaign has killed tens of thousands of women, children, and seniors. It has seriously injured more than 100,000 Palestinians living in Gaza. And Israel has chosen to restrict humanitarian aid. The consequences of that are that food and clean water are woefully short; medical supplies are minimal; and the specter of starvation haunts Gaza. The indiscriminate bombing and the obstruction of humanitarian aid violate the laws of war. Now, President Biden and his team have consistently pressed the Netanyahu government to change tracks. They recognize that it is difficult in the setting in Gaza where Hamas imbeds itself but even so have argued to Israel that the campaign against Hamas could be much more targeted with far fewer civilian casualties. But the Netanyahu government has rejected this appeal. And Biden and his team have pushed to open the gates to Gaza, have Israel open the gates to Gaza, and to massively increase humanitarian aid. And, again, the Netanyahu government has rejected this appeal. In mid-October, just last month, Secretary of State Blinken and Secretary of Defense Austin renewed their appeal. They warned the Netanyahu government that they must increase the amount of humanitarian aid within 30 days to comply with U.S. law. And they wrote in that letter that the amount of assistance entering Gaza in September was the lowest of any month in the last year. They laid out in this letter a whole series of horrific conditions that need to be addressed, just as they had argued for the same for the previous year. The result of that has simply been minimal to no action. In November, a major evaluation was summarized in a letter by the principals of the Inner Agencies Standing Committee. These are groups like the High Commissioner for Human Rights and Oxfam and UNICEF and the World Food Programme, headed by Cindy McCain, and the World Health Organization. These leaders who have folks on the ground, who have lots of experts evaluating the situation, they recognize this. They summarized that the situation unfolding in North Gaza is apocalyptic. And they go on to talk about the schools serving as shelters having been bombed, about rescue teams being deliberately attacked, and more. As I described at the start of my remarks, I have, since my first trip to Israel in 1978, been all in on the special partnership between the United States and Israel, on economic support, on security support, in the belief that our partnership would maximize Israel's confidence in pursuing peace and security. But the actions of the last decade have shattered that analysis. The Netanyahu government is systematically undermining the possibility of a Palestinian State through its settlement checkpoints, its outposts, its settler-only highways. It is conducting its war campaign in Gaza in a fashion that is producing massive civilian deaths and injuries, conditions that aid organizations consistently described as the worst they have seen anywhere in the world. I believe that not only is this horrific for the Palestinians, but this is absolutely not in the best interest of Israel's future. The actions of the Netanyahu government are burning through a massive reservoir of good will that was overflowing after October 7. It is undoing the improved relationship with Arab neighbors won through the Abraham Accords. It is damaging because of our connection to Israel through military arms, our advocacy and legitimacy campaigning for human rights around the world. So I ask you, what do you do when a good friend, a partner, heads off on a disastrous course? President Biden and his team responded by providing proposals and encouragement to get back on course, but those were rejected. So now we must weigh in here in this Chamber. And many in this Chamber may say: Let's just continue the past; let's not see the horrific circumstances in Gaza; let's not observe the systematic takeover of the West Bank; let's ignore all that and continue with this very different rightwing government without ever raising an eyebrow. I disagree. I think that true partners do not stand idly by when their partners go way off track in destructive ways and, thus, that we should not continue to provide the munitions that we are voting on today. We cannot remain silent in the face of Netanyahu's strategy. We must not continue to provide offensive weapons that make the United States complicit in the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians and the injury of 100,000 more innocents. Thus, I will choose to honor American law and respect international law and support Israel's best, long-term interests to thrive by voting to block these three weapons transfers up for consideration today. I was fabulously impressed by Israel when I hitchhiked around the country in 1978--impressed by their can-do spirit, impressed by the future of peace with Egypt and the possibility of peace with every neighbor. I look forward to seeing that vision of peace and security realized, and my vote today supports that vision.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I echo the comments of my colleague regarding the service of our veterans. They have stood up for us overseas, and we must stand up for them back here at home. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to grant floor privileges to my interns for their shadow days on the following dates: Amelia Nason for November 13, 2024, and Rufaro Muchaka for December 3, 2024.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all postcloture time on the Court nomination be considered expired at 2:30 p.m. today.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Reserving the right to object. My colleague whom I am pleased to work with on a number of issues has come to the floor with a unanimous consent request that would constrain the power of our President to protect our public lands. So while we may agree on a number of things--and I hope that doesn't hurt his reputation back home--on this particular proposal, I do bring a different perspective. I think in my role working on the Interior Committee--and understanding that the authority we have granted the President is so essential to making sure that the lands that are publicly held remain a treasure for every single American. It was not that long ago--well, it seems like quite a few years now, maybe a decade, I attended a hearing in which a number of folks came forward to explain different damages that had occurred to the water table in their community from fracking. Now, in this case, my real concern here is about constraining the President's ability to protect our treasures, our public lands, from these types of effects. I think Americans who have traveled to our national parks and our BLM land and our Forest Service land understand that this is a responsibility that we in the Senate take very seriously, but there is also a little bit more to my concern here as well. One is that if we are going to tackle climate chaos, we have to have international cooperation. And if we continuously say we are going to reduce the ability of the United States to have policies and abilities to address our own production of fossils, then, of course, every other country is like, well, the United States and China are the biggest producers of climate gases--both methane, known publicly as natural gas, methane gas--and they have very large footprints, if they are not going to act, why should we act? So if we want to address this challenge and sustain international cooperation, we can't be consistently restricting the potential flexibility of our President. The third is that the climate impact in my home State is very substantial. We have seen a loss of snowpack in the Cascades that is devastating--the water in late spring and early summer--to our ranchers and farmers. Our rural foundation, our rural pillar is our farming and our ranching. And when you constrain the water in our rivers because of the dropping snowpack, that is a big impact. And in addition, our water tables have been dropping that many farmers have depended on. In fact, we are investing heavily in piping our irrigation ditches at huge expense, knowing how precious every drop of water is. So if we care about our rural areas, we have to take on climate chaos and not just our farmers and ranchers, our foresters, too, because we are seeing significant devastation to Oregon's famous forests over drought and insect infestation with climate chaos. Of course, it is not just Oregon that is affected. Every single State is affected. I was very concerned earlier this year, earlier this summer, when I heard about the 115 to 120 degrees in a heat dome that passed over my colleague's State and the impact that that was having. I think every State has their effects that they are experiencing. So this is a big issue that we need to wrestle with, and this brings me to the fourth item mentioned about energy security. In the last 4 years, under the Biden administration, we have become energy independent. There has been a vast increase in the production of oil and a vast increase in the production of gas. As a result, we are now the largest producer of oil and gas, and we are the largest exporter of gas. Now, kind of the interesting little piece here is that the goal of the gas industry is to export gas and raise prices on Americans, so it is more expensive for Americans to heat their homes and heat their water. But we could do the opposite. We could, in fact, say we are going to repeal the 2015 law that put us into the world market and created these massive exports and lower the price here in America for our families. That is a much better idea than raising the prices. Let's lower the prices. In fact, here is the thing. Let's start right now by ending our exports of oil and gas to China. Now, my colleagues just not so long ago advocated that we end any sale of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to China with good reason. Why should we lower their prices and increase our prices? But that is true for the exports that are going to oil and gas as well. So let's stand together on both sides of the aisle. Let's lower the price for American consumers and ban these exports to China. And for that reason, I have prepared just such a solution and an opportunity to have it embraced by my colleagues. And so I turn to the formality here that I ask the Senator to modify his request and that the Merkley substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, so that we will have the ability to end these exports to China and lower the prices for American consumers.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--a couple of points--the first is that my colleague mentioned that the bill I am proposing would restrict our ability to support our allies, who count on us. Actually, my bill is about stopping exports to China. They are not our ally, last I checked. We are in competition with them, and these exports are making their life easier and their economy stronger and making things more expensive for us here in the United States of America. If you want more available for allies, hey, let's stop the exports to China. It is actually compatible with the goal my colleague suggested. The second is he challenged the question--and I realize we are doing this on short notice; so we have various facts flying around--about whether the United States was the largest exporter of natural gas last year. So I have in front of me the information from the Energy Information Administration, which produces all of the stats on this, and the headline is: The United States was the world's largest liquefied natural exporter in 2023. Now a third point, outside of North America, China is the largest recipient of our gas. We are directing more gas to China, whom we are in competition with, than any other nation. That is just a little bit crazy, and I want to support our allies. I want to support our consumers at home through lower prices. So I am disappointed that I didn't win over your support with my presentation. But given that I would much prefer to have a bill that lowers prices rather than one that endangers our public lands and raises prices for our consumers, I object.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I have seven requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would just like to note that this bill, put together by the best child welfare experts across the country, has in it a requirement under section 223 requiring background checks to be conducted for each resident of a foster care placement for a noncitizen child. It prohibits children from being placed in a home if a resident has a conviction for child abuse or trafficking or convicted of any offense that has a direct and immediate impact on the safety of a child. I know that these sorts of dialogues--our staff worked quickly to try to prepare responses. But your actual criticisms are inaccurate. And, indeed, what these experts say is that a child should be put in the least restrictive setting that approximates a family in which the child's needs can best be met consistent with the best interests and special needs of that child. The experts know congregate care is not the place to do that. The problems that exist in one mass setting are bad, but they exist in the other mass settings. So I do invite you--because I know you want to do the best for the children--to meet with the same experts who live this, night and day, seeking to have a system that creates a safe welcome for children and allows them to thrive so that when they get to that point of that asylum hearing, whether they head back to their home country or whether they become residents of the United States, they will be in a great place, not the sort of terrible place that congregate facilities put them. And, unfortunately, your approach continues to rely upon those very congregate facilities experts say need to be eliminated. So for that reason, I object.

Mr. MERKLEY. And I understand it is his 91st; is that correct? We should all want to be able to engage in public policy and public debate and dialogue when we have reached the start of our 10th decade, so congratulations to you.

Mr. MERKLEY. This topic that you have brought up today is one that I have had deep engagement in because I share your concerns about these congregate care facilities. Back in 2018, I was the first Member of the House or Senate to go down to the border and to witness the separation of children from their parents and then to go up the road to knock on the door of Casa de Padre, which was run by Southwest Key, where I had heard a rumor that perhaps a thousand boys were being warehoused. When I knocked on the door, they didn't want to let me in to see what was going on, so we did a live stream feed of the conversation. I was trying to get the manager to come out and brief me, and the manager said, yes, he would be out, but actually what he did was he called the police to have me arrested. The police didn't arrest me, but they did tell me that Casa de Padre, run by this organization, Southwest Key, had no interest in letting a Member of Congress come inside, a Member of the Senate come inside; move on. But because this was live-streamed, it became national news. As a result of that, the press got in the following weekend, and I was able to go back with a group of legislators 2 weeks later. So I very much understand the challenge in the congregate care system and undertook a deep dive with experts across the country on, how do we address this problem? The long and short of it is, those experts all came together, and they helped draft a bill called the Children's Safe Welcome Act, because the issues that exist at Southwest Key are not unique to Southwest Key. In fact, we have had really deep challenges in one congregate care facility after another. Putting children into large, mass settings just does not at all provide a foundation for them to thrive. I will just note that this policy brief--and I ask unanimous consent that the policy brief by the Women's Refugee Commission be printed in the Record.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, it is called ``Decreasing OOR's Dependence on Congregate Care: Four Recommendations of Progress,'' written by the Women's Refugee Commission. But I assure you, this document is not alone. There is commission after commission, expert after expert who has weighed in to say that we have to eliminate these congregate care facilities, which is exactly what the Children's Safe Welcome Act does. You know, these are children who are going through the process of claiming refugee status, and they are going to go through an adjudication of that status, and they are either going to be able to stay in the United States--and that is eventually adjudicated--or they are going to be sent back home. If they are going to stay in the United States, we want a strong foundation for them to thrive as residents of our Nation. If they go back home, we want a strong foundation for them to thrive back home in the country they left. In either case, we have a moral responsibility to these children. That moral responsibility compels us to eliminate these congregate care facilities that are not the right setting. Children should be quickly sent to small settings, to homes. They should be in school. They should be with host families. When there isn't a host family that is related, they should be with a host family that is providing a foundation for them. They shouldn't be in a mass congregate care facility--the name sounds much nicer than the reality. So I am not going to take the time tonight to go through all of these various reports on how bad congregate care is for the children because I think you have already touched on how bad it is with one provider. But shutting down one provider and sending them to other congregate care facilities now means the system is maxed out, which means the children coming in not only go to the remaining beds in a system that is maxed out, it also means that now we have to create temporary influx facilities, which are far worse than congregate care. So this plan I know is so well-intentioned, and I certainly share the criticisms of the particular company you are addressing, but this is not the right answer. The right answer isn't to max out congregate care and create temporary influx facilities that are even worse; the answer is to get rid of these congregate care facilities and do what report after report, recommendation after recommendation has said will provide a foundation for these children to do well. The National Center for Youth Law said that these influx facilities that would have to be created ``placed children's safety and welfare at risk.'' The Customs and Border Patrol facilities, which are the other option if we don't create the influx facilities, are described as so dangerous that children have died. It goes on and on and on. So given your deep interest in this topic and, really, desire for the children to be well-treated, I wanted to invite you to join me in this structure, this bill, the Children's Safe Welcome Act. Experts have said this is the right thing to do for the children. For that reason, I will do the formal request, but the informal is, I know your heart is in the right place. I know you are pointing out flaws that are very, very real and that I have been personally witnessing since 2018. But the answer isn't more congregate care for these kids or influx facilities or Customs and Border Protection; it is eliminating these congregate facilities and doing what expert after expert, panel after panel has suggested. So I am following up here. I ask that you, Senator Grassley, modify your request and that the Merkley amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. I will share a few of my thoughts on this, but first I wanted to note that my colleague from Iowa is celebrating his birthday today. So a very happy birthday to you.

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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture motion with respect to the Pennell nomination be withdrawn.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 815 and that the Senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions: S. Res. 815, National Hispanic- Serving Institutions Week, and S. Res. 823, Hispanic Heritage Month.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, September 18; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that following the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Court nomination; further, that the cloture motion with respect to the Court nomination ripen at 11:45 a.m.; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Wednesday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

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 understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. MERKLEY. I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.