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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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. Mr. President, I offer this amendment with several original cosponsors: Senator Mike Lee, Senator Rand Paul, Senator Tom Udall, and Senator Sherrod Brown. I would like to thank them for joining in this effort to address our military presence in Afghanistan and the fact that our military forces have done such an excellent job of completing the original missions of destroying al-Qaida training camps and bringing justice to those responsible for 9/11. But over this past decade, our mission has changed to one of nation building--a mission that is obstructed by vast corruption, by extraordinary traditional cultural resistance to a strong central government, and by a very high illiteracy rate. These factors should have us rethinking how to have the most effective use of our military forces, our intelligence assets, in taking on the war on terror, and that we should be engaging in counterterrorist efforts using our resources wherever the terrorist threat emerges across the world rather than concentrating these vast resources in Afghanistan. Our sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, sisters and brothers could not have done a better job in their military mission. But it is right that now we do less nation building abroad and we do more nation building at home. It is right that now we refocus our effort to have the most effective strategy to take on terrorism around the world. It is in that philosophy that we come together in a bipartisan fashion to propose this amendment. We ask that colleagues take a chance to consider it and join us in redirecting our efforts to be more effective. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 1174.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise this morning to support the adoption of a consumer price index for Social Security that would accurately reflect the costs our senior citizens actually face. I am delighted to join the Presiding Officer, Senator Brown of Ohio, in this effort, along with Senator Mikulski of Maryland. Social Security is a promise, a bond between our government and our senior citizens. Our senior citizens have worked hard their whole life and paid into Social Security every step of the way. They expect Social Security will be there for them when they retire. Over the past few years, I have heard from many Oregon seniors who are making ends meet on a fixed income. They ask me: Why is it we are not getting a cost-of-living adjustment, a COLA? Because our costs are rising. They have been deeply disturbed to know, with these fixed incomes and these rising costs, they are being squeezed in the middle. I explain to them in these townhalls it is because the COLA is calculated not on what seniors face in their costs but upon what a broad cross-section of working people face. They tell me: Senator, that is different than the costs we face. We are at a different point in our lives. Health care becomes a huge component. They tell me: I can tell you, Senator, health care costs are not going down. Some in this Chamber are coming forward with a proposal that would make it even harder for our seniors. It would use a new calculation: not this standard ``cross-section of America COLA'' we are currently using but what is referred to as a chained CPI. That chained CPI says: If the price of this goes up, you can buy that. Actually, what it does is go in the wrong direction in terms of accurately reflecting the costs our seniors face in retirement. If we take someone who is 65 today and we look down the road, by the time they are 75, this chained CPI would cost them $560 per year-- roughly a month's rent. By the time the average 85-year-old has their payment calculated, the chained CPI would cost them $984 per year; the average 95-year-old: $1,392 per year. At a time when the best off Americans are paying less than ever before, it is simply wrong to shift costs on to our seniors and the most vulnerable in our society. There is an alternative. It is called the CPI-E. The Consumer Price Index for our seniors or elderly. I prefer to think of it as the CPI-E for ``experienced.'' Our most experienced citizens face different costs than the rest of us. The CPI-E would track inflation specifically based on the basket of goods those aged 62 and older are purchasing. It is simply a fairer and more accurate way to calculate the benefits for our seniors. If their costs are rising slower than the overall costs for society, it would reflect that. If their costs are rising higher than the overall pace of inflation, then that would be reflected. Either way, it is fair. We have to ensure we are keeping our promise to our senior citizens in a way that accurately reflects the reality of living in this country. This bill for the CPI-E or Consumer Price Index for the experienced is the best way to achieve that. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to address the long history of water disputes in the Klamath Basin and commend the work of the community in coming together to begin a new, collaborative era of water management in the region. When I was first elected to the U.S. Senate, one of my first trips across Oregon included a visit to the Klamath Basin to gather information about the history of the water wars in the region and meet with the stakeholders who were working on a solution. On my way down to the Basin I was extremely skeptical that traditional rivals could reach agreement on a written management plan. Only a few years earlier, the region was embroiled in protests and civil disobedience over sizeable fish kills and limited supplies of water for irrigation. The generational battles over water had deepened divides, often making it hard for parties to be in a room together, let alone work together. When I arrived in Klamath Falls, therefore, I was deeply surprised to find farmers, ranchers, fishermen, Tribal leaders and conservationists working together on a comprehensive and collaborative plan that would end the ongoing water wars of the region, improve the local economy and create a stronger environment for the future. They told me they were tired of the unproductive battles of the past and of the massive amounts they were spending on lawyers rather than solutions. They thought they had some chance of finding a better path forward. This was impressive. I thought then that if they managed to get the Klamath Restoration Agreements completed and signed by all the parties, I would certainly assist them with the necessary federal legislation. That legislation is now the Klamath Basin Economic Restoration Act of 2011, which I am introducing today. This bill implements both the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement and Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement and moves the region forward. These agreements would provide a more stable supply of irrigation water to farmers and ranchers and would improve in-river water flows for endangered fish and the fishermen who depend on them. The agreements would enhance the national wildlife refuges that are one of the most important migratory bird habitats in the country. In addition, the agreement would, by removing four dams, turn the Klamath into a free-flowing river once again, opening miles of habitat to spawning salmon. The agreement also restores a sector of the Klamath Tribe forest and resolves a challenging fish passage issue for Pacific Power. This agreement would create a lot of jobs. A recent analysis estimates that the agreement would create 4,000 jobs in construction and agriculture. It also estimates that with the restoration of critical salmon and steelhead habitat the commercial harvest of Chinook salmon would increase by 80 percent. The KBRA and KHSA agreements are the result of several years of intense negotiation and compromise. They are inherently complicated. No party obtained all they desired and not everyone is satisfied that these agreements contain the best possible outcomes. But what is absolutely clear is that it is an extraordinary accomplishment for the Klamath stakeholders to set aside their historic differences and work out this plan. They say in the West that, ``Whiskey, that's for drinking. Water, that's for fighting.'' But continuous fighting sometimes reaches the point where little is accomplished. The Klamath stakeholders are painting a different vision, in which the interests of all can be served. The agreement is full of the bipartisan, solution-oriented spirit that can take the region forward. It is a spirit that we could use a lot more of in Washington, DC, and across the nation. I am proud to partner with the Klamath community on the future of the region. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to address the long history of water disputes in the Klamath Basin and commend the work of the community in coming together to begin a new, collaborative era of water management in the region. When I was first elected to the U.S. Senate, one of my first trips across Oregon included a visit to the Klamath Basin to gather information about the history of the water wars in the region and meet with the stakeholders who were working on a solution. On my way down to the Basin I was extremely skeptical that traditional rivals could reach agreement on a written management plan. Only a few years earlier, the region was embroiled in protests and civil disobedience over sizeable fish kills and limited supplies of water for irrigation. The generational battles over water had deepened divides, often making it hard for parties to be in a room together, let alone work together. When I arrived in Klamath Falls, therefore, I was deeply surprised to find farmers, ranchers, fishermen, Tribal leaders and conservationists working together on a comprehensive and collaborative plan that would end the ongoing water wars of the region, improve the local economy and create a stronger environment for the future. They told me they were tired of the unproductive battles of the past and of the massive amounts they were spending on lawyers rather than solutions. They thought they had some chance of finding a better path forward. This was impressive. I thought then that if they managed to get the Klamath Restoration Agreements completed and signed by all the parties, I would certainly assist them with the necessary federal legislation. That legislation is now the Klamath Basin Economic Restoration Act of 2011, which I am introducing today. This bill implements both the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement and Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement and moves the region forward. These agreements would provide a more stable supply of irrigation water to farmers and ranchers and would improve in-river water flows for endangered fish and the fishermen who depend on them. The agreements would enhance the national wildlife refuges that are one of the most important migratory bird habitats in the country. In addition, the agreement would, by removing four dams, turn the Klamath into a free-flowing river once again, opening miles of habitat to spawning salmon. The agreement also restores a sector of the Klamath Tribe forest and resolves a challenging fish passage issue for Pacific Power. This agreement would create a lot of jobs. A recent analysis estimates that the agreement would create 4,000 jobs in construction and agriculture. It also estimates that with the restoration of critical salmon and steelhead habitat the commercial harvest of Chinook salmon would increase by 80 percent. The KBRA and KHSA agreements are the result of several years of intense negotiation and compromise. They are inherently complicated. No party obtained all they desired and not everyone is satisfied that these agreements contain the best possible outcomes. But what is absolutely clear is that it is an extraordinary accomplishment for the Klamath stakeholders to set aside their historic differences and work out this plan. They say in the West that, ``Whiskey, that's for drinking. Water, that's for fighting.'' But continuous fighting sometimes reaches the point where little is accomplished. The Klamath stakeholders are painting a different vision, in which the interests of all can be served. The agreement is full of the bipartisan, solution-oriented spirit that can take the region forward. It is a spirit that we could use a lot more of in Washington, DC, and across the nation. I am proud to partner with the Klamath community on the future of the region. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. MERKLEY

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

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 465, that the nomination be confirmed with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, at 12 noon, Tuesday, November 8, 2011, the Senate proceed to Executive Session to consider Calendar No. 405, under the previous order.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I understand there are two bills at the desk due for a second reading.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings with respect to these bills en bloc.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. I understand there are two bills at the desk, and I ask for their first reading en bloc.

Mr. MERKLEY. I ask for a second reading en bloc, and I object to my own request en bloc.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, the Senate adjourn until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, November 8, 2011; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business for 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the final half; that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 674, the 3 Percent Withholding Repeal Act, postcloture; further, that at 12 p.m. the Senate proceed to executive session under the previous order and that when the Senate resumes legislative session following the rollcall vote on confirmation of the Wallach nomination, the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings; finally, that all time during adjournment, morning business, executive session, and recess count postcloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 674.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 313, submitted earlier today.

Mr. MERKLEY. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. MERKLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 312, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, there will be a rollcall vote at approximately 12:15 p.m. tomorrow on confirmation of the Wallach nomination. Additionally, we expect to begin consideration of H.R. 674 during tomorrow's session.

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 address our Nation's job crisis and to share some thoughts about why it is important that we proceed to debate on the Rebuild America Jobs Act. It may come as a surprise to some across the Nation that at this point this Chamber is not debating the Rebuild America Jobs Act but that we are debating whether to debate. Only in the Senate could we be engaged in that type of question, when across America millions of folks want to see us act, want to see us create jobs. It was only a few weeks ago we had a similar debate. That debate was over the America Jobs Act, a broad portfolio of measures to put our economy back on track and create jobs for Americans. To get closure on whether to debate, we had to get a supermajority under the rules of the Senate. My colleagues across the aisle opposed that and we could not get to the debate of the bill on how to create jobs. Now we have before us a smaller segment of that bill, one that focuses on the construction industry. Again, we find ourselves debating whether to debate rather than getting down to work and creating jobs. So I hope this time the outcome will be quite different. The jobs crisis has hit hard across this Nation. It hit especially hard in my home State of Oregon, where the job rate has been lowered as the unemployment rate has been higher than in most States across this Nation. One of the main reasons Oregon is hurting is because our construction industry, our residential and commercial construction industry, is flat on its back. More than 40,000 construction jobs have been lost in Oregon since 2007. Thousands more have been lost in related industries such as forest products and nursery stock and grass seed, all of which only thrive when we are building homes in America. Right now, we are not building homes in America. So we need a boost to get the construction industry moving again. If you do not believe me, just listen to the people in the State of Oregon. A few weeks ago, I asked my constituents to write in and share their stories. Today, I am going to share some of those stories with all of you. Carolann from Marion County writes in and says: I am a construction cost accountant with 47 years of experience and two masters degrees. I have been widowed since 1996. I am 69 years old. I fully support my 67-year-old sister who has dementia and is in remission from colon cancer. Wall Street and my own bout with cancer just before I turned 65 has wiped out a lifetime of savings, my retirement nest egg. I have to work or we will be homeless in about 3 months. I drive a 16-year-old vehicle that is on its last legs. I have aging parents who are struggling to keep their farm. Those are the facts. In late 2008, for the first time in my career, I was laid off from my construction accounting job. Since that time I have been unable to find another job in any field despite my good references. Currently I work part time for a start-up dot-com. My prognosis for continued employment is shaky. Banks will not loan money to a start-up. This summer I went from June 26 to September 7 without a paycheck of any kind. Last week I applied for a job at Wall Mart for Oregon's minimum wage. I will probably get hired, but I am not kidding myself about job security. That does not exist any more for most of us. Senator, the worst thing about all of this is our do-nothing Congress. Washington, D.C. has lost touch with America. Her words ring powerfully in this Chamber. She, similar to millions of other Americans, is saying this economy is tough. Family circumstances are rough. Why does Congress not get down to work and debate and pass job-creating legislation? She is frustrated with this do-nothing Congress and we are debating whether to debate a jobs bill. I encourage my colleagues to listen to Carolann from Marion County. Let's get past this point and get down to debating the jobs bill. Hank from Marion County writes: Three years ago, I was at the top of my more than 35 years in construction management working as a senior project manager on a large project. As the economy tanked, the projects were terminated. Today I am unemployable after hundreds of applications. I am left able, willing and highly experienced, yet undesired. Our farm was foreclosed and my wife and I had to file bankruptcy. Currently our mortgage lender refuses to complete a home loan modification, although they qualified us 2 years ago for the program. And since then we have been making the required payments each month even without a final agreement. We have met with community groups, written letters, made calls, yet nothing seems to happen. In another year when the bankruptcy period ends, we fear the bank will simply foreclosure again and we will lose our farm. Again, another voice from a family deeply affected by the collapse of the construction industry and a call to us to help put it back on its feet. Brian from Yamhill County writes: I have worked in the lumber industry for 35 years. In 2009 I was laid off for 11 months. I did go back to work in June only to be cut again after only 5 days of work. I went back to work in December for the same company. In September 2010 there was a cutback. More than 70 people lost their jobs. I was lucky. I made the cut. But my pay was reduced by nearly $5 an hour. I went from driving a fork lift to a clean-up position. 6 months went by and then another cut. This time another 60 people lost their jobs. I was lucky again. And I worked at a new position for nearly a year until September 2011, and then came another cut. This time I was one of 42 people to be laid off with no chance of a call back. Now there are rumors that the entire plant is closing. I have been out of work for 1 month now. And in my job search I have been running into the same thing everywhere I go: No work available. Every industrial area I go into I see many buildings where companies have gone out of business. Windows and doors are boarded up. I want Congress to do the job they are being paid to do so I can go back to work. That is the line he closes on: that we here in this Chamber should do the job we are assigned; that is, to take on, amend, and pass job- creating legislation so he can find a job, so he can go back to work. I think his sentiment is echoed by millions of American families. There is no substitute for a job. No program can come anywhere close to the important role a job plays in the personal satisfaction, the structure it gives us in our life, in the knowledge we are putting a roof over our family's head and putting food on the table. No program can suffice. A job is the heart of the success of our families. Yet here we are fiddling while Rome burns or, in this case, filibustering while millions of Americans go without jobs. It is not right. I say to my colleagues, particularly I wish to encourage my colleagues across the aisle who filibustered the last effort to put the jobs bill on the floor: Stop. Talk to the folks in your home State who are unemployed, who expect us to do what every American worker expects us to do, which is to debate and pass job-creating legislation. The bill which we are debating whether to debate, the Rebuild America Jobs Act, is a commonsense strategy to put people back to work in an industry that needs it, making investments our country will have to make sooner or later anyway. One in four bridges in America is rated deficient. We get a D grade on our infrastructure from the American Society of Civil Engineers. This is not the America we know. It is not the America we want. Let's build the America of the future that will have the infrastructure to drive our economy positively. Infrastructure is not an option; it is a necessity. We can build it now when interest rates are low and jobs are needed or we can spend more later when our infrastructure has deteriorated further and it is more expensive. We can do it earlier, with lower interest rates and more bang for the buck, or we can do it later, when it will be more expensive, more difficult, with a higher interest pricetag. It doesn't seem to be a difficult choice. It certainly doesn't seem to be a difficult choice as to whether we should at least be on the bill, debating it. I know many folks are coming to the Chamber to address the question of how we get a jobs bill actually before the Senate. I hope all of my colleagues will get on the line with folks back home, go to that town meeting, and say: Do you want us to debate a bill or do you want me to keep stalling and preventing a debate on how to create jobs? I am pretty confident 9 out of 10 people--and maybe 10 out of 10 people-- will stand up and say: Quit stalling. Let's get to work here so America can get back to work. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.