Jeff Merkley

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 423.

Mr. MERKLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the Ernst amendment at the desk to the resolution be considered and agreed to; that the resolution, as amended, be agreed to; that the preamble be agreed to; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. MERKLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be discharged from further consideration of S. 1478 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

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.

Mr. MERKLEY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1722, which was received from the House and is at the desk.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, a question: Do we want a government surveillance state in the United States of America? Movies like ``Gattaca,'' where citizens are tracked through their DNA, or ``Minority Report,'' where citizens are tracked through their retina scan, warn us what can happen under a fictional government surveillance state. But we don't need to depend upon movies and fiction to understand what a surveillance state means because we have, right now, a real-life government surveillance state in China. China's government surveillance state already tracks more than 1 million Uighur citizens through facial recognition. As cochair of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, I have had a front-row seat on how China uses facial recognition technology to track and to enslave a million people. And I have watched with some alarm as the U.S. Government has begun to expand its own use of facial recognition technology tied to databases, especially because there has never been a debate, let alone a vote, here in the U.S. Senate about whether or not we want to have a national facial recognition system controlled by the government. We have never had a debate related to the risks that that involves in terms of its potential threat to our freedom and to our privacy. So I want to force there to be such a debate. I want to force there to be a vote. A government with power to track us everywhere we go is a real threat to privacy, a real threat to freedom. That is why Senator John Kennedy and I have introduced the bipartisan Traveler Privacy Protection Act to curtail the use of facial recognition technology by TSA. Step-by-step, slowly, steadily, TSA is expanding its system of facial recognition technology. And let's just take a look at what that looks like. In 2018, TSA began with a 3-week test of facial recognition where passenger photos and data were deleted immediately. Then, in 2019, they did a second test, but they allowed the photos and data to be stored for up to 6 months. By 2020, we are talking about the ability by the TSA to hold photos and data for up to 2 years. In 2021, we are now talking about TSA beginning to match facial recognition photos against the Customs and Border Protection database--all of these steps taking place really with no recognition by Americans that this program is expanding in this fashion, certainly no discussion here in the Senate committees and Senate floor about this steady expansion. Ultimately, what the TSA is aiming at is a world in which your face is your driver's license; your face is your passport. Well, that means a massive database and massive tracking of Americans wherever they go. This summer, the TSA announced plans to expand from the current 25 airports where facial recognition technology is used to 430 airports across the country. So no matter where you live, this system of tracking citizens is coming to your community. In fact, as you see the geographic expansion, we are also seeing that technological expansion. TSA Administrator David Pekoske said in April of this year, a few months ago, at the South by Southwest Conference: Eventually we will get to the point [where] we will require biometrics across the board. What he is really saying here is, right now, we are allowing some opt-out from the use of facial photos at the airport--and I will have more to say about that in a moment. It is very difficult to exercise that opt-out, but in the near future, the opt-out is going to go away. Everyone will have to be scanned everywhere you go in the TSA system. Requiring facial recognition should set off alarm bells for everyone. Once you have built the infrastructure of the database and the cameras, then it is easy and tempting for the government to use that infrastructure to track you in the name of security. I am reminded of Benjamin Franklin's warning that ``those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.'' I know there will always be a story about some bad guy hiding out in some town somewhere who gets caught on a camera and might not have gotten caught otherwise, but allowing the government to know where you are at all times is an enormous price to pay. It is a price paid in the loss of privacy and the loss of freedom. And that is why it needs to be debated, and that is why we need to put a brake on this system until we consciously lay out what we consider acceptable for the use of such technologies. We really don't know how a future government will use or misuse this technology, but we do know how it is misused in nations like China. You know, passengers, as you go to the airport, are confronting a long line in which they see a lot of signs that I will show you in a moment. But what they don't understand is when they get to the front of the line, the TSA is going to go like this, directing you to stand in front of the camera. Many of us in this Chamber have experienced that because when you travel through Reagan National, that is exactly what happens every day, every week. I was pretty surprised to see that show up with no signage saying that this was an opt-in program, which is the way the TSA had originally described it. But they changed it to an opt-out program, again, without clear debate or laws here in our Chamber being discussed or being passed. As you stand in the line--these are pictures I have taken in previous trips through Reagan National. The things they want you to know have these big signs like this: ``You are entering an area where all persons and property are subject to additional screening.'' OK. Good to know. You might trigger an alarm or have additional screening or, hey, you got any questions or comments? Here is how you reach us for live customer service assistance--or firearms, including shotgun chokes, are not allowed through security checkpoints. All firearms must be declared. That is fine. These are things that they want you to know. There are actually seven different signs at Reagan National as you stand in line, but there is no sign saying that when you get to the TSA checkout point, you have an option to check out--to opt out of the program--no clear signs like this. So I brought the head of TSA in and had a conversation about the fact that they are not informing citizens, and as a result of that, there is now some information--some information but not adequate information. Now, here is a chart or a picture that I took. As you are directed here to the checkout, and you can see the driver's license--the sign is set sideways so nobody can read it until the moment that you are stepping up to the carousel. By then, you are all focused on doing what the guard is telling you to do, what the TSA agent is telling you to do. I found this a little humorous that they put out these signs--after I gave them a hard time--but they placed them deliberately so people couldn't see them. Let's take a look at what that old sign says: ``Self-service biometric identity verification technology paving the path for a safe and secure travel experience.'' Well, these type of signs are very different than the signs I just showed you. They are very detailed, and this is only when you actually reach the kiosk. Nobody has the chance to read this entire thing and realize what it is about. It doesn't say ``facial recognition'' at the top. It doesn't say: ``Remember, you have two options here'' in nice big print. You have embedded in this--there are some details. Right down here it says ``Photo capture is optional,'' but you have to read through this and understand what it is talking about. Meanwhile, TSA is saying: Get in front of the camera. So that is really not a sufficient way of educating citizens and having a true opt-out or an opt-in program. Now they have got a new sign. Now, this one also doesn't say ``facial recognition.'' And if you look down here to see what is highlighted: ``Use your physical ID. Use your eligible digital ID.'' These are not about opting out. No, they are about how to actually use facial ID. But there is a little tag down here at the bottom: ``If you decide to opt out of facial matching, notify the officer.'' Well, nobody, in the 2 seconds or 3 seconds you have as they motion you to step forward, where you can actually see this sign, is going to read this whole document and go: Oh, what is this all about--hidden at the bottom? I mean, it is completely clear the TSA has no intention of actually having an opt-in program, and they have no intention of truly having an opt-out program because they are hiding all the information about the fact that you have that right. Now, because of my complaints to the TSA--because of my advocacy--I said: You know, you need to have signs on the way in that alert people, and then you need to have a sign by the camera. Well, they didn't do any signs on the way in, but they did do a little sign right by the camera at the last second. It says: ``You may opt out of facial ID validation,'' and in smaller print, ``Please inform the TSA officer if you do not want the camera used. See additional information on the blue signs nearby.'' So they refer you over to read a more complex document. Again, none of this makes sense if you want to give people real information because this is the last second as the officer is pointing to you to step in front of the camera. The sign looks pretty large in this chart, but it is actually a little kind of 5 by 8 sign, again, to my point. This sign also says: ``Your photo and limited biographic information will be deleted after your transaction.'' Well, if you hear that-- ``Your photo and limited biographic information will be deleted after your transaction''--it sounds like it will be deleted, like, immediately. But what is TSA's real policy? That they can retain your data for 2 years. That is a big difference between a sign that implies that it is deleted immediately and the fact that they are going to keep your data in a database for up to 2 years. It is outrageous that TSA continues to shuttle people through its facial recognition system and not tell people, clearly, it is optional and not tell people they are holding onto their biometric data. Worse, the agents are not at all clear about the rules of opting out, because I have repeatedly opted out and have tried to opt out. And so I have the experiences to share with you. Here is what happens: You get 4 or 5 feet out, waiting for the next person to leave, because there is a line that says: Don't go there. Then they mushroom you forward. The TSA immediately points to the camera, and on the far side of the camera is where you have to put your driver's license in, forcing you to step in front of the camera. So you say: I am choosing to opt out, Officer. And they say: Get in front of the camera--because they are not really familiar with what that means because nobody is informed; so nobody is doing it. Then you say: No. There is an option to opt out, and I am choosing to opt out. Then you have to explain it to the TSA agent: So I am giving you my driver's license, and I will even put it into that machine, but I am not stepping in front of the camera, which means you have to reach under the machine like this and, like, slide it in there. Then you have got to take it out, bring it back, hand it to the officer. They look at the photo on the screen that has been taken of your driver's license. They compare it to your face--all very good. Or they say: You stand over there. So twice, of the several times I have attempted to opt out, I have been directed to stand over there, in a rather hostile fashion, while they have gone and found somebody to address the fact that this passenger is refusing to do what they say and step in front of the camera. Eventually, it gets resolved, but the first time, it included: And you, sir, are going to hold everyone up at this airport. Well, thank you very much. It is supposed to be possible just to opt out and hand you my driver's license. Stand over there, sir. No, don't move--all of which I would be happy to share with you on a recording because it is legal to take photos when you are in line at the TSA. This is not OK. The massive expansion of state surveillance, which will create a national surveillance system here in America, with the potential for great abuse by the government, has to be debated here, has to be addressed here in the Senate Chamber. We need to put a halt on this expansion of this technology, and we need to do it soon. Let me be clear: The legislation that Senator John Kennedy and I are proposing would not affect Customs and Border Protection. So don't tell me that some terrorists who will come into the country would have been caught because of facial recognition technology but for our not having it. What I am really talking about is creating a surveillance state--or stopping a surveillance state--inside the United States of America, not at the borders. What the legislation would do is guarantee that you could move about freely without being tracked everywhere by the government. Let me also note that the TSA has been refusing to share their error rate from their initial studies. In many facial recognition systems, there is a lot higher error rate for people with brown or black skin, but they won't share that data. They just say: Oh, it is accurate. They say: It only has a 3-percent error rate. Well, I would sure like to see the breakdown on that. A 3-percent error rate means they have 68,000 people a day who are erroneously addressed through this computer system. Then they try to say: Well, this will be a more efficient system. It will be faster. They still have to have the agent right there. I have watched it go faster for individuals--TSA agents--who are both grabbing the driver's license and then comparing it to the face than it does in the photo system. So they will make arguments, but I think we need to thoroughly examine those arguments. They will make arguments about a slight increase in security, and they will make arguments about a slight increase in efficiency--but at what cost to our privacy? At what cost to our freedom? Are those arguments actually even valid? They won't release the data. I don't want America to be a surveillance state. I don't want it to be like the surveillance state with DNA portrayed in ``Gattaca.'' I don't want it to be like the surveillance state displayed with irises in the ``Minority Report'' movie. I don't want it to become an American surveillance state like China, using facial recognition. In China, that facial recognition is used to track and control their citizens, including the enslavement of more than a million ethnic Uighurs. I don't want America to become a surveillance state because we ignore the issue and let it just gradually expand, never debating it and never voting on it. So I urge my colleagues--and Senator Kennedy and I will be encouraging folks--to join us on this bill, the Traveler Privacy Protection Act. Let's say no to this steady expansion without a debate and without a vote--the steady expansion of the American Government surveillance state. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to complete my remarks before we break for the vote.

Mr. MERKLEY

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

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, it was bullets not ballots. Bullets were the way that policies were set when I visited Guatemala in the spring of 1980: a soldier with a gun on every corner of Guatemala City, the army going village to village killing indigenous young men, rebels attacking government officials, and rightwing death squads assassinating professors and students. I had the unfortunate experience of coming around a street corner just after a death squad had assassinated a professor at San Carlos University and left his body lying in the street. Well, four decades ago--that is a long time ago--and, fortunately, Guatemala has come a long way since I visited as a young man. Now, the battles over the country's future are being fought not with bullets but with ballots. But maintaining the integrity of balloting, the peaceful transfer of power, which are the hallmarks, the foundations of representative democracy, is not inevitable. And in Guatemala, the system is being stressed. In Guatemala, the system is being tested. The ballot box is beautiful because it creates the opportunity for citizens to call on their leaders to change direction, actually, to select leaders who are calling for a change in direction. If the government isn't serving the people, the people can change the government. And every now and then, one of these elections is particularly exciting, and Guatemala's recent Presidential election has certainly been exciting. The current Guatemalan Government is mostly a government by and for the powerful, rather than by and for the people, and the powerful blocked several candidates that they didn't want as the next President from even running in the election. But one person they didn't stop was Bernardo Arevalo and his Semilla or ``Seed Movement'' Party. This gray-haired academic and anti- corruption advocate was running far back in the pack, virtually unnoticed, some eighth place just a couple weeks before the election, a campaign staff of only five people, so certainly not a serious contender--not a serious contender until he was a serious contender, and that happened because of two factors: The first was young people on social media. Nearly two-thirds of Guatemala's 17 million citizens are under the age of 30, and young people on TikTok flocked to the honesty of the man often referred to as ``Uncle Bernie'' and his campaign against corruption. Soon Semilla's seedlings were spreading across social media. And one of the Semilla's leading advocates on social media was a young woman whom our delegation met this last weekend named Marcela Blanco. Ms. Blanco is a 23-year-old influencer who was arrested in November by the government for a tweet, arrested for her campaign activities, held for 11 days, and then released under house arrest and allowed to come to a meeting at the Embassy, which was fortunate because we were able to meet her. She was a threat to the government because she was effective in spreading a message, a message of support for a man running for President who was running against the corruption of the existing government, her support for a democratic movement of development that was inclusive, meaning that it would support healthcare and housing and education, clean water, not just for the cities but also for the rural indigenous villages. Well, when that first round of Presidential balloting was held on June 25, Mr. Arevalo came in second, which in the Guatemalan system is very important because first and second place have a runoff, assuming nobody got a majority in the first round. So that runoff was on August 20. In the August election, that first and the second round, Mr. Arevalo didn't just barely win, he won by more than 60 percent of the vote, defeating the establishment candidate, Sandra Torres. So a 20-percent victory is a pretty powerful message being sent from the people about whom they want to guide them in the future. And then what happened was the existing government went to work to try to invalidate the election, coming up with a series of spurious claims, and that triggered the indigenous communities to shut down roadways--so a protest--and it forced business leaders to call on the government to recognize the results. So people, young people, indigenous people, Guatemalan people won a victory. But they only won a victory if they can keep it. And Mr. Arevalo was here in Washington, DC, to talk about his upcoming service that would start on January 14 of next year, and he noted that he was still under intense attack--both him and his Vice President--and he wasn't sure if he would ever make it to be installed as President. So a couple of us asked him whether it would be helpful to show that the United States was standing for the ballot box, standing for the peaceful transfer of power to come down before the election. And so a group of us went down this last weekend, led by Senator Tim Kaine, who is the chair of the Subcommittee on Latin America for the Foreign Relations Committee. And we were accompanied by Senator Butler, who is in the chair right now--and I gather this was her first congressional delegation--and by Senator Dick Durbin and myself and then two members of the House who are themselves of Guatemalan descent, which was enormously powerful. So we advocated there in Guatemala to maintain the recognition of this election, which had a huge amount of oversight, which was certainly conducted with integrity, and to ensure that there was a peaceful transfer of power on January 14. But in the morning, on Saturday morning, as we were meeting with members of the President's Cabinet and they were telling us everything is just fine, one member of the Cabinet who was not there, which was the attorney general, was preparing to release a statement that afternoon. And that statement she released declared that the election of President-elect Arevalo and Vice-President-elect Herrera and the party's--that is the Semilla party's--parliamentarians was null and void. Wow. So the attack on democracy by the existing government was still in full force this weekend. We responded by holding a press conference to stress the integrity of the election, underscore the need for democratic continuity, recognizing that the message carried by the President had been supported by an overwhelming majority of the country. And other organizations and other countries condemned the decision too. The Organization of American States called it an attempted coup d'etat that constitutes the worst form of democratic breakdown and the consolidation of a political fraud against the will of the people. And the Supreme Electoral Tribunal declared that the results are validated, formalized, and unchangeable. And Mr. Giammattei, the current President, called for the passage of power to Mr. Arevalo in January. We have to admit that decades ago, it was not unusual for the United States to undermine democracy in a number of countries in the world--a couple of examples: In 1953, the United States helped engineer a coup against a democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh, to install the Shah to power. Some 20 years later, Henry Kissinger in the Nixon administration supported and helped a coup d'etats by the military against the democratic-elected President of Chile, Allende; and what followed were the worst kinds of repressive regimes with unforeseen consequences, including the Islamic Revolution in Iran and terrible oppression in Chile. So I was pleased to be part of a team from this Chamber in Latin America working to support and defend democracy, defend the ballot box, defend the will of free peoples. That is the stand we should always be taking when their election is held with integrity. And right now, it is important that the United States and the international community continue to stand arm in arm with the people of Guatemala, arm in arm with President-elect Arevalo, arm and arm with Vice-President-elect Herrera and their campaign for democracy, their campaign for the rule of law. Madam President, 44 years ago when I arrived in Guatemala, it was governed by bullets; and 4 days ago, I arrived in a country governed by ballots. But their democracy is at risk. We must continue to do all we can to support the will of the Guatemalan people, the Guatemaltecos, and the will of democratic people around the world. Let's ensure that the form of government that triumphs is that of representative democracy, channeling a government of, by, and for the people, not the powerful.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, our colleague from Kansas has come to the floor and asked for unanimous consent for a bill of some major significance. We have heard a lot of my colleagues explain why this Israel-only bill would be a disaster, because it throws Ukraine overboard. And then I heard his rebuttal. His rebuttal was, ``Well, why not do Israel alone?'' as if we hadn't had this conversation for the last hour and a half. We know the answer: because the House has said it will pass an Israel-alone bill, leaving Ukraine abandoned. So this UC is about abandoning Ukraine. That has powerful international consequences. Allow Ukraine to be torn apart by Putin's brutal invasion--that is what this UC does. It makes a group of American Senators Putin's best friends. This bill--this UC, this unanimous consent for this bill--will shatter the Atlantic alliance, deeply, deeply damaging the power of democracies working together. This bill will fracture NATO because if we don't stand with Ukraine, how many doubts creep in about any enduring effort to defend a smaller country assaulted by a dictator next door? This bill will destroy American leadership in defending democracies. This bill will empower dictators around the world. They will conclude that they can outlast the attention span of a coalition of democratic republics as long as they stay the course. Some of my colleagues in support of this bill say it is costing a lot of money. The budget that Russia is dedicating to this battle is, some estimate, 30 percent--30 percent--of their defense expenditures. Our GDP here is 1\1/2\ percent--1\1/2\ percent versus 30 percent. If we can't stay the course when the question is $1.50 out of every $100, when would we ever stay the course? The last time this globe saw such complicity blockading a vicious conqueror was when Chamberlain went to Munich. In Munich, Chamberlain told Hitler: You can take that massive slice of Czechoslovakia, and England will look the other way. We will simply declare peace in our time. But that appeasement by Chamberlain didn't produce peace in our time. Instead, that appeasement of Hitler stoked Hitler's appetite for conquering adjacent lands. That appeasement of Hitler set the stage for the Second World War, with massive loss of life and treasure for the United States of America and nations around the world. Appeasing Putin today is as wrong as appeasing Hitler 85 years ago. We must instead stand with the freedom-loving, fierce-fighting, democracy-defending people of the Republic of Ukraine. If you come to this Chamber and you have followed former President Trump's lead in loving Putin, then say yes to this unanimous consent request and throw Ukraine under the bus. If you love China, love their authoritarian conquests, love their desire to invade Taiwan, then come to this floor and support this unanimous consent request for this bill and throw Ukraine under the bus. But if you care about freedom; if you are a champion of democracy; if you believe that democracies must stand together against tyranny, against autocracy, against imperialist invaders; if you respect the courage and fortitude of the people of Ukraine, then absolutely say that you object to this UC request, that you object to this bill. We here in the U.S. Senate must not countenance Putin appeasement. We must not countenance complicity and another Munich moment. So I join my colleagues today in preparing to object to this bill. I yield to my colleague from Washington State.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, our colleague has come to the floor and asked for unanimous consent for a bill of some major significance. This bill deliberately throws the Republic of Ukraine under the bus by ripping Ukraine out of the emergency supplemental. This bill would have a very powerful, consequential impact. It will allow Ukraine to be torn apart by Putin's savage invasion. In the process, it will shatter the Atlantic alliance; it will fracture NATO; it will destroy American leadership in defending democracies; and it will empower dictators around the world, dictators who conclude that they can outlast the coalition of democratic republics when a dictator seeks to conquer a democratic neighbor. The last time our world saw such complicity placating a vicious conqueror was when Chamberlain went to Munich. In Munich, Chamberlain told Hitler he could take a big slice of Czechoslovakia, and England would look the other way. Chamberlain declared peace in our time, but his appeasement did not produce peace in our time. Instead, it stoked Hitler's appetite for conquering adjacent land and set the stage for the Second World War, with a massive loss of life and treasure of Americans and life and treasure of many nations around the world. I tell you this: Appeasing Putin today is as wrong and mistaken as appeasing Hitler was 85 years ago. We must stand with the freedom- loving, fierce-fighting, democracy-defending people of the Republic of Ukraine. If you love Putin, then by all means, support this bill. If you love China and want to stoke China's appetite to invade Taiwan, then by all means, support this bill. But if you love freedom, if you love democracy, if you respect the courage and the fortitude of the freedom-loving people of Ukraine, if you oppose democracy-crushing authoritarians wherever they are found, then oppose this bill. There must be no Putin appeasement on the floor of the Senate. There must be no complicity in creating a Munich moment. And so I join my colleagues in preparing to object to this bill. I yield to my colleague from Maryland.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 451, submitted earlier today.

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

Mr. MERKLEY

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

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to consideration of S. Res. 396.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the Merkley amendment at the desk to the committee-reported substitute amendment to the resolution be agreed to; the committee-reported substitute amendment to the resolution be agreed to; the resolution, as amended, be agreed to; the committee-reported substitute amendment to the preamble be agreed to; the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. I know of no further debate on the bill.

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration of S. 41 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I understand there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading.

Mr. MERKLEY. In order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I would object to further proceedings.

Mr. MERKLEY

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