Jeff Merkley

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, in the State of the Union, President Trump has told the story of Rachel Wiggins who had lost out to private equity 20 times in trying to buy a house. After all, it is very hard to compete against an all-cash offer, fast closing, no inspection. The President said: I am asking Congress to act because we want homes for people, not corporations. And the Senate did act, and they included in a bill--the ROAD to Housing Act--an element--and my compliments to my colleague from Ohio and my colleague from Massachusetts who worked together to get the element into that bill. But right now down the hall, private equity is lobbying like hell to make sure that element never passes. We have an opportunity tonight to send a message that we agree with the President, that we have a challenge in home ownership because home ownership is dying, and one of the factors is private equity buying up the homes.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, let's pass this amendment and restore home ownership.

Mr. MERKLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays. Vote on Amendment No. 5235

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President. I would like to thank the Democratic staff of the Senate Budget Committee for all their hard work on this resolution, both through extensive preparation and diligent staff work during floor consideration. Staff includes: Ben Ward, Mike Jones, Jill Harrelson, Josh Smith, Tyler Evilsizer, Melissa Kaplan-Pistiner, Misha Rafiq, Brian Lyons, Anna Barnes, Connor Jennings, Ethan Rosenkranz, Andrew Cobian, Anirudh Srirangam, Fiona Forrester, Lauran Pauley, Hilary Gelfond-Gross, Madilyn Shirley, John Bratton, and Mina Shahinfar.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Madilyn Shirley, Mina Shahinfar, and John Bratton of the Budget Committee minority staff be granted floor privileges during consideration of S. Con. Res. 33.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today because our Republican colleagues have introduced a new budget resolution to yet again utilize a special process called reconciliation. We just voted a short while ago on a motion to proceed. That motion to proceed succeeded along purely party lines, and that takes us into the realm of this special device called reconciliation. Just 10 months ago, we already had a reconciliation bill that is sometimes called H.R. 1. President Trump called it the One Big Beautiful Bill, but much of America has a different name for it. They call it the Big Ugly Betrayal. Why? Because it betrayed families in America to fund tax breaks for billionaires, and in the process, it added to our national debt. It slashed $1 trillion from healthcare programs for families. It kicked 15 million Americans off of their health insurance. It took food off the plates of more than 3 million families with children. Why? To give away the Treasury to the richest Americans. What other phrase could possibly describe this other than ``families lose, and billionaires win''? But it isn't just today's families who lose from that bill; it is the families of the next generation because that bill added, according to the Congressional Budget Office's independent, nonpartisan estimate, $30 trillion to our national debt over 30 years, and that is only if their inflation or interest rates are accurate. They note that, in general, their assumption was that interest would not go above 4 percent, but at 1 percent higher, that $30 trillion in debt for the next generation, which essentially doubles our national debt, would instead be adding an additional $50 trillion. I am sharing this because this bill--this second reconciliation bill during the Trump administration--builds on the foundation of the first. The first one was ``families lose, and billionaires win,'' but could this bill possibly be different? Not only is this bill not different, but its entire existence involves a betrayal of this Senate Chamber because the bill is based on a provision in budget law from 1974, the Budget and Impoundment Control Act. Every single Senator who voted on that bill voted in favor of it-- Democrats and Republicans together--because the complete agreement was that it would be used only to decrease the deficit, and every single Member thought we needed to have an instrument to control the deficit. OK. Fine. Well and good. That was in 1974. But in 1996, Republicans decided they wanted to give away even more treasure to the richest Americans, so they said: The problem is we can't do that because it increases the deficit rather than decreases the deficit. There isn't a pathway to do it because we know we can't get 60 votes to close debate on giving away the Treasury to the richest Americans. So the then-leader, Robert Dole of Kansas, proceeded to appoint a Parliamentarian who had worked for him and who had also been around in 1974 and understood that the entire reconciliation was about reducing the deficit, and the result was a ruling that that core premise could be stood on its head. You could use reconciliation not to decrease deficits but to increase them. It meant you could do a massive tax bill giveaway to the richest Americans. That is at the foundation for both of the Bush tax cuts--or tax giveaways to the rich, maybe, to more accurately describe it--and to a similar bill that was done last year and to a similar bill that was done in the first Trump administration. So here we are. In addition to impacting tax legislation, this change saying that this special device that everyone agreed was only for decreasing the deficit could be used to increase the deficit meant that it could also be used in the fashion that it is being presented by my Republican colleagues today. So the pillars of that initial act are all being violated--the pillar that in the first 10 years, there could be no net deficit; that after the first 10 years, there could be no deficit in any individual account in any individual year; that the budget had to be based on real numbers, not phony numbers; and that the real numbers would come from an independent Agency set up by the bill at the Congressional Budget Office. But that bill last year, the ``Big Ugly Betrayal'' bill, toppled all of those pillars--immediate deficits, long-term deficits and long-term debt, using fake numbers on the analysis, all of it--so there is no foundation for accountability left. That is the background for what brings us to today and to the vote that was just held in which the majority party said: We are again going to present a bill that increases the deficit and increases debt. Wow. I must say this is not the way I would like to be celebrating our 250th anniversary. Wouldn't it be great if, on a bipartisan basis, we restored accountability to our national budget? Wouldn't that be a way to celebrate this anniversary and help create a foundation for the next generation to thrive rather than shortchanging the children of today, who will be adults in the near future, and shortchanging the children of the children of today? But there we are. Instead, the majority party has decided to celebrate our 250th anniversary by--well, by expanding secret police in America, because that is what the bill is all about that they have presented. We know what the foundations are for families to thrive. It is healthcare. It is housing. It is education. It is good-paying jobs. We know that you also need investments in infrastructure in order to make all of that happen. So will this bill that the majority just presented address the issues families are facing? Will it be designed to bring down the cost of groceries? No, it will not. Will it be designed to bring down the cost of healthcare, perhaps by restoring the tax credits that their last bill took away from millions of families? No, it will not. Will it be designed to bring down gas prices, which are more than $1 higher than before the war was launched on Iran? In my State of Oregon, a gallon of gas is over $5 and a gallon of diesel is over $6. This is the Bush tax on ordinary families. Was it designed to bring that down? No. How about to expand nutrition assistance--nutrition that was savaged in the ``Big Ugly Bill'' 10 months ago? Does this bill remedy that to help the children of America get enough to eat so they can actually study when they are in school? No, it does not. Does it address the mass shortage in housing that has resulted in really high rents? No, it doesn't help that either. How about investing in first-time home ownership to help restore the dream of home ownership because that dream has been dying? No, it doesn't address that either. How about helping the United States prepare for unexpected disasters--wildfires? floods? hurricanes? No, it doesn't do that. Does it, perhaps, reduce our debt? No, quite the opposite. It is unpaid for, and it increases our debt. So nothing to help working families; nothing to improve affordability--a major crisis across this country; nothing to reduce the deficit and debt. Instead, this bill is ICE and CBP--Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Customs and Border Protection--up to $140 billion. There is a set of instructions being sent to committee, and each committee is being told: You can spend up to $70 billion. Two committees. Seventy billion. That is up to $140 billion. But when I say that this bill is all about funding ICE and CBP, you might say: Wait, didn't we do that 10 months ago? Didn't Republicans, on party line, pass a bill to give massive amounts of money to ICE and CBP just 10 months ago? And your memory would be correct. This is the budget for ICE, and you can see that it increased modestly from 2017 to 2024, but look at this--an additional $75 billion, roughly equal to seven times its normal annual appropriation. So it funded also CBP in a very similar fashion--only gave an extra 65 billion to CBP. So 75 billion to ICE; 65 billion to Customs and Border Protection. Massive, mega increase in expanding Agencies that have been empowered by this administration to operate like secret police. So instead of this bill being used to address the concerns of families across America, this bill is being used to expand the operations of Trump's secret police. That is what this bill is. Now, of this massive amount of money that was provided 10 months ago, how much has been spent? Now, you would assume, because Republicans are coming back and saying: This is a top priority in America, that that money--that extra 75 billion for ICE and 65 billion for Customs and Border Protection--must have been spent. Well, now, the Office of Management and Budget, which is in the executive branch--it is run by Mr. Russell Vought, who was the chief architect of Project 2025 aimed at creating an authoritarian state-- they issue a report monthly. It is called monthly Report on Budget Execution. And the forms, for those of you who want the details, are called SF-133. We looked at those forms for this last month, and what those forms say is that 63 billion of the ICE spending has not been obligated yet. It is not even under contract. It isn't that it hasn't gone out the door; it is not even under contract. And of the 65 billion for CBP, 40 billion is not yet obligated. That means $103 billion of the money that Republicans gave to expand ICE and CBP is still available. So why the hell is the top priority in America getting another $70 to $140 billion for these two Agencies, as opposed to addressing all the significant national challenges that we have--all of the challenges that families have as they are pressed to the wall by the cost of fuel and the cost of healthcare and the cost of housing and the cost of medicine? Why isn't this bill addressing any of that? And instead it is providing $70 to $140 billion more for two Agencies that still are sitting on top of over $100 billion from last year's bill. I noted that the goal of this bill is to expand the secret police in America. Those are strong words because ICE and CBP were not secret police before this administration, but this administration changed their conduct. They turned them into a force that operates in secret and is terrorizing communities across this country--operating in secret wearing masks, operating in secret in uniforms without identification, operating in secret in vehicles that are unmarked and sometimes have had their license plates removed to make them as untraceable as possible, operating without warrants and crashing through people's doors, stopping citizens without cause--pulling their weapons, bashing out their windows, and dragging people out of their cars. These are the tactics of secret police around the world, and they are happening right here in America, right now. And in that cultivated manner of thuggery, they are not just pulling out their weapons; they are pulling the triggers. Ruben Ray Martinez-- shot dead. Renee Nicole Good--shot dead. Alex Pretti--shot dead. The day after Renee and Alex were shot dead in Minnesota, two individuals were shot sitting in their car just blocks from my house in Oregon. We didn't know that they were mortally injured because the administration wouldn't release any information. Thankfully, they did not die. The woman, on that occasion, was shot through the chest. The man was shot through the arm--sitting in their car just one day after Renee and Alex were shot in their car. It is certainly clear that what these two Agencies need is not more money. They are sitting on $100 billion-plus in unobligated funds. What they need is more accountability. That bill should be on the Senate floor--the one that says no face masks, no uniforms without ID, no vans without license plates or ID, no breaking down doors without warrants, no invading sensitive places like hospitals and churches and synagogues and mosques and daycares. That is the bill. What we need now is not more money. It is more accountability-- standard practices for the way public officials operate in a democratic republic. Instead, we now have standard practice of this administration for how secret police operate under an authoritarian organization. My colleagues across the aisle have said: Well, we need to fund these organizations because they aren't funded. Well, clearly, if they still have $100 billion sitting in the bank, sitting in their accounts with the government, they are funded. And as for the rest of Homeland Security, that is not funded because the House of Representatives killed the bill. In that case, I can thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who came together and said: Homeland Security isn't just about ICE and CBP. It is also about FEMA-- emergency management. It is also about TSA that provides support to get us through the airport. It is also about Cybersecurity, which is important. It is also about the Coast Guard. And the Coast Guard is so beloved in my home State of Oregon, as it is, I imagine, in every coastal city. And so every single Senator said: Yes, fund those four Agencies while we continue to debate both ICE and Customs and Border Protection. We all agreed. In fact, the Speaker of the House agreed and said send the bill over. And then it got over there, and he got cold feet. He got cold feet because he didn't have the support of President Trump, and he didn't have support of some Members of the most right- leaning wing of the Republican Party. That was the moment that Trump could have instantly made one phone call and that bill would have passed. So if they are not funded, it is because the President chose to keep them unfunded, and the House of Representatives chose to keep those additional Agencies--FEMA, TSA, Cybersecurity, and Coast Guard-- unfunded. In addition, this bill doesn't just provide 1 year of funding. It says: Fund them--that is, ICE and CBP--this additional funding on top of the $100 billion they still have--fund them for another 3 years. Now, I would like to just remind my colleagues how extraordinary this is. Reconciliation was never supposed to be about spending money. It was supposed to be about deficit reduction, but now, we are taking a bill that was in the regular appropriations process and funding two Agencies for 3 years--that is their plan. And that is simply wrong because it means we are saying that in this--the start of the second year of the Trump administration--they are going to fund these Agencies through Trump's entire administration. You know where this leads. There will be another administration in the future, and they will say in the first year of the administration: Fund all 4 years. Hell, fund 5 years--1 year into my successor--fund that. What does that strip away? It strips away the accountability involved in the budget process. Further, going down the road, we are creating a vortex of unaccountable spending and debt and a failure--a failure--to restrain this type of massive misspending of American money. It is our treasure. Our treasure is being spent, not for the things that Americans are concerned about but for doubling down on the expansion of Trump's secret police. This vision of families lose and billionaires win began with Trump's inaugural speech. He didn't line up the champions for families behind him. There was no healthcare champion. There was no housing champion. There was no education champion. There was no champion for infrastructure in America. But there was a line of billionaires standing right behind the President. That is what this administration has been about: families lose and billionaires win. Well, there is a better vision for our Nation, and that better vision is families thrive and billionaires pay their fair share. That is a vision--in a government by and for the people--that all 100 Senators should be supporting: Families thrive, and the rich and well-off pay their fair share. Let's work toward that vision--not just in this year or in the year to come but for the next generation and the generation that follows.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, on February 28, in coordination with and at the urging of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Trump attacked Iran without congressional authorization--that is, without the authority required under our Constitution. Almost immediately, Hezbollah, Iran's proxy, engaged in a battle with Israel. Now we have Israel invading southern Lebanon. The Netanyahu government is exercising the same strategy they pursued in Gaza: Drop massive bombs, level entire towns, block routes for civilians to leave, and block access for humanitarian relief. And the United States? We are partners in this. We are complicit in this--not just because we partnered with Israel to ignite the war with Iran but because we sold the bombs and the bulldozers that Israel is using. We didn't stop supplying the Netanyahu government with weapons years ago even when it became clear that they were deliberately targeting homes, schools, and hospitals; when they were blocking deliveries of humanitarian aid, including water, food, and medicine; when the result was mass malnutrition, particularly among mothers and children and the elderly. We must not continue to be complicit in these tragedies by selling these tools of destruction--the bombs and the bulldozers--to Israel. The administration says: Let's sell them 12,000 more 1,000-pound bombs. Picture 12,000 1,000-pound bombs dropping on neighborhoods--that is what we are enabling--or a vast number of bulldozers to destroy homes and buildings. We have seen it in the West Bank--homes and villages bulldozed, ancient olive groves bulldozed--and now we are seeing it in Lebanon, with the Netanyahu government bragging about doing the same thing to Lebanon they did to Gaza: Make it uninhabitable. Let's be clear. Bulldozers are not defensive weapons. Recent satellite images of southern Lebanon show the Netanyahu government flattening towns, destroying bridges, cutting off civilian movement, and cutting off humanitarian access in a replay of the destruction we saw in Gaza, not to mention the Netanyahu government has supported settlers in their expansion, massive expansion, of outposts and settlements on Palestinian land in the West Bank, in their mass increase in construction of homes and villages, and most disturbing of all, supporting the settlers in their violent attacks on Palestinian communities--all of this in the goal of creating a greater Israel by destroying any prospect of a Palestinian state. Let's not forget, as my colleague from Maryland mentioned, it was a bulldozer operated by the Israeli Defense Forces that killed American citizen Rachel Corrie in Rafah in 2003--the first of 14 Americans citizens who have been killed by Israeli soldiers since then. Approving this sale of the bombs and bulldozers deepens our responsibility for these tragedies and for the suffering. Colleagues, when we became Senators, we swore an oath to take on the responsibilities designated to Congress in the Constitution, including the question of war. As Madison summarized: The Constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war and most prone to it. Thus, the Constitution has accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature. That is the Constitution we swore an oath to, and it is the Constitution that President Trump violated by launching a war without congressional authorization. In 1973, during the Vietnam war, Congress approved the War Powers Act to, in their words, ``fulfill the intent of the Framers of the Constitution'' and rein in the President from waging wars without congressional approval. The War Powers Act does allow the President to respond to an imminent threat that is ``a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories, possessions, or its Armed Forces.'' But in this case, no such condition existed and thus the violation of the Constitution. Yet, earlier today, my colleagues across the aisle voted to allow the President to continue to violate the law and violate the Constitution. When will we say enough is enough?

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute to close.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, let us today, all 100 Senators, uphold our oath to the Constitution. The indiscriminate use of American bombs in Iran and Lebanon and Gaza that targets civilians and infrastructure by Israel must end. We should not sell these bulldozers and these bombs to Israel. I urge my colleagues to vote for these two joint resolutions of disapproval.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I appreciate that my colleague from Ohio has come to the floor and said: Wouldn't it be great if we ensure that a paycheck is written for 2 weeks? I have a better idea. We have far more than 2 weeks left in this particular year. The funding year ends at the end of September, so we are talking about something closer to 26 weeks. While there might be a cheer for 2 weeks, there would also be a lot of dread, and people across the Nation would be going: So the proposal is to fund for 2 weeks while the majority sends us out for a 2-week break.

Mr. MERKLEY. Not until I finish my remarks, but thank you. And so there are going to be two proposals by my colleague. And in response to one, I am going to suggest that we free TSA as a hostage. TSA, right now, we are seeing hundreds of TSA agents quit because they are not being paid. We have seen thousands call in and say: I am not available for work today. They are probably sick from the stress of not receiving paychecks. We can alleviate that completely for the rest of this entire year--this entire fiscal year--with a proposal I will put forward in a moment. And then if my colleague has another proposal, well, we will consider that as well, but I will probably put forward a suggestion that we do all 26 weeks for TSA and FEMA and the Coast Guard and Cybersecurity. See, the debate where pushes come to shove is over ICE and CBP, and it is because of the rules of engagement under which they have acted have been so extraordinarily aggressive, terrorizing our communities. So the conversation still remains and is underway about ICE and CBP and the reforms.

Mr. MERKLEY. When I am done with my remarks. And so the key here is: Let's release these hostages because TSA is being held hostage by my colleagues across the aisle, and FEMA workers are being held as hostages--

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, and so I will just put forward the fact. I am not impugning anyone, just the fact that nine times Members of this body have come to the floor and asked unanimous consent to fund TSA. And an additional 12 times, Members of this body have come to the floor and asked that we fund all four of those Agencies--the Coast Guard and FEMA and Cybersecurity and TSA. So let's not continue to hold these hostages. And TSA, right now, is the one we are--

Mr. MERKLEY.--completely focused on--

Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you, Madam President. I will just cut to the chase here. Just as my colleague's heartfelt desire is to get those paychecks written, so I, too, want to see them written. At the moment, we see the TSA agents in high stress. Our airports are causing stress for people all through the Nation, so let's get that piece done right here, right now in this moment. Therefore, I would ask the Senator to modify your request so the Senate instead proceeds to immediate consideration of Calendar No. 362, S. 4127; that the bill which funds TSA be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, may I respond to my colleague's questions?

Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you. To his first question in which he sought to clarify that his proposal is retroactive--

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, speaking to my colleague through the Chair in the ancient Senate tradition, the answer to that, as I already pointed out, is that I am going to offer two proposals: One, that we fully fund TSA, and we do it not for 2 weeks but we do it for the balance of this year through September 30.

Mr. MERKLEY. And second proposal--

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, just because I am answering the question--

Mr. MERKLEY.--I think I have the floor for a question.

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, has my colleague from Ohio objected to funding TSA for the rest of the year?

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, has my colleague from Ohio objected to--

Mr. MERKLEY. His objection is heard?