Jeff Merkley

Mr. MERKLEY

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

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Mr. Wicker, I rise today to celebrate Emergency Nurses Week and all of the nurses throughout the country and around the world working day in and day out on the front lines to care for those in need. More than 2 years ago now, the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic turned our emergency rooms into battle zones against the virus virtually overnight, and our nurses fought that battle every single day. They fought it when they were understaffed and didn't have personal protective equipment. They fought it through a rise in violence in their workplaces. They fought it as tireless advocates for their patients, even while risking their own health and the well-being of their own families. And they fought it through exhaustion and burnout. These challenges came on top of an already existing shortage of trained and qualified nurses, a raging opioid epidemic, and a mental health crisis--and now a fentanyl crisis and the monkeypox outbreak. Our nurses are heroes, and throughout the week of October 9, we will join together to honor and celebrate their heroic work. They deserve all the respect, admiration, and support of a grateful nation--not just for 1 week, but indeed, every day of the year.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, when I was in grade school, I had basic civics education. We learned about the fact that the vision of America was based on individuals standing up for their ideas in the public square. They could say: Here is what I think should take us forward, and here are the arguments behind it. And someone else could say: Not so quick. I don't think that is the right path. We should do something else. But in the course of this debate, those people gathered in the square could decide which way to go, partly based on whether they admired the thinking and the ideas being presented by the individuals, perhaps also what they knew about the individuals who were making those comments. But this is a basic competition of ideas freely expressed by members of the community and debated openly. Well, I thought that was a beautiful thing; and it really goes to the notion of freedom of speech and the power that flows up from the people because it is the people gathered and discussing ideas who are making decisions. And in a republic, like our Republic, those decisions also involved whom you vote for because of that set of ideas; and that person is sent to a State legislature or the House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate to fight for those ideas. Isn't that a beautiful concept of complete transparent debate? You know who else agreed with this idea who is no longer with us? Antonin Scalia. Now, I don't know that I have ever quoted Antonin Scalia before, former Supreme Court Justice who passed away a few years ago. He had this to say about disclosure. He said: Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed. And then he continued: For my part, I do not look forward to a society which, thanks to the Supreme Court, [on which he sat] campaigns anonymously . . . hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the accountability of criticism. This [he said] does not resemble the Home of the Brave. So here is a very conservative Justice saying that, without transparency, without public accountability, democracy is doomed. I love the revolutionary idea that flows up from the people or, as Abraham Lincoln put it, that we are of the people, by the people, for the people. Seven weeks from now, Americans are going to go to the polls, and they are going to cast their vote on initiatives and on individuals running for office based on what they have heard. And here is the challenge. A lot of what they have heard is not about people standing up in public with the courage of their convictions but about secret campaign spending where there is no accountability--the exact kind of influence that Antonin Scalia said dooms our democracy. Citizens United, the decision in 2010, is something we talk about quite a bit. What it basically said is that if you don't give money directly to a candidate but instead run a campaign on their behalf, you can spend as much as you want. So unlimited spending--unlimited. This created super PACs that can collect unlimited spending from corporations, unlimited spending from individuals, and run unlimited campaigns on behalf of someone--super PACs. But here is the thing, when they made that decision, the Court thought that perhaps Congress would act to make sure that all of those donations were disclosed. They weren't making a decision that they liked secrecy. After all, Antonin Scalia who voted for Citizens United said: With secrecy, democracy is doomed. Well, we haven't acted because we have a triple veto baked into the way the Senate acts that says you need a supermajority to get a bill to the floor, a supermajority to close debate on amendments, and a supermajority to go to a final vote on a bill. Colleagues across the aisle have said: We wanted to protect that secret money because we think it helps us. That secret money is all about not government of, by, and for the people; that secret money is about government of, by, and for the powerful. So they are using their veto for the powerful to corrupt our country, to corrupt the core vision of government of, by, and for the people. That is what this DISCLOSE Act is all about, to say that we only thrive if the money is legitimate in campaigns. Let me explain this. There are two standards that my Republican colleagues have been fighting for: one standard for ordinary people and a completely different standard for the rich and powerful. For ordinary people, they have supported public disclosure. So for ordinary people in America who spend $200 on a campaign, it is publicly disclosed. Everybody knows who you gave the money to. But if a billionaire doesn't write a $200 check but writes a $200 million check on behalf of running a campaign for an individual, it is secret. It is secret--secrecy for the rich and powerful, disclosure for ordinary Americans. This is all about the equivalent of a stadium sound system by the powerful that drowns out the voice of ordinary people. That drowning- out effort, as my colleague just pointed out, has gone higher and higher and higher. The sound system from the stadium has gotten louder and louder and louder, drowning out the voices of people. In 2010, it was some 60 million in dark money. In 2016, collectively over the years they had reached a billion dollars, and, in 2020, over a billion dollars in a single year. And now we have Barre Seid, who donated his company, $1.6 billion, into the dark money network. This money, spent without accountability, is used to smear candidates. There is a saying--a saying I heard as a little kid--and that saying was: The lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets its pants on. But in our social media world, it is more like the lie gets three times around the globe before the truth gets out the front door. The truth is being hammered constantly by the smear campaign from dark money. So this is what we have: a vote coming up on whether you believe in secret money smear campaigns or you believe in public accountability and preserving the vision of government of, by, and for the people. This is so important to our future. I wonder what Antonin Scalia, lying in his grave, might be thinking when he sees the outcome of Citizens United, an outcome he did not intend. You know, I had the experience of being the target of one of these smear campaigns in 2014. The Koch brothers were bragging, and they held a meeting. They said: We are going to put a lot of money--millions of dollars--into an organization called Freedom Partners. And Freedom Partners, along with the network, is going to spend $200 million in the 2014 campaigns. They came to Oregon, and the press reports said that they were putting $3.6 million into television ads attacking me. Now, I was in a different position than many targets because the Koch brothers had bragged about this money. So they did not take advantage of the anonymity that they could have. I decided to call them out. I put up an ad and said: Where is this money from? It is out-of-State oil and coal billionaires who have come to our State who want to elect my opponent because they share an agenda, and here is the agenda they have advertised: great investment for them, terrible choice for Oregon. That was my response. I was able to respond because, in that case, the Koch brothers had chosen to waive the secrecy. They wanted people to know what they were doing. They wanted people to tremble and fear over the fact that they could write a check for $3 million, or $5 million, or $10 million, or $50 million. This is even more evil when it is secret because then you can't respond about the source and what they are all about. We have seen some recent examples. The Elections Project--what is that dark money up to? That dark money is up to trying to override article I, section 4 of the Constitution. They want State legislatures, without any influence from Congress or from Governors, to be able to write election rules. That is not what the Constitution says. In addition, they want State legislators to be able to ignore the vote in their State and reassign electors for President to whomever they want. That is what that dark money group is doing. How about Heritage Action? Jessica Anderson, the executive director, was caught on video bragging about her organization's role in passing voter suppression laws in Georgia. That is what that dark money is up to. They are trying to stop Americans from voting. How un-American is that? How unpatriotic is that? How ``destroying the freedom and rights of Americans'' is that? That is what Heritage Action is up to in trying to destroy democracy here in the United States of America. Then we had the dark money groups coming together and saying that they were going to have an under-the-dome-type strategy to stop the DISCLOSE Act. What does ``under the dome'' mean? It is a reference to the dome over the Capitol. ``Under the dome'' is about using the triple veto here in the Senate to stop the DISCLOSE Act. We twice had 59 votes to try to hold a debate on the DISCLOSE Act, but not 60--1 vote short. Now they are trying to do it again, to use the Republican caucus under the Senate rules--an under-the-dome strategy to support the sleazy, terrible, dark money attacks corrupting elections in America. I say ``corrupting'' because how can an individual, if they can't see who is donating the money, if they don't know what is true and what isn't, because the highest percentage of these ads are actually putting fake facts forward; they are putting lies forward--that is why I call them a smear campaign. If smear campaigns are inundating the airways, how can citizens make an informed judgment? They can't. That is why Antonin Scalia said this type of secrecy would destroy democracy, and on this, he was right. Let's pass the DISCLOSE Act. Let's save the vision of government of, by, and for the people. I yield to my colleague from Oregon.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, on August 2, 2022, I missed rollcall vote No. 280, the Honoring our PACT Act of 2022. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted yea. Millions of American veterans whose time in the military spanned from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan came home injured from toxic exposure to Agent Orange, burn pits, and more while serving our Nation with honor. They deserve not only our utmost respect for their sacrifice, but also the ability to access their earned benefits without bureaucratic obstacles. For too long, these veterans were met with skepticism and denial about the consequences of toxic exposure, despite mounting evidence of the serious health consequences that can stem from this exposure. No more. These generations of men and women stood up for us, now it is our duty to stand up for them. Ensuring that those exposed to these harmful and deadly toxins can get the care they need is the least that we can do for such heroes. Mr. President, on August 3, 2022, I missed rollcall vote No. 282, Treaty Doc. 117-3, Protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted yea. For over seven decades, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization-- NATO--has been the bedrock of security in Europe and helped preserve world order. Today, in the face of Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, the importance of transatlantic strength and unity cannot be overstated. It is more important than ever that, as we remain committed to the pursuit of peace and prosperity in Europe, we work with our NATO allies to stand up to Vladimir Putin's aggression and send a clear message to any who attempt to follow his path that the free world will not stand idly by while its values and its sovereignty are attacked. The addition of these two Nordic countries and European Union members, Finland and Sweden, who have long acted in partnership with this alliance, will serve to not only send that critical message, but will make NATO a stronger force for peace in the world. This is a historic day. And I gladly support and welcome the addition of these two important allies whose military and diplomatic capabilities will help NATO better address urgent and emerging threats to European and global security. Mr. President, on August 4, 2022, I missed rollcall vote No. 283, a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted no because this resolution would undermine core provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act--NEPA--that are critical for protecting our environment, our water and air, endangered species and their habitats, and the well-being of the American people. The purpose of NEPA is to ensure that the Federal Government fully thinks through and considers all of the impacts of infrastructure projects, both the direct and indirect cumulative impact of a projects. In the fight against climate chaos, NEPA is a critical tool for ensuring that our government considers all of the ways that a project might add to or mitigate the climate crisis, and then empower agencies to analyze reasonable alternatives that are less harmful to our natural environment. As part of its relentless campaign to undermine the fight against climate chaos, the last administration went to great lengths to weaken NEPA's ability to protect our environment and severely limited the ability of agencies to seek out less harmful alternatives. The previous administration also directed that the indirect and cumulative impacts of Federal projects no longer needed to be considered. As stated in a letter sent to the Senate by a group of 200 organizations representing millions of members and supporters, these changes were a blatant effort ``to entrench federal climate denial, hastily permit dangerous or polluting projects, and systematically disenfranchise low-income, rural, and minority communities from government decision-making.'' Since coming into office, President Biden has worked to restore NEPA's core provisions, reduce litigation risk, and help deliver more sustainable and equitable projects. The ``Phase 1'' rulemaking that this CRA attacks, is essential to addressing the climate crisis and ensuring environmental justice for communities that disproportionately bear its brunt. If this joint resolution were to pass, it would not only undermine our agencies' ability to mitigate climate change or make decisions that ensure a project is more resilient to the foreseeable effects of a changing climate, it would also potentially stop any future administration from using NEPA to address the climate impacts of Federal decisions. That would be disastrous for our environment, for our country, and for the American people. Therefore, as previously stated, for the well-being of our planet and of future generations, had I been present, I would have strongly opposed this effort to weaken the National Environmental Policy Act and voted no on this joint resolution. Mr. President, on August 4, 2022, I missed rollcall vote No. 284, confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 1100, Roopali H. Desai, of Arizona, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted yea.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, in the face of the ever growing threat of climate chaos, it is vital for the future of our Nation and our planet that we move swiftly and boldly to transition from an energy economy that relies on carbon fossil fuels to one that is electrified and powered by clean and renewable sources of energy. The Inflation Reduction Act makes historic investments in making that greener, cleaner future a reality. Included in those investments is the residential clean energy credit for battery storage technology. When we talk about transitioning to a greener economy, energy storage is critical. With this credit, homeowners can install energy storage capacity in two ways: by purchasing stand-alone batteries or by purchasing a bidirectional charger so the batteries in their electric vehicle can discharge to their home or the electric grid. Both will be ``qualified battery storage technology expenditures'' under this legislation. Bidirectional charging is an exciting, groundbreaking new frontier for our vehicles and for our energy grid. I was excited, not too long ago, to see Ford's new F-150 Lightning with my own eyes when one was parked outside the front of this Capitol. And it was impressive, and I think it could be a game changer. One of the features I loved most is that, in the event that a storm knocks out power to a house, the F-150 Lightning can be plugged in as a backup to keep the lights on. Not only is that convenient, it could be lifesaving. So I am very excited that this tax credit, which will be essential to the continued development and deployment of bidirectional battery storage technology, is included in the Inflation Reduction Act. And I look forward to supporting it in this bill and then building from it in the days to come.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, this amendment does require that the Secretary of the Interior grant leases for coal mining, but granting more leases for coal mining is going to do nothing for our coal miners today because we are in the situation where the existing coal mines are looking for more customers. That is the challenge; not more leases. So I know that if this was something that would help the coal miners, that it would already be in this bill, given the knowledge and understanding of my colleague from West Virginia. So jeopardizing the employment of existing coal miners is certainly not in the interest of any of us, and I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. Vote on Amendment No. 5418

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, we have just heard a discussion of the issue of tax reform, and my colleague across the aisle has said there should be no corporate minimum tax on corporations, and yet Americans know that billionaire companies one after the other--some of the most profitable companies in our entire country, companies like Amazon-- don't pay a single cent in tax. They use our legal system. They use our road system. They use our education system. They use it all in vast quantities and don't contribute a single dime. One single ordinary worker does more to pay for all of the infrastructure these massive companies utilize than the company does. It is about time corporations that make massive profits pay something, and 15 percent isn't even their fair share. And it is part of a global agreement to hold corporations accountable, so they don't skip from one country to another, to another, to another, evading everyone everywhere. My colleague also said a lot about why we should not put a 1 percent tax on stock buybacks. Let's understand what stock buybacks are. First of all, a president of a company works to get a board, and that board is compensated, and then that board makes lots of decisions about, well, the welfare of the top executives. They set the salaries for the top executives, and then they give them stock options. Now, if you have a stock option and then your company buys back stock, every share gets more valuable; you make a massive amount of money. This is a corrupt system. It does nothing to further the investment of the company and the productivity of America. It does nothing to increase the R&D--research and development--that goes into new products. It does nothing to make their product more price competitive. It is ``enrich the rich'' scheme, and putting a 1 percent fee on that to help pay for all of the infrastructure the companies use is certainly more than appropriate. In fact, we should simply ban the stock buybacks. This is a very, very modest reform in the right direction. It is the case that in this Chamber, under the Republican stock provisions, 1 year after another under their tax provisions, they have basically enabled the billionaires and corporations to escape any contribution to the welfare of our country. That is wrong. These tax reforms are right, and the healthcare provisions will help. They are not nearly as powerful as I would like to see, certainly. I want to negotiate every single drug, the way the Veterans' Administration does, the way every foreign country does, every developed country does. We should get the best prices, not the worst in the developed world. And in climate, while this, again, doesn't do everything I want, the investments in solar and wind will drive a bold, determined transition from fossil fuel energy to renewable energy. We have to electrify everything with renewable energy. If we do that, set that example for the world and work with the world, we have some chance of humanity tackling this massive problem of climate chaos that is causing so much trouble across our land--from the massive floods in Kentucky to the forest fires of the Pacific Northwest, town after town being burned down. It is really America that has to lead the way. There is a lot more I would like to see in this bill, just as my colleague from Ohio has a whole series of ideas. I filed a lot of amendments, but I can't pull them up tonight. I can't ask for a vote on them because under the structure that we are dealing with now, anything that changes may result in this bill never passing, and so this is why, when we come back in the next session of Congress, we have to reform this Senate so we can do legitimate amendments like my colleague from Ohio suggested in a process where they get due consideration and don't torpedo the bill under which we are discussing them. Those reforms are so essential because the arc of this Chamber has been one in which individual amendments have been incredibly suppressed. It is unacceptable. We are all so frustrated with the fact that deals are made by basically four individuals leading the two Chambers off this floor rather than determined and responsible debate-- public, transparent debate--on the floor of this Chamber. So the right answer is to come back and make this place work so that all ideas--as my colleague from Ohio listed his, I have my list. I want to add in affordable housing. I want to stop all the drilling. I want to fund the community colleges. I want preschool to be counted. I want to fix so that we can take the electric vehicle tax credits and do even better with them. I want to include the two-wheel and the three-wheel vehicles. I want to put in the summer benefit for food that has been so effective in helping so many children make it through the summer. But I can't do these things. Let's fix this Senate. Let's have the types of debates we should have, and tonight, let's pass this bill for the right steps in the right direction on tax reform, on healthcare, and on climate.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, on July 4, we celebrated the founding of our Nation, as we do every year. But when I woke up on this July 4, I had a strange thought, a thought I never had before, the question of, What kind of country are we celebrating? I have always had immense pride in the founding vision of our Nation, in that vision of equality, of opportunity for all, of freedom of religion, of equal justice under the law, of equal representation, and, most importantly, of government of, by, and for the people. Our journey as a nation over nearly 250 years has been a difficult journey of moving toward full implementation of this vision. That is an inspiring journey--a journey I have been proud to witness, a journey I have been proud to be a part of. But just days before this year's July 4 celebration, we saw the conclusion of the Supreme Court's latest judicial term--a term over which the Court displayed a far different vision for America: one with devastating repercussions that will reverberate in the lives of countless Americans for decades to come. For years now--actually, for decades, we have watched a steady, relentless effort by rightwing extremists to rig the courts so they can transform America and American society as we have known it. Their big goal is corporations over people and their second goal is to implement conservative cultural policy over individual freedom and liberty. Now, with this Court's recent decisions, we are left with an inescapable conclusion: The extremists have succeeded. The Court is now operating as an unelected super-legislature with a MAGA political agenda. Their decisions this term read like planks out of the Republican Party platform. Here is what the MAGA Court's vision is for our Nation. It is a vision that obliterates the right to privacy, giving an overbearing Federal Government the power to be in the medical exam room making reproductive health decisions for American women, when the only people who should be in the exam room, under an ``of and by the people'' Republic is the woman, her doctor, and whomever else she chooses to invite--her partner, her friend, or her religious adviser. This Court's vision is a vision that embraces never-ending gun violence, stripping Congress and the States of the ability to make commonsense gun safety laws. It is a vision of a nation where public schools can impose religion on their students. So much for freedom of religion and separation of church and State. It is a vision of a nation where wrongfully incarcerated Americans don't have the right to prove their innocence and can't find justice if their Miranda rights were violated. So much for the principle of equal justice under law, the very principle carved into stone above the doors of the Supreme Court. In fact, if you go out this door and out the front steps, you can see those words while standing here on the steps of the Senate. This Court's vision is of a nation where the Court strips the Federal Government of its legally enacted power to regulate fossil carbon and fossil methane pollution that is destroying our Nation and our planet. It is a vision where the powerful corrupt the integrity of our elections with gerrymandering and dark money and measures to prevent targeted groups of Americans from voting. This vision is a vision for a government by and for the powerful, not by and for the people. This vision in which the Supreme Court becomes a superlegislature for a MAGA agenda infuriates me. It infuriates me because I believe in government by and for the people, not by and for the powerful. It infuriates me because I know the pain that these decisions will inflict on millions of Americans--the pain of a woman forced by a State government to carry a fetus to term that was conceived through rape or incest or the pain of any woman, for that matter, who simply is unprepared to be pregnant or become a parent; the pain of every single person who will have to mourn the death of a loved one lost to an ever- growing epidemic of gun violence and mass shootings like we saw in Uvalde and in Highland Park and in countless other communities with more than one mass shooting per day; the pain of the citizens blocked from the ballot box, effectively denied their most fundamental right as Americans because of voter suppression schemes enacted in many States over this past year; the pain of students in our public schools pressured to participate in religious acts in conflict with their own beliefs; the pain of rural Americans, ranchers, and farmers whose farms and ranches will be lost to fire and drought because the Court says the Federal Government cannot regulate fossil carbon and fossil methane causing climate chaos. And I am infuriated because I know more Supreme Court decisions like these are coming from the six MAGA Justices on the Court. They want to cement their vision of America through superlegislative powers rather than calling the balls and strikes defending the Constitution, which is their job. They have announced that next term they are going to hear a case on the fringe doctrine known as the independent State legislature doctrine. It has been considered an extremist idea, which says only State legislatures have the power to make decisions about Federal elections and how to appoint electors. State courts would have no power to ensure checks and balances or decide which decisions about elections violate a State constitution or ignore the will of the voters, nor could State Governors veto such legislative decisions. And that is just the start. Justice Thomas himself said in his concurring opinion that, based on the reasoning in Dobbs, he wants the Court to consider a whole host of other rights that have been secured and protected by previous Courts, including the possibility of striking down the right to intimacy and marriage for same-sex couples and the right to contraception. Make no mistake, this is not some sudden occurrence. It is exactly what the Federalist Society has been working toward for decades. Before joining the Court in 1972, Lewis Powell wrote about the need to rebuild the power of industrial elites and fight back ``from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians'' against progressive changes in society. In outlining a plan for rebuilding the power of Big Business, he declared that, with an activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for achieving that goal. That is exactly why, as majority leader in 2017, Senator McConnell stole a Supreme Court seat from one President so another President could fill it. He stole it in 2016, and he filled it in 2017 with MAGA Justice Neil Gorsuch. It is why, in 2018, Leader McConnell completely ignored credible accounts of sexual assault and rushed through a confirmation without giving Senators access to the nominee's full records and bypassing committee quorum rules to fill another seat with MAGA Justice Brett Kavanaugh. And it is why, when a seat opened up in another election year, 2020, just weeks before the voters would vote, Leader McConnell completely reversed his argument that he had used to justify the theft of a Supreme Court seat in 2016, and he rammed through the nomination of MAGA Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The Republican Party has won one popular vote for President in the last 30 years but has appointed two-thirds of the sitting Justices, who now see it as their job to become a super-legislature for a cultural agenda and corporate power. In one of his columns, Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post described the resulting unelected, unaccountable majority of Supreme Court Justices as a ``junta''--a word used to describe authoritarian leaders who rule through edicts rather than through legislative determination or deliberation on constitutional principles. It is hard to argue with Eugene Robinson's characterization. In spite of what the vast majority of Americans want--the protection of a woman's right to full reproductive healthcare and more gun safety, not less, and free and fair elections--the Court's MAGA majority has chosen to rule by Supreme Court edict to inflict their narrow preferences for society on hundreds of millions of Americans. And they are not just using the regular process for considering cases. Over the past 5 years, we have seen a monumental shift in the Court's use of emergency orders--the so-called shadow docket--to enact sweeping decisions on the American people. These cases don't get the full process we are familiar with--formal briefings, formal hearings, lengthy deliberations, and opinion writings--because it is argued that the applicant would suffer ``irreparable harm'' if their request were not immediately granted. The shadow docket decisions, by the way, are usually unsigned and unexplained. In the past, they have essentially involved death penalty cases--cases of literal life and death--of pretty much extreme importance to the applicant because, if someone is executed before their case is heard, they do suffer ``irreparable harm''--the standard. Then, about 5 years ago, we started to see a big shift in the emergency cases being taken up and in the substances of them as well. We have seen the shadow docket used to stop the Federal Government from implementing a vaccine and testing mandate on businesses to protect public health in the middle of an unprecedented global health crisis that has killed more than a million Americans. We have seen it used to uphold a Texas law banning abortion after 6 weeks. We have seen it used when a lower court blocked Alabama's congressional map because it violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the political power of Black voters. The Court said: You have got to draw a new map that is fair. The Supreme Court stepped in with their shadow docket and said: No. Alabama can use this faulty map that dilutes the power of Black Americans. In this situation, the Court didn't stop the infliction of harm; they inflicted the harm on Black Americans, who want fair maps, who deserve fair maps for voting in our democracy. That gerrymandered map is now in place to disenfranchise Black voters in this November's election because of the Supreme Court's use of the shadow docket. It is hard to see how any of these cases met the test for the shadow docket. The state of abuse of the shadow docket has gotten so bad and so blatant that even Justice Roberts, the Chief Justice of the Court, joined a dissent in a case reinstating a Trump administration Clean Water Act regulation limiting Federal protections for streams and wetlands. This dissent stated that the majority's decision ``renders the court's emergency docket,'' meaning the shadow docket, ``not for emergencies at all . . . . The docket becomes only another place for merits determinations-- except made without full briefing and argument.'' When the Supreme Court's Chief Justice says the shadow docket is being abused, you know it is true. This MAGA Court is so determined to impose their legislative priorities and values on our country that they have abandoned one of the core principles of American jurisprudence, going back to even before there was a United States of America, and that is that the Court only rules when there is an actual dispute or controversy in question. In their eagerness to cripple the Federal Government's ability to fight fossil carbon pollution, the MAGA Justices weighed in on a regulation that had never been enforced--a regulation that had been withdrawn by President Trump and a regulation which President Biden had indicated was never going to be reinstated. Even the utilities that would have been regulated didn't want the Supreme Court to decide this case. This out-of-control MAGA Supreme Court super-legislature wanted to legislate--and legislate they did--violating a core principle that the Court does not address moot cases. Moot cases are cases where there is nothing still in dispute, and this certainly was the case that this case was as dead or as moot as it could be because nobody could be impacted by a rule that doesn't exist. Why did the Court take up this case? Well, we may not be able to specify the exact reasoning by each Justice, but the effect is clear. By taking up this case, the Court furthered the MAGA policy agenda. Their ruling handcuffed Federal authorities' ability to pursue future limitations on pollutions from fossil fuels like carbon dioxide and fossil methane. This is to the enormous benefit of the fossil fuel billionaires who funded the massive dark money campaigns that supported these Justices' confirmations. That situation of their breaking precedent to benefit the fossil billionaires, who had just funded their confirmation campaigns, reeks of corruption. When generations ahead of us look back at this moment, I have no doubt--especially when they look at this year, 2022, and what the Court did in a single year--they will look back with a sense of profound disbelief--disbelief--like that disbelief that we experience when we look back on cases like Dred Scott, which dehumanized Black Americans and legitimized slavery, or Plessy v. Ferguson, which locked in 60 years of vicious discrimination and racial terrorism under a separate but equal philosophy. The disbelief that future generations will have will be directed at Dobbs--a decision this year in which the Court obliterated privacy and put an overbearing government in charge of women's reproductive health. They will have the disbelief that, in Kennedy v. Bremerton--decided this year--the Court destroyed freedom of religion in our public schools; the disbelief that, in West Virginia v. EPA--a decision this year--the Court violated centuries of precedent to rule on a regulation that is no longer on books, with the effect--perhaps the goal--of limiting the future regulation of greenhouse gas pollution; the disbelief in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen-- decided this year--that the Court ruled that a State legislature can't require folks to have a good reason to carry a concealed weapon in public spaces. Let me be clear. This activist, extremist MAGA Court faces a legitimacy crisis, and a legitimacy crisis for the Court is a crisis for our democratic Republic. Part of that illegitimacy is Justices of the Supreme Court selectively using a doctrine of so-called originalism to justify their politically inspired decisions. The doctrine of originalism is based on a reasonable argument, one on which you and I would say makes sense: a goal of understanding what the Founders meant when they wrote what they wrote in our Constitution more than two centuries ago. But if that effort is applied selectively, it simply becomes a measure to justify, after the fact, where the Justices want it to come out. They use it when it works, and they abandon it when it doesn't. For example, the Founders wrote the Second Amendment to ensure that members of well-regulated militias had access to their rifles, but the so-called originalists on the Court cast originalism aside, declaring that the Founders wrote that clause to ensure that nonmilitia members had the right to bring assault rifles--that didn't exist in 1787--onto subways, which didn't exist in 1787. That is bogus originalism in its purist form. Consider this: Corporations, as we know them today, did not exist in 1787. Yet the so-called originalists on the Court insist that the Founders' vision of the First Amendment, to protect freedom of speech, gives corporations speech rights even though the word ``corporation'' doesn't appear in the Constitution--a point that they use when they want to take an originalist argument: that the Founders had to have it be something written in the Constitution and be something they discussed and something they considered and something they envisioned. None of those are true. Not a one of them is true in this case. The MAGA Court also claims that a corporation is a person, which no Founder would ever have argued. They didn't even know what a ``corporation'' was because they didn't exist in this form that we have now. The MAGA Court goes on to claim that the members comprising the corporate personhood--those are the stockholders of a corporation--have absolutely no right to know how that corporation that they are part of spends their money. This is absurdity stacked on the fallacy that a corporation is a person. I have yet to see and yet to hear any plausible explanation as to how the MAGA Justices can be confident that the Founders intended for billionaire CEOs to hijack the accumulated wealth of their stockholders without their stockholders' knowledge or permission or opportunity to know what is being said and to use that money as speech and to spend it on secretly funded campaigns, including campaigns to confirm Supreme Court Justices. The problem we face, colleagues, isn't just a MAGA-majority Court enacting terrible policy rather than defending the balls and strikes against the Constitution. The problem is greater if the highest Court in the land loses its legitimacy, the law itself loses its legitimacy. If the American people see the Supreme Court Justices making clear that the law has no meaning other than their political preferences, then the law is not the foundation for our society that it is supposed to be. We have seen with deadly results on January 6, 2021, the consequences to our policies, to our politics, and to our society when the rule of law is replaced by violence and power as the organizing principle for society. The Court is essential in a society based on the rule of law, and it is essential to have a Court that honors the law rather than trying to write the law. This MAGA majority and its desire, and operation as a super- legislature--unelected, lifetime appointments--is a dire threat to our Republic. Here in Congress, we must not only shine a light--a spotlight--on the threat; we must stop the runaway MAGA Court from corrupting the rule of law and try to restore the legitimate role of the Court as a panel defending our Constitution. Some will say there is no way to restore the Court and that any strategy for restoring the Court will simply compound the problems we are now facing, and I agree that there is no simple way to restore the legitimacy of the Court. Back in 2017, when then-Majority Leader McConnell was striving to complete the theft of the Supreme Court seat taken from the administration of Barack Obama, I took to this floor for 15\1/2\ hours with one simple message: Don't do it. Don't do it because, if you do, you will damage the legitimacy of the Court and there will be no simple path, no easy remedy to restore the Court's legitimacy. But Leader McConnell, he doused the Supreme Court with gasoline on that day, and he set it on fire. He did the damage. I stood here for 15\1/2\ hours and said don't do it. You know, we take an oath of office to a Constitution. That involves defending the Court, not delegitimizing the Court, not stealing Supreme Court seats. It was the first time in the history of the United States of America that this Senate failed to debate and vote on a nominee. But here we are; the damage is done. What do we do now? When an arsonist sets fire to your house, you don't let it burn because you are worried about water damage. You have to strive to put out that fire, regardless of how difficult the task. So I say to you today, we cannot accept the defeatist attitude that fails to confront the forces destroying our Republic. There are two things we must do. Mission one, we have to reform the ability of this broken Senate to serve as a legislature because, if it serves effectively as a legislature, it can serve as a counterweight to decisions of a corrupted Court. The second thing we have to do is put all options on the table and debate them for directly reforming the Court, recognizing that we are left with difficult choices on how to do that. But we have to step up. It is necessary to save our Republic. So let's take each of these missions in turn. The first is to restore the Senate. Our goal: Restore the Senate as a legislative body to serve as a counterweight to the corruption of a MAGA-majority Court. There are three massive problems currently afflicting the Senate's ability to serve as a functioning legislative body. First, we spend virtually all of our time on nominations, so much time that it keeps us from doing much legislating, even though we have a massively complex society and a lot of possibilities for making it work better. When George Washington was assembling his first administration, he had to appoint and the Senate had to confirm four Cabinet positions: Secretary of War, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of State, and Attorney General--four positions. Today, the Senate is responsible for confirming over 1,200 Presidential appointments to executive branch positions and commissions. Now, in the past, both parties worked to exercise the Senate's advice and consent responsibilities in a manner that minimized the amount of Senate time required. Most were done by unanimous consent late at night, when practically anyone was here because most nominations are not ones to which anyone has an objection. In the entire decade of the 1960s, there was one vote required to close debate on a nominee--one, in an entire 10 years. But, last decade, that number went to 545. Now, it is like every nomination. Virtually every nomination we have to file to close debate and vote to close debate before we can vote on the nominee. And do you know what? The way it works, you can also require 30 hours of debate after the vote to close debate succeeds. So the rules, which were designed for exceptional situations where there is a significant objection, are now used as partisan obstruction. Democrats are in the minority. They want to tie up the Republicans. So they have little time to legislate. Republicans are in the minority. They want to tie up the Democrats. So they have little time to legislate. They want each other to fail, partly because they disagree and partly because they know if the other side succeeds in making something work, the voters might reward them at the ballot box. We have to massively streamline this nomination process. We have to-- 100 Senators--work together, not do what is best for us when we are in the majority and oppose it when we are in the minority, or vice versa. We all have a responsibility to completely streamline that process so we can return to being a legislature. The second big problem for the Senate is that the rules provide a complicated, time-consuming process for debating and voting on whether to debate a bill. It involves a motion to proceed or requirement to close debate on the motion to proceed and whose nomination is up to 30 hours of additional of debate--all on the question of whether to debate. You have 100 capable people sent here by their constituents in their various States to solve problems for America, not to spend a week debating whether to debate a single bill. That could be a week spent debating the amendments that could make the bill better, a week spent considering individual pieces of the bills so the public knows where we stand and there is public accountability. But, instead, we have partisan paralysis. A completely dysfunctional Senate, that is what we have. We have to change the rules to stop this completely meritless waste of the time and efforts of 100 Senators. It is an easy solution: 1 hour spent debating whether to debate a bill, and then a simple majority vote, either we go to the bill or we don't; easy solution. One hour makes much more sense than 1 week. The third big problem this Senate Chamber faces is a secret silent filibuster. Under the Senate rule--and by the way, the term ``filibuster'' is really inappropriate because this involves no speaking of any kind. Under the Senate rule, 41 Senators can, operating as a block, veto the opportunity for the Senate to debate a bill, veto the opportunity for the Senate to consider an amendment, and veto the ability, after amendments have been considered, to have a final vote on the bill. It is the triple veto: three opportunities for the minority to blockade the majority from being able to consider legislation to address the issues facing America. And both parties have attempted to use it when they are in the minority. We have to restore the ability to actually debate. It is exactly what the Founders feared. When I lay out that 41 can block and veto these 3 steps of the process, it means to reverse it-- that 60 out of 100, a supermajority, has to agree to go forward through each of those three steps. The Founders warned us: Never allow the minority to make the decisions by requiring a supermajority. Don't to it. That is why James Madison said that, with a supermajority, when ``the general good might require new laws . . . the principle of free government would be reversed. It would no longer be the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority.'' It is why Alexander Hamilton warned that a supermajority requirement would result in ``tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good.'' He also warned that ``the history of every political establishment in which this principle has prevailed''--the principle of supermajority-- ``is a history impotence, perplexity, and disorder.'' Now, you may wonder if the Founders had simply read about someone somewhere requiring a supermajority for legislature and said it didn't work very well and thought, We had better warn Americans not to do this. No, they were writing from their direct experience because, as they were drafting and debating our 1787 Constitution, they were actually in the middle of living through the impotence and incompetence of the Confederation Congress. Under the Articles of Confederation, which preceded our 1787 Constitution, the Congress had to have a supermajority on every provision; meaning, the position of the minority could prevail over the position of the majority. The result was paralysis on the most fundamental issues they faced. They failed to raise the funds to pay the pensions of the veterans who spilled their blood in the Revolutionary War that created this Nation. They failed to raise the funds to put down Shays' Rebellion. Well, today, we have not one stage of veto, like they faced in the Confederation Congress, we have the triple veto power under the current secret, silent filibuster, and we are seeing the same impotence, the same paralysis, the same partisanship that it drives. The triple veto power of the minority is destroying the Senate to address challenges facing America, and there are a lot of them. We have got the climate crisis that is literally setting our country on fire. Right now, at this very moment, around 40 million Americans across the Plains and the Mississippi Valley are dealing with alerts for dangerous and intense heat, while firefighters are confronting 89 large fires across 12 States. And as of last week, four times as much acreage has burned this year as last year at this moment. And it is not just America, of course. Across the Atlantic, Europe is going through a recordbreaking heat wave, reaching temperatures some of those places have never seen and causing wildfires to burn in France and Spain and Italy and Greece. Congress should be immersed in considering bills to address the climate crisis that is damaging communities across our country, and not just through fires but through rising sea levels and rising erosion, through pine beetle infestations and mosquito infestations, through stronger hurricanes and stronger tornadoes, and, certainly, through the power of multiyear droughts. But we are not because the triple veto of the silent, secret filibuster afflicting this body is blocking us from doing so. We have a housing crisis. Out-of-control rents and prices make it impossible for millions of Americans to afford a decent home to rent or buy. And colleagues have one idea after another about how we should address it, but because we are paralyzed and our process is taken up, our time is taken up with nominations and debating whether to debate and we have the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster, they can't move forward. And we aren't debating, discussing, and hopefully passing measures that can make a difference. And Americans are outraged by the prices they pay on drugs, which are so much higher than any other developed country. Eighty percent of Americans say: Do something about it. And I think the other 20 percent don't realize how much we are getting ripped off. And Americans know we should get the best price because we invest the most in the research and development that creates these drugs, not the worst price, and they are absolutely right. And we would have passed legislation by now to get the best prices in the developed world, but we are blocked by the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster. And now States are passing laws to block targeted groups of Americans from voting. We can fix that by passing S. 1, the For the People Act, or its reincarnation, the Freedom to Vote Act, but we can't because it was blocked by the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster. Let me be absolutely clear. The single most effective way we can counterbalance an out-of-control Court with a MAGA agenda is to have a functioning Senate. That is the most immediate remedy available to us to respond to this terrible affliction undermining our Republic. If the Court says there is no problem with gerrymandered districts, where politicians choose their constituents instead of Americans choosing their leaders, as they did in the 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision, well, a reformed, restored Senate could pass legislation to require nonpartisan commissions to draw legislative districts. At least we could have a robust debate over it, maybe pass a few amendments modifying it in different forms--or perhaps find some other solution-- if we had a functioning legislative process. If the Court says there is no limit to dark money from corporations and billionaires who flood and drown out the voices of ordinary Americans and campaigns, as they did in the 2010 Citizens United decision, a reformed, restored Senate could pass the DISCLOSE Act to shine a light on every dollar and where it is coming from in American campaigns. If the Court says that anyone who wants to be able to carry a concealed weapon should be able to like they did in their New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, a restored, functioning Senate could pass stronger gun safety laws that most Americans support, like ending the background check loophole--when guns are bought and sold by unlicensed parties online or at gun shows--or by outlawing the kinds of large magazines that carry 30 or more bullets that are often used in mass shootings. And when the Court went to abnormally great lengths to decide in last month's West Virginia v. EPA that the Agency can't regulate fossil carbon or fossil methane emissions, a functioning Senate would be able to step up and create the programs designed to speed up the transition to renewable energy, which would have the added benefit of ending our addiction to oil and dropping the prices at the pump, and it would keep money out of the hands of dictators in Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. But the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster has blocked us from doing so. The remedy is not to eliminate the filibuster. The remedy is to reform it. The right reform is to adopt the public, talking filibuster. The talking filibuster would reassert the fundamental principle of legislative conduct: the Senate Code, adopted by the original Senate. Under that code, the Senate listened to every Senator's perspective, and then it took a vote on the issue, be it a bill or be it an amendment. That was the Senate Code. The original rules provided that every Senator had the right to speak twice to a question. It was rule No. 4 in the original rules. It is in our rules today. But the spirit of that code--listening to each Senator and then voting, with the majority winning, not losing--that part is gone. Now, it is the minority that can exercise a triple veto, a veto absolutely exactly the opposite of what the Founders said to us. They said: Don't do it. And we have done it in triplicate form, paralyzing this place and accentuating the temptation of yielding to partisanship rather than problem-solving. Jefferson did say that this rule, this code of listening to every Senator and voting, should not be abused. In fact, he said this in his manual for rules in 1801: No one is to speak impertinently or beside the question, superfluously or tediously. It worked for the Founders. They exercised some self-control, so much so that they didn't need the rule that they had to close debate. They just simply listened to everyone with mutual respect and then said: OK. Let's take a vote. You want to see that in action today? Watch the committee process on a bill with amendments. There is no one filibustering, speaking forever. There is no one requiring a supermajority to close debate in committee. They operate--we operate--in committee, much like the original Senate, and it works pretty well, but we have completely lost that discipline when it comes to debate here on our floor. So the early Senate had a rule for the previous question motion, to close debate or accelerate the closure of debate. And when they rewrote the rule book--and Aaron Burr was in charge of it--in 1806, they dropped the rule because they never used it, didn't feel they ever needed it. Well, we need to reclaim that vision, and our rules have gotten so crazy, so out of whack, that we encourage partisanship and paralysis rather than problem-solving. Let's fix that. So let's have the talking filibuster. The talking filibuster says, Yes, you can speak on the issue. We will listen to everyone. You can speak twice. But then we vote, and the majority wins--not a supermajority required. The minority doesn't win over the majority. The majority wins. That was the Senate. That was the design of our Constitution that we have the responsibility to restore because we took an oath to the Constitution. So let's restore it. And that talking filibuster encourages bipartisan problem-solving. The minority, be it the Democratic or Republican, that wants to slow things down for leverage, they can. So they have significant leverage, but, on the other hand, they have an incentive to negotiate because they are not sure how long they can maintain continuous debate. And that is the heart of the talking filibuster: maintaining continuous debate. If there is a break in debate, you go to the vote. Meanwhile, the majority has an incentive to compromise because they know the minority can tie this place up on a single bill for week after week, and they can't afford to have that much time taken over a single bill. So the talking filibuster restores an incentive for compromise and bipartisan problem-solving and, in the end, restores the vision that the majority makes the decision, not the minority. In the end, it gives the minority a voice, it gives the minority massive leverage, but it takes away their veto. That is the right way to legislate in a democracy. As I noted before, fixing the Senate is probably the best immediate tool we have for repairing the damage from the Supreme Court across the grounds. But we also have to consider every possible remedy to restore the Court itself, to restore a Court that calls the balls and strikes on the Constitution, defending its core principles, and recognizes it is not there to legislate--not to legislate on the left side, not to legislate on the right side. They are there to defend the Constitution. Well, reforming the Court won't be easily done. But President Biden did convene a Commission to explore the option, and that Commission has produced a lengthy, lengthy report. This is part of it: The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, December of last year. I encourage all my colleagues to read this and consider the ideas in it. In this 300-page report, the Commission does review the history of how the Court has been in different phases, and its size has changed all the time because that is not established in the Constitution. It has been as few as 5, and it has been more than 10. There was not nine locked in like it is now. And, certainly, one of the ideas they review is adjustment to the size of the Court. Many people have said that is something to look at to balance what has happened with the Court, with the stolen Supreme Court seat and a decision by several Justices to be a legislature rather than a court. Well, that is one idea. Another is implementing term limits or a mandatory retirement age because, when the Constitution was first written, people weren't living the long lives they have today, and they didn't stay in the Court forever. In 1787, the Founders wrote that Justices would hold their seats during good behavior. Now, I am not sure that every Justice across these grounds has been engaged in good behavior when they are choosing to legislate rather than to rule on the defense of the Constitution, but there is no easy way to remove them from the Court for misbehavior. But one possibility is for the Court members to rotate out with term limits of some kind. That is one possibility. In much of our history, Justices only served an average of 15 years on the Court. The average is now 26 and getting longer. And, did you know, America is the only constitutional democracy that gives lifetime presence on the Court, that doesn't have either a term limit or a mandatory retirement age? This report, this Commission, has other ideas in it: rotating membership on the Court with judges selected from the circuit court. You know, the original Supreme Court, they served as circuit court writers. They went out and made decisions across this country. They didn't just sit in a room in the capital. So there is some precedent for that idea. And others point out that there is the power to restrict the Court's jurisdiction. There are pros and cons for these various ideas, and our commitment needs to be to examine them. The American public is open to examining them. Earlier this week, the FOX News poll reported that 66 percent of the folks in their poll support an 18-year term for Justices, and 71 percent support a mandatory retirement age. So the American people are open to trying to fix the challenge with the Court. We have to be open to fixing it, and we need to look at every option and idea very carefully to ensure that the highest Court in our land fulfills the vision for it in our Constitution. And the vision in our Constitution was not that it would be an unelected super-legislature. Colleagues, this is a perilous moment for our Republic. It is a moment when the will of the people is being overrun by an extreme agenda of a Court legislating from the Bench, imposing their narrow and precedent-destroying will on all Americans. We have to restore the ability of this Senate to operate as a legislature that can be a counterbalance to what the Court does, and we must thoughtfully consider every proposal for reforming the Court directly. We can and we must act before it is too late. We can't stand by and watch the continuous disintegration of our Republic. Our oath to the Constitution demands that we protect these institutions and repair them when they go off track. And when we do, the next July 4, we can all join together and celebrate the restoration of our paralyzed and partisan Senate into an actual legislative body. We can celebrate the restoration of Americans' rights that are being continuously stripped away across the grounds by the Supreme Court. We can have a renewed belief and confidence in the integrity of all of our institutions and our democratic form of governance. That would be a moment justifying a massive celebration next July 4.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 406, S. 3895.

Mr. MERKLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be 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. MERKLEY. For the information of the Senate, the first vote of the day, tomorrow, will be at 11:30 a.m., and Senators should expect additional votes.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Thursday, July 21; 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 House message to accompany H.R. 4346; further, that at 11:30 a.m., the Senate execute the previous order with respect to the Brigety nomination and the Senate vote on confirmation of that nomination; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Thursday'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 tonight, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, it was 10 years ago that we all got together and passed a bill to help women, when they go back to work, to be able to pump breast milk at work. We have 80 percent of women who are having babies today striving to breastfeed. Half of the women who have babies are going back to work within a very short period of time, and the only way they can breastfeed is to pump milk at work. This was a beautiful, bipartisan vision, and it was Dr. Coburn who educated us all about the tremendous benefits of breast milk for babies. But, in that work we did 10 years ago, we left out a significant group of women in America--those who work according to a manager's salary rather than according to wage. So now we have a bill that has come out of committee, by voice vote, to fix that, and here we are talking about baby formula. Truly, what is better, in terms of baby formula, than a mother's milk? Let us stand with the babies; let us stand with the mothers; let us stand with the families and fix this so that every single mother in America who wishes to breastfeed can do so. As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 65, S. 1658; further, that the committee-reported substitute be withdrawn 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.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, a huge thanks to my colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, who has partnered with me in this effort. We have worked through the flexibility needed in every setting, and I must say the railroads weren't the folks who came to us and said they needed help. In the past, we worked out every possible way to address this for fast-food locations and for all kinds of industries that said, ``We need special arrangements,'' and we worked them out. We have worked them out in this version for the airlines. It really is beyond the world of reasonableness to keep saying and to keep finding some excuse that we can't--with the innovation, the inventiveness, and the ingenuity of Americans--find the ability for a woman to be able to express breast milk. We have solved this problem in much more difficult situations. I am very disappointed that, today, because of my colleague from Wyoming's objection, the women, the mothers, the babies, and the families, lose. Let's win next time. Vote on Motion to Discharge

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for us to take 5 minutes to address the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, like millions of my fellow Americans, I contracted COVID-19 from a close contact. Fortunately, because I am vaccinated and boosted, my symptoms were mostly mild. However, as a growing number have also experienced, after taking Paxlovid and recovering, I then experienced what is known as ``Covid-19 Rebound.'' I again had to isolate, per CDC guidance, and was not able to make a number of votes as I could not travel back to Washington, DC, to be present on the Senate floor. On May 24, 2022, I missed rollcall vote No. 194, confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 855, Stephanie Dawkins Davis, of Michigan, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted yea. On May 24, 2022, I missed rollcall vote No. 196, confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 896, Dara Lindenbaum, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Federal Election Commission. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted yea. On May 25, 2022, I missed rollcall vote No. 200, confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 857, Evelyn Padin, of New Jersey, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted yea. On May 25, 2022, I missed rollcall vote No. 201, confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 915, Charlotte Sweeney, of Colorado, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Colorado. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted yea. On May 25, 2022, I missed rollcall vote No. 203, confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 806, Sandra Thompson, of Maryland, to be Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted yea. On May 25, 2022, I missed rollcall vote No. 205, confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 651, Henry Christopher Frey, of North Carolina, to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted yea. On May 25, 2022, I missed rollcall vote No. 209, confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 717, Cathy Ann Harris, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted yea. On May 26, 2022, I missed rollcall vote No. 210, motion to invoke cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R. 350, a bill to authorize dedicated domestic terrorism offices within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to analyze and monitor domestic terrorist activity and require the Federal Government to take steps to prevent domestic terrorism. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted yea. As recent, unthinkably tragic events at a grocery store in Buffalo, NY, a Taiwanese church in Laguna Woods, CA, and now an elementary school in Uvalde, TX, have shown, we need to be doing much more to protect our fellow Americans. Every man, woman, and child has the fundamental human right to live their life; to be and feel safe in their classrooms, house of worship, and within their communities. White supremacy and gun violence are crises that are plaguing our Nation, and inaction is unacceptable. I am disappointed that the Senate failed to advance this important legislation, and I will continue working to pass it in the future. On May 26, 2022, I missed rollcall vote No. 211, S.J. Res. 46, a joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security relating to ``Procedures for Credible Fear Screening and Consideration of Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT Protection Claims by Asylum Officers.'' Had I been in attendance, I would have voted nay. On May 26, 2022, I missed rollcall vote No. 212, confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 461, Marcia Stephens Bloom Bernicat, of New Jersey, to be Director General of the Foreign Service. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted yea. On June 7, 2022, I missed rollcall vote No. 214, confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 477, Alex Wagner, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Air Force. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted yea. On June 7, 2022, I missed rollcall vote No. 216, confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 652, Chavonda J. Jacobs-Young, of Georgia, to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education, and Economics. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted yea. On June 7, 2022, I missed rollcall vote No. 217, confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 792, Kenneth L. Wainstein, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, Department of Homeland Security. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted yea. On June 7, 2022, I missed rollcall vote No. 218, confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 772, Shalanda H. Baker, of Texas, to be Director of the Office of Minority Economic Impact, Department of Energy. Had I been in attendance, I would have voted yea.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing examining the current negotiations around restoring the JCPOA and our Nation's Iran policy. However, because I contracted COVID-19 and am following CDC guidance to isolate, I was not able to attend this important hearing. But I do want to state, for the record, that I believe preventing a nuclear-armed Iran through hard-nosed diplomacy is of the utmost importance to our Nation. I am under no illusions that the deal currently being negotiated by the Biden administration would be perfect or that Iran is a good-faith negotiating partner. But when it comes to preventing a nuclear-armed Iran and creating a monitoring and verification regime that ensures Iran is sticking to its commitments, it is the only option. Maximum pressure didn't work; more sanctions only led to Iran reconstituting its weapons program and growing its nuclear stockpile and more nefarious behavior in the region. A military response would be even worse; Iran would undoubtedly retaliate and be incentivized to ratchet up its nuclear program as it has done when its nuclear facilities and officials have been attacked in the past. Neither option achieves our goal of preventing a nuclear-armed Iran. The only viable option is to continue negotiations on a nuclear deal. Doing so doesn't mean foregoing all of our other concerns with Iran. The U.S. never should and never will acquiesce in Iran's violations of international law and human rights and should continue to use all of our tools to combat its malign actions. But it would be a grave mistake to effectively green light an Iranian bomb if we are unable to convince Iran's leadership to renounce all of Iran's other bad behavior as well. A nuclear-armed Iran would be catastrophic for the region and the world by emboldening a belligerent nation, setting off an arms race, and undermining the broader nuclear order. I urge my colleagues to join me in giving the administration the space and flexibility it needs to restore a deal that prevents such an outcome.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this motion to instruct for one simple reason: It is up to America to lead the world in reducing the use of fossil fuels and in pivoting to renewable energy. Yet this motion to instruct says we cannot do anything to help foreign entities address any aspect of the climate objective: not to fight forest fires that come from climate change, not to address the salinization or the acidification of the sea, not to address reforestation or deforestation. It is up to America to help make sure that we provide nonfossil fuel energy for the future that will help us all address this huge list of issues. It is important that we lead the world, not neglect the world. Vote on Motion

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, when vigorous storms attack the heartland and destroy crops, I hope that the President has emergency powers to assist those farmers. When fires--fiercer fires in a longer fire season--proceed to burn not just one town but six towns to the ground in the State of Oregon in an almost unbelievable, horrendous reduction to ashes, I hope the President has emergency powers to declare a major disaster and assist the good people of my State or your State when these disasters happen. If changing temperatures and changing rain patterns bring the sandfly to Texas and leishmaniasis or some other deadly disease, then, indeed, the President needs to have the power to declare a public health service emergency. Taking away the ability for the President to declare major disasters or health emergencies or national emergencies when there are disasters striking our people is a terrible idea, and I encourage you to vote no on this motion to instruct. Vote on Motion

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

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, a little over 10 years ago, BJ Westlund made his way from Bend, OR, here to our Nation's Capital to serve his fellow Oregonians as a correspondence assistant in my office. Over the last decade, BJ moved up the ranks to legislative correspondent and legislative aide and then had the opportunity to move back to Oregon, move back to Bend, as my field representative. He has done an incredible job in that capacity, but he is now, after a number of years in that key role, ready to start a new chapter in his career. I know that I speak for everyone on my team, whether in Washington, DC, or in Oregon, when I say that we are thrilled to see BJ continue to grow and thrive in his career, but we are also very saddened to see him go. Ask anyone on the team, past or present, about BJ, and there are a couple of things that might jump to mind: his signature sense of style for one. He loves to wear a good vest. Whether here in DC or in Oregon, it is hard for anyone to picture BJ without a good vest. And wherever BJ is, you can bet there is a tasty cold mix of iced tea and lemonade not far away. And BJ has taken on the role of overseeing the Team Merkley candy desk while he was here in Washington, DC, making sure it was always stashed with really good candy. Before we changed offices in Hart, the legislative team was split between two floors. BJ was upstairs working on environmental and energy issues and referred to that area as ``Eastern Oregon.'' But without fail, you could find a steady stream of folks going up the staircase to stop by BJ's desk and grab a piece of candy and chat. It was our version of the office water cooler and a way for BJ to help build a sense of community between all the team members. That is the fourth thing that comes to mind when people think about BJ, is his sense of community, his welcoming presence, his ability to connect. It is what made him such an effective legislative staffer, working with groups on their priorities, advocating for critical appropriations funding. And for the last 4 years, it is what made him such an incredible representative for our office throughout Central Oregon. When asked to share her thoughts about BJ, one of our former team members who worked very closely with him over many years had this to say: BJ is the calm in the storm. He is a steady, intelligent, caring, supportive teammate who cares beyond measure for his constituents. He has worked tirelessly to solve problems and bring Oregon tax dollars home to Central Oregon. She continued: Moving to his home office during COVID while continuing to be responsive to both teammates and constituents was a smooth transition because BJ handles challenges with aplomb. And she closed by saying: He is a treasure and just a wonderful human being. And I couldn't say it any better. BJ is the calm in the storm. BJ is a wonderful human being. BJ does work tirelessly to solve problems. That is why, when the Bootleg fire struck Oregon last year, the third largest fire in our State's history, it was BJ who took charge of reaching out to and connecting with the communities impacted by the devastation. And it is a good thing he was, because community members, Tribal leaders, landowners, business owners, local electeds, agency leaders, relief agencies, and conservationists all looked to BJ to be there for them. They knew that he would reach out. They knew he would listen to what they needed. They knew that he would do whatever it took to be there to respond to those challenges. BJ has been the central driver on many major projects. One was getting funding for irrigation piping projects to help Oregon farmers get more water, while simultaneously putting more water back in our rivers, a positive environmental effect. A second was helping an Oregonian Tribe find justice by finally repealing the fraudulent 1865 treaty that robbed them of their hunting and fishing rights. A third was almost doubling the size of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument for future generations of Oregonians to enjoy, a monument that comes at the intersection of three critical mountain ranges and has flora and fauna found nowhere else in the world. BJ is the kind of person who takes extra pride in drafting a customized letter to a student or making a one-off phone call to a constituent looking for help or advice because taking that small extra step can restore their faith and their trust in government. But anyone who knows BJ wouldn't be surprised by any of this because they know how intensely he believes in public service. It is how he was raised. It is what he saw and learned growing up from his father, who was a good friend of mine, Ben Westlund, whom I had the privilege of serving with in the Oregon statehouse before he went on to serve as an Oregon senator and Oregon treasurer. We lost Ben about 12 years ago, before BJ came to work on my team, but I know how proud he would be if here with us today to see all the great things that his son has done and will continue to do in service to the people of Oregon. So, BJ, thank you for all you have done throughout your time on Team Merkley to help build a better world. The team and I wish you well as you begin the next chapter of your life, and we can't wait to see all of the great things that you will continue to do and to achieve in the years to come. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I am on the floor today to talk about the nomination of Ambassador Julieta Valls Noyes, to serve as Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration. Originally nominated last July, Ambassador Noyes' nomination was reported favorably out of the Foreign Relations Committee in October. Since then, she has waited in limbo for all of us to act. Ambassador Noyes has a distinguished 35-year career with the State Department, serving in important and challenging roles, many of those roles tied directly to the work she would be doing at the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, often referred to as PRM. As Ambassador to Croatia, she presided over the final stages of a refugee resettlement program after the Balkan wars, while hosting regional conferences and trainings for prosecutors, police, and judges on refugee-related issues. As Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, Ambassador Noyes oversaw the nations with 11 Western European countries and the European Union, some of our country's most critical partners. From 2005 to 2007, Ambassador Noyes was Director of Multilateral and Global Affairs in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, where she ran international negotiations on human rights--both at the United Nations in New York and in Geneva. In that capacity, she also held consultations with the European Union, with the African Union, with other partners. And she was a member of high-level delegations that presented periodic reports to the United Nations on U.S. compliance with major international human rights treaties. She has been recognized as a strong manager. She has overseen large teams. She has administered huge budgets. In addition to all of this, she is the daughter of Cuban refugees who directly benefited from the work of the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, so she has a personal connection to the importance of the Bureau's work. When you think about that list of qualifications, she is really the ideal person to lead PRM. What is the rush, some may ask. PRM hasn't had a confirmed Assistant Secretary since the days of the Obama administration. Well, all the more reason that it should have one now. It shouldn't be a rudderless organization when addressing so many important issues for our Nation. PRM has a major role in human rights and humanitarian efforts rights abroad as well as providing aid to refugees here at home. PRM is responsible for directing more than $3 billion in lifesaving humanitarian aid around the world to more than 84 million forcibly displaced people. Eighty percent of those are women and children. So if you care about the plight of women and children around the world, you want to have an experienced leader making sure those dollars are efficiently allocated to the best effect. PRM leads the rebuilding of the U.S. refugee assistance program. PRM works with other governments to promote regional migration resolutions. PRM advances international population policies that save mothers and babies and prevent gender-based violence around the world. PRM leads diplomatic efforts for international burden sharing to better reduce suffering and to be more effective in saving lives. And PRM is a critical part of our national security infrastructure, vetting those who come into our country, ensuring they don't pose a risk to our safety and security. The Bureau is doing all this, but they are doing it without a leader to make sure they do it in the most effective, professional, competent fashion. The Bureau is doing critical work every day to address these challenges, and those challenges are growing as more and more countries are disrupted by war and by famine and by corruption. So this Bureau deserves to have someone leading those efforts who has the type of background that the Ambassador has. All of us who want to see these programs administered effectively have a stake in having competent leadership in place. Thus, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nomination, Calendar No. 462, Julieta Valls Noyes, to be an Assistant Secretary of State; that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any related statements be printed in the Record and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I would love for us to have a full, ordinary process here on the floor and to have all of us on both sides of the aisle support that process. I come to the floor to ask for this unanimous consent because that process has been frustrated, and we now have been without a leader for this entire administration. My colleague made a point about Afghanistan, and he said we need to know how many Americans are in Afghanistan. If you want better action on the issue of Americans as refugees abroad or stranded abroad, then you want to have a responsible leader, an accountable leader, heading up the Bureau of Population, Migration, and Refugees. So let's do our job here in this Chamber because when we fail to enable such a critical organization, responsible for billions of dollars around the world being provided to millions of people, responsible for the vetting of people coming into our country, when we fail to do our job to put somebody in charge, we are only wounding ourselves. This is exactly the type of partisan paralysis and destruction that is damaging our Nation. We need to get this confirmation completed.

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