vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 95, the nays are 1. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately

notified of the senate's actions. the senate will resume legislative session.

mr. lee: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator for utah. mr. lee: mr. president, for the last three years, the world has watched with rabid attention while the united kingdom has negotiated that country's exit from the european union after the historic brexit vote in june of 2016. there have been multiple deals proposed since then and now the deadline for withdrawal fast approaches this friday. as the a -- as a special ally of

britain for a very long time, a very close ally for well over 100 years, this is and it ought properly to be of great interest to us in the united states of america. throughout times of change and tumult, the u.k. has been one of our staunchest allies. we stood beside each other through two world wars and throughout the cold war. now in the twitter the u.s. and the u. -- now in the 21st century, the u.s. and the u.k. have -- the united kingdom significantly is the seth largest trading partner the united states has. in 2017 alone, we're talking about 232 billion dollars in goods that were traded between

our two countries. now, britain's impending exit from the european union presents an enormous opportunity to strengthen and to preserve our special relationship. as the brexit deadline approaches, the united states should stand ready and willing to negotiate a free trade agreement with the united kingdom, which is the purpose of the resolution that i want to bring before this body today. now, prior to this we haven't been able to have true free trade with britain, precisely because the u.k. was a member of the e.u. and therefore had to play by its rules. but once the u.k. leakers it will reclaim the authority to makes own trade agreements, opening up a window of opportunity for genuine bilateral free trade with our own country. such an agreement would advance prosperity on both sides of the atlantic as an engine of

economic liberty. this are the one that i would like to bring up and plan to bring it up either later today or on monday, based on the schedule that i'm trying to negotiate with senator wyden, is a good deal. it is a good deal for the united states and for the united kingdom and i think it's such a no-brainer in fact that most americans would probably be surprised to find out that we don't already have a free trade agreement with our friends on the other side of the pond. and yet, mr. president, there are some objections to this resolution. some of my colleagues have argued that by encouraging a free trade agreement with britain, we would somehow be meddling in this affair or picking sides or that we would somehow be affirming brexit. but, mr. president, this resolution -- the resolution that i want to offer and call up suggesting that we call it up and pass it by unanimous consent

-- itself says nothing about whether or not brexit should or should not happen. nothing at all. that is not a decision that belongs to this body. it is not a decision that i'm even suggesting that this body major it's not ours to make. it is a decision of the british people to make, the people of the united kingdom. and they, of course, have made it. they have decided to stand on their own. we should stand with them, just as they have stood beside us in conflict after conflict, in cause after cause, defending the dignity of the immortal human soul and the cause of freedom throughout the world. others have claimed that the point of this measure is somehow to lambaste the e.u. but this, too, badly misses the point, which is simply to preserve a unique and important alliance and to promote

america's interests in the world. finally, some have suggested that this resolution that i want to propose and call up and pass before this body did not go through the finance committee. first of all, this is not a complicated resolution. it's simple. it's a straightforward two-page resolution declaring the sense of the senate that, number one, the united states has and should have a close, mutually beneficial trading relationship with the united kingdom without interruption, and second, that the president, with support of congress should lay the groundwork for a future trade agreement between the united states and the united kingdom. will the vast majority of resolutions -- also, the vast majority of resolutions that simply specify a general sense of the senate do not normally go through the full-blown legislative committee process. a straightforward assertion of friendship, of support, and of

economic partnership with one of our oldest and closest allies in the world should not be controversial, not in the least. america's special relationship with the united kingdom is special because we make it so. our two peoples, our two governments -- it's not our job to decide whether or not the u.k. stays in the e.u. it's up to the british people to decide whether it stick with the e.u. or not. but it's up to us to decide whether we stick with the british. and we should, and we should do that by supporting this resolution today. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. lankford: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator for oklahoma. mr. lankford: mr. president, i want to be able to talk about a couple subjects today, but i want to be able to set the context on these by the recognition of women's history month. a lot of fairly remarkable ladies in oklahoma that have set american history and world history into a different pace, based on what they had done in the past. but i can't help when i'm talking about i am's history month to be able to talk about my own mom who was a pace in her own -- pace setter in her own leadership. she went through elementary school librarian and high school librarian and then became the director of library services in her own district. she led for the american library association and for teacher librarians around the countries she was a pace setter.

another pace setter that i would height are oklahoma pace setters. clean air born in 1923, lay luper was the first african american student to enroll in the history department at the university of oklahoma. she was a civil rights leader. she led americans at lunch counters in 1958 as she was seated there and helping train youth to be seat at lunch counters to break through the racism that was existing in oklahoma city and in oklahoma. clean air lauper herself was arrested 26 times, just eating lunch. for just leading out for the rights of what every single human being should be allowed to do in our great country. after 26 arrests and the breakthrough leadership she has experienced, she now has been recognized with over 500 different awards and honors in her lifetime.

she taught in the oklahoma city area for 41 years. she was a senior advisor for the naacp, the youth council in oklahoma city, a member of the oklahoma hall of fame. another great leader from oklahoma, shannon lucid. she was raised in beth knee, oklahoma. she became an astronaut in 1979 in a time period when ladies did not become astronauts. she set the pace. she's -- she was the chief scientist from 2000 to 2003. she was the first woman to receive the congressional space medal of honor. jeannie kirkpatrick is another oklahoman. born in 1926, she was the first woman appointed to serve sasse a permanent representative to the united states for the united nations. she served from 1981 to 1985. she served on president reagan's cabinet as a political science

professor at georgetown university, which made oklahoma proud. let me tell you a current one now. rita arragon, born in shawnee, oklahoma, but she was born just outside of that town. she was the first woman to hold the rank of brigadier general in the national guard. before her military career, she was an elementary principal. she returned to education, served as the director of advanced programs at the university of oklahoma college of continuing education. then january 2011 she started serving as the secretary of veterans affairs for the state of oklahoma. a remarkable military leader from our state and a tremendous role model for people in our state, boys and girls. maria tallchief, born in 1925 in fairfax, oklahoma.

member of the osage nation. at age 17 she did a crazy thing -- she moved to new york city to pursue her dream of becoming a dan certificate. people tried to persuade her to change her last name so she wouldn't face the prejudice of being native american. she refused to do that. she continued to work and to prove herself. in 1947 she became the first american to dance with the paris opera ballet. she led the way, and she set the pace. oklahomans are proud of these ladies and many, many others that have not only done great work and made remarkable advances. we're proud of them. from recognizing women's history month, let me make a comment, though, of something currently happening right now in the senate. right now in the senate the senate budget committee is continuing to be able to work on a budget. the president turns in a budget

and as many people know, since 1974 the president's budget is just a document of ideas. the senate and the house agree together on a budget, set a number, and then do appropriations bills. that's how we actually do the spending for the federal taxpayers' dollars. that tipically begins since 1974 with a budget from the house and senate. they're working on that budget document now in the budget committee but here's the difficult thing. in all likelihood that budget documents will come out of committee and will never come to this floor and will never be voted on. because of the difficulty we have facing right now on our deficit and the challenges that budget will have to be able to move through the process. this body will in all likelihood do what they call deem a budget number. no real plan, just set a budget number and then move on and start heading towards appropriations. layer upon layer of debt and deficit is added to where we are as a nation, and our simple

challenge is how do we get around this. 16 members last year met, eight senators, eight house members, eight republicans, eight democrats, to try to strategize how can we change the budget process, because though the budget committee is acted -- and i commend chairman enzi and his workt, and he does remarkable work and has an incredible staff -- once again that document will not make a difference on this floor and once again it will not set us on a long-term path to getting us back to solvency. we have got to change the process of what we do. those 16 members met all last year to set a set of ideas of how we can change the process, and it failed in december. i'm challenging this body to step back up to it again and to reengage on some simple sets of ideas of how we can get our budget back in balance and how we can do better planning, because though we do budgets and

though we'll do deeming of a budget number, there is no real plan of how things get better. we've got to get better at planning. so let me give you some simple ideas that were birthed out of the conversation last year. we do debt ceiling votes which supposedly are supposed to limit our debt, but they never do. they did decades ago, but they haven't for decades. we'll have 12 appropriations bills in some form, in some way to actually do the spending in the next several months, but there will be no bill dealing with how do we reduce spending. a simple idea that came out of that conversation last year was how do we add a 13th bill. as simple as i can say it, we have 12 spending bills and the 13th bill is every single congress there would have to be a bill set aside for how are we going to reduce our deficit. we have a structure to do that. it is the reconciliation process which certainly needs work to be able to reform that process. but we have a process in place right now that we could use, but we don't.

what if we mandate it each year? we had our 12 spending bills in whatever format they may come out, but every single session of congress we have to have some conversation about what are we going to do to reduce spending or be able to fix our deficit. it's not an unreasonable proposal. it's an opportunity for us to sit and plan and to actually think about things and be able to work it out. senator maggie hasan and i have an idea that we're working through the process. how do we end government shutdowns? how do we stop the perpetual cliffs of budgeting issues. there is a simple way to do that. the simple way to do that is, as odd as it may sound is that members of congress and our staff, members of the staff of the office of management and budget from the white house, those individuals cannot travel if you get to the end of a budget year and the budget's not done. as simple as i can say it, it would be you can't leave until the work is done. that may sound overly

simplistic, but i guarantee you if this body has to work through two weeks with nobody having the opportunity to travel, everyone has to be here days and weekends, there is no official travel, there is no opportunity to head back and see your family, there are no codels or staffdels or any other kind of opportunity to be able to leave, if each day we had to have a quorum call to be here until the work gets done, we'll solve this. last december we had this protracted shutdown that began when members of congress left for christmas. just left. with an unresolved budget issue here. if what senator hasan and i were to pass, we would have finished that work last december and americans would have never experienced that protracted government shutdown. we have differences of opinion. it's who we are as americans. that's what we represent here in the united states senate. but we should not punish the

federal workers and the american people because we've not worked out our differences here. we should stay until the work is done. we should keep negotiating until we're finished. that is a simple, straightforward way to be able to resolve this. adding a 13th bill to how to deal with debt and deficit. there is some moment that is created every year compelling us to be here until our work is done, having a more systematic structure of how we're going to do budging. these are simple ideas but ideas that will help us get on top of a $22 trillion debt and an approaching $1 trillion yearly deficit. it's as if we've lost the importance of this. and we cannot. my challenge to this body is let's make the budget mean something again. let's actually dolling -- do

long-term planning and figure out how to be able to make a process work for the taxpayers. we can figure this out and we can work together to do it. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. president, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: what is the pending business? the presiding officer: h.r. 268, the supplemental appropriations bill. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk for h.r. 268. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to

bring to a close debate on h.r. 268 making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2019 and for other purposes signed by 17 senators -- mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, so i come to the floor to discuss the unprecedented obstruction that has faced president trump's nominees for the past 26 months. -- and counting and a nnounce that the senate is going to do something about it. mr. president, the systematic, across-the-board delay and obstruction that has crippled this administration's nominations is unique in american history. every presidential election since adams beat jefferson in

1796 has left some senators disappointed that their side lost. there's always a losing side, and they're never happy about it. but the past two years have been the first time, mr. president -- the first time ever -- that the unhappy party has used senate procedure to systematically blockade the new president's nominees and prevent him from even staffing up his administration. so let me say that again. since january 2017, for the first time in the 230-year history of the united states senate, a minority of senators have used senate procedure to systematically prevent the president of the united states from putting a full team in place. during the first two years of the last six presidential administrations before president trump, 24 total cloture votes

had to be held to advance a nomination. but in president trump's first two years, 128 cloture votes on nominees. for 42 different executive branch positions, cloture votes have been required for the first time in history, the first time ever. uncontroversial assistant secretaries, agencies' general counsels never required cloture votes before, ever, until this particular democratic minority. or just compare president trump's first two years to president obama's. overall, we confirmed 22% fewer nominations for president trump and sent more than twice as many back to the white house. take just the foreign relations committee as one example -- the share of nominees sent to the

foreign relations committee who were still not confirmed after president trump's first two years was more than three times -- three times -- what it was for president obama. to be clear, the lion's share of all this is not controversial, high-profile figures. in most cases they're unambiguously well-qualified nominees for critical but lower-profile jobs. for example, it took more than six months -- six months -- and several tragic railroad accidents that made national news before a minority of senators would allow us to confirm the president's nominee to head the federal railroad administration. six months and railroad accidents to get us to confirm the president's nominee to head the federal railroad administration. he had worked in railroads as an engineer, manager, and executive

for 45 years. our colleagues on the commerce committee voice-voted him out of committee and actually when democrats final i l. a you had although his nomination come up out here on the floor, when they finally allowed that, he was confirmed by voice vote. but despite the fact that nobody actually objected to this nominee, this important job was held empty for six long months. obstruction for obstruction's sake. it's the same story with even the least controversial judicial nominees. last january it took more than a week of floor time to confirm four district judges, all of whom had been voice voted out of the judiciary committee the previous autumn. but still months of delays. and then cloture votes are required for each. but once we finally plowed

through to the confirmation voted, they were all confirmed unanimously. months of delays and procedural roadblocks for four bipartisan nominees whom not a single senator actually opposed. this is into the principled maneuver, not thoughtful use of minority powers. obstruction simply for the sake of obstruction. this historic campaign isn't fair to our duly elected president and, more importantly, it is not fair to the american people. the american people deserve the government they elected. they deserve for important positions to be promptly filled with capable individuals, not held open indefinitely out of political spite. and from an institutional perspective, as we all acknowledge, this is completely

unsustainable, but if we allow it to persist, it seems guaranteed to become standard operating procedure for every administration going forward. let's assume two years from now my side is in the minority and there's a democratic president. if we allow this to persist, we'll be doing the same thing to those guys that they've been doing to us. it'll be the new norm. some of our colleagues who are leading this systematic obstruction are actually running for president themselves. well, these tactics will virtually guarantee that any future democratic administration is subjected to the same paralysis. everybody will be doing it. is this how american government is supposed to work from here on out?

whichever party loses the white house basically prohibits the new president from standing up an administration? you know, we can't accept this, mr. president. this can't be allowed to continue. we need to restore the senate to the way it functioned for literally decades. remember the idea that nominees would regularly require cloture votes, completely foreign to the senateing in this sat chapped -- until this sad chapter began in the early 2000's. as of 1968 -- 1968 -- cloture had never been required for any nomination, any nomination.

as of 1978, it had been required for two -- two as of 1978. until 2003, in no congress -- none -- had more than 12 cloture motions ever been needed for nominations. but now again president trump's chosen nominees faced 128 cloture votes during the congress just past. so this entire conversation is a modern aberration. this hasn't been going on forever. this is a fairly recent thing. this behavior is new. so we need to restore the senate's tradition in this area. fortunately, we have a clear road map to do just that. in 2013, immediately after president obama's reelection, 78

senators, including me, passed a bipartisan standing order to speed up the consideration of many presidential nominees. 78 members of this body passed a standing order to help president obama speed up the executive calendar. it reduced the postcloture time for most nominations without touching the supreme court, circuit courts, or the highest levels of the executive branch. essentially everything else got a more streamlined process so nominees could be confirmed more efficiently. again, mr. president, president obama had just been gnawing rated -- inaugurated for the second time days earlier. you better believe republicans were disappointed we lost, but we did not throw a systematic

tantrum. instead, a sizable number of us came over and joined the democrats to help the senate process noncontroversial nominations, as it had for the vast bulk of the history of the senate. i was the republican leader in the minority, and i still supported it. we judged it was the right thing to do, and we did it. the standing order passed 78-16. so today, mr. president, i'm filing cloture on a resolution that takes that bipartisan effort as its blueprint. this resolution from senator blunt and senator lankford would implement very similar steps and make them a permanent part of the senate going forward. the supreme court, the circuit courts, cabinet-level executive positions and certain

independent boards and commissions would not change. but for most other nominations, for the hundreds -- literally hundreds of lower-level nominations that every new president makes, postcloture debate time would be reduced from 30 hours to two hours. this would keep the floor moving, it would facilitate more efficient consent agreements, and, most importantly, it would allow the administration finally -- finally -- two years into its tenure to staff numerous important positions that remain unfilled with nominees who've been languishing. this resolution has qom up through the -- has come up through the regular order, through the rules committee, and next week we'll vote on it. it deserves the same kind of bipartisan vote that senator schumer and senator reed's proposal received back during the obama administration. now, i understand that many of

my democratic colleagues have indicated they'd be all for this reform as long as it doesn't go into effect until 2021. when they obviously hope someone else might be in the white house. but they're reluctant to support it now. give me a break, mr. president. that is unfair on its face. my democratic colleagues were more than happy to support a similar proposal back in 2013 under president obama. they whisper in our ears privately they'd support it now if it took effect in 12021. -- in 2021. but they can't support is it now, especially under these unprecedented circumstances simply because we have a

republican president. so look, mr. president -- fair is fair. members of this body should only support reforms that they would be ready to support in the minority as they are in the majority. put another way, if we are in -- my side is in the minority two years from now, i don't think this will be an unfair -- it will inadvantageous in the wake of a new democratic president. this is a change the institution needs, a change the institution made already basically with a two-year experiment when president obama was in office. this is a reform that every member should embrace. when their party controls the white house and when it does not control the white house. so i would urge every one of my colleagues, let's get the senate

back to the normal historical pattern for handling nomination presidential nominations. let's give president trump, as as well as all future presidents, a functional process for building their administration. let's give the american people the government they actually elected and let's seize this chance to do so through the bipartisan regular order that we're pursuing here both in committee and now on the floor. the status quo is unsustainable for the senate. and for the country. it's unfair to this president and the future presidents of either party. it cannot stand and, mr. president, it will not stand. a senator: mr. president? the presidin a senator: will the minority leader yield for a question.

mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to calendar number 24, senate resolution 50. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to s. res. 50 improving procedures for the consideration of nominations in the senate. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in correspondence do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the proceedings to proceed to calendar number 24, a resolution improving procedures for the consideration of nominations in the senate signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of calendar 130 through 156 and all nominations on the secretary's desk, that the nominations be

confirmed, the proceedingses to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order, that any statement, related to the nominations be printed in the record, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president? mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. merkley: reserving the right to object, mr. president. the majority leader -- the presiding officer: the senator from oregon is recognized. mr. merkley: the majority leader said he will put a rule change on the floor and return to historical norm. the historical norm has been when such issues on the floor, amendments will be allowed. does the majority leader intend to allow amendments? mr. mcconnell: i understand

the senator from o oregon is propounding a question. if he would repeat it i would appreciate it. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. merkley: yes. thank you, mr. majority leader. you referred to the historical norms. it's been the historical norm to allow amendments on the floor of this chamber so they can be debated. and i recall very well listening to you complain a great deal about harry reid blocking amendments, blocking the tree and he didn't in fact do that as majority leader. he would negotiate and well r we'd have a whole set of amendments on both sides. took some time but there were amendments. we've had a historic low in amendments and now we're proposing a rule change on how this chamber operates. so isn't it the right thing to do before returning to historical norm or trying to restore that sense of making this a functioning chamber -- mr. mcconnell: is the senator asking me a question? mr. merkley: yes. -- to allow amendments when this comes to the floor. i'm asking if you would allow such amendments.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president, let me say that we've had a number of bills that we brought to the floor open for amendment. one of the things we've devolved into here, another unfortunate precedent, is members objecting to time agreements on amendments from either side. so even if the majority leader calls up a bill and has it open for amendment, unless members of the senate on both parties will allow there to be time agreements so we can actually have votes on amendments, it gets bogged down. and i think the complaint of my friend from oregon is legitimate. i've been very frustrated by the fact that when i call up a bill and open it up for amendment, i have members on both sides preventing each other's amendments from getting a vote. so i share the frustration of my colleague from oregon, but i assure you when i call up a bill and say it's open for amendment, it's open for amendment. it's just that it requires

senatorial bipartisan cooperation to set time agreements to actually have such votes. so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent -- i think i have a u.c. agreement -- u.c. pending. the presiding officer: is there objection to the request? with respect to the -- mr. merkley: reserving the right to object. i didn't actually get clarity on whether you will open the floor for amendments when you bring this rule change to the floor and whether it will be open in the sense that when one amendment is completed, a senator can ask for another to be considered or only the amendments you approve will be allowed to be considered. mr. mcconnell: well, mr. president, in order to guarantee a particular amendment would get a vote without consent, we'd have to be able to get 60 votes to invoke cloture to advance the amendment. so i just reiterate to my friend from oregon, your complaint is

legitimate but it does require no matter what the majority leader says with regard to the openness of a bill some level of bipartisan cooperation in order to process amendments. and we've tried that on numerous occasions and members on both sides have sort of hunkered down and objected to each other's amendments thereby making an amendment process in an open fashion simply impossible. i do have a consent agreement pending. i don't know whether the senator from oregon wants to continue to object to all of these -- mr. merkley: reserving the right to object. mr. mcconnell: -- nominations which would include people from the marine corps, the navy, the air force, the army. i was seeking the military promotions of these people who are serving our country in the armed forces. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. merkley: reserving the right to object. i will in fact make this the last time that i reserve the

right to object. simply to make this point, that there are many ideas for improving this chamber that have not had due consideration. you have expressed a lot of frustration over executive nominations. i have put forward amendment in the minority, established a hundred-day clock for amendments to be voted for on this floor once the paperwork is complete. others have other ideas including the ability to have a time at the start of every two years to be able to have an open debate on amendments on how we work. others have other ideas for improving. i think such a debate is way overdue but if it is the majority leader's intent just to allow the one issue that he's bringing forward, then that is not turned the block back to historical norm. i was here in this chamber in 1976 and during the 1980's seeing this body debate issues. and i would ask that if you

bring this to the floor as you are planning to do that you open it up for amendments, get a time agreement. ly certainly encourage my side to agree to such a thing. i take your point about it not just being a delay. i think there are serious possibilities for improving how we work. they should be debated. i hope you'll open the floor to amendments. i withdraw my objection. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent when the senate be -- that the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the appointments at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the help committee be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 276 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the clerk: h.r. 276 an act to direct the secretary of education to establish the recognizing inspiring school

employees award program and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i further ask the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 69. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 69 designating march 29, 2019, as vietnam veterans day. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the motion? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the burr amendment to the preamble at the desk be agreed to, the preamble as amended be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the indian affairs

committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to the consideration of s. res. 100. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 100 recognizing the heritage culture and contributions of american indian, alaskan native and native hawaiian women in the united states. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding? without objection. mr. mcconnell: -- the presiding officer: the committee is discharged. mr. mcconnell: i no of -- know of no further debate. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not all in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the resolution is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 118 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 118

recognizing the importance of paying tribute to those individuals who have faithfully served and retired from the armed forces of the united states and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i further ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the foreign relations committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 124. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 124 condemning the march 15, 2019, terrorist attacks in christ church, new zeal lad offering sincere condolences to the victims and families and standing in sol dairlt with the -- sol disairt with the people and government of new zealand. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee

is discharged. and the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i ask -- i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the filing deadline for first-degree amendments with respect to the cloture motions filed during today's session relating to h.r. 268 be at 4:00 p.m. monday, april 1. the presiding officer: without objection. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. merkley: i ask to speak for up to 20 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you.

mr. president, the most important words in our constitution are the first three. we all know them, we the people, written in supersize font so we don't forget what our constitution is all about. government as lincoln put it of, by, and for the people. or as jefferson put it, a government designed to produce laws that reflect the will of the people. but we don't see that now. we don't have government of, by, and for the people. instead, we have a system that's been profoundly corrupted. it's been corrupted by gerrymandering. it's been corrupted by voter

suppression and intimidation. it's been corrupted by dark and dirty money flooding our campaigns and wiping out the voice of millions of americans. so that's where we are now in this corrupted state. and so we have debates here on the floor that are all about helping a small group of people within a circle of power and privilege rather than bills that help the citizens of the united states of america. in fact, we have a president who just this week said his goals to tear down health care for 30 million americans, wipe out the expansion of medicaid, wipe out the tax credits that assist so many americans in being able to afford insurance. wipe out the protection to be able to get health care if you have a preexisting condition, wipe out the ability of your

children to be on your policy to age 26. that's government by and for this very little circle of privilege and power instead of the people of the united states of america. we saw it in other ways, too. we saw in 2017 a bill that reached into the federal treasury, took $1.5 trillion, and gave almost all of it to that small group of people inside that circle of privilege and power, ignoring the rest of the country. you know, that's what happens in corrupt countries. the elite, the power elite reach in, take the treasury for themselves and ignore the will of the people. so every member of this body took a pledge to the constitution of the united states, a constitution not founded on we the powerful but on we the people. so are we going to honor that

oath, i ask, because if we're going to honor it, it means we have to stand up and end this deep and vast corruption. yesterday senator udall and i and all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle introduced a bill that's designed to take on gerrymandering, take on voter suppression, and take on dark money. so let's talk about gerrymandering. the supreme court has never done a thing about it, even though it's clearly all about having the powerful choose their voters rather than the voters choose their representatives. complete shredding of the vision of the constitution. the supreme court failed utterly to act. they have a days before them now. they'll have another opportunity.

but don't hold your breath. the time to address gerrymandering is before it's done. and how do you do that? you do that with independent commissions. independent commissions have been adopted in states like iowa. and they've been widely received by their citizens as an issue of fairness. but across so many states, we have congressional districts deliberately gerrymandered to favor the party in power. it's happened in democratic states. it's happened in republican states. you see it sometimes by the crazy configurations of the map, or sometimes you see it when a state that is essentially equally divided between the parties produces congressional representatives heavily laided to one side. it is hard to remedy after the fact. but you can remedy it before the fact by having independent commissions across this country.

the way that you take that on, you have a group of six individuals -- two from the democrats and two from the republicans and two of whom are independents -- and they may select a broader set of participants, maybe an additional three for the d's and three for the r's and three for the independents. and then when they take a vote, there has to be a vote from each of those three sectors. that's the sort of design that forces cooperation, sets up a condition for fairness, and that is what the for the people bill does that we introduced yesterday. i'll tell you, state by state people say, in my state, why should i fix gerrymandering when that state over there, it still favors the other party? it's like waving the white flag on my tougher while they're ripping us off over there. that's why we should pass the for the people act. and this act takes on the issue of voting fairness. if you really believe in the

vision of a democratic republic, you believe in voter empowerment, not voter suppression. well, what have we seen this last november 6? strategies to keep college students from voting, strategies to keep communities of color from voting. strategies to keep the poor from voting. strategies to prevent native americans from voting. those strategies are borne from people who don't believe in the vision of our constitution. they don't believe that that is the foundation for what we have. they see this just as a game to produce a result, which is government for that small group of people inside that circle of power and privilege. well, i'm a little more patriotic than that. i believe in the vision of our constitution. so let's take on these efforts to obstruct voting. now, we did have a bill that had vast bipartisan support.

it was called the voting rights act. and we here reauthorized it with vast bipartisan support because, you know, not so long ago, both sides believed in the vision of our constitution. but not now. not now. unfortunately now we're hearing that our colleagues across the aisle, they like voter intimidation. they see the republican states is engaging in it on a massive scale. it's increasing their power. they want to hold on to it, clutch it to their chest, not health go. but if you believe in your constitution, you believe in the country, you would let go. you would say, let's appeal to all the voters with our vision, not try to stop them from voting. that's why we need to take down the barriers for voting. it's why we need automatic voting registration and same-day renal administration so people can sign up to vote.

it means we need better access to voting so there isn't manipulation at the precinct places. early voting nationwide. the right to vote by mail. of course, i am a little biased on this because my state led the nation in automatic voter renal administration. we led the nation by vote-by-mail. and for those who are worrying about people voting who shouldn't be voting, nothing is more secure than vote by mail. and those who are worried about electronic machines being hacked, nothing more secure than vote by mail. and when polls do occurred and people go to those polls, shouldn't we make sure they're adequately staffed? the whole strategy of moving polling places at the last minute to confuse people, the whole strategy of understaffing polling places in neighborhoods that don't want to vote, that is really evil -- evil in that it

takes away the vision of our constitution. voter empowerment is the vision. voter suppression is not. so that takes us to those polls and making sure we have a polling protection act. that's why we need the for the people act to take that on. then we come to dark money. dark and dirty money, money flowing in from corporations, all kinds of overseas foreign participants, and nothing being done here about that. of course, the vision laid out by thomas jefferson -- he called it equal voice, equal voice. it meant distributed power among the electorate, not concentrated power. he said, only with equal voice. and he said is it to the mother principle. only with that do you get bills that reflect the will of the people. well, we're getting bills that reflect a small irk is l of power and -- a small circle of power and privilege, not the

people, because of this dark money concentrating power. when the koch brothers cartel puts hundreds of millions of dollars into our campaigns, the people go, where's our voice? i'll be lucky if i can give $10 to this candidate and $15 to this candidate. so the american people know the system is rigged, rigged in a profound way by this dark money, and where does this come from? that same supreme court that gutted the voting rights act; that same supreme court that failed to take on gerrymandering it's the court that has flipped our constitution on its head, replacing we the people with the vision of government by and for that small group of people in the circle of power, people like the koch brothers who in 2014 spent hundreds of millions of dollars to change the makeup of this chamber. well, nobody in my blue-collar

neighborhood has hundreds of millions of dollars. they know the system has been rigged. that's why we need the for the people act, to restore the vision of our constitution. so, mr. president, i encourage all red-blooded patriotic americans to stand up for their constitution, to fight for the vision embodied in jefferson's motherrism poll, equal voice, distributed power, to remedy the dark money flowing through our campaigns. not only is is it vastly corrupting, it drives vast cynicism because the people see what's going on. let's fix the gerrymandering on the front end. it's hard for the courts to do it on the back end, even if they had the will to do so. let's fix fair voting on the front end, not argue about it afterward when we can't even count the ballots because

they're electronic machines and people didn't have a fair chance to get to the polls. let's fix the dark money and embrace equal voice. so, mr. president, i'm concerned the time is short to save our republic because the money has so piled up under this strategy of government by and for the powerful that over the last decades, while the wages and benefits of ordinary people are flat or declining, the wealth of that small circle of power has gone through the roof. the first three decades after world war ii, everyone participated, it was the spirit of the war, we were all in it together. let's make our government work for all. mid-1970's -- it ended. last wealth for the wealthy -- vast wealth for the wealthy and only struggling opportunities or struggling conditions for those

of ordinary americans. we have to save our constitution. let's do it. let's pass the for the people act. let's have a full and robust debate on this floor so we'll all be accountable to our citizens and to our pledge and our oath to the constitution of the united states of america. i yield the floor.