Jeff Merkley

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 270, S. 2165, a bill to permanently authorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund; that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, this first request was to get this bill done right now and reauthorized. I am going to turn to a different possibility, which is to secure a debate here on the floor which would afford my colleague from Oklahoma the opportunity to present his thoughts. I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader, but no later than Thursday, November 12, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 270, S. 2165; that there be 1 hour of debate equally divided between the proponents and opponents; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill; that the vote on passage be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold; and, finally, that there be no amendments, motions or points of order in order to the bill.

Mr. MERKLEY. My colleague from New Mexico is absolutely correct. For these 50 years that he noted, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has protected millions of acres of our land, including playgrounds and parks, our most treasured national landscapes-- all without costing our taxpayers a single dime. It is, without question, our Nation's most important and successful conservation and outdoor recreation program. Oregon, specifically, has received about $300 million over the past five decades, safeguarding areas that are now complete treasures for our State, such as the Oregon Dunes and the Hells Canyon Recreation Area. These special places are part of our heritage, and protecting them has been made possible through this fund. It is a commitment to preserving these special places for future generations in Oregon and throughout the Nation, and it also serves to really strengthen the outdoor recreation economy in our State. What is a win for our heritage is also a win for our rural economy. This effort to torpedo something of great value in terms of protection of special places and our rural economy is a step or a stride in absolutely the wrong direction.

Mr. MERKLEY. I absolutely share the Senator's perspective on this. In terms of the Toxic Substances Control Act, TSCA, or the Lautenberg Act, as we now call it, this is an effort to remove--and you have championed this in a bipartisan way. You have brought this forward. It has been approved through an extensive committee process, and we have a shot, finally, to have a process in which we can take and remove toxic items from everyday products. A good example is that we are standing here on a carpet, and the carpet is full of flame retardants that don't really retard flames but definitely cause cancer. Having those scientifically analyzed and considered as to whether they should be in our carpets or not makes a lot of sense. You think of little babies crawling during their first months of life on these carpets, and their noses are right down there in the dust. The dust is attached to these toxic chemicals. I believe your bill--this bill--not only is bipartisan, but it has more than 60 or at least 60 cosponsors.

Mr. MERKLEY. Here we are with this paralyzed process where a few individuals say: You know, I guess it is not important to get toxic cancer-causing items out of our household products. Also, it is not important that our States get flexible funds to preserve special places. I suggest that rather than blocking such legislation, folks who have that mind come to the floor and make their case. If they want more cancer for our children, come to make your case. If you don't want to preserve special places in America, come and make your case. But do not obstruct this body from being able to have the conversation.

Mr. MERKLEY. I think what is extraordinary about this situation is that both of these bills have at least 60 cosponsors, which as Senator Udall pointed out is enough to close debate and get to a final vote. There was a time not very long ago when even controversial bills were voted on by a single majority. Unfortunately, we are now at the point where virtually every bill has to get cloture because some individual objects to having a debate, even if they are not willing to stand on the floor and debate it, and that is another topic. The Senator from New Mexico and I have suggested that we need to change that, so if someone objects to certain legislation, that Member should be on the floor speaking about their objection so it is transparent to the American public. Nonetheless, in this situation, we already have 60 supporters for both of these bills. We have 60 supporters and cosponsors for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and 60 supporters for TSCA--the Lautenberg act, which is now my colleague's act--and they are both very important to our country. So for us to fail to get these bills on the floor and act is a dramatic example of the failure of this institution to be able to operate as a legislature. This can be cured. The majority leader could arrange to bring these bills to the floor. With his support and the support of the cosponsors, we could get cloture to bring those bills to the floor, and that would not only be a tribute to how the U.S. Senate functions, it would also do important work for the people of America by reauthorizing the funds to protect our special places and creating a system that will operate effectively to get toxic chemicals out of our everyday products. I think it comes as a shock to people across America that we have not regulated a single chemical that goes into toxic products since 1991, and it is absolutely unacceptable. They believe and expect that the items they handle every day have gone through the process of being safe and that we are not poisoning ourselves, and it is very shocking to discover that is not the case. These are two very important bills to our country. Both of these bills have 60 supporters. Let's get them to the floor and show that the Senate can actually be a deliberative body and that we can do good work for the future of America.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, as we come together to celebrate National Forest Products Week, I want to highlight the impacts and contributions of the forest products industry to my home State of Oregon. In my State, the forest products industry produces over 37,000 jobs; contributes over $2 billion in wages to local economies; and produces a combined product value of nearly $8 billion. Oregon has forest land that covers over 29 million acres. We have 72 sawmills, millwork, and treating facilities, 49 engineered wood and panel products facilities, and 11 other types of wood products facilities, combining to make a total of 132 wood products facilities in the State of Oregon. Forest products produce $262 million annually in tax payments to support the rural and local economics in the State of Oregon. Forest products provide a clear value both for our economy and for the environment. Currently, America's forests store 2.5 trillion metric tons of carbon and capture nearly 13 percent of total U.S. CO2 emissions annually. One-half of the dry weight of wood is carbon; and the lumber, wood products, and the wood used in buildings each provide a carbon storage system. With advanced technologies, we are seeing taller and stronger buildings made of wood--buildings that will last for generations and help move us towards a more sustainable future. In closing, I would like to express my support for the forest products industry and their ongoing efforts to positively contribute to the environment and submit these comments as part of this year's National Forest Product's Week.

Mr. MERKLEY

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

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise to give voice to concerns about the pending battle over what is referred to as the debt ceiling. We have been told that the ability of the United States to pay its bills on time and its interest on bonds will expire on November 3, which is only about a dozen days from now--less than 2 weeks. This is of grave concern to Americans. In fact, if it hasn't been a concern to someone, it should be because it touches almost every American household. This is all about the question of whether we are going to pay a bill that is due for previous spending on time or not. This is all about whether we are going to pay the interest that will be due on Treasury bills on time or not. Great Nations don't pay their bills late. They are expected to be organized and competent and have their act together, but there is also a tremendous incentive to pay on time because when you pay late, the interest rate on your debt goes up because you become less creditworthy. Many folks in this Chamber say we should operate like a family and think about family values when it comes to finance. Here is the connection with how families operate: They know if they don't pay their mortgage or insurance or their Target bill on time, then their cost of credit is going to go up and their credit score will go down. Sometimes families simply don't have any possible way of paying a bill when it comes up, and they struggle to get the funds together, knowing the more cases that fail, the worse it is for their credit score, which means if they borrow money to buy a car, a house, or for any reason, the interest rate is going to be much higher, and they will have to pay a lot more and will not get anything more than they would have gotten before. Families understand they have to pay their bills on time. That is fiscal responsibility. But some may have forgotten that this lesson is not just anchored in theory, this is in practice. In 2011, when we dillydallied over paying our bills on time, the United States credit rating was taken down a notch, which meant that we had to pay a higher interest. How about 2013--just 2 years ago--when we failed to act responsibly and the government shut down and it cost us not only 120,000 jobs, but it also cost us, by our best estimates, about $70 million more in interest that we wouldn't have otherwise had to pay because interest rates went up. Not paying your bills on time is fiscally irresponsible and, to put it more directly, it is a ``Dumb and Dumber'' tax on every American family. I am not sure why it is that advocates in the House and Senate are advocating for a ``Dumb and Dumber'' tax. The worst tax is when it costs money and you buy nothing, but that is what happens when you don't pay your bills on time. We know the cost of paying more on Treasury bonds doesn't just affect the U.S. Government. We also know that the Treasury bond rate is used as an index for items, such as home mortgages and car loans. So our families have to pay more because of the irresponsibility of the Republican ``Dumb and Dumber'' tax on America. It is irresponsible, and it is damaging to our country and to our families. It is not often that I turn to Ronald Reagan for insight, but in this case he had it absolutely right. Ronald Reagan said that fiscal responsibility is paying your bills on time. There were a number of times when he spoke to Congress and said, don't do a ``Dumb and Dumber'' tax. To put it in his own words when he was at a radio address in 1987, he said: This brinksmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans' benefits. Interest markets would skyrocket. Instability would occur in financial markets, and the federal deficit would soar. He continued and said, ``The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations.'' At another time he wrote a letter to the majority leader of the Senate and said: The full consequences of a default--or even the serious prospect of default--by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. He continued: Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result. The risks, the costs, the disruptions, and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion: the Senate must pass this legislation before Congress adjourns. Let us listen to the voice of reason on fiscal responsibility to pay our debts on time. Let us not adopt the Republican ``Dumb and Dumber'' tax of failing to pay our bills that extracts huge costs, as President Reagan recognized, both on our Nation and on our families. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I am on the floor of the Senate with my colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, to share a few thoughts about the tragedy that has occurred in our home State. One week ago today, a madman turned a quiet fall day in Roseburg, OR, into a day of horror and terror. What occurred on the grounds of Umpqua Community College is an unspeakable, senseless innocent tragedy--nine innocent lives cut short. Lucero Alcaraz was just 19 years old. She graduated from Roseburg High School this past year. She had received scholarships that would cover her entire college costs, and she had hopes of becoming a pediatric nurse working with children. Quinn Cooper, 18 years old, also just graduated from Roseburg High School. Quinn loved dancing and voice acting. He was just on the verge of taking his brown belt test in martial arts. Lucas Eibel, 18 years old, was a third graduate of Roseburg High School. He was studying chemistry. When he wasn't in school, he played soccer and volunteered at Wildlife Safari animal park and a local animal shelter. Treven Anspach was 20 years old. He was a talented athlete, and he worked with the Douglas County Fire District when he wasn't in class. His parents referred to him as the ``perfect son.'' Kim Dietz loved the outdoors, her 18-year-old daughter, her two Great Pyrenees dogs, and she worked as a caretaker at the Pyrenees Vineyard. Jason Johnson was 33 years old. Jason recently turned his life around. After completing a 6-month drug rehab program with the Salvation Army, he decided to continue his education. As his mother said, he had ``finally found his path.'' Sarena Moore. Sarena was in her third semester at Umpqua Community College, studying business. She was an active member of the Grants Pass Seventh-day Adventist Church and the proud mother of two adult sons. Lawrence Levine was the professor teaching the writing class that was assaulted by the gunman. He loved the blues. He loved fly fishing. Writing was his passion. Rebecka Carnes. Rebecka graduated just last year from South Umpqua High School. In this picture she is holding a graduation cap, and the graduation cap says ``the adventure begins.'' She was full of zest for the life to come. These were nine upstanding citizens of the community, nine promising lives cut short. Yet even in tragedy we saw in Roseburg examples of resilience and heroism. The law enforcement officers, the first responders proceeded to act quickly and to act competently. There were students like Chris Mintz, who was shot five to seven times seeking to stop the gunman. The sheriff, the county commissioners, the mayor, the city manager all made decisions in a flash to respond and to address the unfolding crisis, and they did an incredible job, but there is no job that can repair the damage done, the tear in the fabric of the community or the broken hearts of the families and the community and all Oregonians. This mass shooting will be seared into our memories. The name Roseburg will be added to a list that includes Charleston, Newtown, Aurora, Oak Creek, Virginia Tech, and Columbine. This is a list of communities and schools that no community or school ever wants to be on. I was born in Douglas County, in the town of Myrtle Creek. I spent my early childhood there and then in Roseburg. That area is an incredibly beautiful place. It is home to one of the most beautiful rivers in the world, the Umpqua River, and a town that is just the right size, where everyone knows each other and everyone helps each other. I am shocked when I think of the community, that this could happen there. If this can happen in Roseburg, it can happen anywhere in our country. That is something that becomes evident day after day, week after week. In the course of 2015, there have been 45 shootings in our schools across the country, 18 mass murders, or roughly 1 every 2 weeks. So we grieve the lives lost at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, and we grieve the lives lost in assaults across the country. We will search our souls to ask ourselves how we might diminish the odds of this occurring in another community, and that conversation will take place here in this Chamber in the weeks ahead. I want to close with recognizing that if we can diminish the opportunity of a disturbed individual to get hold of a gun and we can increase the opportunity for them to get help, there will be fewer tragedies like this. With that, I turn the floor over to my colleague, Senator Wyden.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Indeed, my experience in the Oregon State Legislature was dramatically different. In many ways, it was much more similar to the way I thought the Senate was operating when I was here in the 1970s and then working for Congress in the 1980s. Once we got to a bill on the floor of the Oregon House, where I served for 10 years and spent 2 years as speaker, every moment was utilized in debate. There was no paralysis. People only had limited time. We were there to hear each other and to make decisions and certainly in a more expeditious style than is the custom in the Senate. But what we had in common was floor time was well utilized in the Senate in the past and well utilized in Oregon. As you were speaking about tradition and how the Senate worked, I was thinking about how all this began. When they had the first U.S. Senate, they had in their rule book a motion to force a vote. They had that rule, but they never used it. Why didn't they use it? Imagine if there are 13 States and just 26 Senators and they stand here occupying a quarter of the space we now occupy and they say: Well, we certainly can extend the courtesy of hearing each person's insight or opinion before we vote. So after a couple of years, when they rewrote the rule book, they decided not to include the rule. They didn't need it because they had the courtesy of hearing each other. So suddenly there is a Senate with no rule on how to close debate and force a vote. And over time that courtesy eroded. It was after World War I that the first time occurred when the Senate said: Well, let's enable a majority--a supermajority of the Senate to close debate if there is too much abuse or paralysis. The point is that the filibuster is not in the Constitution. Some of my colleagues have said this is the way the Founders designed the Senate--to be a supermajority body. That is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is not in the Constitution, it was not in the early Senate, and it was not a major feature of the Senate in terms of it being a common experience until these recent years. So if we can recapture the spirit and the courtesy of hearing each other's opinion but enable us to get onto the bill, debate the bill, do amendments, and then if someone finds a moment of great principle, great heartfelt objection, and wants to spend the time and energy to extend debate, they do so in this visibile talking-filibuster fashion, I think that would be a huge improvement and well worth our time.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague, Tom Udall, the Senator from New Mexico, to talk about how to come together to fix our broken Senate and specifically to invite our colleagues from both sides of the aisle to engage in a dialogue together to address the dysfunction that we see so evident on the floor of the Senate day after day. What we have come to understand in the course of 2015 is that the frustration with a broken Senate is a bipartisan, equal opportunity frustration. In 2013 and 2014, Democrats were in the majority and Republicans were in the minority. The majority was frustrated and couldn't get onto bills to start debate, and when we did get on the bills, we couldn't start the process of having amendments; the time on the floor was being wasted. Now here we are in 2015 and the roles are reversed. Republicans are in control, and Republicans are frustrated that we can't get to bills and have them on the floor and that the amendment process is broken. And on amendments, it affects the minority and the majority. So here we have Democrats and Republicans with something deeply in common: a common interest in fixing this broken Senate. The perspective I bring to this goes back to when I first came to this Chamber in the summer of 1976. I was an intern for Senator Hatfield. I was assigned to work on a bill called the Tax Reform Act of 1976 that came up on the floor of the Senate. I was assigned to follow the debate because, of course, we didn't have television coverage at that point and we didn't have emails at that point. I would meet Senator Hatfield out at the elevators, just outside these beautiful double doors, and brief him on the amendment, and he would go in and vote. Then, an hour later, we would do it all over again. Debate was largely on amendments that were relevant to the main underlying bill. There was no delaying, no wasted time between amendments. There was no agreement that had to be negotiated between the Democratic and the Republican leaders; it was simply whoever got the attention of the Presiding Officer after the preceding amendment was completed. In a lot of ways, it represented how the Senate had operated since our founding. But today we are in a very different place. Today we are in a place where multiple aspects of the Senate are broken. We all wrestle with getting bills to the floor. We wrestle with wasting time and not being able to bring our amendments forward. We wrestle with the responsibility of the Senate to execute advice and consent responsibility on nominations in a responsible fashion. So I wish to speak a little bit about these three areas, and, again, at the core of my message is an invitation to a bipartisan dialogue to try to address these issues. Let's talk first about the motions to proceed to the floor. These motions used to be routine. This is a chart which shows when there was a necessity of doing a cloture motion--a motion to close debate on a motion to get to a bill. This chart goes back to about 1915. From 1915 through 1960, no one ever contested a vote on whether to bring a bill to the floor. It just was not done. It was a social contract. It was voted either up or down; let's go to the bill or not go to the bill. Starting in 1962--and we see the accelerating number of red bars--it became more and more routine, through times when Democrats were in the majority and through times when Republicans were in the majority, to contest and obstruct the effort to even start debate on a bill. So this is an area we can work together to address. Let's talk about the frustration of actually being able to debate amendments. I thought one way of contrasting this would be to look at the number of amendments the Senate has considered in different years. Back in the 1993 through 1995 session, 2000, roughly, or 1,961 amendments were debated and voted on here in the Senate. The following 2-year period, 1995 through 1997, 2,540 amendments were voted on. How does that contrast with the two previous Congresses? In 2011 through 2013, we were under 1,000--974; from 2013 to 2015, just over 500 amendments, or roughly one-fifth of the number that were considered 20 years earlier. So those are the numbers. But what it really looks like here on the floor is we get onto a bill, and then nothing happens because the tree has been filled--filled by the Democratic leader when the Democrats have been in the majority, filled by the Republican leader when the Republicans have been in the majority--so no one can introduce an amendment unless they have unanimous consent, and there is always someone willing to object. Therefore, we are paralyzed. This is an area we can address. Virtually every Senate legislature has worked out a system where they can come to the floor on a bill and immediately start considering amendments. There are many different ways we can solve this problem, but we won't solve it unless we come together as Democrats and Republicans and work together to figure it out--figure out a way that will work for both sides. Let's turn to nominations. Here again we see that before 1960--this chart goes back to about 1915--we never had cloture votes on nominations. The nomination was proposed, debated, and then there was an up-or-down vote. That was the social contract. There could have been an objection to closing debate, but there wasn't. People understood that the time is short and if a nominee has majority support, then that nominee for a judicial position, for an executive position, should be in that position; that we shouldn't allow one branch of government--the legislative branch--to systematically undermine and attack the other branches of government. Now, it is true that we haven't quite reversed roles at this point in time the way we did in terms of being here on the floor of the Senate simply because both last session and this session we still have the same President--we still have a Democratic President. But let's turn our minds to the next election in November of 2016, which is not that far away--a year and a month a way--and then January 2017, when that new President is going to take office. At this point, we have no idea whether that will be a Democratic President or a Republican President and we have no idea whether control of this Chamber will be in Democratic hands or Republican hands. But I do know that my Republican colleagues across the aisle--if there is a Republican President, they don't want this Chamber to systematically obstruct the ability of that Republican President to be able to put capable people into the necessary positions to operate the government. Our role is to screen out terrible nominees, not to systematically undermine the ability of an administration to function. So as we look forward to 2017, not knowing who will be in charge, maybe this is a window of opportunity where we can come together and work out a plan to expedite nominations so that we can return to the traditions of the Senate and serve our role of advice and consent without conducting a war on the judicial branch or a war on the executive branch. This concept of a supermajority was not the vision of the Founding Fathers. In fact, they worried about this. Madison spoke to it. So did Hamilton. Madison talked about the danger of a supermajority. He said: It would be no longer the majority that would rule: The power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences. He continues to address supermajority rule and says: ``The fundamental principle of free government would be reversed.'' Let me translate that. What he is saying is that in a principled democracy, there is wisdom in the majority; that if the majority says this is the right decision, that is the decision we should make. But if we systematically go in the direction in which the minority says we should go, then we have chosen the less wise option. Those decisions build up over time and undermine the success of the Nation, and that would be a huge mistake. Hamilton addressed this as well. He said--and this is Federalist Paper No. 22, and he was speaking from painful experience as a New York Representative in Congress that was created under the Articles of Confederation. He said that supermajority rule results in ``tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good.'' I think a lot of Americans, when they think about the way Congress is operating now, would say: That is what we see. We see contemptible compromises of the common good. We don't see 100 Members of the Senate working together for the public. Instead, we see a lot of special interest deals, contemptible compromises, really abuse of minority role in blocking. They have seen both the Democrats in the minority this year, Republicans in the minority before, so it is an equal opportunity critique, if you will, toward both parties. Of course, our national rating is very low. Again, as we look toward the future and have no idea whether the next President will be a Democrat or Republican, and we don't know whether the next majority leader will be a Democrat or a Republican, we have a chance, an opportunity, an incentive to work together to establish new rules--rules that will make this place work again, rules that will restore the Senate. Senator Udall and I have laid out ideas on how we might address these things, but those ideas--there is no one wisdom, no silver bullet. So let's come together in a dialogue. There are ideas that I absolutely love. I love the idea of a talking filibuster. That is, let's get rid of the filibuster on motions to proceed. That is in sync with the way the Senate used to operate. Let's get rid of it on conference committees. That is the way the Senate used to operate. And on final passage, if 41 Senators want to continue debate, then let's insist that one of them be on the floor speaking. That makes it both a commitment of time and energy, which is not required now under the supermajority requirement, and it makes it visible and transparent to the American public. So I love that idea, but perhaps that is not an idea on which we can build a bipartisan bridge. I don't know, and I won't know unless we can come together in a bipartisan way to discuss it. I love the idea of coming to the floor with a protocol for amendments, since we have been so paralyzed, so that immediately five amendments from the minority and five from the majority that are relevant to the bill and that are in order could be offered. That would be terrific. It would be a simple majority passage. I think if that was done, then the majority and minority Members would hear from their leaders and say: Let's do five more on each side. But we wouldn't come to the floor and play music on C-SPAN because we can't even start debate on an amendment. Let's use the valuable time we have on this floor to do the people's work, not to sit here in deep-freeze paralysis. I love the idea of establishing a rule that creates a specific way to discuss and debate rule changes. We don't have that right now. When we start every 2-year Congress, we wrestle with how can we create a conversation over rules. There is no systematic way in our rules to do that. I love the idea of us working together to lay out a way to do that. I think it would serve this body well. We need to work together to restore this body. It has often been referred to by the nickname ``the world's greatest deliberative body.'' That certainly is not an accurate description today, but together we can restore that. We have a responsibility to the citizens of the United States to restore that vision. Let's make deliberation work and characterize this body, not deep freeze. Let's engage in respectful dialogue, not rigid partisanship. Let's take this moment, as we plan toward January 2017, and build a vision together, dialogue together, a vision of how to make the Senate work for Americans. Thank you, Mr. President. It is my privilege to introduce my colleague from New Mexico, who has wrestled with this issue even before he came to the Senate and has been engaged in it from day one and has brought so much insight and wisdom to bear on this challenge.

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

Mr. MERKLEY. I think Senator Udall is absolutely accurate that this is the perfect moment to do it. When we first engaged in this dialogue, we reached out to our Republican colleagues. We held one-on-one meetings. We sought to champion this. What we found was that the view of reform was polarized on whether you were in the majority or the minority. We said that we were going to have this test for what we put forward: that what we put forward when we were in the majority is what we put forward when we are in the minority. If we don't think it would work for us in the minority, then it is not an honest or fair appraisal of making the Senate work. So now we have come to that test because here we are now in the minority and we are proposing the same set of ideas. This Senator absolutely believes these ideas would make this place work better. It would enable more bills to be debated, which is--to have that value when you are in the minority, to actually put your amendments forward and have that debate, is a gift. Certainly it says that if you really believe--the idea that we put forward, a talking filibuster--if you really believe you want to block something, you have to stand on this floor and debate it. I think that is a way to keep the theory of the filibuster and return it to the social contract of the past where people understood that it was a simple-majority body, as envisioned in the Constitution, as envisioned by Hamilton, as envisioned by Madison; that they had the experience of the supermajority and knew that caused deep damage, but that if you really believe in something so deeply, then you are willing to spend the time and energy. So I think the things we crafted in the majority still hold up. But the bigger point is this: Now that we have had a reversal, many of our colleagues are experiencing firsthand the frustrations the minority can inflict on the majority. I think that opens a window of opportunity. I have a list of 20 quotes. The Senator referred to people in the House--he is a former Member of the House--saying to their Senate Republican colleagues: Why don't you do something to fix the Senate? And now we are standing here saying: Join with us in a dialogue to fix the Senate.

Mr. MERKLEY. There are two former Members of the Senate right now who are working on a book that is coming out in January that will be addressing reform in the Senate, and that is Trent Lott and Tom Daschle. They have already issued a number of ideas about how to reform this. The point I am making is that when people leave the Senate, they reflect back and say: You know, there is a bipartisan opportunity, a bipartisan responsibility to make this Chamber work. What we are saying is that this can't be accomplished through folks who have left the Senate; that we must invite bipartisanship here and solve it ourselves; and that any rule changes that are envisioned, any agreements that are forged have to be done here on the floor, and we are extending that invitation, as you put it, to our 98 colleagues to be part of that dialogue. We can draw on the ideas that our former Members have put forward as a starting point. We can draw on the ideas that you and I have put forward, but these ideas, there is no one way to address this. We are inviting others to brainstorm together in a dialogue to try to gather a vision that perhaps we can commit ourselves to, in a bipartisan fashion, to enact at the start of the next legislature, when we realize we may not be minority or majority, and that becomes a magical way to escape our current status as we are embattled and we are having deep emotional fights over foreign policy, social policy, and how to create jobs in America--but to get some distance on that and say how to make this Chamber work the way it was envisioned, because certainly I think 100 Members can agree the Senate is broken. Would it not be phenomenal if, in a bipartisan effort, we were able to restore the U.S. Senate to being a great deliberative body?

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, today Pope Francis arrives in Washington. In 2 days, he will be speaking to a joint meeting of Congress, where he will undoubtedly remind us all to remember what he has termed ``the most abandoned.'' It was Pope Francis who said: ``I invite all of the institutions of the world, the Church, each of us, as one single human family, to give a voice to all of those who suffer silently from hunger, so that this voice becomes a roar which can shake the world.'' He continued and said: ``This campaign [to end hunger] is an invitation to all of us . . . to stop thinking that our daily actions do not have an impact on the lives of those who suffer from hunger firsthand.'' It turns out that the Pope's message on addressing hunger is more timely than we could have imagined. In a moment, I will explain why. It has to do with the government shutdown. Certainly we know from 2 years ago that a government shutdown hurts every family in America, it hurts small businesses across America, it sets the economy back, it creates all sorts of obstructions and frustrations, and it is a self-inflicted wound on America. Yet my colleagues across the aisle are contending that is exactly where they want to head, another showdown over social issues. We have been down this road before. It is a needless self- inflicted wound. We shouldn't be planning to go there. But here is why the Pope's words on hunger are particularly timely: Two years ago when we had a government shutdown, it did not impact the program known as SNAP or food stamps--the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or food stamps, as we often refer to it. That is because we still had funds left from the stimulus program to be able to make sure hungry Americans did have the ability to receive the credits on their electronic food stamp card and to purchase groceries for their families. But we are in a different position this time around. Last Friday the U.S. Department of Agriculture notified the Appropriations Committee that because the stimulus funds that existed 2 years ago are not there any longer, that come October 1, if we shut this government down, then we are also going to be shutting down food stamps--that is shutting down food stamps for 45 million Americans. In my home State of Oregon, there are about one out of five Oregonians who depend on food stamps to hold hunger at bay. We are certainly talking about an incredible number of children among that number, so across the country, millions of children, millions more Americans--45 million Americans. Yet here we are saying that it is all right to shut down food stamps and leave millions of Americans with the prospect of going hungry. It causes me to reflect on Robert Kennedy's effort to take on hunger. He was known back in 1967 to have visited children in Mississippi, and he said the following: I have seen children in the Delta area of Mississippi with distended stomachs, whose faces are covered with sores from starvation, and we haven't developed a policy so we can get enough food so that they can live, so that their children, so that their lives are not destroyed. I don't think that's acceptable in the United States of America and I think we need a change. That is what Robert Kennedy said to our Nation. His advocacy had an impact in two particular areas, and that is that we proceeded to put a lot more resources into fighting hunger and we rewrote the food stamp regulations to provide greater access for those at the lowest income levels. The Food Stamp Program--or as it is now called, SNAP--has become the largest, most effective program in the United States in the fight against hunger. Again, the USDA contacted us Friday of last week and said it looks like they will have to shut down this program if there is a government shutdown. This did not happen 2 years ago, so this is new information. They said they are going to work through the weekend to see if they can find any way with an existing law to prevent this from happening. As of this morning, they had been unable to find any legal pathway to extend the Food Stamp Program should we be in a government shutdown. In our country, the poverty threshold for a family of four is about $24,000. For a family of four, that translates to about $6,000 a person. More than half of those who receive food stamps live in families who are below 50 percent of that threshold or roughly $3,000 per year per individual in the family. In my home State of Oregon, SNAP provides food benefits for about 800,000 residents or, as I mentioned, one in five Oregonians. This will have a widespread impact on hundreds of thousands of individuals in my home State and for my colleagues, hundreds of thousands of individuals in their States--45 million across the country. The USDA tells us that the timing for the recharging of the food stamp cards varies. Not everyone will be affected on October 1, but all of those 45 million would be affected in the month of October. The majority of the SNAP recipients in Oregon and nationwide are vulnerable populations. They are children. They are the disabled. They are the elderly. Can we not come together in a responsible fashion to prevent sending millions of Americans into a crisis over available food, millions of children across our country in a crisis because they do not have food because of our inability to act responsibly? The words Robert Kennedy used were that this should not happen in America. Let me repeat that certainly I believe this should not happen in America. I cannot conceive of any moral argument that would justify leaving our children, our disabled, our elderly hungry because a few people in this body want to make a political point over a social issue. That is unacceptable. I do a lot of townhalls back home in Oregon, one in every county every year. I hear from folks who are worried over a lot of issues. They are certainly worried about finding a good job. They are certainly worried about the cost of sending their children to college. They are certainly worried about cuts to Head Start programs and the quality of their public schools. They are worried about the possibility of a secure retirement. And now, because of the threats of partisan point- making here in the body of the Senate, they are going to have to worry about whether they can put dinner on the table and feed their children. That is wrong. The American people are sick and tired of Congress manufacturing crises like this. Let's move beyond this brinkmanship and this hostage politics. Let's avert this shutdown. Let's carry out the responsibilities to the people of the United States of America. Pope Francis said in that initial quote I noted that he invited all of the institutions of the world to give voice to all those who suffer silently from hunger. Little did he imagine that on the day he arrived here in Washington, DC, this institution--the U.S. Senate--would be involved not only in not helping those who are hungry but plotting and planning a shutdown of the government that will put millions of Americans into a food crisis. Let's change that. Let's come together. Let's address a responsible plan for carrying the full funding of our government forward.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. In conclusion, no foreign policy choice comes with guarantees. The future, whether we approve or reject this deal, is unknowable and carries risks. But this agreement, with its verification and full U.S. participation, offers the best prospect for stopping Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon at any point here forward, and for that reason I will support it. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, the United Sates, our citizens, our President, and I believe every single Member of Congress stand united in our commitment to block Iran from securing a nuclear weapon. The question we are debating is the pathway that is best for ensuring that outcome. Is the international agreement negotiated between Iran and the P5+1 nations the best strategy for blocking Iran's potential pursuit of a nuclear weapon or is there some other route that yields better probability, better outcome? That is the issue we are considering. Over the last month, I have explored the strengths of every argument and counterargument. I have met with policy experts, intelligence analysts, advocates, and the Ambassadors of our partner nations. I have sought and received the counsel of Oregonians on both sides of this issue. Taking all of this into account, this deal is the best available strategy for blocking Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The plan's strength is that for 15 years it creates an effective framework for blocking Iran's three pathways to securing a nuclear weapon: the uranium path, the plutonium path, and the covert path. It blocks the uranium path by requiring Iran to dismantle two-thirds of its centrifuges; more importantly, to reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium by 97 percent; and to limit enrichment of uranium to 3.67 percent--far below the 90 percent required for a nuclear weapon. It blocks Iran's plutonium pathway by requiring Iran to pull the core of its Arak reactor and to fill it with concrete, to build any replacement reactor with a design that will not produce weapons-grade plutonium, and to forgo the reprocessing of spent fuel which is essential to the plutonium path. The agreement also blocks a covert path to a bomb by imposing extensive inspections and monitoring. This includes providing onsite inspections anywhere a violation is suspected. Unprecedented procedures have been put in place to guarantee that Iran cannot indefinitely stall these inspections, including setting a maximum number of days for access and number of days that is guaranteed to ensure that we can, with confidence, detect any work with radioactive materials. The result--attested to by 75 nonproliferation experts and diplomats in a recent letter--is that it is ``very likely that any future effort by Iran to pursue nuclear weapons, even a clandestine program, would be detected promptly.'' As many have pointed out on the floor today, the agreement is not without shortcomings. It has not sustained the current U.N. ban on Iran's importation of conventional arms. Iran could acquire conventional arms up to 5 years and missile technology after 8 years. It does not dictate how Iran can spend the dollars it reclaims from cash assets that are frozen. It does not permanently maintain bright lines on Iran's nuclear research or nuclear energy program, lifting the 300-kilogram stockpile limit and 3.77 percent enrichment limit after 15 years. These exclusions are trouble. It is possible, perhaps probable, that Iran will use some of that additional cash and access to conventional arms to increase its support for terrorist groups. It is possible that Iran will use a nuclear research program and a nuclear energy program as the foundation for a future nuclear weapons program. That is a substantial concern. For this reason, many have come to this floor and argued the United States, instead of implementing this agreement, should withdraw from it and negotiate a better deal. The prospects for that possibility, however, are slim. Our P5+1 partners--and I have met with all of their Ambassadors to explore this issue--have committed the good faith of their governments behind this agreement. They believe this is the best path, the best opportunity to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. They plan to honor the deal they have signed on to with or without the United States as long as Iran does as well. Iran has every reason to honor this agreement, even if the United States rejects it because agreement fulfills Iran's goal of lifting the international sanctions and it sets the stage for valuable trade and investment partnerships. If Iran were to follow this course, it would gain many benefits while leaving the United States at odds with the balance of our partners, undermining, in a dramatic international fashion, American influence with strategic and security consequences throughout a large spectrum. On the other hand, if Iran exits this agreement and responds to its rejection by the United States, our country then is the one that stands in the pathway of a potential diplomatic solution to this incredibly important international security issue. It will be the United States blocking a plan with high confidence of stopping Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb. Furthermore, the international support for economic sanctions would fray, giving Iran some of the economic relief it is seeking without the burden of intrusive inspections. In short, this course would shatter diplomacy, impact and diminish American leadership, and shred our economic leverage, increasing reliance on one leftover tool--military options--while at the same time dramatically diminishing our confidence in the actual state of Iran's nuclear program. Less information, more reliance, and less confidence would be a dangerous combination. The most effective strategy for blocking Iran's access to a nuclear bomb is to utilize this agreement and maximize American participation to hold Iran strictly accountable, not through the first 15 years but through the next decades that follow, where Iran is still completely constrained by its commitment to never develop a nuclear weapon. After 15 years, Iran will be subject to the deal's requirement that it will never ``seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.'' And Iran will continue to be subject to ongoing intensive monitoring and verification by the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA. We, the United States, can greatly strengthen this framework. The United States should use a massive intelligence program to back up the plan in the first 15 years and strengthen the IAEA's monitoring after the first 15 years. The United States should lead the international community in defining the boundary that constitutes the difference between a nuclear research program and a nuclear energy program versus a nuclear weapons program. Those bright lines that are diminished are replaced with a commitment that has to be defined, and it is through participation and agreement that the United States can ensure that the international community sustains a clear line and enforces that clear line.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, yesterday, the Forest Service announced that for the first time in its 110-year history, it is spending more than 50 percent of its budget just to fight wildfires. The Forest Service expects this problem to keep getting worse. Within a decade, they are projecting that firefighting costs will rise to two thirds of the Forest Service budget. The Forest Service can no longer sustain these costs of fighting wildfires while continuing other critical functions of managing our Federal forests. It is long overdue that Congress eliminate the vicious cycle of fire borrowing, where the Forest Service is forced to dig further and further into its budget to fight fires at the expense of critical work to reduce hazardous fuels from the forest and other forest management. I am very grateful that we have such a strong bipartisan group of colleagues working together on this critical matter. I thank my colleagues who are joining me today, and I note that it is this kind of bipartisan cooperation that gets the issues done, along with the strong leadership of Senator Wyden who has championed this issue with a bipartisan bill for the last two Congresses, in addition to the strong leadership of Senator Murkowski which allowed us to take a big step in the right direction in the Interior Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2016. It is crucial to our communities facing threats of wildfire that we keep this cooperation going. I will keep working with my colleagues to solve this urgent budgetary crisis.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in commending President Obama for putting forth his Clean Power Plan. Theodore Roosevelt said: Of all the questions which can come before this nation, short of the actual preservation of its existence in a great war, there is none which compares in importance with the great central task of leaving this land even a better land for our descendents than it is for us. I think it captured very well the challenge we face with carbon pollution and global warming because we are facing that great central task of leaving this land better for our descendents than it is for us. We are facing a situation in which there is an accelerating quantity of carbon dioxide pollution in the atmosphere, and it is having a profound impact on, basically, the temperature of our planet. If we simply look at the carbon pollution itself, scientists have said that we are in trouble if it rises over 350 parts per million. Well, here we are with pollution that last year hit 400 parts per million. So we are above the danger zone. We are going deeper into the danger zone--let me put it that way--and that is not where we need to be. Furthermore, we are accelerating the rate at which we are polluting the planet with carbon dioxide. It was just a few decades ago that the rate of carbon pollution was increasing by about 1 part per million per year, and now it is increasing by something closer to 2 parts per million per year. So where we need to be decreasing the overall pollution, bringing it down, we are increasing it and increasing the rate at which we are polluting, and that is a very bad place for humankind to be on this planet. There is incontrovertible evidence of how quickly the planet is warming. We have, by scientific record--14 of the warmest 15 years in recorded history have occurred in the last 15 years. So 14 of the 15 warmest years over the centuries of measurement have all occurred in the last 15 years. That is not just one little warm spell on some little piece of land; that is a global temperature. As carbon pollution is increasing, we see the global temperature increasing, and it is reverberating all across the planet. We see dramatic changes in the Arctic. The rate of warming in the Arctic is roughly four times the rate of warming in more moderate latitudes. So we are seeing an incredible decrease in the ice, huge changes that are coming so quickly, it is very hard for animals to adapt. Of course, people are well aware of the crisis the polar bears are facing, but that is just one particular visible species as an indicator of the challenges that are going on. We are seeing the feedback mechanisms in the polar zone. We are seeing the open waters where ice is not reflecting the sunlight back up. More water is absorbing more sunlight, and that is creating an accelerated heating impact. We are seeing that as thawing occurs in the permafrost, we have these situations with what are called drunken forests, where the trees that all stood straight are now staggering in one direction or the other as they lean slightly, as the ground underneath them that was frozen is melting. As it starts to melt, it will start to release methane gas, which is a very potent global warming gas. So that is another feedback mechanism we should all be concerned about. Let's take my home State of Oregon, and I think one could do this type of checkup, if you will, on any State in the Union. In my home State, we had a very severe series of droughts in the Klamath Basin, which is a major agricultural basin. We have had the three worst ever droughts in a period of 15 years. It corresponds with the period of the warmest years on planet Earth in recorded history. And that has a huge impact on our farming industry. So if you care about farmers, you should care about global warming. Then we had a big challenge with our forests because as these summers are becoming dryer and as the types of storms we have are producing more lightning strikes, we are having a lot more forest fires. The fire season is getting longer and more devastating. Far more acres are being burned. Over several decades, the fire season has increased by several weeks in length, and the amount of acres burning each summer, on average, is increasing. So if you care about timber, if you care about forests, then you should care about global warming. Another impact of this changing pattern is that we are getting very little snowfall in the Cascades. Just as Glacier Park is now becoming the park of disappearing glaciers--you have to look very hard to find any glaciers left in Glacier Park--the Cascades also--a different mountain range--are losing their snowpack. In fact, we have virtually no snowpack now feeding the mountain streams that come down. So if you are a fisherman, you are looking at smaller and warmer streams, which is very unhealthy for fish. That is not all. Right now we have sockeye coming up the Columbia River and getting to the Snake River, and they are dying because the temperature of the river is too warm for them to continue upriver to spawn. Some estimates that I have seen in the last week are that as many as 80 percent of the sockeye now returning are dying in the Columbia River before they make it to the Snake River. So if you care about fishing, you should care about global warming. Then we look at our coastal shellfish and we discover that we have a significant problem with our oysters. Oregon produces a lot of oyster seed. Those are the baby oysters that get distributed to oyster fishermen. There is a similar process going on in Washington State at another hatchery. The challenge for the hatcheries is that the water that is pumped out of the ocean to produce the baby oysters, get them going, is becoming too acidic. This also is about global warming because the higher rates of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are being absorbed by the ocean, and that creates carbonic acid. It has been enough that there is a 30-percent increase in the acidity of the ocean, and that is causing a big problem with baby oysters as far as forming shells. So if you care about the seafood industry, you should care about global warming. When we talk about the issue of global warming, we are not talking about computer models and things that are 50 years into the future; we are talking about real-life effects seen on the ground right now, things that are having a big impact on our seafood, a big impact on our fishing, a big impact on our farming, and a big impact on our forestry. If you care about rural America's resource-driven economies across this country, you should care about global warming. As a nation, it is incumbent on us to take on this challenge. We are the first generation--as has been said by others--to feel the impact of global warming and the last generation that can do something about it. It is incumbent on us, the Senators in this Chamber, the U.S. Senate, to take on this issue. It is incumbent on the Presidents and the executive teams they put together to take this on in partnership with the rest of the world because this is absolutely a tragedy of the commons. Very clearly, if the United States takes some action to reduce our carbon dioxide or to reduce our methane production, it will have a modest impact but not enough. Nations across the planet have to act, and they will act more or less as a community because very few nations are going to say they will act alone knowing they won't have a big enough impact unless nations join together. So it is up to our leadership role in the world that we act actively, aggressively, and reach out with other nations to partner. Earlier this year there was an agreement struck with China. China is going to produce as much renewable energy from electricity by 2030 as all the electricity we currently produce in the United States. I am not just talking about our renewable energy. If you take the U.S. renewable energy, our nuclear energy, our energy produced from gas-fired plants, our electricity produced from coal-fired plants, and you add it all together, that is the amount of electricity China is going to produce with just renewable energy between now and 2030. They are taking on a massive commitment to renewable energy. They wouldn't be doing it if the United States wasn't also responding aggressively. India is starting to become interested in doing their share, seeing that other nations are stepping up. The United States should never be sitting on its hands and saying: We will wait for everybody else to act--not when there is an issue that threatens the success of the next generation of humans on this planet and the generation after and the generation after. I said earlier that not only are we the first generation to feel the impact of global warming, but we are the last generation that can do something about it. What do I mean by that? What I mean is that the further you get into global warming, the further you get into carbon pollution, methane pollution, and more feedback mechanisms, the harder it is to stop. There is momentum that builds behind the warming of the planet. It becomes much harder to take it on. That is why we need to act decisively now. So the Clean Power Plan the President launched, put forward yesterday, is responding to the moral demand of this generation to take on carbon pollution. It is doing so in a most cost-effective fashion, a fashion that will create jobs in the United States, a fashion that will reduce deaths in the United States. Let me give an example of the health benefits. It will avoid up to 3,600 premature deaths, lead to 90,000 fewer asthma attacks in children, and prevent 300,000 missed workdays and schooldays. That is incredible. It will save the average family nearly $85 in their annual energy bill by the year 2030. So that is powerful. In addition, we are going to create jobs in this fashion. It has the tremendous impact of putting people to work--tens of thousands to work, driving new investments in cleaner, more modern, and efficient renewable energy technologies. I close by turning back to President Theodore Roosevelt, who said there is no more important mission than ``leaving this land even a better land for our descendants than it is for us.'' There are individuals who will come to this floor and they will say: Let's act someday but not now. Let's do it when it will not have an impact on jobs. Well, this will actually create jobs right now. Let's do it when it will cost less. Well, it never costs less if the problem gets bigger. It costs less to invest now. Let's pass it on to the next generation. They will solve it. That is morally irresponsible. Every State is feeling the direct impact. Every rural community, timber community, fishing community, shellfish community, and farming community is feeling the impact today of our failure to address this yesterday. Our children, our children's children, and our children's children's children are counting on us in the Senate to act aggressively, to support a strong plan to take on carbon pollution--a strong Clean Power Plan. So let's do so. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I particularly want to draw attention to several organizations that played a leading role, and I apologize to others that were also very involved. The Human Rights Campaign played a central role in organizing today's introduction. I also thank the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Council of La Raza, the National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund, the National Women's Law Center, and so many others. The Equality Act will create uniform Federal standards to protect all LGBT Americans from discrimination in housing, in workplaces, in schools, in public accommodations, and in financial transactions. It is a vision of equality deeply rooted in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It is setting the same foundation to end discrimination for the LGBT community that was set for ethnicity and set for gender and set for race. That is the foundation for the vision of eliminating discrimination in area after area, and it is time we place LGBT nondiscrimination on that same foundation. That is what we are doing today--comprehensively taking on discrimination. The bill also addresses gaps in legal protections against sex discrimination--ensuring women are treated equally in all aspects of their lives. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and a steadily increasing number of courts have recognized that sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination are properly understood as forms of sex discrimination in light of multiple controlling sex discrimination cases. The EEOC has done this through several decisions, most notably Macy v. Holder in 2012, which held that transgender discrimination is sex discrimination, and Baldwin v. Foxx very recently, which held that sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination. The bill we are introducing today, the Equality Act, codifies this understanding, making it clear that sexual orientation and gender identity are correctly understood as sex discrimination. In addition, the bill adds the terms ``sexual orientation'' and ``gender identity'' to the list of protected characteristics throughout the code. This change should not be read to mean that sexual orientation and gender identity are not correctly understood as sex discrimination. These additions were made so covered entities as well as LGBT people can clearly see that these protections exist. Employers, businesses, and institutions are often not aware of the decisions by the EEOC and the courts holding that sexual orientation or gender identity are protected. This bill represents a paradigm shift in two ways. First, our civil rights community has worked incredibly hard to defend the principles established in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and today we are asking for their engagement to not simply defend this act but to expand this act. Second, we have worked very hard to take on pieces of discrimination, whether it be don't ask, don't tell, whether it be Federal benefits for same-sex partners. But today we are saying we need a vision of comprehensive nondiscrimination. That is the expression of full opportunity. You cannot access full opportunity if the door is closed in financial transactions or jury selection or public accommodations if you can still be turned away from a restaurant because of whom you love or whom you are. Every American deserves equality in every basic function of our society. Discrimination has no place in our Nation's laws. If it is wrong in marriage, as the Court has held, as numerous States have established, it is wrong also in employment. If it is wrong in employment, it is wrong in housing. If it is wrong in housing, it is wrong, too, in education. Overwhelmingly, Americans believe discrimination is wrong. Overwhelmingly, they believe it is already illegal, and they believe it has no place in our society and no place being condoned by our laws. Even though the Equality Act addresses multiple dimensions of discrimination, it is quite simple. It says that people deserve to live free from fear, free from violence, and free from discrimination, regardless of who they are or whom they love. Writing these protections into law will bring us another stride forward in our Nation's long march toward inclusion and equality. It will extend the full promise of America to every American. I will keep fighting until this bill is on the President's desk. I will not be satisfied until everyone in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender community is guaranteed the dignity and the freedom they deserve, the whole sense of opportunity provided through participation in American society. A full measure of equality: equal citizen. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in this fight. I thank the 40 Senators who stood up today to be original cosponsors of the Equality Act of 2015. Let's make our democracy more inclusive and our freedom more perfect by bringing our laws and our actions in line with the founding principle that all are created equal.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Equality Act of 2015--comprehensive civil rights legislation for our LGBT community. There are few concepts as fundamentally American as equality. We were founded on this principle with these simple words: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, they are endowed by their Creator with unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For more than two centuries, we have been working to fulfill that vision of equality. We have taken direct action as a nation so that our laws align more closely with these founding ideals. We have challenged unjust rules and destructive prejudices and chosen to advance basic civil rights. Martin Luther King put forth the vision that the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice. He knew that in the 1950s and 1960s Americans were hard at work making that moral arc of the universe bend towards justice. That is the work we continue here in the Senate, here on Capitol Hill, here in the House of Representatives just 100 yards away. Step by step, stride by stride, the barriers that once prevented people from enjoying the full measure of liberty, the full measure of opportunity, the full measure of equality have broken down. At the same time, we recognize there is much more to be done to secure that reality for each and every American. In cities and towns across our Nation, many of our citizens do not receive equal treatment, not because of anything they have done but because of who they are-- lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, whom they love, and who they are. Yes, we have made progress in advancing rights for the LGBT community. We passed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act after I came to the Senate in 2009. We repealed don't ask, don't tell, which prevented all Americans from serving openly in the U.S. military. We reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA, with protections for services for the LGBT community. We passed the Affordable Care Act so that no one could be denied health care because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. And we have seen landmark victories in the Supreme Court, first in the Edith Windsor case when the Court ruled it was unconstitutional for the Federal Government to discriminate and just last month when the Court reaffirmed that ``love is love'' and ensured that marriage equality would come to all 50 States. That is a significant number of steps, a significant number of strides on the path toward full equality, and it happened in a relatively short period of time. But we are far from where we need to be--full equality for every American. As long as people are afraid to put their spouse's photo on their desk at work, as long as they are worried about being evicted from their apartment if they do not pretend to be just roommates, we have a lot of work to do. The harsh reality remains that in far too many States there are still no laws specifically prohibiting discrimination against LGBT Americans. Nearly two-thirds of the LGBT community reports they have faced discrimination in their lives. In Pennsylvania, a transgender woman can be denied service and kicked out of a restaurant just for being who she is and it would be perfectly legal. In Michigan, a newly married couple can be denied the chance to buy their first house just because they are both women and that would be perfectly legal. In North Carolina, a gay man can be fired from his job today just for being gay and that would be perfectly legal. Only 22 States and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that prevents workers from being fired because they are gay. Only 19 of those States and the District of Columbia include language protecting against gender identity bias. The time has come to right this wrong. The time has come for us as a nation to be bolder and better at ensuring full rights and full equality for the LGBT community. Not only is it within our power, it is something America must work to lead. And the most powerful form of leadership is the example we set. In 1962, Bobby Kennedy said: Nations around the world look to us for leadership not merely by strength of arms, but by the strength of our convictions. We not only want, but we need, the free exercise of rights by every American. Our commitment to the vision of equality and fairness is a significant part of America's soul. It makes us strong. It makes us who we are as a people. And we should settle for nothing less. These fundamental principles served as the guiding force behind the comprehensive legislation--the Equality Act of 2015--we are introducing today here in the Senate and the House of Representatives. I thank my lead cosponsors in the Senate, Cory Booker and Tammy Baldwin, who have done enormous good work in setting the stage for today's introduction. I thank four staff members who worked very hard on this on my team, including my chief of staff, Michael Zamore; my legislative director, Jeremiah Baumann; my legislative assistant, Adrian Snead; and my legislative correspondent, Elizabeth Eickelberg. There are many other members of the team who pitched in, but they have worked day and night to help make this moment arrive. We have had support, such critical support and involvement from numerous outside groups. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of dozens of groups endorsing this legislation.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Equality Act of 2015--comprehensive civil rights legislation for our LGBT community. There are few concepts as fundamentally American as equality. We were founded on this principle with these simple words: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, they are endowed by their Creator with unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For more than two centuries, we have been working to fulfill that vision of equality. We have taken direct action as a nation so that our laws align more closely with these founding ideals. We have challenged unjust rules and destructive prejudices and chosen to advance basic civil rights. Martin Luther King put forth the vision that the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice. He knew that in the 1950s and 1960s Americans were hard at work making that moral arc of the universe bend towards justice. That is the work we continue here in the Senate, here on Capitol Hill, here in the House of Representatives just 100 yards away. Step by step, stride by stride, the barriers that once prevented people from enjoying the full measure of liberty, the full measure of opportunity, the full measure of equality have broken down. At the same time, we recognize there is much more to be done to secure that reality for each and every American. In cities and towns across our Nation, many of our citizens do not receive equal treatment, not because of anything they have done but because of who they are-- lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, whom they love, and who they are. Yes, we have made progress in advancing rights for the LGBT community. We passed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act after I came to the Senate in 2009. We repealed don't ask, don't tell, which prevented all Americans from serving openly in the U.S. military. We reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA, with protections for services for the LGBT community. We passed the Affordable Care Act so that no one could be denied health care because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. And we have seen landmark victories in the Supreme Court, first in the Edith Windsor case when the Court ruled it was unconstitutional for the Federal Government to discriminate and just last month when the Court reaffirmed that ``love is love'' and ensured that marriage equality would come to all 50 States. That is a significant number of steps, a significant number of strides on the path toward full equality, and it happened in a relatively short period of time. But we are far from where we need to be--full equality for every American. As long as people are afraid to put their spouse's photo on their desk at work, as long as they are worried about being evicted from their apartment if they do not pretend to be just roommates, we have a lot of work to do. The harsh reality remains that in far too many States there are still no laws specifically prohibiting discrimination against LGBT Americans. Nearly two-thirds of the LGBT community reports they have faced discrimination in their lives. In Pennsylvania, a transgender woman can be denied service and kicked out of a restaurant just for being who she is and it would be perfectly legal. In Michigan, a newly married couple can be denied the chance to buy their first house just because they are both women and that would be perfectly legal. In North Carolina, a gay man can be fired from his job today just for being gay and that would be perfectly legal. Only 22 States and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that prevents workers from being fired because they are gay. Only 19 of those States and the District of Columbia include language protecting against gender identity bias. The time has come to right this wrong. The time has come for us as a nation to be bolder and better at ensuring full rights and full equality for the LGBT community. Not only is it within our power, it is something America must work to lead. And the most powerful form of leadership is the example we set. In 1962, Bobby Kennedy said: Nations around the world look to us for leadership not merely by strength of arms, but by the strength of our convictions. We not only want, but we need, the free exercise of rights by every American. Our commitment to the vision of equality and fairness is a significant part of America's soul. It makes us strong. It makes us who we are as a people. And we should settle for nothing less. These fundamental principles served as the guiding force behind the comprehensive legislation--the Equality Act of 2015--we are introducing today here in the Senate and the House of Representatives. I thank my lead cosponsors in the Senate, Cory Booker and Tammy Baldwin, who have done enormous good work in setting the stage for today's introduction. I thank four staff members who worked very hard on this on my team, including my chief of staff, Michael Zamore; my legislative director, Jeremiah Baumann; my legislative assistant, Adrian Snead; and my legislative correspondent, Elizabeth Eickelberg. There are many other members of the team who pitched in, but they have worked day and night to help make this moment arrive. We have had support, such critical support and involvement from numerous outside groups. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of dozens of groups endorsing this legislation.