Jeff Merkley

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to the Young nomination, the motion 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. Madam President, today I am proud to join a number of my colleagues to highlight the importance of S. 1, the For the People Act. The ballot box is the pulsating heart of our government of, by, and for the people. President Lyndon B. Johnson said: The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice. Think about that--``the most powerful instrument ever devised for breaking down injustice.'' It is Robert Kennedy who observed that ``each citizen's right to vote is fundamental to all the other rights of citizenship.'' You know, the opportunity to cast a ballot is not just an opportunity. It is not simply a responsibility. But it is a right--the right--the right that embodies all it means to a republic in which the power flows from the people. Our Nation, however imperfect in the beginning, has worked toward this vision of citizens through the ballot box, driving the vision of our Nation, for over 200 years, overcoming barrier after barrier. We overcame some of the barriers of race with the 14th and 15th Amendments. We overcame the barriers of gender with the 19th Amendment. We overcame barriers that had denied Native Americans the right to vote with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. We overcame the barriers of Jim Crow with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But now, as we stand in this Chamber, the central right of each citizen's opportunity to participate in the election through the ballot box is again under attack. Right now as we speak, there are 253 bills in 43 States assaulting the right to vote. These efforts are designed to make it harder for students to vote, for low-income Americans to vote, for Native Americans to vote, for seniors to vote, and most insidiously, for Black and Brown Americans to vote. And I say ``most insidiously'' because blocking access to the ballot has been a massive form of systemic racism throughout our history for Black Americans. But all of us in this Chamber have taken an oath to the Constitution. All of us have a responsibility to defend the ballot box. It is our responsibility to knock down the barriers that others would put up to prevent citizens from having the opportunity to participate in our elections. That is exactly what S. 1, For the People, does in the face of the greatest attack on voting rights in this Nation since Jim Crow. This legislation puts the power back where it belongs--in the hands of the people. This bill said that if you believe in the vision of our democratic Republic, then you believe in voter empowerment, not voter intimidation, not voter obstruction, not voter suppression. This bill says that the people should choose their politicians, not the other way around. Gerrymandering attacks the very notion of equal representation that is so important in the social contract of the citizens with their government. So this bill says we will have an independent commission in each State to draw the boundaries of the districts so that we put an end to partisan gerrymandering. This bill says that government of, by, and for the people means you can't have a stadium sound system turned up to full volume, drowning out the voice of the people. And what is that stadium sound system? It is the dark money, hundreds of millions of dollars of unidentified funds racing and coursing through our elections across this country, doing attack ads, with citizens having no idea where that funding is coming from. That is simply wrong. This bill says that public servants should work in the public interest, not to line their own pockets, not to serve simply the wealthy or the powerful or the privileged. These points are straightforward. We have been fighting to improve and guarantee the vision of government of, by, and for th people over our entire history. Now, to protect our system of voting, the foundation of our Republic, we have to get this bill over the finish line. We have an extraordinary team working to make that happen, Senators with sturdy, clear ideals and excellent ideas and grit and determination coming together to save our Republic: Senator Klobuchar, who will be speaking next--author of several of the key provisions of this bill, including bipartisan provisions--who tomorrow will be chairing the first-ever Senate hearing on this landmark legislation; Senator Padilla, who knows exactly what it is like to be a secretary of state and has been an amazing champion for voter empowerment in his home State; Senator Van Hollen, who led the EMPOWER Act and the Restoring Integrity to America's Elections Act; Senator Whitehouse, who authored the DISCLOSE Act portion of the bill and is a tremendous leader on campaign finance reform. Today, our Nation is at a crossroads. Are we going to be a nation for ``we the people,'' or are we going to be a nation for ``we the powerful''? We must pass the For the People Act to save our democracy. As our leader said last week, ``Failure is not an option.'' So let's get it done, and let's ensure, as Abraham Lincoln declared, that ``government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.'' I yield to Senator Klobuchar.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, this month our country is joining together in celebration of Black History Month. It is a month for all of us to recognize the indescribable impact that Black Americans have left made on our Nation; to recommit ourselves to the struggle to achieve and ensure racial justice throughout our land; and, of course, to celebrate Black culture and all of its contributions to America past, present, and future. Few institutions are more connected or have been more central to Black culture than the barbershop and beauty salon. As described by the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture, for generations, men and women have been going to these businesses not just for hair care, but for the sense of community and security they provide. Black Americans go to spend time among peers, playing cards or chess, sharing the latest local news and engaging in passionate debates about politics. Men and women go in to these businesses for friendship and mentorship and to be engaged in the affairs of their neighbors and their community. For 30 years, this was particularly true of Geneva's Shear Perfection Barber & Beauty Salon in northeast Portland. Since opening its doors in 1991, Geneva's has been a hub for Portland's African-American community, welcoming over 1,000 people through its doors every month. Folks from Michael Jordan and Muhammed Ali, to members of the Portland Trailblazers, sat in its chairs. But more importantly, it stood as the heart for three generations of Black Portlanders who first walked through Geneva's doors as children with their parents and then went on to bring their own sons and daughters for their first haircuts, even as the area around this local institution underwent the kind of gentrification that pushed Black families further and further away. But it wasn't only the barbershop itself that is considered an institution of the Portland community--so is the Knauls family who owned and operated it for three decades. Geneva Knauls, who passed away in 2014, was our State's first Black female barber. Throughout her years as a businesswoman, Geneva supported all different kinds of local grassroots projects and organizations, and become one of the most beloved people in the northeast Portland community. Her status is only equaled by her husband's, Mr. Paul Knauls, Sr., who is affectionately known around town as the Mayor of Northeast Portland. From 1963 to 1970, Mr. Knauls owned and ran the Cotton Club, which was the place for jazz and soul music, welcoming such big names as Etta James, Big Mama Thornton, and Sammy Davis, Jr., to its stage to serenade music-loving Portlanders. He sold the Cotton Club in 1970 and went on to open a series of others throughout town before finally opening Geneva's. All the while, throughout all of his business adventures, Paul has been active in other ways throughout the community. He worked with the Junior Achievement Program at both Humboldt and Jefferson schools, tutored in the HOSTS--Help One Student to Succeed--program at King School, and served for 6 years on the board of the Urban League. Last year, Mr. Knauls and his son, Paul Jr., decided it was finally time to take a break and close the doors of Geneva's. It was also a decision made out of a recognition of the difficult new realities of trying to operate a personal care business in the midst of an unprecedented national and global pandemic. Sadly, the Knauls and Geneva's are not alone. Many businesses have been forced to confront life amid the COVID pandemic and BIPOC-owned businesses and communities have been disproportionately impacted. Last year's announcement of the closure of Geneva's Shear Perfection Barber & Beauty Salon was understandably met with an emotional outpouring from local Portlanders. Men and women who had been going to the shop their entire lives took to the shop's Facebook page to thank the Knauls family for their contributions to the community and to share some fond memories. Statements came from local leaders and celebrities touting Geneva's legacy, as one person put it, as ``one of the most important examples of a black business that represented more to the community than just a place to get a haircut.'' And a year after its closing, that legacy continues to endure. Geneva's Facebook page is brimming with pictures of young men in graduation robes in front of the salon, of a turkey giveaway in its parking lot that took place this past Thanksgiving to help provide for families in need, and announcements from other local Black business owners who are moving into the space to continue the Knauls family's entrepreneurial spirit. And the legacy of ``The Mayor'' and his iconic standing in the community remains as strong today as it ever has; even after celebrating Mr. Knaul's 90th birthday age and the pandemic have not stopped Paul Knauls, Sr., from putting on two masks to go out for daily walks in his neighborhood and around the Lloyd Center. For his 90th birthday last month, the nonprofit World Arts Foundation streamed a live storytelling event, featuring decades of friends, employees, and admirers to help him celebrate. I know that Portlanders everywhere will join me in expressing the immense gratitude to Geneva's Shear Perfection Barber & Beauty Salon and to the Knauls family for all that they have done for the community. Northeast Portland certainly won't be the same without Geneva's, but everyone who walked through those doors over the last 30 years has had their lives touched and impacted by it in ways both big and small. And it is reassuring to know that, through each of them, Geneva's legacy, the legacy of the Black barbershop and salon, the legacy of community and friendship and looking out for one another, will continue to endure.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, the Klamath Tribes in Oregon have a saying: ``We help each other; We will live good.'' These words are neither hollow nor trivial to the members of these Tribes. They live them each and every day and never more so than when disaster strikes. When the Two Four Two Fire raged through the Chiloquin Ranger District of the Fremont-Winema National Forest last September, scorching over 14,000 acres, destroying homes and traditional hunting and fishing sites, members of the Tribes rallied together, opening their doors, their hearts, and their wallets to help their fellow Oregonians in a time of great need. They brought those eight words--``We help each other; We will live good''--to life. When emergency personnel needed a large, open area to establish an evacuation shelter for all those who had to flee their homes ahead of the inferno, the Tribes immediately offered up the parking lot the Kla-Mo-Ya Casino for their use. When the firefighters tasked with containing the fire needed a massive open space to stage their ample equipment, those same expansive parking lots were readily provided to them. At the same time, the doors of their hotel were thrown open to anyone displaced by the fire, to Tribal and non-Tribal members alike who were in need of shelter. In the middle of a pandemic, with all manner of precautions in place to keep folks healthy and safe, that was no easy feat, but they did it, all while also welcoming the Red Cross inside to set up a response center, as well. As the forests burned around it, the Kla-Mo-Ya Casino stood there like the eye of a hurricane. It became a center of help and healing, of safety and shelter. Had they just done those things, the Klamath Tribes would have already gone far above and beyond to support Tribal members and community members alike. They didn't stop, however, with providing the use of their hotel and its facilities to first responders and to those in need. No. Klamath Tribal Behavioral Health went out and provided assistance and services to anyone who had been affected and displaced, free of charge. Whether they were Tribal members or not, it didn't matter. Those who needed help were able to get it. They helped feed the firefighters risking their lives fighting the infernos, emergency volunteers helping others, and even evacuees. And even now, some 5 months after the worst of the fire's carnage, the Klamath Tribes are still doing what they can to help those whose lives were turned upside down by it. A GoFundMe account has been set up to help any family who lost their home or their property to the Two Four Two Fire rebuild and start to get back up on their feet again. The distribution of the money raised by the account is still a work in progress. The Tribes are fine-tuning the priority system and how folks will apply for it. But once all of that is worked out, this is going to be a tremendous help to so many of our friends and neighbors who have endured such heartbreak and hardship. ``We help each other; We will live good.'' There is no question that the members of the Klamath Tribes have helped those in need across southern Oregon through an unimaginably difficult time. We are all deeply grateful for everything they have done, both during the Two Four Two Fire and afterward. And we will all be better off as a State and as a community because of their kindness and generosity of spirit.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I send a question to the desk.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, we are 11 months into the most severe healthcare crisis this country or the world has seen in more than a century. And for much of this past year, we haven't done anywhere close to enough to help the millions of Americans who are suffering-- suffering not only from the virus itself but from the economic implosion created by this pandemic. The American people are in desperate need of help. It has been many, many months since we passed the CARES Act. It was way back in March of last year. That is a long time ago--10 months ago. Then the House, down this hallway, in May--middle of May--passed the Heroes Act, saying: Let's do what we need to do for healthcare and housing, for education, for creating good-paying jobs to help America address both the healthcare side and the economic side of this pandemic. And this Senate said no. This Senate said: We are sorry. We spent all of our money on tax breaks for the richest Americans. We don't have the resources to help out ordinary Americans in the face of this pandemic. We prefer to do nothing. And the prefer-to-do-nothing leadership of this body proceeded to do nothing in June and July and August and September and October, into November. Meanwhile, the American people were gearing up for an election, to basically weigh in on the direction that this country was going, and here the Senate sat and did nothing in the face of millions of struggling families across our country. Finally, after the election, a minimal amount was done with the omnibus bill. Well, the time for playing the fiddle while Rome burns or twiddling our thumbs while America suffers is over. In the campaign, Democrats said: We will end the inaction of this Senate in addressing the Nation's challenges, the families' struggle across America, if you put us in a place to do so. And they did. To the House down the hall, this Chamber, and the White House down Pennsylvania Avenue, the American said: Get your act together. Engage in competent, professional, direct, bold assistance to these enormous challenges we face. And Joe Biden promised that if elected President, he would utilize every resource of the Federal Government to take on the COVID pandemic and help American families get back on their feet. The American people spoke loudly. They spoke clearly, and now we intend to deliver on the promises and provide real help to American families and businesses struggling in these difficult times. There are a variety of ways that we can go forward to address this challenge. Certainly, one is to have a bill on this floor, have it open to amendments--relevant amendments, germane amendments--proceed to see what the majority of this body, 51 Members, would say should be changed in that bill or modified in that bill. But that tradition has bee absolutely squashed by the leadership in this Senate over the past few years under Republican leadership. I would like to see it restored. I would like to see it restored, but with it goes not blocking the bill from leaving this Chamber after thorough deliberation has occurred. We know that in the 6 years that President Johnson led this Chamber, there was not but one--one--blockade to keep bills that had received majority support from leaving this Chamber. But in the 6 years that Harry Reid led this Chamber, there were over 400 times that the minority said: No, we will not let this bill leave this Chamber. That is exactly--exactly--the type of obstruction and delay that is making this Chamber dysfunctional. We have already seen it in terms of the organizing resolution. It is still not done--still not done-- because the minority leader--now-Minority Leader Mitch McConnell--wants to delay and obstruct, delay and obstruct, delay and obstruct, delay and obstruct, as he did from the time the House passed the Heroes Act until the modest bill in December. I would love to see this bill--this $1.9 trillion bill--on this floor and let the majority works its way. Ask if more money was needed to help children return to the classroom--my colleague from Texas was just addressing that topic--and more assistance in helping families still unemployed by the meltdown, more assistance to the small businesses. Or maybe some Members would like to propose less help here or less help there, but that goes with the ability to move the bill quickly for action. We await that kind of pledge, that kind of pledge to end the delay-and-obstruct tactics of the minority. In the meantime, therefore, we must go forward on a double path and say we will prepare to go through the reconciliation process, the simple majority process that comes from the Budget Act of 1973--the same process Republicans have used time and time again to give tax breaks to the richest Americans. Any process used in that fashion, I think, was abused. But using it to help ordinary families get back on their feet--that honors that process. Where do we stand now? One in five renters in America are behind on paying their rent because they are struggling financially. Nearly 24 million Americans, 11 percent of all adults, report not having enough food in their homes. Millions of children are affected by that shortage of food. Millions of American children are going hungry. That is where we are right now. Hundreds of thousands of businesses are shuttering their doors for good, and hundreds of thousands more are on the verge of doing so. Too many classrooms echo with the sounds of silence rather than the laughter of children. This bill is about changing that. We need to move quickly. Our children are struggling so hard to do their class work over a computer, over a Zoom. It is so hard to feel good about life when you don't have the chance to play and interact with other children, so depressing when you are trapped in a house. Yes, we need to reopen the schools. So let's pass this bill, and let's pass this bill quickly, and let's get those $1,400 payments in the hands of adults and children, stimulating the economy from the foundation up--not Wall Street down, the foundation up--helping struggling families, helping struggling small businesses--Main Street, not Wall Street--payments that will help put food on the table, keep the lights turned on, keep the internet turned on, make sure that a family doesn't suffer eviction. And strengthen the payments for those who need it most, the unemployed. Now, we are facing a deadline of March 14--March 14--when the Federal partnership in supporting the unemployment benefits runs out. So we must act before that happens. Those who know the reconciliation process know that it is lightning fast to do it in a 6-week period, but that is what we must do, and we must start now. If, in the meantime, the minority decides to abandon its dedication to obstruction and delay and be full participants in helping America, then let's get that bill on the floor and go that path. I am fine with that, but it cannot prevent us from acting. We were elected to act. The American people support strong, bold, generous action now to prevent years and years of recession ahead, of struggling ahead. These are unprecedented times, and in unprecedented difficult times we need to think of ourselves as all one community. We need to help and partner with our States and our counties and our cities and our Tribes. We need to get them the help they need that has been so fiercely opposed--help to enable them to do basic education improvements, basic public safety, making sure that the firefighters and police officers and teachers are still able to do the work they are called upon to do, and help those Tribal governments purchase personal protective equipment and have access to telemedicine services. There are no blue and red communities when it comes to a national crisis across this country. When it comes to disease, it affects people, regardless of which party you belong to or what part of the country you live in. A bipartisan attack on our health should involve a bipartisan response in this Chamber, not the obstruction-and-delay tactics the majority has come to view as their core strategy. It must end. When hundreds of mayors wrote to us and said ``We need help; act now,'' they weren't Democratic mayors; they weren't Republican mayors. They were bipartisan mayors from all across this country saying: Now is the time. We need help now. Yet delay and obstruction was the strategy of the minority. They had spent all their money, they said, giving tax breaks to the richest Americans. There is no room to help ordinary working Americans. That philosophy doesn't belong in a government of, by, and for the people. If you want a government of, by, and for the powerful, then find a different Constitution, a different system of government. But here the people have spoken. They have spoken clearly, and it is our responsibility to respond. To those mayors, those bipartisan mayors, across this country: We hear you, and we stand with you. Let's move promptly and boldly to address this crisis. The President has put out a very clear plan that addresses every significant area that the mayors and community leaders across this country have said they need help in. Let's be their partner in that assistance and put America back on its feet.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, when we have a new administration, lots of changes take place--changes in offices, changes in committee assignments--but for all of us here in the Senate, perhaps the most challenging change is when members of our team decide to open new chapters in their lives. We celebrate those new chapters and wish them well, but we will also miss them greatly. I come to the floor to talk about three of my team members who are headed to a new chapter in each of their lives. Scott Maguire has been a central part of our team since day one. He is my good friend, a valued team member who is preparing a new chapter in his life in the form of a well-deserved retirement. As of yesterday, January 26, he completed 12 years on our U.S. Senate team as our State operations director. The Boy Scouts of America that have a motto: ``Be prepared.'' They also have a slogan: ``Do a good turn daily.'' These are attributes that I always have held dear, and they are qualities I looked for when setting out to build a team to serve the people of Oregon when I was elected to the Senate in 2008. Scott was at the top of my list because I knew that these were qualities that define who he is. I knew this because I have known Scott for a very long time. We met through Boy Scout Troop 634 back when we were 11 or 12 years old. We recognized and respected each other's leadership skills, and I admired Scott's growth in character and capabilities as he advanced to the rank of Eagle Scout. When we were 15, Scott and I were dissatisfied with how the district council was running their annual First Aid Meets, so we proposed to the council executive that we take over and run the weekend event. To our surprise, the staff of the council agreed. I think the resulting weekend event, which included dozens of troops, hundreds of Scouts, was a tremendous success. It was the type of mutual project that has bonded us over our lifetimes. Scott did many things in his career before joining my team. He served as operations director of the Northwest Christian Evangelistic Association; as executive director of the Oregon Lions Sight & Hearing Foundation; as a reporter and editor of the Gresham Outlook. He got involved in many volunteer roles, including with the Gresham Breakfast Lions Club, the Gresham Early Risers Kiwanis Club, and he has volunteered millions of hours just so much to serve the Civil Air Patrol and is now a lieutenant colonel in the Civil Air Patrol. Looking back to 2009, I can't imagine how we would have gotten our Oregon team off the ground or built the operation we have today without Scott Maguire. Over the years, he has kept the computers computing and the supplies supplied, but he has done so much more. He pioneered and built our Oregon internship program, which has been a pipeline for hundreds of Oregonians who have been going on to do great things serving in State and national government, in community organizations, and in business to make that intern program the best possible. Scott cultivated strong relationships with Oregon's colleges, and he could work with them. He was always on the search to give young Oregonians with a passion for public service the opportunity for public service. He cared deeply about their experience and success throughout their time in our office but in the time beyond as well. Scott stepped in to serve as my field representative for a number of Oregon counties, organizing the townhalls they hold in those counties every year to hear from our constituents. He has not only helped to plan in organizing these events but saved them from going off the rails as unexpected challenges arose. Back in 2017, when we were debating the future of the Affordable Care Act, we knew that citizens were passionate and angry, so we anticipated a large turnout, planning for 1,000 attendees--twice what was ever seen before. And imagine our shock when 4,000 Oregonians showed up. Constituents were packed in like sardines. Hundreds crowded into a courtyard outside watching through the windows, but there was Scott swooping in to save the day. He reworked the sound system. He opened the windows. He figured out how to put speakers outside the windows so everyone could hear and participate. Crisis averted. That was just another day for Scott, working behind the scenes and taking care of things that most people don't even know were going wrong to ensure things were running smoothly. Last year, before the pandemic shut down so much of our lives and our offices went remote, we saw massive shortages on essentials like hand sanitizer, disinfecting wipes, and tissues. But Scott, seeing the crisis developing, raced around the metro area to gather supplies to keep the members of our team healthy and safe. That is who Scott Maguire is: the kind of person who goes above and beyond for everyone in every situation; the kind of person who is prepared and always goes out of his way to do a good turn daily for others; the kind of person who, regardless of who you are, treats you like a VIP. I speak for all members of Team Merkley, for all the interns who have come through our office, for all the folks Scott has worked with over the years, when I say that he will be deeply missed, and it will not be the same without him. We wish our dear friend Scott Maguire and his wonderful wife Beth all the best as they begin a new chapter of their lives together. I picture Scott, who has had a business, Shorty's BBQ, catering barbecue, Texas style, during his years in Oregon--you will probably see him firing that grill up a lot more often in the years ahead. It will be a chapter undoubtedly filled with loving friends, family, great traveling adventures, and, of course, as much barbecue as they can possibly handle. We will miss you, Scott Maguire.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, our third team member who is leaving is Ben Ward. I think of Ben as our appropriations wizard. He knows that system inside out, and he is the master of Tribal issues and natural resources issues and so much more. He is heading off to serve as the Office of Management and Budget's Deputy Director of Legislative Affairs. I think the whole world noticed his extraordinary talents, and we are looking forward to continuing to work with him as we strive to make the appropriations efforts as effective as possible. I think that virtually no one in Oregon has gone untouched by the work that Ben has done over the past 5 years. He has worked to get piping money to Central Oregon to assist the farmers. The farmers not only get more water, but more water gets left in the Deschutes River. He has worked very hard to advance the improvement of Native fishing sites, treaty fishing sites, on the Columbia River and the preparations to rebuild communities that were wiped out by the building of dams some 70 years ago that have never been properly addressed. He has proceeded to help the Klamath Tribes secure the funds to improve the habitats for their sacred c'waam and koptu fish and to improve the whole, entire water ecosystem in the Klamath Basin for all of the stakeholders. When we had a big problem with sea lions that were blocking the fish ladders and blocking the mouths of streams and tributaries, he concocted probably more than a dozen plans to try to find one that could move through this legislative process and address the challenge, and he succeeded. He helped get funding so that we could have more people fighting fires on the frontlines, and he helped to get funding so we could thin the forests and treat the forests so that they would be less likely to burn in the first place. He helped us get money for the coastal ports so they could be drudged and so they would continue to operate appropriately and safely for the economy of the coastal ports. He helped us make sure we got help for the diverse agricultural research stations in Oregon and for the mass timber project that is developing whole new categories of engineered wood products that can build buildings that are 14 stories high out of wood rather than concrete and steel, utilizing our incredible supply of amazing wood in the Pacific Northwest. He also assisted our universities in getting funding for all kinds of programs. The list is almost inexhaustible, but I think we all understand the point. He is incredibly talented at seeing opportunities and is incredibly persistent in seizing those opportunities. That is Ben's way of getting things done. That is why he has been so valued, and that is why we will greatly miss him. Ben, we wish you all the best as you work on behalf of the Biden administration and the larger OMB process in coordination with the U.S. Senate. To each of these team members, I say that, once you are a member of Team Merkley, you are never not a member. You will always be part of our family. We so much appreciate what you have contributed to the team and what you have contributed to building a better world.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I have two other team members who are leaving. Laura Updegrove is leaving us to work with the Biden administration. She came to us after serving in various foreign policy roles at the State Department, the Department of Defense, and the White House. She joined our team 4 years ago to bring her extensive expertise to bear on our foreign policy portfolio, and I am sure glad she did. During her tenure in my office, I have been astonished, time and again, by the depth and breadth of her knowledge, her work ethic, her strong organizational and management skills, and the way she approaches each and every task with a very positive attitude. Those traits make her not only a top-notch legislative staffer but a terrific partner as we work to address a variety of issues. On two occasions, we had the chance to travel on international issues--one trip to many different countries in Africa to better understand the root causes and impacts of the four famines on that continent and to understand how American policy could be changed to assist in these desperately difficult situations. Then, some years ago, we had the genocide carried out against the Rohingya people in Burma. Aung San Suu Kyi came and spoke to the United Nations, and she said: We have nothing to hide. Come and see for yourselves. So Laura went to work in organizing the congressional response, the congressional trip. We really thought we were going to see exactly what had gone on in those villages, and she worked incredibly hard to arrange everything from boats to helicopters to get us to the right places. Then, the day before we left, Burma denied us the ability to see those villages. We had backup plan after backup plan to explore what had happened both in Burma and the conditions at the refugee camps in Bangladesh. She reworked everything in a short period of time to direct attention by our congressional delegation and through our delegation to the world to the traumatized, difficult circumstances of a community that was the subject of genocide by Burma. Again, the whole goal was to figure out how the United States could do more to help. Laura really understood and cared about and helped with the plight of people in some of the most difficult circumstances around the world. The same passion and dedication and strategic thinking that Laura dedicated as a policy staffer are also what have made her an outstanding legislative director for the past 2 years. She has not only continued to lead our efforts on critical issues from rules reform to social justice but has been a daily example of the power of teamwork and mentorship to other staffers. Her departure is a big loss for Team Merkley but a really big win for the Biden administration, particularly the State Department, where she will be able to utilize her enormous talents on behalf of our country and on behalf of our country's building a better world. Laura, we wish you all the best.

Mr. MERKLEY

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

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I invite all of my colleagues to cast your eyes upon these three boxes sitting on the table in front of the dais. These three boxes contain the certified results from every State in our Union regarding how that State voted, how their electors have voted for the President of the United States of America. You cast your eyes on these three boxes, and you know that there is something special. You see that there are straps on them holding the top on and straps around the side and they are engraved--beautiful handle, beautiful leather work, crafted in the cabinet shop of our very Senate to say to the world that their cargo is precious. There are three of these boxes. The third box is brand new. It was crafted because so many States were celebrating this process that they started to use very large forms, very large envelopes, very large seals to put those ballots into and, thus, a third box was needed. These boxes contain the voice of the American people weighing in, as they have election after election after election. They have been used--these two smaller boxes--for the last 14 elections. They are transported through those doors to the House of Representatives, where the Senate and House gather to witness the opening of the envelopes to determine who will be the President of the United States. It is our constitutional responsibility to witness the counting. That is what the Constitution calls for. Tonight, when this Senate Chamber was under attack by domestic terrorists, we were held here in this room, doors locked to protect us with the help of the Capitol Police. They did an excellent job. And then they escorted us to a safe room. That announcement came quickly. And when that announcement came, our senior assistant parliamentarian, Leigh Hildebrand, organized the team to rescue these boxes and keep them safe. Thank you to her and the entire team that rescued the voice of the American people. Had they not done so, then the hooligans outside, disrespecting the Constitution, would have come in here and opened these boxes and burned the ballots, destroying the voice of the people symbolically. I know no one in this Chamber wanted something like that to happen because we are here to defend the Constitution, to defend the integrity of the election process, not to allow it to be destroyed. But, colleagues, although we are 100 Senators--or 99, actually, now because there are only 99 of us who are duly elected at the moment. We are 99 Senators united across party, defending these ballots from the hooligans outside. There is more than one way these ballots can be destroyed, and that is for this Chamber and the House Chamber to vote that one of those envelopes representing the State will be shredded, will be burned, that those votes will be discounted. We just held a vote on whether or not the envelope containing the electoral votes from Arizona should be burned. We defended these ballots against the hooligans outside, but there are those in this Chamber supporting the destruction of the voice of the citizens of Arizona--six voted. And we are coming back later tonight to vote on whether to shred or burn the ballots for the people of Pennsylvania. We have to stand together to say absolutely not. The constitutional responsibility is for us to defend the process, not to proceed to destroy these ballots. Now, in spite of all the troubling things that have happened in this Chamber this evening, something beautiful happened, and that is, we sat here in this Chamber, all of us listening to each other, 5-minute speeches, hearing each other out, diverse views, wrestling with a complicated issue. It is really the first time that has happened in the 12 years I have served in the Senate. We need to restore the process of struggling with America's issues together on the floor of the Senate. That is the Senate I saw when I first came here as an intern for my home State Senator in 1976. That is the Senate that I saw when I worked for Congress in the 1980s. That is the Senate that has disappeared. There is a conversation going forward between Democrats and Republicans to restore the ability to hold debate on the floor, to restore the ability to have amendments on the floor so that we deliberate and wrestle with--in a very public and transparent fashion-- the big issues. So let's take this moment, when we are rethinking how to restore the institutions of our government, to restore and improve how this Senate operates to deal with the issues ahead of us, so that this moment is a moment where we come together rather than be divided; where, in a bipartisan fashion, we craft a strategy to restore issues to the floor--bills and amendments--and debate and decisions before the public. Out of a dark moment can shine a bright light, a renewal, and it is a moment much needed now--a moment much needed in the executive branch as we, on the 20th of January, welcome new leadership. And it is a moment much needed for us to restore the Senate to be the deliberative body once renowned and respected around the world. Let's defend these ballot boxes, both from the hooligans outside and those who would vote to destroy the ballots from any given State. And let us come together and restore the Senate and fight for the vision of our ``we the people'' Republic I yield the floor.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, Senator Udall and I came here in the same class 12 years ago. It is hard to believe that 12 years have passed. How can that happen so quickly? We have seen the Senate in various chapters as it sought to address the big challenges facing America. Colleagues have already noted Tom's intense advocacy for the wildlands of the West and the poetry that he brought to it in his speech today with Mr. Stegner's reflections on the majesty and importance of the wildlands of the West and all of his efforts to protect those lands. Colleagues have mentioned how, when folks thought it couldn't be done, he dived into this partnership with Senator Vitter to drive the Lautenberg Toxic Substances Act and got it accomplished through months and months of intense negotiations. He cares about the function of this body and has shared with us idea after idea on how we might make it work better--ideas that we should still work to consider in the months and years ahead. As he thought about protection of lands, he thought about protection of the oceans and the role of plastics in the oceans. He spearheaded efforts for us to reconsider how we produce so much plastic waste and where it ends up and the damage that it does--a vision that others will have to carry the baton on after his departure. He has stood up fiercely for the constitutional vision of a nation and a government of, by, and for the people, that money is not speech, and that corporations are not people. Tom, thank you. Thank you for fighting for the vision of our Constitution, for a government that can and will take on the issues facing us. We will miss you. I personally hope that you will have a major role in continuing to advance the protection of those wildlands in the West in the near future. All my best, and take care in your next chapter.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to recognize the distinguished service of one of Medford, Oregon's own and to ask my Senate colleagues to join me in support of the U.S. Marine Corps PFC Delbert Littrell's honorary promotion to corporal. It is an honorary promotion because it was 75 years ago, in World War II, that Mr. Littrell served in the 14th Marine Regiment, 4th Marine Division. His service was marked by a combat history of notable intensity and duration. He fought in five pivotal battles that together changed the tide of the war in the Pacific Theater: the Gilbert and Marshall Islands campaign, between November 1943 and February 1944; the Battle of Saipan, between June 15, 1944, and July 9, 1944; the Battle of Tinian, between July 24, 1944, and August 1, 1944; the Battle of Iwo Jima, between February 19, 1945, and March 26, 1945; and, fifth, the Battle of Okinawa, between April 1, 1945, and June 22, 1945. What an outstanding contribution to make to the fight for freedom, and what a remarkable bit of history to be part of. As administrative officers noted while evaluating him, Private First Class Littrell performed excellently time and again. He should have received this promotion a long time ago. The units he served in, however, were under constant enemy bombardment, and the kinds of performance reports and administrative submissions that would have given him that promotion were often misplaced or incomplete in the midst of the rigorous amphibious assaults pivotal to the Allied victory. It wasn't until earlier this year, three-quarters of a century later, that the Marine Corps Advisory Panel reviewed the comprehensive record of Mr. Littrell's service to the Marine Corps and to the national security of the United States of America, and after reviewing the record, the Commandant of the Marine Corps recommended Delbert Littrell's honorary promotion to the rank of corporal, which was endorsed soon after by the Secretary of the Navy. Both of these leaders recognized Mr. Littrell's unique contributions, with the Secretary of the Navy noting the indelible mark that Mr. Littrell has left on the proud history of the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Navy. The State of Oregon and our entire Nation are proud of Delbert Littrell's meritorious service throughout World War II. Mr. Littrell's remarkable combat history and his actions in support of freedom mean that this recognition is long overdue. I am proud that this son of Oregon, who I hope is watching right now, is finally receiving this special honor. Colleagues, I know that you join me in honoring, respecting, and appreciating Delbert Littrell and his commitment to the fight for freedom and his legacy of service to our Nation with the distinction of corporal in the U.S. Marine Corps. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, two powerful phrases we often hear in America: one is ``We the People,'' another is ``equal justice under law.'' ``We the People,'' the first three words of the Constitution, written in supersized script so that everyone could have no doubt that that is what that Constitution--our Constitution--was all about. You can see those words from across the room. They echo so often, how can we possibly forget the soul of our Constitution is, as President Lincoln described, ``of, by, and for the people''--``of, by, and for the people.'' That second phrase, ``equal justice under law''--a phrase so important to our system that it is carved above the doors of the Supreme Court. Just the across the hallway here from the Chamber in which I now stand, the Senate Chamber, you can go into the Johnson Room. It served, when Johnson was the majority leader of this Chamber, as his office. And you look out the window, you can see the Supreme Court Building with that phrase carved into it: ``Equal Justice Under Law''--two powerful phrases that, taken together, lay out the foundation for our democratic Republic. They also represent a vision that is aspirational--one that we had not achieved when our Constitution was first written, one that we have not achieved yet today but that we work toward, we strive toward, generation after generation, knowing that, in our hearts, that is what we wish to achieve--a nation where everyone is created equal, in which everyone is afforded the same rights and privileges, they are all treated equally, have the full measure of opportunity to pursue their life ambitions. Today, this evening, we are considering, in this final 30 hours of debate, a nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court for a person who will wear one of those nine black robes and sit in that Supreme Court Chamber across the plaza from where we now stand, a person who will sit in a Chamber behind the doors with ``Equal Justice Under Law'' inscribed. But instead of making a stride toward that vision of ``equal justice under law,'' instead of making a stride toward that vision of government of, by, and for the people, this nomination imperils that vision. This nominee, if confirmed, will damage that vision. We have a decades-long scheme by a powerful and privileged minority to destroy the ``we the people'' vision of equality and opportunity in our Constitution, to erode the foundation of our institutions so that they can rig the system in their favor. This has always been a dynamic of republics--those who love that vision of a government ``of, by, and for the people'' and those who fear that vision of government ``of, by, and for the people'' because they want to rig the rules in their favor. They want to rig the rules with a vision that would never have a chance at the ballot box, that would never be embraced by the majority. They want to pull the levers of power from behind the scenes in their own favor, to accentuate income inequality, to accentuate wealth inequality, to prevent those people from voting who disagree with them with every type of contrivance to suppress and intimidate voters. If there is anything in which freedom of speech has meaning, isn't it that speech that you make when you mark your ballot for whom you wish to be your representative--perhaps the most powerful moment of expression in a republic. Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the nominee, is certainly not the architect of this scheme, but she is certainly a full-fledged partner, enthusiastically embracing The Federalist Society and its mission to thwart the will of the people of the United States of America. She doesn't read those first three words of the Constitution--``We the People''--as meaning government of, by, and for the people; she reads it as we, the powerful, will decide what is best for ourselves and everyone else; thank you very much. Boy, talk about a philosophy that undermines the integrity of our Constitution. That is it. And she is just one of a stream of jurists rushed through in the last 4 years, organized by the Federalist Society, to further undermine the rights of the worker, to undermine the civil rights of Americans, to undermine healthcare rights, to undermine environmental laws. It is an agenda that is the exact opposite of the vision of our Constitution. And here we have the Members of the majority of this Chamber, facilitating this scheme. They stand determined to shatter any norm, to destroy any precedent, to break any rule that stands in the way, to abandon any principle they so recently passionately proclaimed in their single-minded grab for power, this single-minded mission of stacking the court with extreme rightwing jurists for the powerful over the people--jurists who, rather than standing firm in defense of the Constitution, will use those black robes for the dark, dark deed of destroying any pretense of government of, by, and for the people. Just 4 years ago the majority of this Chamber, the same majority, the Republican majority, said they had discovered a new principle that they felt with all their hearts was the right thing to do; that never, under any condition, under any set of circumstances should this Chamber ever debate or vote on a nominee for the Supreme Court during an election year. They made that argument though the election was far away. The vacancy occurred early in the year. The nominee was named by the President, President Obama, in March. But that distant election on the horizon, we have to protect it, and we should hear from the people before we decide to debate and vote. You know, it is disturbing to see a so-called deeply held principle vaporize like light rain on hot summer asphalt. It is disturbing to see a so-called deeply held principle be so easily acquired when it violates the precedents of this Nation and so easily abandoned when it is convenient to do so. There is just one principle here. It is the principle of power. It is the principle of ``we will because we can.'' It is the principle that we have no principle; we will toss our integrity to the winds; we will trash our arguments of yesteryear; we will forget the speeches in which we so passionately proclaimed our positions because we have a moment of opportunity to advance power for the powerful, and we will seize it. What is different between this year and 4 years ago when the majority said there should never, under any circumstances, ever be a debate on a Presidential nominee during an election year? What is different? Well, 4 years ago there was a vacancy. This year there is a vacancy. Four years ago it was an election year, a Presidential election year. This year it is a Presidential election year. It is the same choice of whether to debate or whether to hear from the voice of the people before deciding how to fill this vacancy. It is the same choice, with one difference. That difference is that 4 years ago the vacancy occurred 10 months before the election and this year it occurred just a few weeks before the election. We all recognize that, if one was really disturbed that this was a conflict, that disturbance would be much greater this year when there is no time, so little time--just weeks. In fact, it is not really weeks before the election because the election is underway. Fifty million Americans have already voted. So it is not just a year of an election; it is during an election. I would love to see an outbreak of integrity in this Chamber, an outbreak of principle in defense of our Constitution. It is so often that we admire character. We admire it when someone says ``That person is as good as their word.'' I would like to be able to say that, when I heard my colleagues say they had a passionately, deeply held principle 4 years ago that there should be no debate in an election year, they were as good as their word. That is what we admire: character, principle. We all have heard the quote: ``I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'' It is a quote attributed to Voltaire by Beatrice Evelyn Hall. It was actually more a description of Voltaire's character, that he believed in a principle so firmly that, even when it disadvantaged him, to his point of death, he would defend it. Who in this Chamber argued 4 years ago that during an election year there should be no debate or vote on a nominee and has that Voltairean character to defend it when it is inconvenient today--not even inconvenient to the point of death, just inconvenient because of some pressure you might receive politically? Who will stand up and be that voice of character in this Chamber? We all await to see just a few people stand up and be a voice of principle in this Chamber. We all stand here and wait for just a few people to be a voice of integrity in this Chamber. The country waits for a position that can be admired, of principle, of character, and of integrity. It is not just that passionate argument 4 years ago; it is also about breaking the rules. Just the other day, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee broke the committee rule that at least 2 members of the minority needed to be present for a quorum to advance Judge Barrett's nomination. And he broke another rule to close debate that says there has to be a minority member present Well, why don't you just stand up and tear up the rules of the committee? The Parliamentarian of this body said that is OK--that is OK. So apparently there are no real rules to what happens here under this majority. What is the end goal of this effort to break the norms, break the rules, break the passionate principles pronounced 4 years ago? Certainly not to ensure equal justice under law, certainly not to embody ``We the People'' governments, certainly not because there is a precedent for this action. Oh, wait. I was standing here the other day, and I heard a Member say: We stand on precedent. Well, we are under our 45th President, although some say it is the 44th because Cleveland was elected twice--in 1884 and then out of office and back in 1892. But anyway, we are under--we say it is our 45th President--President Trump. Under our first 43 Presidents, this Senate never once--never once-- not a single time, refused to debate and vote on a nominee from the President of the United States for the Supreme Court--not once. But 4 years ago, under our 44th President, the Republican majority said: We are breaking that precedent, and for the first time in U.S. history, we are refusing to debate and vote. Now, I would have had some respect for saying that we will debate and we will vote, because that is our responsibility under the Constitution. In fact, many times in our history we have debated here in the Senate, and we have voted, and we have struck down the nominee. I was surprised to see that almost a quarter of the time--almost one out of four nominees has been turned down by this Chamber for the Supreme Court. That would have involved actually being here on the floor and making arguments. That would involve actually taking a vote so you could be evaluated, so your position could be evaluated by your constituents. That would have involved fulfilling your responsibilities and having the accountability that goes with fulfillment of those responsibilities. But there was no fulfillment of responsibilities 4 years ago. There was no accountability because there was no vote taken--the first time in U.S. history. So don't tell me--don't tell me, colleagues--that you stand on precedent. Or we can look back in history to a Republican President, President Lincoln. President Lincoln was concerned about filling a Supreme Court position during an election, so what did President Lincoln do? He delayed the nomination until after the election. How about that precedent? How about the Republican majority follow the precedent from President Lincoln? And then there is the McConnell precedent. What is the McConnell precedent that he put forward 4 years ago? We never vote or debate a nominee during an election year. How about that precedent? So precedent after precedent after precedent: The historical, centuries-long precedent of never failing to debate and vote--broken. The Lincoln precedent of not asking the Senate to do a nominee's hearing, debate, and vote during an election--broken. The McConnell precedent put forward with great passion 4 years ago--broken. The goal is to transform the Supreme Court into a supermajority, a superlegislature for the superelite--a 6-to-3 supermajority and a nine- member superlegislature operating for the superelite. That whole vision in our Constitution of having a Supreme Court that defends the rights of Americans from the excesses of law written by Congress or the excesses of the executive branch not following the laws, that is gone. This is not about nine referees in black robes. This is about having a supermajority in Republican robes for the superelite of this country. Why is that such an important strategy for my Republican colleagues? Because the superelite understands something fundamental, which is that sometimes the people of the United States have a grassroots movement, and they, holding the Constitution near and dear in their heart, holding their freedoms near and dear to their heart, rise up against this manipulation by the superelite, and they pass laws to protect civil rights. They put forward a vision of protecting the environment. They say workers have to be treated fairly--a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. And the superelite doesn't like that. But do you know what? If they can turn the Supreme Court into a superlegislature they control, they don't have to worry about it because they can have the laws written by that nine-member Court. They can pull the levers of power through the Court. And the Court doesn't have to stand for election ever--lifetime. It is done. It is locked in. That is the strategy, the very successful strategy, to undermine the vision of our Constitution. That superelite, with their supermajority of the nine-member superlegislature, they can stand in the way of efforts to save our planet from climate chaos. They can stand in the way of tackling rampant economic inequality. They can stand in the way of taking on systemic racism and opportunity for everyone, regardless of the color of their skin. They can stand in the way of equality of opportunity for LGBTQ communities. They can stand in the way of security and integrity for our elections. They can tear down the work done. When these two Chambers, the House and the Senate, are mobilized to fight for the vision of our Constitution--pursuit of happiness, fair opportunity--they can strike it down. They can strike down healthcare. They can strike down reproductive rights. Perhaps the most diabolical part is their effort to destroy the integrity of our election system. Now, one form of assault on the integrity is gerrymandering, where States draw the lines in order to favor a particular party. This has been done in States controlled by Democrats as well as States controlled by Republicans. When the analysis is done across the country, when it comes to Representatives in the Chamber down the hall, the House of Representatives, political scientists estimate that it creates a 15- to 20-seat bias in favor of the Republicans--15 to 20 seats. That is a big deal in the House of Representatives. It certainly, in terms of equal representation, is simply wrong because it is unequal representation. But the Supreme Court decided it was OK. They decided it was all right. Or we can talk about the Voting Rights Act, designed specifically to stop tactics to suppress voting or to intimidate voters, because isn't voting the foundation of our electoral system? Isn't it the foundation of our democratic republic? But in 2013, in a 5-to-4 decision, the five Justices in red robes gutted the Voting Rights Act to unleash voting suppression and intimidation across our country, and we see the results in county after county after county. We see it in State after State after State. Here is the thing: Before the Supreme Court struck down the protection of the integrity of voting, we had a bipartisan majority--a large, extensive, huge bipartisan majority--in defense of election integrity in this Chamber. But once the Court struck it down and it massively favored one party over the other, the Republicans abandoned their principles on this and have blocked every effort to restore protection of voting integrity in our Nation. We can look at the impact of money from corporations on elections. In Citizens United, 10 years ago, the Court decided that we need to give the ultimate source of massive power, ultimate influence on elections by freeing them up to put as much money into campaigns as they should like. So if a corporation--if I offend them, and I offend them all the time--chooses that they can put $100 million into campaigning against me in my State, it is like a stadium sound system designed to drown out the voice of the people. Imagine you are at a ball game. You are there in the stadium, with all your community members, and you are trying to make your voice heard. Everyone should get a fair chance to have their voice heard. But the big speakers above you drown you out. That is Citizens United. It doesn't facilitate speech in the town square; it suppresses speech in the town square. It drowns out speech in the town square. It is as if our Founders had said: We want everyone to have a chance to stand up and take their position, make it known in the town square, before the election is held for the mayor but thought it would be OK if a corporation bought the town square and prevented anyone else from speaking. That is Citizens United. That is the grotesque violation of free speech in America done by five jurists in red robes for the superelite. That is a pretty good deal for the fossil fuel megapolluters. Our entire planet is at risk. They want to eliminate all the restrictions, regulations--the freedom to pollute--even though they know the people of this country really value clean air and clean water. So control the courts so they can strike down those rules to protect our air and our water. There are many challenges involved in the revenue to support our country. I mention this because it is another reason the superelite want a supermajority in the nine-member superlegislature. It is because the rich don't want to pay for the infrastructure of this country. Leona Helmsley once said that only the little people pay taxes. President Trump has said things very close to that. Very wealthy people have a lot of enterprises going on. Corporations have a lot of enterprises going on. They are using our legal system continuously, but they don't want to pay for it. They are using our transportation system continuously, but they don't want to pay for it. They are benefiting by hiring the products of our education system, but they don't want to pay for it. Leona Helmsley said it well: For the superelite, only the little people pay taxes. That is the philosophy supported in this effort to control the courts. Big banks like this. They want to make sure that there is not an uprising in the people that says you have to shut down that Wall Street casino that prevents us from putting the entire American economy at risk. They want to keep that casino in place. Companies that are trying to maximize profits and stock values certainly don't like laws that protect workers' rights and protections. There are many ways the superelite can pull the levers of power from behind the scene. Hundreds of lawyers--that is very valuable. Hundreds of lobbyists work on Capitol Hill. There are far more lobbyists for the drug industry up here than there are Members of Congress. Media campaigns to influence public opinion cost a lot of money; that is another power. Think tanks generate ideas that can move the conversation in their direction. Of course, the money in elections is absolutely key. But the courts--the courts are the final defense against the people. If you can control the courts--who aren't elected, who are invulnerable to the people--that is your final defense. At the heart of this court strategy is the Federalist Society, organized in the 1980s. They put high ideals on their website, saying they are ``founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution.'' It sounds pretty good. ``Preserve freedom.'' It is innocuous. But it is not about preserving freedom. That is the media strategy. It is about crushing the freedom of ordinary people to participate in our elections. It is about crushing the ability of ordinary people to get a fair day's pay. It is not about the separation of powers. They want the majority in the Senate to work to create a majority in the Court, closely connected to each other in this web of the powerful pulling the levers behind the scenes--the opposite of separation of powers. As described in the book, ``The Lie that Binds,'' the Federalist Society sprang up to implement an anti-democratic policy agenda and political philosophy--a court system impervious to the will of the voters. That superelite--they realized long ago the powers and initiatives they wanted were not going to be popular--and thus this strategy, this strategy relevant to this confirmation. The Federalist Society has been funded by that same group and expanded into a behemoth, with some 70,000 attorneys. It started in no small part by a grant received from the Olin Foundation, a conservative grant-making foundation that was the force behind business friendly law and economics at law schools throughout the country. I have heard people say: Do you know what? I joined because they had the money to buy us dinner, and I was a poor law student According to the New York Observer, the Olin Foundation gave out hundreds of millions of dollars in grants ``to conservative think tanks and intellectuals--the architects of today's sprawling right-wing movement--for a quarter century.'' The crown jewel of the Olin Foundation's work? The Federalist Society. The Olin Foundation wrote to its trustees in 2003: ``All in all, the Federalist Society has been one of the best investments the foundation ever made.'' Since its founding, the Federalist Society has put forward extreme, rightwing legal theories. And as their influence and power have grown, they have worked hard to bring those theories into the mainstream-- mainstream arguments, like originalism, which Judge Barrett, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch all claim to hold. This is how Judge Barrett explained her philosophy during her confirmation hearings: ``I interpret the Constitution as a law, that I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. So that meaning doesn't change over time.'' It is a great cover story. It is a great cover story, but it is a cover story. It is a cover story for the superelite to manipulate America. And it dissolves upon any detailed examination. We know, if we bother to read history, that virtually every clause of the Constitution had Founders who disagreed on what it meant. Yes, you had a pretty homogenous group--39 White, educated, wealthy men, signing that piece of parchment in Philadelphia, but they had multitudinous views of the clauses. There is a lot of ambiguity in those clauses that enabled them to come together and say: I can accept that. We will argue later over what it meant. This originalist philosophy is saying: Well, here is the secret. There were a bunch of people who had different views at the time it was written, but I will choose the one meaning that benefits the powerful in America, that fits the ``we the powerful'' vision of our Constitution, not the ``We the People.'' That is pretty clever--pretty clever and pretty diabolical if, in your heart, you care about this Nation, you care about the beautiful, extraordinary vision that we will be a government not dedicated to those who are the elite, like the kingdoms of Europe, but will draw its power from the opinion of the people. That is the view I hold. That is the view our Founders aspired to. That is the view that is being undermined day in and day out by the Federalist Society. Madison wrote: ``No language is so copious as to supply words and phrases for every complex idea, or so correct as to not include many equivocally denoting different ideas.'' He is speaking directly to my point: The Founders had many different ideas about what each clause of the Constitution meant and what it would mean to be applied. He went on to write: ``All new laws, though penned with the greatest technical skill . . . are considered as more or less obscure and equivocal, until their meaning be liquidated and ascertained by a series of particular discussions.'' The words are ``more or less obscure and equivocal, until their meaning be . . . ascertained by a series of particular discussions''-- again, noting that the right philosophy is to seek to understand the motivation, the principle in which those ideas were infused, not to cherry-pick one of the many conflicting positions in order to sustain power by the powerful. We can see this in one of the early fights in the history of our United States, of our Constitution. The year was 1791, just 4 years after the Constitution was written. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton was working on his financial plan to build up the country's credit, and he wanted Congress to charter a national bank. Hamilton had that goal in position. Madison and Jefferson did not like the idea of a national bank. They argued about the Constitution. Hamilton said that as long as the Constitution didn't specifically say that the government couldn't do something, it then could do something. And the opposite position held by Jefferson and Madison was, no, the Constitution only allows something to be done if it is absolutely necessary to implement the enumerated power. This argument is over a clause of the Constitution called the Necessary and Proper Clause. It says that government has the ability to enact laws for the necessary and proper fulfillment of the enumerated responsibilities. But Hamilton read that as allowing something that is relevant and useful to facilitate an enumerated power. It would serve the purpose of that enumerated power. And Madison and Jefferson said: No, no, no, it only means something can be done if it is absolutely essential--not that it is relevant, not that it is useful, but it is absolutely essential to implement the enumerated power. So one is a very expansive view of what is allowed by the Constitution, and one is a very constricted view. All these men were involved in writing the Constitution, all to my point about the differing views that were held about each clause of the Constitution. We have the greatest minds of the age, including two who had worked together to not only write the Constitution but also the Federalist Papers that had completely different interpretations. It takes a lot of chutzpah to say: I know exactly what the universal view was of a clause in the Constitution and to do so to get the end result you want, which is government for the powerful. That is a powerfully corruptive assault on the core vision of our Constitution. Let's take a look at another piece of the so-called Federalist pro- business viewpoint, which is that corporations are people, and they have full freedom of speech. The originalists say: Isn't that obvious from the Constitution? Well, no, actually, it is not at all obvious because corporations in their current form did not exist when the Constitution was written. So it is not only not obvious; it is completely wrong. Corporations were created for very specific purposes in our early years. Professor Brian Murphy, a history professor at Baruch College in New York, wrote the following: ``Americans inherited the legal form of the corporation from Britain, where it was bestowed as a royal privilege on certain institutions . . . used to organize municipal governments.'' Well, that is quite different from the corporations we have. Americans wondered if they should abolish them entirely or find a way to democratize them and make them compatible with the spirit of independence. They chose the latter, so the first American corporations ended up being cities and schools and charitable organizations. We don't really begin to see economic enterprises chartered as corporations until the 1790s. The work being done on our current Constitution was being done when we were under the Articles of Confederation. They were in place from 1781 to 1787, a 6-year period. And during that period, corporations were not economic enterprises. As the professor points out, they became economic enterprises in the 1790s. Yet, somehow, these Justices of the Supreme Court and their red robes of the superelite say that the Constitution makes it absolutely clear that these massive business corporations have the same freedom of speech and the ability to participate in elections as if they are people, because they are people. But they are not people. And these economic enterprises did not exist when our Constitution was written. If you want a single example of the complete corruption of the basic argument made by the Federalists, this is certainly an example to put forward. Murphy continues: The Founders did not confuse Boston's Sons of Liberty with the British East India Company. They could distinguish among different varieties of association--and they understood that corporate personhood was a legal fiction that was limited to a courtroom. Corporations could not vote. Corporations could not hold office. Early Americans had a far, more comprehensive understanding of corporations than the Court gives credit for. Well, this is indeed the challenge that we have because we have a powerful elite that has created a system completely alien to the core philosophy of our Constitution of government of, by, and for the people. They have the money to create those hundreds of lawyers working day and night for their vision. They have the money to create the hundreds of lobbyists up here on Capitol Hill working for their vision. They have the money to create the media campaigns that flood the airwaves for their vision. They have the money to create the Federalist Society chapters to recruit people when they first start law school and indoctrinate them in this particular vision, promising them great support and reward in their careers to support this mission of government by and for the powerful. The network is extensive in ways that need to be completely understood across the country, a network of affiliated groups. Take the case of the Freedom and Opportunity Fund, a nonprofit that Mr. Leo, who was very involved in the Federalist Society, launched in 2016. For over 2 years, the Freedom and Opportunity Fund gave $4 million to another group, the Independent Women's Voice. In fact, about half of that group's revenue came in that manner. In an indepth report from the Washington Post, when Kavanaugh's confirmation was running into trouble, leaders from the Independent Women's Voice sprang into action, mobilized to speak at rallies, wrote online commentaries, and appeared on FOX News. They went to extraordinary lengths to make sure the Federalist Society's nominee did not get the full examination by the people of this country. Now, Mr. Leo is listed as president of three other groups: The BH Fund, Freedom and Opportunity Fund, and America Engaged. These aren't groups that have employees. They don't have office space. They don't have a website. And yet the BH Fund received $24 million from a single anonymous donor. It gave $3 million to two other groups, one of which, America Engaged, passed on $1 million of that money to the lobbying arm of the NRA that went on to carry on a $1 million ad campaign in supporting Neil Gorsuch. This is vast money in a vast web being deployed to influence Americans in every possible way because these folks hate the vision of government of, by, and for the people. The Federalists don't just carry out public relations campaigns. They don't just recruit law students. They proceed to be in the very center of things presenting oral arguments. They presented every oral argument on every single abortion case that has come before the Supreme Court since 1992. They are involved in issue after issue after issue. They have been invested in litigation efforts against the ACA, the Affordable Care Act, by trying to strike down healthcare for millions of Americans well before the act was even signed into law and before there was even anything to litigate against. A Federalist Society member, Randy Barnett, coauthored a 16-page legal memo against the law, which became a source of talking points during congressional debate and laid the framework for subsequent court challenges. Is it any wonder that so many of us across the Nation are terrified of Judge Barrett's confirmation and what it could mean for the health of our citizens? I was interested to hear a colleague on this floor--a Republican colleague say these are scare tactics. These are scare tactics to say that the Court might strike down healthcare. These are scare tactics. Does that colleague not believe the President of the United States when he said he will nominate someone who will strike down the ACA and its healthcare bill of rights? It is not a scare tactic to say the individual who chose the nominee said he intended to strike down Roe v. Wade and pick somebody who would strike down the Affordable Care Act. Now, the Affordable Care Act, in my home State, has meant 400,000 people gained access to Medicaid under the expansion of Medicaid. One of the ironies is, the largest percentage of beneficiaries are in the reddest parts of the State, and the biggest beneficiaries in terms of providing healthcare are rural hospitals and rural clinics because the people who previously came couldn't pay the bill, so they didn't have the resources to expand their operation, but now they do. When I do my townhalls and people say: ``I just don't like this ACA'' because they have been hearing that from the rightwing media, I say: Well, let's have a vote of everyone here. You can step forward or step backward. Do you like the idea of children being on your policy until age 26 because that is in the bill of rights--the healthcare bill of rights of the ACA. No, no, no. We like that. Overwhelmingly, we like that. How about tax credits to enable middle-class Americans to be able to buy healthcare? No, no, no. We like that. How about comparing policies on the website so you can pick a policy that is right for your family? No, no, no. That is a step forward But the Federalist Society, the President, and the Republicans in this Chamber have decided that they are going to tear down healthcare for 20 million Americans. So it is hardly a scare tactic because there are very powerful forces at work on that mission. One of the healthcare bill of rights that people really love in my State, and actually in all States across this country, is the protection to get a policy at the same price, even if you have a preexisting condition. I was at a fundraiser--a walkathon for multiple sclerosis, for MS, when a woman came up to me, and she said: Things are so much different this year. I said: What do you mean? The weather is different? The turnout is different? She said: No, no, no. A year ago, if someone was diagnosed with MS, we knew they would have a very hard time, if they didn't have good healthcare, getting the help they needed and then they might face lifetime limits or annual limits that would prevent them from actually getting care, even though they had insurance. But now we can get the care we need. So that is the goal. That is the goal of the Federalist Society: tear down healthcare for millions of Americans. You may wonder if when I noted that the Court was against the foundation of our democracy--the former five Justices, soon to be six Justices in red robes want to tear down the basic foundation of our democratic Republic. Well, let's look a little more closely at that. Perhaps I can persuade you because the Court decided that corporations are people and that they can spend their unlimited concentrated assets in campaigns--the case, Citizens United. And why do we call it dark money? Well, because corporations can give their money to a 501(c)(4), so-called nonprofit, and the nonprofit gives their money to a super PAC, which runs an independent campaign, and the super PAC discloses the nonprofit as the donor but not the original donor, so it is laundered. Nobody knows who funded that super PAC that is attacking you with millions of dollars of ads. So that certainly is the Court weighing in for the absolute suppression of the voice of the people and a voice drowned out by unlimited corporations from the largest, most powerful financial organizations that exist in the world. Let's take a closer look at Shelby County. Shelby County, which gutted the Voting Rights Act, protecting the foundations for the citizens to fully participate, but the Court strikes it down--strikes it down. And, last year, in Rucho v. Common Cause, the Court said that gerrymandering is just fine. They knew that it violates the very premise of equal representation, and they decided that unequal representation was just fine. Instead of defending the vision of our Constitution, they supported it being struck down. And we know the courts have a huge ability to legislate from the bench for the powerful. We see it time and time and time again. And, by the way, on that decision, Elena Kagan and Ginsburg and Breyer and Sotomayor noted: ``[T]he most fundamental of . . . constitutional rights: the rights to participate equally in the political process, to join with others to advance political beliefs, and to choose their political representatives,'' is assaulted by this decision. Colleagues, we are in dark and dangerous, tumultuous times. It is exactly those times that require us to stand on principle, with integrity, to defend our institutions. This process, which has violated precedent after precedent after precedent--a 200-year precedent in which always a nominee is debated and voted on, violated 4 years ago to steal a Supreme Court seat; the Lincoln precedent of not putting forward a nominee during election; the McConnell precedent of saying we never debate and vote in an election year enunciated just 4 years ago; and the rules broken in the Judiciary Committee--all of this about one position, and that one position is power but not power for the vision of government of, by, and for the people but power for the powerful to undermine the ability of the people to have government of, by, and for the people. Let us honor our oath to the Constitution; let us defend the integrity of the Court; and let us strike down this nominee to defend the integrity of the Court I yield the floor.

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

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Wicker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Emergency Nurses Association. Made up of 51,000 members from all across the globe, the Emergency Nurses Association, or ENA, is the only professional organization dedicated to advancing excellence in emergency nursing and is the world's premier organization for emergency nurses. Founded in 1970 to set standards for best practices in emergency nursing care, the ENA has provided continuing education programs for emergency nurses, as well as a united voice for nurses involved in emergency care. Among its accomplishments, ENA has worked successfully to raise awareness and improve outcomes for the Nation's trauma patients. For Americans aged 44 years or younger, traumatic injuries--including car crashes, falls, head injuries, burns, and firearm injuries--are currently the leading cause of death. Working to improve outcomes for those who have suffered a traumatic injury, ENA offers courses for emergency nurses that provide them with the knowledge, skills, and hands-on training needed to deliver high-quality trauma care. ENA's trauma nursing core course is one such course. Since its inception in 1986, this course has been taken by more than 1 million emergency nurses and is now considered the gold standard for the education of nurses in lifesaving trauma care techniques. ENA was also at the forefront of supporting the MISSION ZERO Act, or the Military Injury Surgical Systems Integrated Operationally Nationwide to Achieve ZERO Preventable Deaths Act. When this legislation was signed into law last year, it created an innovative program allowing military trauma teams and professionals to work in civilian trauma centers to ensure the highest quality trauma care in both peace and war. Finally, ENA has been the leader in raising awareness regarding the issue of workplace violence directed towards emergency nurses and other emergency department personnel. At the State level, it advocated for stronger criminal laws to hold those who assault healthcare workers in hospitals accountable for their actions. At the Federal level, ENA has fought for tougher workplace standards to ensure that hospitals provide a safe working environment for their employees. On the occasion of the Emergency Nurses Association's 50th anniversary, Senator Wicker and I ask our colleagues to join us in extending our deepest gratitude to the ENA and all its members for their commitment to improving the quality of emergency care that has and will continue to save the lives of millions of Americans across our country.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, my colleague not only objected but laid out his thinking on the idea that has been adopted at local governments across the country, and he said it is unconstitutional. Of course he didn't bother to actually check to see if it was unconstitutional because, no, it is not. If it was, it would have been ended in all of those places at the State and local levels where it had been done. So much for that false argument. He brings in his experience as a regulator, but it might be helpful to actually check the lawbooks before making a spurious argument. Then he says: You know, a moratorium would hurt ordinary families. Well, try talking to an ordinary family. An ordinary family says: You know what, I lost my job because of the economic collapse. We have an economic collapse because of the failure to address coronavirus, and now you are telling me it is good for me if I lose my electricity and my water while I try to help my kids get through this year when they can't attend class or school and they have to do it at home. But you are OK having my electricity turned off. That is hardly helping the families get through this. I must say, it represents an awareness that is so distant from the experience of ordinary Americans as to confound the mind and really challenge the heart. My colleague notes that, my goodness, the utilities have expenses. Yes, which is exactly why I have proposed that we compensate those utilities for those expenses. So why don't we have this bill on the floor, and then we can actually have the arguments and get the facts out about it? My colleague said: I have these arguments--arguments I have just noted and disagree with, but at least we are having a debate, which is rare in this Chamber. So let's have this bill on the floor, and let's have everyone bring their experiences to bear, and let's open it to amendment. My colleague noted that there are piecemeal items that the majority leader brought forward because there is an election in a couple of weeks. He didn't say ``because there is an election in a couple of weeks,'' but that is why they were brought forward. That is my opinion. I would have been fine bringing those to the floor if they were open to amendment, but, no, they were a political stunt. It is, here is our version we want to vote on so we can do a campaign commercial, but we are not going to let there actually be a debate, a possible amendment. The Senate might actually legislate? We haven't done that in years. Why would we start now? Because that is the vision of our Constitution, that there actually be debates on this floor; that we actually allow relevant amendments to have a majority vote and be considered so that the collective interaction of Members can produce a better outcome for America. By voting on those amendments, we can be accountable to the people of the United States of America. So bring back the bill and guarantee that it will get amendments by simple majority, and let's have a real debate because we owe it to the American people. Let's bring the Heroes Act to the floor--the one that has been trapped for 5 months. Amend the hell out of it if you want, but at least you are taking votes to be accountable to the people of the United States of America. At least we are having a debate--a debate--in front of Americans about what works and what doesn't. We need more of that in this Chamber. We need a bipartisan consensus that will restore the ability of Senators to amend. It is not that long ago that in this Chamber, amendments were common and blockades were rare. That was a functioning legislative body. That benefits every single Member. I can't tell you how many Members on both sides of the aisle say that we need to restore the vision of a functioning legislative body. I want to do amendments. Let's restore that vision. Let's work together to restore that vision for the betterment of this Chamber but certainly for the betterment of America. And one idea that should be considered is protecting Americans from having their utilities cut off until we are on the far side of this crisis. Thank you.

Mr. MERKLEY. I thank my colleague, because, 4 years ago, I was on this floor, and I know you weren't here in the Chamber, and I listened to so many Members of the Senate say that they were establishing a new precedent--a precedent they felt was a precedent born of deep conviction, passionate conviction, that there should never be a debate and a vote during an election year, not just during the election. We are already in the process of casting ballots, but never in an election year. So that also is a precedent set 4 years ago that this is overturning; is that not correct?

Mr. MERKLEY. So thank you to my colleague. I think what you are confirming is that never in American history have we conducted such a debate and voted during an election. You have a different precedent argument but not a precedent that shows that conducting this debate during an election is appropriate.

Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you. You know that the process we are in right now is based on clear precedent. I have scoured American history to find the precedent of conducting a debate and vote on a Supreme Court nominee during an election, and I haven't found it. So I just wanted to check in on, essentially, what am I missing? Where is there a precedent for conducting this debate and this vote during an election?

Mr. MERKLEY. Would my colleague yield for a question?

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding to a question. It was not that long ago that we actually had conversations and debate on the floor of the Senate, and now when we are even in debate on bills, we don't have dialogue back and forth. So I appreciate the Senator attempting to answer my question about precedent. Let's be clear. This is a precedent-shattering event. This is not consistent with the history of the United States. In fact, we have seen a situation where never in our history has any President asked for a debate and vote during an election. So that shatters a precedent. Never before in our history have we had a majority leader agree to hold a debate and a vote during an election. So that shatters a precedent. Then there is the President Lincoln precedent in which he deliberately said: We are not going to violate the sanctity of a vote. I don't want you to debate and vote during an election. Now, Lincoln happened to be a Republican President, but he cared about the institution. He cared about the Constitution. He cared about the voice of the American people, and so he said the two shouldn't exist together. Then, of course, there is the McConnell precedent from 4 years ago, in which McConnell came to the floor and was supported by his caucus and said there should never ever be a debate or a vote of a nominee during an election year. Now, my colleague from Wyoming just noted, well, he has a new theory about split government and unified government. Well, that theory wasn't here on the floor 4 years ago. That wasn't part of the McConnell precedent. That is called an after-the-fact justification of an inconsistent position. In fact, so many colleagues across the aisle came to the floor and said: I have this deep and passionate conviction that I want to defend the Constitution. There should never be a debate on a Supreme Court Justice during an election year. And now every single one of them coming before us is saying: Well, you know that deep passionate conviction I had 4 years ago? It was a convenience of political power to make that argument because what I was really saying is, we, as Republicans, don't want to debate a nominee from a Democratic President. We only want to debate a nominee from a Republican President. Well, I am shocked really by the complete lack of integrity. I am shocked that arguments are being put forward that were never raised on the floor 4 years ago about split government as some justification. I guess I am not so shocked about the power grab involved because it began some 40 years ago when a group of very wealthy, very White people got together and said: We don't like this vision of government of, by, and for the people, because, you know, the people kind of like things we don't want. We want to rig the tax system so we pay very little. We want to get those tax deductions and those tax subsidies. We want to make sure that people of communities of color don't vote. We want to be able to suppress the vote. How do we do that? Well, you know, the problem is that people who are elected get elected by the people, and we might be able to influence those campaigns some of the time, but, you know what? There is one institution not subject to the vote of the people--the Court. If we can corrupt the Court, we, this very small group of White, wealthy power brokers in America can control this country and install government by and for the powerful, rather than our constitutional vision of government by and for the people. So this is a norm-shattering, precedent-shattering situation. There have only been two real objectives by the leadership of this body over the last 4 years. One was a $2 trillion tax cut--$2 trillion with a ``t''--with virtually all the benefits going to the richest Americans. You know, if a thief grabs an orange off a stand, they might go to prison for 6 months or a loaf of bread, maybe they will get a couple years. But through this bill, $2 trillion from the American Treasury was given to the richest, most powerful Americans. Well, that is certainly not government by and for the people. That was one objective. The other objective was to dismantle healthcare for ordinary Americans who aren't rich and powerful. Let's tear down the ACA. Well, in my State, 400,000 Oregonians proceeded to gain healthcare through the expansion of Medicaid and the ACA, and since March, add another 120,000 to that list--120,000 more. Why? Because they are losing their jobs. They are losing their jobs in this economic implosion caused by the failure to address the pandemic. The people in Oregon--I go to every county every year. I have a townhall in every county, and most of my counties are deep red--as red as anywhere you will find in the country. And do you know what? People say: Healthcare bill of rights, thank God for that. What are they talking about? Children can be on their policy until age 26. They think that is a step forward. I know because I have been out there every year, and I ask them: Children on your policy until age 26, how many people here like it? These are very, very Republican and very, very conservative rural areas. No, we like that. Tax credits so lower income families can afford to buy health insurance on the marketplace? Oh, no, we like that. Having a marketplace where you can compare policies, one to the other? Oh, no, no, we like that. Having preventive conditions covered because an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? Oh, yes, we think that is a step forward. That is in these conservative, red districts. And the expansion of Medicaid? A lifesaver. Do you know what happens at these rural townhalls? People who are at the local healthcare clinics stand up and say: You know, we doubled the size of our healthcare clinic because now our very low-income constituents can pay the bill, so we have been able to hire more people. We have a substance addiction program now that we didn't have before. We have a mental health program we didn't have before. Don't take that away from us. We really love our rural healthcare clinic. We love the investment in rural clinics that the ACA made. That list goes on and on. My colleague from Wyoming said that there is this whole scare tactic about healthcare. Yes, people are scared, not because we are saying they are scared but because they are calling our offices and saying: We are worried. They are saying they are worried because they heard the President of the United States say: I am only going to nominate a person who will tear down the ACA and will strike down Roe v. Wade. Don't you trust the word of the President of the United States to do what he said? He said it repeatedly. He said that was his goal. And he said to the Federalist Society: Go get me nominees who can complete my goals. The Federalist Society has been at work now for four decades to bias the courts for the wealthy and powerful. That is what they are all about. It is about preventing people of color from voting. Now it has expanded to college students. Now it has expanded to Native American reservations. Now it has expanded to poor communities. Oh, we see the manipulation being planned on election day because now there is a Court that by 5 to 4 gutted the Voting Rights Act and allows voter intimidation in this country and allows voter suppression. So we see the efforts. You decrease the number of polling places where you don't want people to vote. You move them so people aren't sure where to go. You understaff them so there are long lines in blue districts and short lines in red districts. You stick machines in there that don't work so well. Maybe that will slow things down. You put out messages saying ``Thank you for voting last week'' to confuse people when the vote is actually coming up next week. You say: Oh, by the way, you can use any State ID to vote, but you can't use a college ID. This is because they don't want college students to vote. You know, I am proud of the Constitution of the United States. I am proud of the vision of voter empowerment, citizen engagement, and participation as a foundation for what we do in this country. But I have really been stunned by the scope of those in this Chamber who believe in voter suppression and intimidation. I am stunned that they don't share the view of a government of, by, and for the people because that is the oath of office we took. It was to our Constitution. I am also stunned that it has been 5 months since the Heroes Act was passed in the House, and this body has sat on its hands for 5 months-- for 5 months--and now the leader of this body says: Mr. President, don't negotiate with Speaker Pelosi. We don't want to vote on a bill that will really help America. You have the Treasury Secretary and the Speaker ready to reach a deal, and the leader of this body is saying: Don't do it. For 5 months, don't do it. I always think of the phrase you hear growing up: Rome burned while Nero fiddled. Well, America suffers while the Senate slumbers under the leadership that says: No vote on a comprehensive package to help both the healthcare pandemic and the economic implosion that is associated with it. There are 220,000-plus Americans who lie in the grave because President Trump refused to have a national strategy on personal protective equipment, because President Trump refused to have a national strategy on testing, because President Trump refused to have a national strategy on contact tracing, and because President Trump decided to try to continue the polarization of America over the use of masks and social distancing rather than bringing America together to fight this. Now, some say: You know, couldn't America do just as well as Canada? Couldn't we do just as well as our neighbor to the north? Don't we have more resources than they have? Don't we have more research institutions than they have? Can't we do just as well as the Canadians? Well, if we had done as well as the Canadians, 135,000 fewer Americans would have died if we had the same deaths per capita as the Canadians. There are 135,000 deaths lying at the doorstep of the Oval Office and this Chamber, sitting on its hands for the last 5 months-- not investing in testing and tracing, not insisting we have an aggressive strategy from the very start, and working in partnership with the incompetence of the President to make the pandemic so much worse for America. There are so many more people infected, so many more people dead, and so many people damaged for a lifetime by the experience of being sick with coronavirus and then having lasting side effects. And what else? Country after country is putting their economy back together because they don't have coronavirus in any significant numbers anymore--Taiwan and South Korea. But as long as you have this pandemic, you damage the economy. So not only have people died and people suffered with the illness and not only will they carry consequences forward, but the number of people who have lost their jobs--that is a big deal. Just last week, we saw the highest jump in jobless claims since August with about 900,000 Americans filing for unemployment. I live in a blue-collar community. I grew up in a blue-collar community. My dad was a mechanic. I went to the public schools. My kids went to the same public schools. I can tell you that those lost jobs affect those who have the least resources to tide them over. Back in April, 40 percent of the people who earned $40,000 or less lost a job. That was in April. So there is a lot of suffering going on economically, as well as in healthcare. We need to do everything in our power to help those families weather this storm--not sit on our hands for 5 months and not talk about the emaciated package that was put on the floor, one that is cutting to a fraction the previous Republican package, which was pretty darn skinny. We have a responsibility to address unemployment insurance that has tied hard-working blue-collar Americans through. I know that for many of my colleagues, all they want is to rebuild the economy from the rich down--from Wall Street down. But do you know what? That just increases the wealth and income inequality. Do you know how effective those extra unemployment checks were in keeping people working and buying products because then other companies were employed and they could pay their mortgages, they could pay their utilities, they could pay their rent, they could buy their groceries, and keep the economy moving? But the extension of that has been blocked by the leadership of this body. The leadership of this body, the majority party, has refused to invest in that national strategy of testing and tracing, which is essential in every country that has gotten ahead of the coronavirus. They are restoring their economies. They are supercharging their economies because the disease is out of the way. They invested in testing and tracing, but the leadership of this Chamber has ensured the pandemic gets worse and afflicted our economy in the process. It may not matter to rich folks across this country who have seen their S&P 500 index go through the roof. Why is it going through the roof? Because those companies are replacing the products produced by small business across America. Hundreds of thousands of small businesses have been ravaged and destroyed by this lost economy. OK, the S&P 500 is doing fine; your stock portfolio is doing fine. But Americans--ordinary Americans are not doing fine. The majority in this Chamber did not want to increase the Medicaid matching rate to strengthen healthcare across this country. Why is it so important? Because the States have lost so many revenues during this downturn, and in the process, people losing their jobs lose their employer-based health insurance and, therefore, need to qualify for Medicaid. On and on, one issue after another--it is an issue of basic decency and of basic humanity to address the challenges Americans are faced with because of the incompetence of the President's efforts to address the pandemic, and it has produced, therefore, an economy that is just a shambles. One of the things that ordinary families face is having their utilities cut off. We know how essential it is to have water, to have electricity, and to have broadband to get through this. This whole crisis has shined a light on the importance of broadband. That broadband is necessary to apply for employment. That broadband is necessary for the school children to go to class. That broadband is necessary for the college students to go to class. That broadband is necessary for every family to stay in contact with their friends and family. That broadband is necessary to follow the national news. It is at the heart of the communications of America, so cutting it off is unacceptable. Turning off the electricity is unacceptable. You can't have a computer or broadband if electricity is turned off. You can't have light and heat as winter approaches if it is turned off. Water is essential to health. You can't have basic sanitation if you don't have access to water. So let's make sure we protect ordinary families. Let's make sure they have the electricity, they have the water, and they have the broadband. Let's not let American families be put at such risk. Now, yes, there are States and cities that have taken action and produced such moratoriums, but aren't we all America together? Instead of a patchwork of neighborhoods that got some help and protection and ones that didn't, why don't we stand together as Americans and protect the utilities? That is what we should be doing right now with a robust bill--a robust bill to address the pandemic and to address the economic implosion. So, Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the HELP Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 4362 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered and read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. MERKLEY. Let the record note that my colleague--

Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you very much. To my colleague from Wyoming, would you yield for a question?

Mr. MERKLEY. To my colleague from Georgia, do you have additional remarks to make?