Jeff Merkley

Mr. MERKLEY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I am pleased to be here on the floor in support of my colleague Senator Gillibrand's bill, the Congressional Accountability and Harassment Reform Act. I am pleased that so many Members of the Senate have supported the earlier version of the bill and are signing up to support this version as well. It has been 100 days since the House acted on a significant and substantive reform of the process here in Congress on how we address sexual harassment. There have been plenty of stories about how unacceptable the current system is. In spite of how far women's rights and equality have come in America, too many women continue to face inequality, discrimination, and harassment day in and day out. Our congressional workplace is not immune to that. The world is changing, and the world is changing quickly, and movements like the ``me too.'' campaign are finally giving women the voice they need to stand up and say no more. Yet, in spite of this tide of change, the Senate refuses to act on our unacceptably obscure, complex, and difficult system for staff members to address sexual harassment and discrimination--a system that is difficult to navigate and void of transparency. It needs to change. It must change. One hundred days ago, the House said absolutely it must change, and we have seen no bill allowed to come to the floor to address it in the Senate. The House did its duty. They put forward a vision of updating and strengthening procedures to protect women from sexual harassment and to address it, should it occur. Now it is time for the Senate to act, to hold ourselves to a much higher standard, to lead by example on Capitol Hill and for the rest of the Nation, to give those who work on our team who have been victimized by sexual harassment or discrimination a fair and transparent process to tell their stories, to pursue justice, to be free from the fear of professional or political retribution. That is exactly what the Congressional Accountability and Harassment Reform Act does. It requires sexual harassment awareness training. It simplifies a process for staffers to file complaints. It eliminates a mandatory, laborious process of required counseling and mediation. It protects a victim's option to publicly discuss their claims. It prohibits members found responsible for such behavior from using government funds--their office funds--to settle the claims, and it requires all settlements to be disclosed publicly unless the victim prefers otherwise. No longer would we be able to silence the victims or hide the misdeeds of the perpetrators from the American people. I understand Members on the floor of the Senate may say: I want to hide from my actions; I want to pay off any settlement with my government funds, but being able to hide from your actions is unacceptable, and using government funds to pay off the situation is completely unacceptable. Action is way past due. I am glad to join with my colleagues Senator Gillibrand, Senator Warren, Senator Harris, and Senator Murray--so many who have come into this battle of equality, fairness, and fighting for those who have been victimized. That is what this act is about, and it is not acceptable that for 100 days the leadership of this body has sat on this bill, blocking it from being considered. Let us recognize that we have a responsibility to our team members for fairness, for transparency, and for accountability and to bring this bill to the floor immediately.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my intern, Anabel Moreno-Mendez, be granted privileges of the floor for the remainder of the day.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, last year, in 2017, we watched a series of battles related to the very fundamental vision of our Constitution-- whether we are going to do the people's work or whether we are going to be a Senate run by the most powerful and privileged in America. There is no question how that came out. It was the powerful and the privileged. Three major things happened in 2017. The first was a health bill designed to destroy healthcare for some 30 million Americans, thereby also affecting everybody else by raising the costs of healthcare and putting our rural healthcare clinics and our rural hospitals out of business. That was a bill for the powerful and the privileged and against the people. Then we had the tax bill--a bill that borrows $1.5 trillion from the next generation. Our pages on the floor here are the next generation. We gave the bill to them and then gave the proceeds to the very richest of Americans, increasing and accelerating inequality in wages and inequality in wealth. That is legislation by and for the powerful--not we the people. Then we saw the theft of a Supreme Court seat, done directly to maintain a court case called Citizens United, which allows the wealthiest Americans to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to drown out the voices of the people here in our democratic republic. That is government by and for the powerful and the privileged instead of we the people. Wouldn't it be amazing if this Chamber actually believed in this Constitution--this vision of distributing power among the voting citizens--so we have, as Jefferson said, laws that reflect the will of the people? Here we are today with another issue that is a battle between the vision of our Constitution and government by and for the powerful. It is called net neutrality What is net neutrality? It is making the internet a place where we can all participate on an equal foundation, with the freedom to have a full right to participate in the information world of today and tomorrow and a full opportunity to participate on a level playing field in the economic battleground of today and tomorrow. Freedom is what net neutrality is about. This is what the Federal Communications Commission wants: It wants to have a fast lane for the rich and the powerful, and it wants to have a slow lane, where you are hardly moving at all, for all the rest of us-- all of working America, stuck here in a congested internet while they sell off the fast lane to the wealthiest. That is what this is about. The FCC, or the Federal Communications Commission, proceeded in its decision to take away equality on the internet, to ignore the technical experts, to produce studies that are debunked by the experts, and to conduct a fraudulent public comment period where bots, or robotized comments, were filing fake comments by the millions. They didn't even want America to be able to weigh in legitimately. We said: Redo the comment period and put up an interface to stop the bots so real people can weigh in. You could have real input from real Americans. That is ``we the people'' government. The FCC said: No way, because we are bent on our track. What was their track? To allow discrimination on the internet by the type of user, to allow discrimination on the internet based on the type of business or the type of social content, to allow discrimination on the internet by the type of website, to allow discrimination by the type of platform or by using an iPhone or a desktop, to allow discrimination based on the software application--is it Safari or is it Google? Why is that? Because the internet service providers can sell, through that license to discriminate, a fast lane to the rich and powerful while the rest of us are stuck in traffic. It is totally unfair. People in America get it. They understand that this is the opposite of what it means to have a government that reflects the will of the people. If we go back to our Founders, James Madison said: ``The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty.'' ``The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the guardian of true liberty.'' But today a sizable share of the Members of the Senate want to shut down advancement and diffusion of knowledge on a level playing field and sell our right to equality to the highest bidder. They want to put the modern user--the student, the child, the math teacher, the entrepreneur, the small business--they want to lock them in chains and say: We are taking away your freedom to participate in the public square on an equal basis. That is simply wrong. We know it is wrong because millions of Americans have weighed in. On some days in my office, I have had phone calls that are 100 to 1-- 1 or 2 or 3 people arguing: Sure, let the powerful sell off our freedom. But for every 1 of those folks, there are 100 citizens saying: No way, fight for fairness. Fight for equality. Fight for our freedom to participate on a level playing field. We hear it from all kinds of small businesses. More than 6,000 have formally weighed in. We hear it from all kinds of organizations. I hear it from the Realtors. I hear it from the restaurant owners. Everyone who isn't one of the superelite in America wants equal participation and freedom on the internet, but there is a whole host of colleagues today who are considering voting for the elite and rich and powerful over their constituents. I encourage you to rethink your priorities because we have a responsibility, under our Constitution, to do government by and for the people, not the powerful. We have heard from chiropractors. We have heard from people who perform at music venues. We have heard from graphic design artists. We have heard from medical startups. We have heard from everyone across the spectrum saying: Give me a fair chance to compete. A fair chance to compete is an American value. Let us not trounce that value into the mud today. I anticipate that at 3 p.m. we are going to have a vote on this floor, and the majority of this Senate--a slim majority--is going to fight for freedom, and the rest are going to say: No way, I am not fighting for freedom. I am fighting for the big and powerful people in America. That is just wrong. Then this bill will go to the House. When it goes to the House, there will be another battle. So having won here by a slim margin--a slim, bipartisan margin--we have to win in the House, which means that we need the American people to weigh in. Here is the thing. The rich and powerful really want to win the fight. Oh, they are going to be spending a lot of money to win this fight. They are going to be sending a lot of lobbyists down the hall to win this fight. So we have to have the people of America weigh in and let them know across the hall, down the hall, down this road to the House that as the people's House, they should do the people's business. Let's set the example here in the Senate. Let's not have a slim majority fight for freedom for Americans. Let's have the entire body weigh in with a robust, extensive majority, fighting--fighting--for freedom on the internet. Let's win this battle today, and let's win it in a few days down the hall. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, we have all heard the sad news. While we were back in our districts last week, our Assistant Parliamentarian, Michael Phillip Beaver, passed away unexpectedly at the very young age of 39. Family and friends gathered this morning to celebrate his life. Born in Mount Pleasant, he was the son of Linda Susan Beaver and William R. Beaver. He was a graduate of Saint Vincent College, where he studied political science with a minor in graphic design, and he earned his juris doctorate from the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law. He was a member of the Ohio and the California State Bar Associations. Most recently, he served here in this Chamber as the Assistant Parliamentarian. Prior to that, he served as the deputy legislative counsel for the State of California. Aside from being a brilliant attorney, Michael was passionate about hockey and music. He was a talented cook, an avid gardener, and a gifted artist. He was a loving husband to his wife, Gilda, and was a caring, fun, and patient father to his two young boys, Bradley Dastan Beaver, age 3, and Connor Milad Beaver, age 2. It is hard to believe that an unexpected medical condition could end his life so soon at the age of 39. He was contributing so much to the United States and so much to his family. We will greatly miss him here as I know he will be missed by a very wide expanse of family and friends and community. Mr. President, I come to the floor to address one aspect of our ``we the people'' Nation. In writing the Constitution, our forefathers put those words, ``We the people,'' in supersized font, so even if you are far away and you can't read the fine print, you know the mission statement of our Constitution. It was all about, as President Lincoln summarized, a ``government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people,'' always intended to be the opposite of governments by and for the powerful. Yet what have we seen in 2017? Much of the year was spent on a healthcare bill designed to destroy healthcare for some 22 to 30 million Americans. That is not government by the people or for the people; that is government by and for the powerful. We saw a tax bill that borrowed $1.5 trillion from the people of the United States--which our children will have to repay--and gave it to the wealthiest Americans. That is not government by and for the people; that is government by and for the powerful. We saw the theft of a Supreme Court seat for the first time in our history--a Supreme Court seat sent when it was vacated by the death of Antonin Scalia from one Presidency to the next, more than a year in the future in order to sustain a 5-to-4 Court decision called Citizens United, which allows a powerful America to spend unlimited sums, contaminating our political system with hundreds of millions of dollars, corrupting this Nation. That is not government of, by, and for the people; that is government of, by, and for the powerful. Now we see the ongoing effort to pack the courts. Although I have heard complaints from some of my Republican colleagues about the slow pace of nominees, we see that the pace is very fast compared to the pace that existed for President Obama. For the first 14 circuit court nominations, they waited under President Obama an average of 251 days, but under President Trump, in less than half the time at 125 days--a breakneck pace--we have seen more nominees confirmed. If we compare from the start of the Presidency to this far into the Presidency under President Obama, we had a total of 21 nominees--9 circuit court nominees, 11 district court nominees, and 1 Supreme Court nominee, totaling 21. We see that under President Trump there are confirmations for 15 circuit court nominees, 17 district court nominees, and the filling of a Supreme Court seat, a stolen seat. There are 33--12 more-- and more than 50 percent faster. So the argument that anything is being slow-walked is completely false. We see all kinds of efforts, though, to rush nominees through without proper consideration. Last year, we had cloture votes on four circuit court nominees in a single week. We had cloture filled on three nominees within hours of being reported out of committee--and not reported out of committee unanimously but with divided votes. We know that when something comes out of the committee, there needs to be time for the rest of the body to be able to exercise their efforts to understand the background of that nominee. Often new information is turned up. For example, with Brett Talley--nominated for the district court--after he came out of committee, then it became known that he had written controversial commentaries defending the KKK, and he had belittled the Sandy Hook tragedy where little children were slaughtered. We found that out after he came out of committee. Yet cloture is being filed right after nominations come out of committee. We even had an individual who was rated ``not qualified'' by the American Bar Association. That, my colleagues, is rare. The tradition of bipartisanship and cooperation involving the blue slip goes back a long way--since about 1917, a little more than a century. Senator Thomas Hardwick objected to President Wilson's district court nominee. He wrote on a blue slip of paper, saying: ``I object to this appointment--the same is personally offensive and objectionable to me, and I can not consent to the confirmation of the nominee.'' Thus began the blue-slip tradition of courtesy and respect for the viewpoint of Senators from a variety of States. Under President Obama the blue slips were honored, whether they came from a Democrat or from a Republican. In fact, 18 of President Obama's nominees were blocked by Republican blue slips because they were honored by the Democrats. In 2009, we had a letter from my Republican colleagues, and it said about the practice of observing senatorial courtesy that ``we, as a Conference, expect it to be observed, even-handedly and regardless of party affiliation.'' Isn't the sentiment expressed in 2009 appropriate for 2018? Let me state that in the history of these 100 years, not a single nominee has been approved over the objection of two Senators from the relevant State. The former Republican chairman, Senator Hatch, said: Weakening or eliminating the blue slip process would sweep aside the last remaining check on the President's judicial appointment power. Anyone serious about the Senate's constitutional ``advice and consent'' role knows how disastrous such a move would be. I would like to know how many folks in this Chamber are still serious about the Senate's constitutional advice and consent role. Chairman Grassley said in 2015: This tradition is designed to encourage outstanding nominees and consensus. . . . I appreciate the value of the blue-slip process and also intend to honor it. He did honor it while President Obama was in office, but now, apparently, the world is a different place. Look what is happening on the Senate floor this week. We have a nominee, Michael Brennan, whose views on women's rights, civil rights, education, criminal justice, sexual discrimination, and judicial precedent are out of the mainstream. His nomination has moved forward despite the opposition and over the objections of a home State Senator. This is a seat, by the way, that is open because the blue-slip process was honored. The objection through a blue slip was honored under President Obama. There are more extreme nominees coming through. So if we think back to that point made by Senator Grassley that ``the tradition is designed to encourage outstanding nominees and consensus,'' we are seeing that the decision not to honor it is doing the reverse. There is Kurt Engelhardt, a nominee for the Fifth Circuit. His record on the district court is deeply troubling, particularly when it comes to cases regarding sexual harassment, discrimination, civil rights, discriminating against women in the workforce who choose to have children--a right that should be open to every American woman without fear of losing one's job. Yet, last night, this body voted for cloture and is sending his nomination to a final vote. We have Joel Carson, nominee for the Tenth Circuit, who has spent most of his career deeply embedded in advocating for fossil fuel interests. That is a huge conflict of interest for being able to weigh in as a judge on any issue regarding energy. Then we have the case in Oregon. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing for Mr. Ryan Bounds tomorrow, despite the fact that Senator Wyden and I have not returned our blue slips. Should this nomination come forward to this floor and be confirmed, this will be the first time in the history of the blue slips that the combined objections of both home State Senators have been ignored. One might ask: Why is it that Senator Wyden and I feel so strongly about this particular nominee? Well, first, the White House didn't consult with us. They brought him in for an interview and decided they were going to nominate him without consulting the home State Senators. Any Member of this body who wants to stand up for consultation would stand against this nomination. Oh, the White House says that they consulted. They have a very strange definition of consultation. I think they mean it to say that they informed us about their decision. We asked the White House to stand aside until our committee back in Oregon had completed its work, but they chose not to. That is not consultation. There are the inflammatory writings of this individual regarding the rights of workers, people of color, and the LGBTQ community. The Alliance for Justice said in their report on this nominee, Mr. Ryan Bounds, that his ``writings reveal strong biases that call into question his ability to fairly apply the law and maintain confidence in the justice system's ability to dispense even-handed justice to all.'' Shouldn't that be the heart of the nomination process, that we make sure we are sending forward individuals who add to the integrity of our judicial system, not individuals who take away from it? During his interviews with our committee out in Oregon--this committee continued its work, even though the President nominated him without waiting for the committee to finish its work. The committee asked him if he had controversial writings or events in his life that he needed to disclose, and he said that he did not. He did not disclose them. This is not an ancient failure of integrity; this is an immediate, recent past failure of transparency and integrity. The letter we received from the chair of Oregon's Federal Judicial Selection Advisory Committee states: I am writing to you as Chair of the [Oregon] Federal Judicial Selection Advisory Committee. I have reviewed a recent piece in the Wall Street Journal titled ``Give Amnesty for College Writings.'' The piece concerns Ryan Bounds, a candidate for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacancy, and specifically states that our committee recommended him. The piece notes Mr. Bounds' writings, but fails to point out Mr. Bounds never disclosed those writings to the committee at any point in the interview process. Since that time, I have heard from four members of the judicial selection committee specifically with regard to this omission. I can say with confidence that those four committee members as well as myself would not have ranked Mr. Bounds as we did had we known about these deeply troubling writings. Mr. Bounds' writings themselves are objectionable not only for the views they express, but for the intemperate and demeaning tone that he uses to express his opinion. Equally, if not more disturbing, Mr. Bounds failed to disclose these writings when specifically asked by the committee about his views on equity and diversity. Although he felt free to volunteer details about his life going back to childhood, he misled the committee in response to this important inquiry. For this reason, five of the seven committee members no longer recommend Mr. Bounds. That is what we heard from the Oregon committee. We have a responsibility to the institutions of governance of the United States of America, with the fundamental principle embedded in those three words: ``We the People''--government of, by, and for the people. We have seen a series of significant bills where it is the exact opposite of this: bills designed to destroy healthcare for millions of Americans, bills that put us deep in debt in order to deliver the proceeds to the richest Americans. It is perhaps the biggest bank heist in the history of the world. Now we see an effort to sully the integrity, to damage the legitimacy of our courts. That is unacceptable, and we need to rethink our course and honor our responsibility to strengthen, not undermine, the beautiful architecture of our ``we the people'' Nation. Thank you.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I regret that, due to unforeseeable flight delays, I was unable to make it back here to Washington in time for the cloture vote on Kurt Engelhardt's nomination for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Had I been present, I would have voted against cloture. His record on the district court is deeply troubling, particularly those concerning sexual harassment, religious discrimination, civil rights, and discriminating against women who choose to have children in the workforce--a right that should be open to every American woman without fear of losing one's job. In Mr. Engelhardt's court, ogling, groping, making suggestive comments, and talking about a woman's appearance do not constitute sexual harassment or a hostile work environment. In Mr. Engelhardt's court, a woman who is ordered by her doctor to be on bedrest can be fired 2 weeks after giving birth because ``the fact that Plaintiff's absences were caused by pregnancy does not dispense with the general requirement that employees must show up for work.'' Then there is Judge Engelhardt's extremely disturbing ruling overturning the convictions of five former New Orleans police officers in the Danziger Bridge case. This was a case that was described at the time as ``the most significant police misconduct prosecution since Rodney King,'' but Mr. Engelhardt overturned the convictions because three of the prosecutors wrote anonymous blog posts, even though the judge acknowledged that there was no evidence that any of the jurors had ever read these posts. Mr. Engelhardt's ruling in the Danziger Bridge case is exactly the kind of action that makes so many Americans distrust our criminal justice system and amplifies the racial inequalities that exist in it. Too many Americans have been denied justice in Mr. Engelhardt's court for the Members of the U.S. Senate to reward and elevate him to a position of higher authority. Therefore, I would like it to be known on the record that I oppose Judge Engelhardt's nomination to serve on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and would have voted in the negative had I been able to be here.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, if I can wrap up in two sentences, I will say that this web of deceit is enormously damaging to our Nation. Let's call it out. Let's have an actual debate based on the science and not let the Koch brothers do what the tobacco industry did and mislead the American public decade after decade after decade to the great damage of the citizens of this great country.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, if I told you that a cabal of wealthy elites and special interests were spinning a web of deceit to lie to the American people and to rig the levers of power in their favor, you would think I was talking about the plot of some movie, some TV show, or some novel. But, as Senator Whitehouse and several of our colleagues have come to the floor to demonstrate this past week, this isn't about the plot of a movie; this is real life that it is happening here right now, and it is important that we as Americans and we as Members of the Senate face it squarely and understand how this manipulation is being designed to take our ``we the people'' Constitution and turn it on its head--turn it into a government of, by, and for the powerful rather than of, by, and for the people. Today, I am going to share with you a little bit of information about one piece of this web of deceit, and that is the Heritage Foundation. It is a well-known name here in Washington after decades of engaging in a mission of formulating and promoting rightwing public policies. People hear ``Heritage Foundation,'' and they know what it is. As Jane Mayer writes in her book ``Dark Money,'' it was created to be ``purposefully political, priding itself on creating, selling, and injecting conservative ideas into the American mainstream.'' Well, that is a more complicated way of saying that it was created to be an advocate for the fossil fuel industry and to mislead Americans in every possible way in order for them to continue their deeply damaging and polluting ways. Ms. Mayer goes on to describe the organization as a ``political weapon'' disguised as a think tank, and that pretty much sums it up. One of the organization's founders, Paul Weyrich, once said about solidifying power for the biggest corporations and wealthiest Americans: I don't want everybody to vote. . . . As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.'' Thus there is this intense support to engage in voter suppression. If you are a red-blooded American, you believe in the vision of voter empowerment, not voter suppression. So that says a lot about what this organization is all about. It is not we the people, it is not voters empowerment but rigging this Nation and this process for the powerful and the privileged. The papers, reports, and journals that come from the Heritage Foundation work to muddy the water on established science. I did find it interesting that every now and then they promote an idea that actually makes some sense. Back in 1989 they promoted, in a publication entitled ``Ensuring Affordable Healthcare for all Americans,'' a plan to establish a marketplace with tax credits to enable people to be able to help buy policies. This was the foundation for RomneyCare in Massachusetts, and it became the foundation then for the Affordable Care Act. In fact, back then, long before the Affordable Care Act came along, people like House Speaker Newt Gingrich, whenever he talked about the possibility of improving government healthcare, he talked about the Heritage Foundation's plan for a marketplace, but the moment an administration came along that happened to be a Democratic administration that took that idea seriously, the Heritage Foundation immediately abandoned it, which goes to my point that they are engaged directly in the game of politics on behalf of the Koch brothers' cabal and sabotaging, in a partisan and political way, the blue team at any possible moment. In one brief, Heritage explained away their change of heart saying: ``Analysts once supported a limited and qualified insurance mandate'' but now believed it was ``bad public policy'' because the mandate came from the Heritage Foundation. In 2012, Stuart Butler, the Heritage Foundation researcher who authored the original publication calling for an individual mandate, wrote an op-ed saying he had changed his mind, and he titled it, ``Don't blame Heritage for `ObamaCare' mandate.'' Well, why not? They put the idea forward. It actually was a key principle of insurance marketplaces, otherwise you created an insurance death cycle. So they put the idea forward. They promoted the marketplace. They said this is what is necessary, and then they abandoned it, when it was advantageous, to a partisan, political attack. In fact, the then-president, former Senator Jim DeMint, went out in 2013 on a multi-State tour to basically drive up support for stopping the very idea that Heritage had initiated. They certainly have gone out of their way in this effort for voter suppression, which is a complete affront to the most fundamental and basic right of our Nation. In reports, they make claims like ``there is no credible evidence that voter-ID laws have impeded turnout, especially among minorities and Democrats, as their opponents suggest.'' Well, of course, the exact opposite is true. In regard to North Carolina, they said that ``there has been no `suppression' of the turnout of North Carolina voters by any of these reform measures.'' OK. Not true. In fact, it was exactly the intent of impeding the turnout that was debated in the North Carolina Legislature. That was the heart of why they undertook it. In fact, when the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed it, they described it as ``almost surgical precision'' in the way it was targeted at suppressing the vote by minority voters. The U.S. Supreme Court reviewed it and they refused to hear a case appealing the lower court's ruling. Then there is the real heart of this web of deceit; that is, the Heritage Foundation's decades of efforts to say that carbon dioxide pollution is just fine, don't worry. I think about how back in 1959, Edward Teller was addressing the 100- year anniversary of the oil industry. They invited him to speak, as an eminent scientist, and he said many good things about the role that burning fossil fuels could do to amplify the energy in America, but he also said there are two challenges this industry has. The first challenge is that there is a limited amount of fossil fuels in the ground and someday we will run up against that shortfall and we will have to switch to other forms of energy. It turned out there was a lot more fossil fuels around the planet than we ever anticipated in 1959. The second point he made was, you know, this may not seem like a pollutant because you can't smell it--this carbon dioxide--you can't see it, but it has the intriguing and problematic characteristic in that carbon dioxide traps heat. It traps infrared energy. As a consequence, it is going to cause great disturbances as it builds up in the atmosphere. He specifically talked about its effect on the Poles in raising temperatures, melting ice, and raising sea levels. Today we know it has many more impacts that Teller didn't elaborate on back in 1959 but come from this warming impact. We have seen global temperatures reach a record year after year after year, with some 17 of the hottest years occurring in the last 18 years, which is a phenomenal indication of the direction we are headed. When I was running for office, a billion baby oysters died in Oregon at a hatchery not because of a virus but because the acidity of the water had grown 30 percent over the course of the Industrial Revolution burning fossil fuels. How is that connected? It is because burning the fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide. The wave action takes that carbon dioxide and turns it into carbonic acid, and now we have a massive flow of acid into the oceans--enough to change its acidity level by 30 percent, enough to kill baby oysters because it is so difficult to start extracting the chemicals for a shell out of the water when the acidic level is so much higher. We have seen the impact on our coral reefs--the ocean acidity combined with the temperature of the ocean. As many already understand, coral is an animal that lives in a symbiotic relationship with algae. When the temperature of the ocean gets warmer, the algae overwhelms the coral, the coral expels it and basically commits suicide. It is called bleaching. They throw the symbiotic algae out, and then the coral dies, and the acidity adds to that difficulty of the coral forming the coral structure itself. Lastly, we were sent a huge message by Mother Nature. Remember, Harvey and Irma and Maria, three dramatic hurricanes all hitting the United States of America. Why did they carry so much punch? They carried it because 90 percent of the heat that is trapped by global warming is trapped in the ocean, and that greater energy in the ocean then produces stronger hurricanes. If that wasn't enough, we had those raging forest fires from Montana on through to the northwest corner of Washington State, down through Oregon, deep into California and way late in the season, clear to December--a much longer season. Many acres burned in those fierce fires. So whether it was hurricanes or raging forest fires, Mother Nature is trying to say something is dramatically wrong, and you better act. The Heritage Foundation is there for political purposes. They are there to do the Koch brothers' bidding. So their purpose is to sow doubt, mislead Americans. It is like the tobacco industry misleading Americans about the fact that smoking cigarettes causes cancer. In the course of their greed, they are damaging the world in a colossal way, and we have to call them out. We have to strip away their pretense to be serious about policy and know what it is all about: the greed of the fossil fuel industry for short-term profits while deeply damaging this beautiful, blue-green planet that we have the responsibility to protect. They said climate change is ``a potentially serious issue'' that ``might cause problems in the future, but the impacts cannot be determined with any degree of certainty.'' What a colossal lie. It is not ``potential.'' It is here now. It is not ``might cause problems.'' It is causing problems. Scientists do measure it in all kinds of ways. They measure it with a thermometer when they measure the temperature of the air and water. They measure it with a yardstick when they measure the oceans, and they measure it with the movement of insects and animals that we see all throughout our Nation, from the spread of diseases like Zika to the spread of challenges like the pine beetle in the Northwest and the ticks in the Northeast. They blatantly distort and misrepresent the truth. They did this on a Royal Society's statement on climate. They edited it to change a powerful statement about the problem into one that casts doubt on the issue. They just did this. Now, let me explain that this is not--the Royal Society is not just any organization; this is the United Kingdom's national science academy and a fellowship of the world's most eminent scientists. It has been around since the 1660s, bringing scientific facts to policy debates. It included Sir Isaac Newton. It included Charles Darwin. It included Albert Einstein. It included Benjamin Franklin. It included the late Stephen Hawking. In 2010, the Heritage fellow, who happened to be a former Koch Foundation associate, just coincidentally, posted a blog on the foundation's site entitled ``U.S. Could Learn from U.K.'s Global Warming Reversal.'' The very title is saying the opposite of what the actual document said. It commented on this blog on a ``dramatic reversal'' of the Royal Society on climate, but the blog cut and pasted parts of the report to make it say the opposite of what it actually said. So 10 pages, 48 paragraphs, that laid out the impact of climate chaos were edited out in order to mischaracterize the Royal Society's conclusions. This is the type of truth-bending, misrepresentation, and outright lies the Heritage Foundation is involved in on behalf of the Koch brothers. The report summary even said the report ``shows that there is strong evidence''--this is the actual report, not the blog--``strong evidence of Earth's warming caused by human activity.'' The Heritage Foundation proceeds to say things like the ``hysteria over global warming is now pervasive in the federal government.'' They say ``hysteria'' because they want to dismiss it as some emotional response rather than the conclusion of virtually the entire scientific community. Every major scientific organization in the world weighing in on why it is they want to rein in EPA's regulatory excesses, what they say are--this is what they say: We want to rein in ``EPA's regulatory excesses with respect to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse-gas emissions'' and that the reining-in is ``long overdue.'' They go on to say: ``Congress should insist on preventing . . . regulators from mandating greenhouse-gas-emissions caps, or from using greenhouse-gas emissions as a means to promulgate a rule.'' In other words, what they are saying is, we are misconstruing the science, outright lying to the American people, to prevent Congress from responding to this dramatic impact on our country--not just on our country but on the world. They also proceed to misrepresent a lot of information about the impacts of oil drilling. There is a 1985 piece in Heritage Today entitled ``Offshore Oil Drilling: Good for the Economy. Great for the fish.'' According to the article, the fears of proponents of the ban on offshore drilling that ``another disaster like the Santa Barbara Channel spill in 1969, when [up to] two-million gallons of sepia- colored oil bubbled up from the ocean floor, covering hundreds of square miles of sea'' were not justified. Fears about another disaster were not justified. Why? They said because ``offshore oil and gas production is carefully regulated.'' It went on to say that ``every offshore operation must include three blow-out preventers and casings for drills; drills must be cemented into the surrounding earth.'' Then they said: ``Oil companies must submit an oil spill contingency plan'' and ``frequent safety inspections, scheduled and unscheduled, further reduce the risk of spills.'' Tell that to the crew of the Deepwater Horizon, because what we learned when we investigated what happened with Deepwater Horizon and what happened at other drilling platforms all around the gulf was the exact opposite of what the Heritage Foundation put forward on behalf of the Koch brothers and the fossil fuel business. What we really found out is that the blowout preventers were poorly designed. They failed. An explosion sunk the rig, and a sea floor gusher flowed for 87 days, 3 months. The Associated Press found that in the lead-up to the accident, Deepwater Horizon wasn't carefully regulated. It said a quarter of the required inspections were never carried out. It said the rig ``was allowed to operate without safety documentation'' that was required; that they had received five or six safety citations, the most serious of which occurred in 2002, ``when the rig was shut down because required pressure tests had not been conducted on the blowout preventer--the device that was supposed to stop oil from gushing out'' if things went wrong. The gulf coast is still trying to recover from this disaster: 4 to 8 billion harvestable oysters killed; 51,000 to 84,000 birds killed; 56,000 to 166,000 sea turtles killed; a 51-percent decrease in the dolphin population; an estimated $2 trillion to $5 trillion of newly hatched fish killed. The list goes on and on, hardly the vision the Heritage Foundation wanted to put forward. So how does this web of deceit work? Just follow the money. Since 1998, they have received a huge amount of support from the fossil fuel industry--$780,000 just from one company, ExxonMobil. Over the course of a number of years, the Koch Foundation gave more than $5.7 million to fund their work. There was an additional nearly $5 million received from the Claude R. Lambe Foundation, which happens to be one of the Koch Family Foundations. Heritage is also a member of the State Policy Network, a web of rightwing think tanks across the country that the Koch brothers own. Koch money is coming from every direction. Heritage Foundation is the puppet of the Koch cartel enterprise. That is only the tip of the iceberg of how this system works. We can trace back all of these pieces to the fossil fuel efforts to mislead the American public, to lie to the American public, and to spread doubt about actual scientific work. We see their connections all through the Trump administration. When the Koch brothers say jump, the President of the United States says: How high? Then he does whatever they ask. If they want Scott Pruitt as head of the EPA, that is who they are going to get. If they want the Congressman whom they have championed throughout his entire career to be our chief diplomat, that is what they get.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, Oregon is renowned for our beautiful places, and the view of the Columbia Gorge from Interstate 84 is one of the most stunning drives in the country. Oregonians and travelers alike are fortunate that, for a century now, we have been able to break from driving and take in the entire stunning view of the gorge from the Vista House. The idea came from Samuel Lancaster, supervisor of the Columbia River Highway project, who proposed to construct a building on the summit of Crown Point. He wanted travelers along the highway to feel inspired, and to make the wonders of the gorge accessible. The Vista House was built as a rest stop observatory on the old Columbia River Gorge Highway and as a memorial for Oregon's settlers, particularly those whose journey took them along the Columbia River. Described by its architect, Edgar M. Lazarus, as ``a temple to the natural beauty of the Gorge,'' Vista House has long been recognized for its historic significance and was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1974. From its vantage point 733 feet above the Columbia River, millions of travelers have enjoyed a step back in time and one of Oregon's most inspiring views. With the help of thousands of dedicated volunteers from Friends of Vista House, who tell visitors the fascinating history of the Vista House, this Oregon treasure has found its place in our Nation's history. I join all Oregonians in looking forward to another 100 years of celebrating Oregon's beauty and its history at the Vista House.

Mr. MERKLEY

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

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, we are at a critical moment in world history, filled with innumerable dangers and challenges. Russia is causing enormous trouble attacking the foundation of democracies around the world, interfering in our elections, developing new tools to move public opinion in countries other than its own while hiding behind robotic social commentaries. We have a nuclear-armed North Korea seeking legitimacy and recognition and critical talks about to occur over the effort to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula. Syria is not just in the grip of a civil war, it is in the grip of a fractured chaotic state as a result of the destruction of cities and towns throughout the nation, leaving them as destroyed shells of buildings with infrastructure completely decimated. We have a humanitarian crisis in Burma and Bangladesh with massive ethnic cleansing. We have four famines unfolding in Africa, with 20 million people at risk of starvation. In every place you look, there are more of these challenges related to corruption of foreign governments, to climate chaos, to civil conflict. We need a Secretary of State who can help navigate our country in these difficult times. We need to be able to work with neighbors around the world, with allies around the world, exercising diplomacy in partnership with the strength of the United States. I come to the floor to share that I have grave doubts that Mike Pompeo does not bring the right skills to this job. I am concerned about his choice of military action over diplomacy in a position that is supposed to bring the art of diplomacy to its full execution. I am concerned about his statements of disrespect and dishonor to the fundamental nature of our Constitution under the first article that calls for Congress to be able to open the door to the exercise of military power, not the President. I am concerned about his deep-rooted conflicts of interest that may prevent him from tackling one of the gravest threats to humans on this planet; namely, climate change. So I will be voting against his nomination and felt it only appropriate to share more of my concerns. Let's start with the issue of diplomacy. The United States led the world in working to stop the Iranian nuclear program, working with the P5+1 group of states and with Iran to say that such a program of developing the basic elements necessary for nuclear weapons was absolutely unacceptable and bringing to bear such international pressure that Iran said: We will agree to that. We will agree to that. We will dismantle our nuclear powerplant--our plutonium plant. We will fill it with concrete. We will proceed to eliminate the stockpile of uranium enriched up to 20 percent. They agreed to cut the stockpile of low-enriched uranium by 98 percent, to profoundly reduce its gas centrifuges, shutting down two-thirds of them. On top of that, Iran agreed to the most aggressive and furthest reaching inspections that the International Atomic Energy Agency has ever had in any agreement, giving us profound insights into the operation of their nuclear program or, to put it differently, profound insights into the operation of their program and the dismantlement of their program. Yet Director Pompeo has condemned this effort in diplomacy to stop the uranium program. He has told me it was unneeded because Iran wasn't pursuing a nuclear weapon. Well, quite interesting, but Iran was pursuing, clearly developing, all the elements necessary to have a nuclear weapon, and that represented a significant threat to the United States of America, and this agreement stops that threat in its tracks. So he condemned it, not just saying it wasn't necessary but that it showed negotiations occurred ``where we should have shown strength,'' and he said the United States ``bowed when we should have stood tall.'' What did he mean by that? He meant we didn't need an agreement in order to stop the Iranian nuclear program because we had something else. We had the sword that we could stop their nuclear program with, as he put it, ``2,000 sorties''--``2,000 sorties,'' he said, ``to destroy the Iranian nuclear capacity . . . is not an insurmountable task for [United States] coalition forces.'' Simply carrying the sword and saying we could stop other nations from doing things by bombing them is not the expertise we need in a Secretary of State. Then there is Mr. Pompeo's attacks on the Muslim community--falsely claiming that Islamic leaders in America were silent in the face of terrorist attacks like the Boston Marathon bombing. It was not true, but he chose to attack Muslim Americans--single them out for assault. He said they were ``complicit'' and failed in the ``commitment to peace,'' not even bothering to get the facts in advance. Then there is his longstanding opposition to equal rights for LGBTQ Americans. Much of what we try to do around the world is to lay out a vision of opportunity for all, and we should quit slamming doors in the faces of individuals around the globe who are pursuing personal happiness, opportunity, and success just as we try to end the door- slamming here at home--the discrimination, the prejudice, the hatred, the bigotry, but Mr. Pompeo engaged in calling the end of discrimination a ``shocking abuse of power'' when the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell. Not only that, but when he went to the CIA and the mother of Matthew Shepard was scheduled to give a speech on hate crimes, he canceled, at the last second, her speech. He did not want the mother of a victim of hate crimes to talk about the crime against an LGBT American strapped to a wire fence and left to die. Shouldn't that be exactly the sort of speech that should be given about our respect for all Americans and about how much we stand against hate crimes? So that is very disturbing, when you go into a world where respect for people of every religion, from every part of the world, is part of the negotiating power and strength of America. If you disrespect people, they do not join us in partnership to solve problems. So those are my concerns on the diplomacy side. I am also concerned that he expressed a complete lack of interest in the constitutional power invested in article I, which is the article for Congress to declare war. He indicated that the President had unlimited power in article II, which is the ability to conduct a war after Congress has authorized it, but he seemed to completely overlook that first step of congressional authorization. We have tried to encapsulate that congressional authorization in the War Powers Act, making it clear that the President cannot take us to war without a declaration of war or, second, without explicit authorization through something like an authorization for the use of military force or without a direct emergency involving an imminent attack on the United States, our assets, or our forces. It is the War Powers Act that embodies the heart of the Constitution about the conduct, the ability, and the limitations on the President to start a war. It is given to Congress to decide whether or not we can go to war, and Mr. Pompeo does not agree with that important, important congressional factor. I don't know, quite frankly, how one can take the oath of office and not respect the Constitution as it delivers that power to this body, not to the President. My third concern goes to the conflict of interest that he brought into consideration for this position. Specifically, it is the conflict of interest that he carries into his career through his very, very close association with the Koch brothers. He has been given the nickname ``the Congressman from Koch.'' The headquarters of Koch Industries is located in his district. The Koch brothers gave him the money to start his business. The Koch brothers were the biggest donors to his campaign. His entire career is carefully intertwined with the Koch brothers and advocating for whatever they wanted him to advocate for. What we see is that the Koch brothers are advocating against our working with other nations to take on the challenge of climate chaos. Now, Mother Nature sent us a big, rude awakening this last year with three powerful hurricanes tearing apart parts of our country and with forest fires stretching from Montana across to the Pacific Ocean and down the Pacific coast, deep into California, because of the carbon pollution that is warming the seas and changing the weather patterns and drying out our forests. We suffer that, but we see so much more. We see the moose dying. We see the lobsters migrating. We see the oysters unable to have babies. A billion of them died back about the time I took office here in the Senate because of the acidification of the ocean, coming from carbon pollution. The whole world is coming together to try to take on this problem, but Mr. Pompeo is uninterested in this major threat facing humanity. He supports our disengaging from the international community and taking this on. He is fine letting China take the lead and producing the economic results of taking the lead instead of the United States taking the lead and being engaged in these partnerships. So, colleagues, those are my concerns. We need an individual dedicated to the power of diplomacy, not someone who reaches first for the sword. We need an individual who respects different religions and respects the opportunity in the United States that we carry to the world as a beacon of freedom, not one who disrespects it. Third, we need an individual whose career is not tied to a single industry and whose outlook is to continue to protect that industry, even in taking this job. So for those reasons, this nomination should be turned down. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, the preamble of our Constitution lays out a vision that includes establishing justice and promoting the general welfare. Certainly we have the challenge in America of making sure the doors of opportunity are wide open and not slammed shut. For centuries, we have been working to try to make sure that vision comes into full realization, but today we are considering the nomination of Stuart Kyle Duncan to a lifetime appointment on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. This individual is not supportive of our constitutional vision of open doors; he is intent on slamming them shut--slamming them shut on all LGBTQ communities; slamming them shut on women seeking reproductive rights and healthcare; slamming opportunity shut on those who simply wish to vote in America in fulfillment of the vision of our constitutional democratic Republic; slamming the doors shut on those who are here and have been here legally, who are seeking to become citizens. Mr. Duncan is probably best known for his work on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, a landmark case opposing the ACA's requirement that employers provide insurance coverage opportunity for contraception and for undermining the healthcare of countless women across America. You might say: Didn't his side of this case win in the courts? Well, not for the reasons that this individual put forward. The Court rejected the arguments Kyle Duncan made. He refused to acknowledge the importance of birth control in women's lives, arguing that the government does not have a compelling interest in ensuring access to birth control without cost-sharing. The Court said that is wrong and that the government does have a compelling interest. Mr. Duncan argued that the Court was not required to consider the impact of this law--or the possibility of overturning it--on employees under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Every single member of the Court, whether in the majority or in the minority on the opinion, threw out that argument, reaffirming that burdens on third parties must be considered. Although the verdict came down on the side Mr. Duncan advocated for, the Court soundly rejected his arguments and his reasoning. After Hobby Lobby, he wrote an amicus brief in Zubik v. Burwell on behalf of Eternal World Television Network, a nonprofit seeking an exception from the ACA birth control benefit. He made some of those same arguments again, and again the Court rejected his reasoning and directed the government and all parties involved to arrive at an approach that ensures that affected women ``receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage.'' It is certainly a concern to have a nominee who wants to slam the door shut on the freedom of women to access the reproductive healthcare that they desire, but there is more door-slamming here than that. He is an ardent opponent to equality and opportunity for the LGBTQ community here in the United States of America. He is recognized as one of our Nation's leading opponents of opportunity for the LGBTQ community. He authored legal briefs opposing marriage equality in Obergefell v. Hodges, going so far as to question the legitimacy of the Supreme Court when the Court came down saying that ``love is love'' and that marriage equality is the law of the land under the Constitution of the United States of America. He called that decision ``an abject failure.'' I ask you, what kind of fairness do you anticipate from a judge who is ardently opposed to the freedom of opportunity for LGBTQ Americans, who condemns a previous decision of the Supreme Court as ``an abject failure,'' and who said that this decision would ``imperil civic peace''? He said: No one can possibly predict with any degree of confidence what are all the possible ramifications for our society that are going to take place. No one could have predicted all of the social pathologies from no-fault divorce. This is a far more radical change than no-fault divorce. He said that ``harms'' to our democracy from marriage equality ``would be severe, unavoidable, and irreversible.'' Certainly, he wanted to slam the door on marriage opportunity for LGBTQ Americans, but he made an outrageous argument that the concern of others should enable his court, as he envisioned it, to deprive Americans of the opportunity to marry the individual they love--no concern for the Constitution, just that some folks might find it uncomfortable. He made an extensive, hyperbolic, hysterical argument that it would completely debase society for people to be with the person they love. His attacks against the LGBTQ community go on and on, from introducing expert declarations in one case that characterized transgender Americans as ``delusional.'' If you have been characterized as delusional based on who you are and whom you love, what fairness can you expect from the judgment of this individual? He fought to deny parental rights to the woman who adopted the children of her same-sex partner--the same children she had helped raise for 8 years. Clearly, this individual is interested in rightwing, opportunity- denying legislating from the bench, not protecting the vision of opportunity embedded in our Constitution. All that doesn't even touch on his other efforts, such as his effort to make it difficult for communities of color or communities of modest economic means to be able to vote in the United States of America. If you believe in the Constitution of the United States, you should be a fierce advocate for voter empowerment and participation, not voter suppression, but this individual is a fierce advocate for voter suppression. Isn't it right to have people confirmed to the bench for a lifetime appointment who actually admire the vision of our Constitution for opportunity and for citizen engagement, not one who wants to tear down opportunities and slam doors on opportunities and stop people from voting. That is not all. There is more. There are his attacks on deferred action for parents of Americans in which he spreads false and frightening stereotypes about immigrants, echoing his previous hysterical comments, saying that ``[m]any violent criminals would likely be eligible to receive deferred action under DAPA's inadequate standards.'' It is kind of the last refuge of a scoundrel, an individual who proceeds to attack our immigrants, saying: Oh, they might all end up being criminals--completely contrary to the facts, where immigrants are far more law-abiding than the vast average among Americans born here in the United States. Isn't it the case that we are a nation of immigrants? Unless you are 100 percent Native American Indian, then you are here because you immigrated or your parents immigrated or your ancestors at some level immigrated generations ago. So basically descending to attack immigrants as all criminals is simply another example of this individuals's unsuitability to serve on the bench. We are a ``we the people'' nation, founded on equality, justice, and opportunity for all. Our Nation is about opening doors for each individual to participate to the full degree of their talent, not to have the prejudices of some allow them to slam doors on others. That is why this individual, Stuart Kyle Duncan, should never be on the floor of the Senate to be confirmed as a judge in the United States of America. Let him carry on his advocacy outside the hallowed halls of the courtroom but not inside, sitting on the bench. That is why everyone here tonight should vote against confirming this nomination. Thank you, Madam President.

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

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, it was very exciting to have Maile Pearl with us on the floor just moments ago. It was certainly the first time I have seen a little baby on the floor of the Senate and may be a good symbol for the work the Senate will be doing in the future for the children of the United States of America. Congratulations to Senator Tammy Duckworth and her husband, Bryan Bowlsbey, for this miraculous addition to American citizenry. We are looking forward to seeing little Maile as she grows and prospers in all of the chapters of her life ahead.

Mr. MERKLEY

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

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Quinn Nouguier, an intern on my team, be granted privileges of the floor for the remainder of the day.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, the most important words of our Constitution are the first three words: ``We the people.'' That is the mission statement of our Constitution. Our Founders did not seek to design a government that would enable the powerful and the privileged to make rules to benefit themselves. They didn't say: We want to have a Constitution that enables the wealthy and the well-connected to take away the riches of this country at the expense of the people. No, they laid out the vision ``We the people.'' They put that mission statement in supersized font, so even if you were reading the Constitution from across the room, you would understand its core mission--a core mission that unfortunately has been sabotaged in the Citizens United decision, which, instead of pursuing government of, by, and for the people, instead of providing what Jefferson called the equal voice, mother principle of America--that each citizen should have an equal voice--proceeds to give the powerful the reins of power through unlimited third-party campaign spending. The corruption of our democracy is in full gear, and we see it through the bills that are coming to this floor--bills to wipe out healthcare for 22 to 30 million Americans, a bill that passed that borrows $1.5 trillion from our children and proceeds to give that money virtually entirely--more than 80 percent--to the very richest Americans. I encourage my colleagues to think about how we have a responsibility under our oath of office to fight for this vision of America, not a corrupted ``we the powerful'' vision of America. As we address the issues that people care about at the kitchen table, it comes down to four basic things. It comes down to education, housing, living-wage jobs, and healthcare. Eisenhower said: ``Because the strength of our nation is in its people, their good health is a proper national concern.'' We have worked to design improved healthcare systems, lower costs, higher quality, and improved accessibility. We have come a long way through the ACA, the expansion of Medicaid, and the establishment of competitive marketplaces for insurance. Indeed, in Oregon, we reduced the uninsured rate from 15 percent to 5 percent. That is a huge stride forward. We increased our resources in our rural healthcare clinics, our rural hospitals, and our urban healthcare clinics and our urban hospitals. We strengthened the healthcare system, but it is not enough. We still have 41 million adults in this country who are underinsured. We have 30 million who remain completely uninsured. That is why, today, I am delighted to join with my colleague Senator Chris Murphy to introduce the Choose Medicare Act. Every American deserves the promise of access to a popular, affordable, high-quality healthcare option. Fortunately, we have such an option. It is called Medicare. It is time-tested. It is well-vetted. It is admired and desired by our seniors. Today, Chris Murphy and I are introducing the Choose Medicare Act, which creates a Medicare option for all, putting consumers and businesses in the driver's seat on the pathway to universal healthcare. With the Choose Medicare Act, we affirm that here in America, healthcare is not a privilege for the wealthy and well-connected. It is a right and a fundamental value to have healthcare for all. I am pleased that we have been joined in introducing this today with nine of our colleagues as original cosponsors: Senator Baldwin, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Booker, Senator Harris, Senator Heinrich, Senator Shaheen, Senator Schatz, Senator Gillibrand, and Senator Udall. Thank you to each and every one of these original cosponsors, who believe in the vision of improving our healthcare system. We appreciate the groups that worked to help forge this vision to put meat on the bones of this idea: PCCC, which was involved from the very beginning with insights, CREDO, Daily Kos, Democracy for America, MoveOn, and Families USA. We appreciate their endorsement of this plan. When we were talking about Medicare for All, many folks said: How do you create the transition? And back during the ACA discussions, we did debate reducing the age of Medicare to 55. We had 60 votes for it in a week but lost our 60th vote. We wrestled with this vision. How do you create the transition? Well, folks come to my townhalls--and I hold a lot of them. I have held well over 300 during the 10 years I have been serving in the Senate. They come and say: We have this great healthcare plan, Medicare. Why can't we buy into it? Why not give us the advantage of its efficiency and cost control, its low-administrative costs and high-quality healthcare? That is exactly what Chris Murphy and I are putting forward along with our cosponsors--that vision of a Medicare option for all. That is a ``we the people'' bill. That is not a bill for the powerful and privileged. That is not government by the wealthy and well-connected. This is about the fundamental issue people wrestle with around the kitchen table--the complexity and the cost of our healthcare system. I am on Medicaid today, but I have earned a little too much, so am I off? How do I get on the exchange in the middle of the year? How do I sign up for those tax credits? What if I don't get that right? What if the correspondence gets lost in the mail or misfiled, which seems to happen? Why can't we have a simple, seamless system? Well, we have one--Medicare. Folks say: Why can't we participate? You can, if we pass this bill. It makes sense to create this public option competitor. What we have seen for States that have a public option in their provision for workplace insurance is that the costs come down dramatically. That certainly happened in my home State of Oregon. It happened on the other coast in Rhode Island. It has happened around this country. Lyndon Johnson, when he signed the bill for Medicare, said: It calls upon us never to be indifferent toward despair. It commands us never to turn away from helplessness. It directs us never to ignore or to spurn those who suffer untended in a land that is bursting with abundance. Medicare is high-quality coverage for 58 million Americans. It has bargaining power, low administrative costs, and high respect by participants. What does the Choose Medicare Act do? Well, it covers all that Medicare covers today, and then, because it would be open to people of all ages, it throws in pediatric and reproductive healthcare and builds those networks. It strengthens the exchanges by strengthening the tax credits so that the middle class is not stranded when it comes to the affordability of healthcare. It extends those tax credits from 400 percent of poverty to 600 percent of poverty, reaching further into the middle class to make that transition--to make healthcare affordable on the exchange. It strengthens, certainly, Medicare itself, by putting a cap on the out-of-pocket costs. For all those who are in traditional Medicare, their Medicare improves as well. It provides the ability to drive down the cost of drugs by giving Medicare the ability to negotiate those prices. That is certainly a very important feature. Here we have something that is very popular with the public. When the public is asked ``Would you like to see the opportunity for every single American to be able to buy into Medicare, have that as an option; it is a voluntary option, but an option,'' overwhelmingly, they say yes. Democrats say yes. Republicans say yes. Independents say yes. They would like to have that option. The more they learn about how a public option has driven down costs, the more they say that this is needed. We not only make it possible to buy it on the exchange, we make it possible for self-insured companies to take advantage of Medicare. We make it possible for employers in regular companies, who are buying other healthcare plans for their employees, to consider buying a Medicare plan. So this reach is broad and deep. That is the type of ``we the people'' legislation we should be considering on the floor of this Senate--not a healthcare bill designed to destroy healthcare for 22 to 30 million people, as we saw last year courtesy of our majority, not a plan to borrow $1.5 trillion from our children and to give it away to the very richest Americans, the biggest, boldest bank heist seen in American history--perhaps in world history. That is the type of bank heist you would expect out of corrupt, Third World governments, not here in the United States of America, which tells you just how corrupt our election process has become, with Citizens United allowing unlimited billionaire dollars into our campaign system. We have to fight to take back the vision of our Nation, the ``we the people'' vision of our Nation. It has been stolen. It has been corrupted, and we have to take it back. When we take it back, we are going to put bills on the floor of this Senate that are about the fundamentals for families, living-wage jobs, public education and public college education, affordable quality classrooms, and the cost of housing, which is completely out of reach, and, certainly, profound substantial improvements to our healthcare system. Again, I thank Chris Murphy for partnering in this project. I supported Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All, and I love that vision. Chris Murphy supported Brian Schatz's bill to be able to buy into Medicaid. We don't have an identical healthcare profile, but what we sought together is the option of buying into Medicare, which is a complete win for the American people and a complete win for our healthcare system.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, the most important words of our Constitution are the first three words: ``We the people.'' That is the mission statement of our Constitution. Our Founders did not seek to design a government that would enable the powerful and the privileged to make rules to benefit themselves. They didn't say: We want to have a Constitution that enables the wealthy and the well-connected to take away the riches of this country at the expense of the people. No, they laid out the vision ``We the people.'' They put that mission statement in supersized font, so even if you were reading the Constitution from across the room, you would understand its core mission--a core mission that unfortunately has been sabotaged in the Citizens United decision, which, instead of pursuing government of, by, and for the people, instead of providing what Jefferson called the equal voice, mother principle of America--that each citizen should have an equal voice--proceeds to give the powerful the reins of power through unlimited third-party campaign spending. The corruption of our democracy is in full gear, and we see it through the bills that are coming to this floor--bills to wipe out healthcare for 22 to 30 million Americans, a bill that passed that borrows $1.5 trillion from our children and proceeds to give that money virtually entirely--more than 80 percent--to the very richest Americans. I encourage my colleagues to think about how we have a responsibility under our oath of office to fight for this vision of America, not a corrupted ``we the powerful'' vision of America. As we address the issues that people care about at the kitchen table, it comes down to four basic things. It comes down to education, housing, living-wage jobs, and healthcare. Eisenhower said: ``Because the strength of our nation is in its people, their good health is a proper national concern.'' We have worked to design improved healthcare systems, lower costs, higher quality, and improved accessibility. We have come a long way through the ACA, the expansion of Medicaid, and the establishment of competitive marketplaces for insurance. Indeed, in Oregon, we reduced the uninsured rate from 15 percent to 5 percent. That is a huge stride forward. We increased our resources in our rural healthcare clinics, our rural hospitals, and our urban healthcare clinics and our urban hospitals. We strengthened the healthcare system, but it is not enough. We still have 41 million adults in this country who are underinsured. We have 30 million who remain completely uninsured. That is why, today, I am delighted to join with my colleague Senator Chris Murphy to introduce the Choose Medicare Act. Every American deserves the promise of access to a popular, affordable, high-quality healthcare option. Fortunately, we have such an option. It is called Medicare. It is time-tested. It is well-vetted. It is admired and desired by our seniors. Today, Chris Murphy and I are introducing the Choose Medicare Act, which creates a Medicare option for all, putting consumers and businesses in the driver's seat on the pathway to universal healthcare. With the Choose Medicare Act, we affirm that here in America, healthcare is not a privilege for the wealthy and well-connected. It is a right and a fundamental value to have healthcare for all. I am pleased that we have been joined in introducing this today with nine of our colleagues as original cosponsors: Senator Baldwin, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Booker, Senator Harris, Senator Heinrich, Senator Shaheen, Senator Schatz, Senator Gillibrand, and Senator Udall. Thank you to each and every one of these original cosponsors, who believe in the vision of improving our healthcare system. We appreciate the groups that worked to help forge this vision to put meat on the bones of this idea: PCCC, which was involved from the very beginning with insights, CREDO, Daily Kos, Democracy for America, MoveOn, and Families USA. We appreciate their endorsement of this plan. When we were talking about Medicare for All, many folks said: How do you create the transition? And back during the ACA discussions, we did debate reducing the age of Medicare to 55. We had 60 votes for it in a week but lost our 60th vote. We wrestled with this vision. How do you create the transition? Well, folks come to my townhalls--and I hold a lot of them. I have held well over 300 during the 10 years I have been serving in the Senate. They come and say: We have this great healthcare plan, Medicare. Why can't we buy into it? Why not give us the advantage of its efficiency and cost control, its low-administrative costs and high-quality healthcare? That is exactly what Chris Murphy and I are putting forward along with our cosponsors--that vision of a Medicare option for all. That is a ``we the people'' bill. That is not a bill for the powerful and privileged. That is not government by the wealthy and well-connected. This is about the fundamental issue people wrestle with around the kitchen table--the complexity and the cost of our healthcare system. I am on Medicaid today, but I have earned a little too much, so am I off? How do I get on the exchange in the middle of the year? How do I sign up for those tax credits? What if I don't get that right? What if the correspondence gets lost in the mail or misfiled, which seems to happen? Why can't we have a simple, seamless system? Well, we have one--Medicare. Folks say: Why can't we participate? You can, if we pass this bill. It makes sense to create this public option competitor. What we have seen for States that have a public option in their provision for workplace insurance is that the costs come down dramatically. That certainly happened in my home State of Oregon. It happened on the other coast in Rhode Island. It has happened around this country. Lyndon Johnson, when he signed the bill for Medicare, said: It calls upon us never to be indifferent toward despair. It commands us never to turn away from helplessness. It directs us never to ignore or to spurn those who suffer untended in a land that is bursting with abundance. Medicare is high-quality coverage for 58 million Americans. It has bargaining power, low administrative costs, and high respect by participants. What does the Choose Medicare Act do? Well, it covers all that Medicare covers today, and then, because it would be open to people of all ages, it throws in pediatric and reproductive healthcare and builds those networks. It strengthens the exchanges by strengthening the tax credits so that the middle class is not stranded when it comes to the affordability of healthcare. It extends those tax credits from 400 percent of poverty to 600 percent of poverty, reaching further into the middle class to make that transition--to make healthcare affordable on the exchange. It strengthens, certainly, Medicare itself, by putting a cap on the out-of-pocket costs. For all those who are in traditional Medicare, their Medicare improves as well. It provides the ability to drive down the cost of drugs by giving Medicare the ability to negotiate those prices. That is certainly a very important feature. Here we have something that is very popular with the public. When the public is asked ``Would you like to see the opportunity for every single American to be able to buy into Medicare, have that as an option; it is a voluntary option, but an option,'' overwhelmingly, they say yes. Democrats say yes. Republicans say yes. Independents say yes. They would like to have that option. The more they learn about how a public option has driven down costs, the more they say that this is needed. We not only make it possible to buy it on the exchange, we make it possible for self-insured companies to take advantage of Medicare. We make it possible for employers in regular companies, who are buying other healthcare plans for their employees, to consider buying a Medicare plan. So this reach is broad and deep. That is the type of ``we the people'' legislation we should be considering on the floor of this Senate--not a healthcare bill designed to destroy healthcare for 22 to 30 million people, as we saw last year courtesy of our majority, not a plan to borrow $1.5 trillion from our children and to give it away to the very richest Americans, the biggest, boldest bank heist seen in American history--perhaps in world history. That is the type of bank heist you would expect out of corrupt, Third World governments, not here in the United States of America, which tells you just how corrupt our election process has become, with Citizens United allowing unlimited billionaire dollars into our campaign system. We have to fight to take back the vision of our Nation, the ``we the people'' vision of our Nation. It has been stolen. It has been corrupted, and we have to take it back. When we take it back, we are going to put bills on the floor of this Senate that are about the fundamentals for families, living-wage jobs, public education and public college education, affordable quality classrooms, and the cost of housing, which is completely out of reach, and, certainly, profound substantial improvements to our healthcare system. Again, I thank Chris Murphy for partnering in this project. I supported Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All, and I love that vision. Chris Murphy supported Brian Schatz's bill to be able to buy into Medicaid. We don't have an identical healthcare profile, but what we sought together is the option of buying into Medicare, which is a complete win for the American people and a complete win for our healthcare system.

Mr. MERKLEY

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

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my intern, Fiona Steiwer, be given privileges of the floor for the remainder of the day.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, in Federalist Paper No. 76, Alexander Hamilton wrote that it was the job of the Senate to ``prevent the appointment of unfit characters.'' That is certainly the mission for which we have responsibility today--to make sure that the unfit characters do not have roles of power and influence within our government. Andrew Wheeler, the nominee who is before us for the No. 2 job at the Environmental Protection Agency, raises a series of questions and concerns related to whether or not he is fit for office. This is a man whose entire career working for the fossil fuel industry stands in direct opposition to the mission of the Environmental Protection Agency--a mission to protect the health of the American people and the well-being of our planet. At such a volatile moment for the EPA, when the Agency is plagued by scandal, ethical misbehavior, and pandering to polluters, this nomination deserves the closest of scrutiny. After all, it is quite possible that, before long, whoever fills the role of No. 2 at the EPA could be acting in the No. 1 spot. It is clear that Andrew Wheeler is not fit to be that person. When President Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970, he recognized that we all share ``a profound commitment to the rescue of our natural environment, and the preservation of the Earth as a place both habitable by and hospitable to man.'' For more than 47 years, the EPA has worked under Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents to protect our natural environment and preserve our planet as a habitable and hospitable place. That has included controlling toxic and poisonous chemicals, improving air and water quality, and enhancing vehicle efficiency and emissions control. The list of EPA's accomplishments goes on and on, but it can be summed up like this: Americans value clean air. Americans value clean water. Scott Pruitt does not, and Mr. Wheeler does not. Administrator Pruitt has turned his longstanding disdain for the EPA into a crusade to destroy it. Think about the hard work of protecting our air and our water. There is a lot that goes into that. You can think about the equivalence of constructing a house. You need to have somebody who knows the foundation, knows the plumbing, knows the wiring, knows the carpentry, knows the drywall, and knows the roofing. You have to combine all of that with someone to get the windows installed right and the insulation installed right. It is a lot of work to create a structure that protects our air and water from the thousands of chemicals that can do it harm, but it only takes one person to knock down that carefully constructed house--one person, one wrecking ball. Scott Pruitt is that wrecking ball in the EPA, knocking down the carefully constructed work of decades of efforts by some of the Nation's leading scientists and most dedicated team members. There is a lot of frustration among those dedicated scientists, and 700 employees have left or have been forced out. Critical clean air and clean water regulations have been stalled or left in limbo. Enforcement of existing regulations has virtually disappeared. Regionally, EPA offices have been routinely stripped of the power to investigate, while advisory committees that have usually been made up by scientific, objective individuals are now being filled with industry shills. To put it bluntly, under Scott Pruitt, the EPA is conducting a war against clean air and clean water. This is really a shameful situation, and that is just the policy side. Then we have the ethical side. There is the Administrator's desire to waste our taxpayer money on $40,000 private phone booths, first-class travel, and swanky accommodations; the Administrator's determination to retaliate against those who have pointed out the restrictions that he is violating; and an Administrator who has increased the salaries of his friends in an unapproved fashion. There is little to think that any of this would change with Andrew Wheeler in either the No. 2 or No. 1 position. It starts with the fact that neither man takes seriously the profound threat to our planet from carbon pollution. I believe that these individuals are smart, that they actually know the enormous damage that carbon pollution is doing to our planet. After all, it is hard to miss. You can see it this last year in the ferocity of Hurricanes Irma, Maria, and Harvey. Why were they so fierce? Because 90 percent of the heat produced by climate chaos was trapped by the oceans, and that hotter ocean energizes the storms to a higher level of impact. You can see them in the forest fires that raged in Montana, across Oregon, and down into California. Year after year, the fire season is longer and fiercer. There are more forests burned. You can see it in the insect population. You can see it in the mosquitoes that carry Zika. You can see it in the success of the pine beetles, when it is too warm to kill them in the winter. So they do great, and the trees don't. You can see it in the oysters that now have to have the water in which they are born be artificially buffered because it is now too acidic for baby oysters. And why is it too acidic? Because the ocean absorbs carbon dioxide from the air, creating carbonic acid. It is hard to miss. It is hard to imagine when you see the ocean, where so much carbonic acid has been placed through our ocean through polluted air that it has changed the acidity of the ocean, but that is exactly what it has done. Now, the EPA does a lot of wonderful work under a normal administration, be it Democratic or Republican. It tracks greenhouse emissions. It works on money-saving regulations, like renewable fuel standard programs. It conducts analyses to compare different policies to see which one would be more effective and what the range of impacts would be. It conducts world-class research on the science. It partners with States and local communities and governments on efficiency and renewable energy. But that is under a normal administration and a normal Administrator. There is no partnering now. It is just simply the wrecking ball. Scott Pruitt said scientists disagree about the extent of global warming in connection to the actions of mankind. Actually, NASA has very precise estimates or recordings of the changes in the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the temperature changes that are occurring from that. You can find people, primarily those who are funded by the fossil fuel industry, who dispute that and sow confusion. It is certainly the strategy of the fossil fuel folks, who are choosing their greed over our planet. They are selling out America, and those who shill for them are selling out America. They say: Well, you know, out of 100 scientists, we can find 2 or 3 who disagree. Well, how often do you have somebody who goes to 97 doctors and have them say: You have cancer. And they say: Oh, but, wait; I can find one doctor somewhere. If I pay them enough, they will say I don't have cancer, and then I am healed--except that they wouldn't be healed and they would soon be dead. In Oregon, we have seen the impact on the Klamath Basin, the worst ever droughts time after time over the last 15 years. Talk to the people in Texas, Louisiana, Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, whose communities were devastated by last year's hurricanes. In the last 10 years, the time I have been in office, we have seen half the coral reefs around the world either die or be deeply damaged-- in the time since I was elected in 2008. As to the fact that our economists have calculated the monetary terms of damage for the United States from last year's storms and fires to be well over $300 billion, the fact that quality of life would be profoundly affected by the movement of diseases, the fact that the moose are dying in New Hampshire and lobsters are migrating north from Maine, none of that matters because these folks keep coming back and saying: You know, it is just not clear what is happening. It is not even an understanding of the basic scientific principle. Really? That is just such a lie. As far back as 1959, Edward Teller, the eminent scientist, was warning folks in the petroleum industry. When he gave his speech at the 100th anniversary of the petroleum industry, he said: ``First of all, these energy resources will run short as we use up more and more of the fossil fuels.'' True enough, it turns out that there is a lot more than anyone thought in 1959. But then he said, second, that it turns out that carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels has a big problem. You can look through it and you can't smell it so it doesn't seem like a pollutant, but it turns out it traps heat. He proceeded to say that would be a big problem because it would melt ice in the world and raise the sea levels and that would flood our cities. He didn't have all of the science that has been generated since 1959, but he had a basic understanding of the physics of the problem. What have we seen? We have seen, from that time until now, a 25- percent increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and that is a big deal. So we have seen, year after year, it become hotter and hotter. In fact, 2015, 2016, and 2017 were the three hottest years ever recorded. In fact, 17 of the 18 hottest years on record occurred within the last 18 years. Yet these individuals stand up and say: Do not worry. Be happy. There is no problem. But there is a big problem, and putting folks whose bread is buttered by the fossil fuel industry in charge of clean air and clean water is a colossal mistake for our Nation. Mr. Pruitt's association with the fossil fuel industry is well documented. He went as far as to send a letter to the EPA on his stationery accusing regulators of overestimating how much air pollution energy companies drilling new natural gas wells in Oklahoma were causing. The letter was written almost word-for-word by a company, not by a scientific expert, nor did it have input from scientific experts. This type of cozy relationship has continued throughout his tenure at the EPA. Take, for instance, his efforts to stall or eliminate regulations, delay implementations of new ones to help polluters at the expense of the health, safety, and livelihood of millions of Americans. He has issued a memorandum saying the regional EPA offices first have to seek permission from headquarters before investigating polluters, investigating violations, or requesting information. So he has sought to really completely stop the investigation into malfeasance and misconduct damaging our environment--all to help his associates who are in private industry. The list goes on and on. We see the same thing with Mr. Wheeler working so closely as a lobbyist for the same fossil fuel industry; specifically, Murray Energy. How can you say an individual will enforce the rules when he represents the industry? That is the challenge. Our U.S. President said he was going to drain the swamp, but Scott Pruitt is the swamp. He is the person who is proceeding to fail to enforce our clean air and clean water laws. He is the person who is stopping his team from investigating violations. He is the person who is allowing his friends to have their pay increased, or actively working to increase their pay, when it is outside of the regulation. He is the person wasting our taxpayer money in all kinds of ways that have been documented, from security details to trains of cars blowing lights so he can get someplace in the city 5 minutes faster, violating the rules; demoting people who try to hold him accountable--every possible ethical and professional violation. The nominee before us is a straight backup to that kind of misconduct. He should absolutely not be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. He should not get a single vote from a single Member here because the American people want the rules on clean air and clean water enforced. So let's vote for enforcement.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my fellow, Sharmin Syed, be granted privileges of the floor for the duration of her service in my office.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I cannot in good faith support a nominee who has a lengthy track record of tweets attacking both prominent Democratic women and prominent Republican women. Since his nomination, these tweets have continued, showing a complete disregard for the Senate confirmation process and a disregard for the seriousness of the position for which he has been nominated. At the same time, Mr. Grenell has been dismissive of the importance of the threat Russia poses to U.S. democracy, and we certainly need to have U.S. Ambassadors who can work with our European allies and partners, now more than ever, to reinforce the strength of the institutions we have built to protect the rule of law and democracy and to defend our western democracies against Russian interference. So with that, I object.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, America is very involved in a war in Yemen, and it is time we have a debate as envisioned under our Constitution. Our Constitution did not lay out the power of deciding when to go to war with the executive branch. It places it very clearly here, with article I, Congress is to act, but we have participated very directly, in partnership with Saudi Arabia, in the assault on Yemen, on the Houthis, and the result is a dramatic, dramatic humanitarian crisis. So we should absolutely hold that debate on this floor, as envisioned in our Constitution. Article I, section 8 states, unequivocally, that ``the Congress shall have Power . . . to declare War.'' It is only Congress that is given this power under our Constitution. If anyone has any doubts, then let's pay attention to the other words of our Founders, James Madison himself: ``In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department.'' The Founding Fathers' vision was reinforced by the War Powers Resolution of 1973, also often referred to as the War Powers Act. That act was necessary because the executive branch tends to put our forces into conflict without the permission of Congress, in violation of the Constitution. So it is important to lay out the parameters under which they are allowed to do so under emergency action and the circumstances under which they are not allowed to do so. The War Powers Act says: ``It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities.'' It goes on to say that ``the constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities . . . is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States.'' In the case of the Saudi war we are participating in against the Houthis, it is not triggered by an attack upon the United States, nor is there any specific statutory authorization--that is why we are going to have this debate today--nor is there a declaration of war. So the standards of the War Powers Resolution have not been met, and I call upon my colleagues to shoulder your constitutional responsibility to have this debate and hold the Executive accountable when they are violating the law of the United States of America. There are two components to our presence in Yemen which should not be confused. One is where we are directly involved against forces associated with al-Qaida. This debate is not about that. The administration contends and we do not dispute today whether that is covered by the 2001 authorization for use of military force. I think many of us feel that initial 2001 AUMF, authorization for use of military force, has been stretched beyond recognition. That is a debate for a different day. This argument is directly about our support of Saudi Arabia in bombing the Houthis in Yemen. That is the central question. For us to understand why this is so important is, one, the integrity of the Constitution. If we do not hold the Executive accountable to the Constitution of the United States of America, then we are essentially taking that key, critical clause that gave us responsibility for when military force is used by the United States out of the Constitution and delivering it to the Executive. That certainly is not the vision. If people want to have that vision, they will introduce a constitutional amendment to that point. Introduce a resolution to declare war to make this action in concert with the Constitution. Create specific statutory authority in concert with the Constitution. But do not fail your constitutional responsibility to hold this debate. The War Powers Resolution lays out clearly that our participation in the support of foreign forces engaged in hostilities is engagement under the vision of our Constitution and certainly under the law of the War Powers Resolution. It says under section 8: Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred--(1) from any provision of law . . . including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities. Again, specific authorization is required. It goes on. In this section titled ``Interpretation of Joint Resolution,'' it states: ``[I]ntroduction of United States Armed Forces'' includes the assignment of member of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country . . . in hostilities. Clearly, the law states that our engagement, our coordination with a foreign power engaged in war, is covered by this act. Our participation in the movement of their military forces into hostilities is covered by this act. Therefore, we have to understand the details of our engagement. First, the United States refueling the Saudi planes as they go to bomb the Houthis is very directly participation in the movement of military forces into engaged hostilities. We are refueling the planes en route. How can that not be participation in the movement? Certainly a plane is a part of a military force. Certainly refueling it is participation in the movement of that plane. Could this be any clearer? This is black and white. Not many things are. In terms of the violation of the War Powers Resolution and the offense against our Constitution, this is black and white. Second, we provide intelligence. Third, we provide the weapons. Fourth, we provide targeting assistance. Fifth, we established a joint combined planning cell operation center to conduct military and intelligence activities in partnership with Saudi Arabia. All of that fits into this direct section of the War Powers Act regarding coordination or participation in the movement of a foreign force engaged in hostilities. If this were a minor involvement--it is not. We have participated thousands of times in this manner. On a daily basis, we are involved in coordination. The airstrikes Saudi Arabia is conducting have produced one of the worst humanitarian situations in the world. Think about the reports on these different strikes. There were 3 airstrikes in Sa'dah last month, killing 5 civilians and wounding 14 more, including 4 children, as well as killing the paramedics who were trying to pull the survivors out after the first bomb dropped. We had a strike on a hotel last August that turned the building's ceiling black with the charred blood of 50 farmers who were in that building. It is one horrific circumstance after another as these bombs drop on civilians in Yemen. It is time for us to reckon with the fact of our participation in this carnage. This carnage has resulted in 10,000 Yemeni civilians killed, and there are 8 million people on the brink of starvation. Why is it that humanitarian aid has not gotten to those folks? Because Saudi Arabia has blocked it. We are partnering with a country that is blocking humanitarian aid. Does that square with the principles of the United States of America, to participate in partnership with a country starving 8 million people? Then we have the fact that the Saudi bombs have been dropping on the infrastructure of Yemen, and they have destroyed the water systems. When you destroy the water systems, the sewage contaminates the fresh water, and a direct consequence of that is cholera. At this moment, the cholera epidemic in Yemen has affected 1 million people. That is the single largest cholera epidemic in the recorded history of mankind. There are 8 million people starving and 1 million people sick with the worst cholera epidemic ever. We are participating in creating this. To my colleagues who say Saudi Arabia has partnered with us against ISIS, fine and good, as they should. However, this issue is different. This is about whether we are helping them and participating directly in the hostilities of dropping bombs on civilians, Houthis, and creating a massive famine and a massive cholera epidemic and massive deaths. A lot of children are dying every day. The Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Mark Lowcock, warned that this famine could become ``the largest famine the world has seen for many decades, with millions of victims.'' Every day, about 130 children die from hunger and disease. We pride ourselves on going to the assistance in the world when children are being slaughtered or starved or decimated by disease. In this case, we are participating in this carnage. Does any Member of this Senate want to stand up and say that is an appropriate mission for the United States to participate in, this carnage? I certainly hope not. The death and destruction in Yemen is unimaginable. It is appropriate that we debate on the floor the Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution, a bipartisan resolution to say: Let's honor the Constitution. Let's abide by the 1973 War Powers Act. Let's hold the administration accountable because it is not just this issue--although this issue is massive--it is also the standard by which the Executive will operate in every potential war theater around the world for a decade to come. If we proceed to say that it is OK that you trample the Constitution in Yemen, that you disregard the War Powers Resolution in Yemen, then we will be giving carte blanche to this administration to do so in one nation after another. We have long abdicated our responsibility. Let's abdicate no more. Play the role, the responsibility the Founding Fathers gave us in the Constitution, and bring an end to our participation without authorization in this horrific conflict.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor tonight to discuss America's role in the crisis in Yemen. I have here a picture of the fractured remains of buildings, people fleeing from those buildings, and a small child, probably in her father's arms. This represents the challenge of the bombing that is going on in that nation. I am here tonight to discuss America's role in that bombing and the fact that here in the Chamber we need to debate how it is we have come to the point of supporting this bombing when the War Powers Act clearly says we should not be. When our Founding Fathers wrote our Constitution, they designated the President as the Commander in Chief, but they gave Congress, the House, and the Senate the sole power to declare war. Article I, section 8 states unequivocally: ``The Congress shall have the power . . . to declare war.'' It is only Congress that can take our Nation from peace to war. If one has any doubt about that, consider the words of James Madison himself, the father of our Constitution. He said: ``In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department.'' Now, the clearly stated responsibility in our Constitution was reinforced by the 1973 War Powers Resolution, often referred to as the War Powers Act. That particular piece of legislation stated as its purpose the following: ``It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities.'' It goes on to say: ``The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only''--and that is a critical word--``pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States.'' The picture I showed you showing the fractured remains of buildings and people fleeing that bombing in Yemen, that activity is not taking place subject to a declaration of war by this body--we have done no such thing--nor is there any specific statutory authorization for our assistance in that, nor is there a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States where that is justified. Tomorrow this Chamber will take up this issue. We will be voting on a resolution put forward by our colleagues Senator Sanders, Senator Lee, and Senator Murphy calling for the removal of our Armed Forces in this role of supporting Saudi Arabia in this war against the Houthis. There are two basic components of our presence in Yemen, and those are very distinct and not to be confused. The first is counterterrorism efforts in which we are directly engaged against associated forces of al-Qaida. This is a role that stems from the authorization for the use of military force that we passed in this Chamber in 2001. Members may come to the floor and argue about whether that initial authorization for use of military force involving al-Qaida in Afghanistan has been stretched beyond recognition. I would argue it has been stretched substantially and perhaps beyond recognition, but that is not the issue we are debating this week. This week we are addressing the central issue of whether our involvement in supporting Saudi Arabia in its role in war against the Houthis in Yemen has violated our Constitution and the War Powers Act, and we have to confront and face how our assistance is contributing to a vast humanitarian crisis in that country. We may not have boots on the ground in support of the Saudi war against the Houthis, but we are very involved. As we judge whether this involvement is violating the Constitution and the War Powers Act, we should turn to section 8, the interpretation of the joint resolution. It says: Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred-- (1) from any provision of law . . . including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless-- This is the key-- such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of the United States Armed Forces into hostilities. It is very clear. The interpretation of this joint resolution says there is no room here to be participating in hostilities--that is a war--even in a supporting role, unless it has been specifically authorized by Congress. This interpretation of the joint resolution section of the War Powers Act goes on to say: (c) For purposes of this joint resolution, the term ``introduction of United States Armed Forces'' includes-- You see the language here-- the assignment of member of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged. There is the key fact that was laid out when we passed the War Powers Act. This War Powers Act doesn't just address us directly engaging in hostilities or directly confronting an enemy on the battlefield, it includes these provisions of commanding, coordinating, participating in the movement of, or accompanying military forces of a foreign country. There is no question that we are coordinating and participating in the movement of the Saudi forces, so let's take a look at exactly how we are involved. The administration comes back and says: Yes, but we are not directly bombing the Houthis. We are not directly putting boots on the ground and shooting them. It is clear the War Powers Act includes coordinating with, participating with, supporting, and partnering, if you will, with a foreign country involved in such a war. We are very involved. First, we are involved by refueling Saudi planes en route to bombing the forces of the Houthis in Yemen. That is pretty direct involvement, and it goes to that language which says ``participate in the movement of'' those foreign forces. If we are refueling their planes en route to bombing the Houthis, we are participating in the movement of their military forces. A plane, a bomber, is a part of a military force. Second, we are providing intelligence and thus very directly supporting this war of the Saudis. Third, we are selling the weapons to them that they are using in this war on the Houthis. Fourth, we are providing targeting assistance. We have even established a joint combined planning cell, an operation center, to conduct military intelligence activities in partnership with Saudi Arabia. Here is why this matters so much: It has a huge impact on the lives of the people in Yemen. It is very possible the planes we refueled are responsible for conducting a series of three airstrikes in Saada last month, killing 5 civilians and wounding 14 more, including 4 children, as well as paramedics trying to pull survivors out of the rubble after that first strike, or that the planes we refueled played a role in striking a hotel last August that turned the building's ceiling black with the charred blood of 50 farmers who were staying in that building. We know that the bombs we have sold to the Saudis are killing many civilians. It is time for us here to reckon with that fact. A lot of Americans may not even know we are involved in this war. It has not been widely discussed. There are so many things going on across the planet at this time--so much going on in Syria, for example, that perhaps Americans in general are not paying attention. But we should be paying attention because of the carnage that is occurring: 10,000 civilians have been killed since this conflict began. The great, vast bulk of those civilians are dying from air strikes conducted by Saudi Arabia that we are supporting through intelligence and target assistance and refueling. Then there are the consequences of that bombardment. The result is just a tremendous humanitarian crisis. The Saudis have been involved in blockading the ability to get humanitarian supplies into Yemen--food and medicine and fuel. This has resulted in what the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Mark Lowcock, has warned could become ``the largest famine the world has seen for many decades.'' Seven million Yemenis are on the verge of starvation because of this war that we are involved in and the related Saudi blockade of food and medicine. About every day, 130 Yemeni children die from extreme hunger and disease--130 a day. One of the factors that is killing people is cholera. Since October of 2016--so roughly a little less than a year and a half ago--1 million Yemenis have contracted cholera. More than 2,000 have died from it. It is the largest cholera outbreak in recorded history. Let me say that again: 1 million Yemenis have contracted cholera, and it is the largest cholera outbreak in recorded history. So 7 million Yemenis are on the verge of starvation, 1 million have contracted cholera, and so many are dying because of this war we are involved in. The death and destruction in Yemen is unimaginable, and the United States needs to take a hard look at the role we are playing--a role we are playing in violation of our Constitution and in violation of the War Powers Act of 1973. That is the issue we are going to be discussing here on the floor. I know there is some popularity in saying: Let's not look at that humanitarian crisis and our role in it; let's just look at the relationship we have with Saudi Arabia and know that they have helped us in other cases--for example, the war on ISIS. Let's know that they are a good customer for many of our products and for many of our military products. But I say to my colleagues: This issue is bigger than simply a good marketplace or a good relationship with Saudi Arabia. This goes to our involvement, our culpability in the deaths of thousands of Yemenis and 130 children a day through bombs falling on them, through hunger, starvation, through cholera. It is hard for me to think about this young child in this picture, this young Yemeni, who clearly is the victim either of cholera or starvation or some other consequence of this conflict. But imagine 130 of these children dying every day. It is our responsibility to honor the Constitution, and it is our responsibility as humans on this planet to wrestle with the fact that our involvement is contributing to this vast humanitarian disaster. Let us not abdicate our responsibility on the basis of friendship with another nation based on the fact that they are a good market for our products or that we think they may be future partners in some other agenda. We have a direct responsibility in war and peace that we have not fulfilled, and this week, with this coming resolution tomorrow, is a point that we must wrestle with this. Let us wrestle with it and honor the Constitution and give some integrity to the 1973 War Powers Resolution. Thank you.