Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title United States Code, of the Rule Submitted By the Bureau of Land Management Relating to ``Central Yukon Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan''

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, my colleague from Oregon has laid out the situation very well. An authoritarian President emboldened by a rubberstamp Congress, emboldened by a deferential Supreme Court, is sending military troops against American citizens who are peacefully protesting in city after city.

This is un-American. It is a fundamental violation of the purpose of our military, which is to defend us from foreign powers, not to be a tool in a President's hand to attack people who disagree with his point of view. That happens in countries that don't have a President but have a King--that have a dictator. That is not our tradition here. Our whole entire Constitution is about government by and for the people, not by and for a man at the top of the executive branch, using the military against his own citizens.

By law, federalizing the National Guard is quite limited. It can only be done, unless it is done in partnership with a Governor, if there is an invasion or if there is a rebellion. At the time these laws were written, it was well-understood exactly what those are--an invasion, just what you picture: a military force on our border about to cross that border and attack the United States of America, or they have already crossed the border. That is an invasion. Or a rebellion--a rebellion: a large group, well organized, well weaponized, that is trying to overturn the Government of the United States of America.

At the very start of our Republic, there was a rebellion called the Shays' Rebellion. A whole group in the northeastern part of our country were very upset about the challenges they were facing as farmers. They got organized. They had weapons, and they were shutting down the courts that were doing foreclosures on their farms. And they were seeking access to a Federal armory.

Shays' Rebellion--a large group, well organized, weaponized, trying to overturn the government.

The last time we saw a rebellion in the United States of America was when President Trump, in his first term, organized a mob to attack this Capitol to prevent the votes from being counted in the electoral college. That would meet the test of a rebellion.

But peaceful protesters holding signs of concern about the policies of this President or the actions of one of his Agencies--that is freedom of speech; that is freedom of assembly. That goes to the core of who we are as Americans.

Obviously, there is nothing approaching an invasion or a rebellion in the city of Portland. Senator Wyden and I were outside of ICE a couple weekends ago. I saw three women in a group holding a couple of signs. Right now there is a group called Paws for Peace. They are getting together with puppy dogs and dogs. And the ``paws'' is P-A-W-S. Creative, Portland-style protesting to say they are not happy with the administration.

I don't think a bunch of folks holding their puppy dogs constitute a well-organized, well-armed group trying to overthrow the government.

Then there is another group that is called Pastry and Pajamas, and they are out there in the morning handing out pastries to people. They are in their pajamas, encouraging peaceful protesting. They may disagree with the administration, but what they are exercising is as American as an apple pie or an apple pie pastry--making their voice known.

But Trump decided he wanted to create a riot in Portland. Why does he want to create a riot in Portland? Because he wants a violent encounter in order to justify putting the military in our cities--in other words, put the military into the cities to create a riot, then use that as a justification for the military being in the cities.

That is an extraordinary risk to our Republic. That is an extraordinary risk to people--a government of, by, and for the people-- and not just in Portland but in L.A., in DC, in Chicago.

What the instructions appear to be to his Federal agents is to provoke violence by attacking peaceful protesters. The Oregonian, a major newspaper in our State, did a report in which they said their staff witnessed the Federal agents attacking peaceful protesters. I thought that was a very unusual article. It wasn't the newspaper reporters saying people present at the protest alleged that the Federal agents attacked peaceful protesters. No, it said: Our staff witnessed this.

Then there is Oregon Public Broadcasting. Oregon Public Broadcasting was down there with videographers. What they witnessed was this: The Federal agents asked the protesters to move back several blocks, and they did. And there was no conflict between the protesters and the Federal agents. Behind this line of Federal agents were videographers.

Why were the videographers right behind the line of Federal agents? Well, a very interesting thing happened. After the protesters moved back--not just one block or two blocks but three blocks--and the Federal agents have a line across the street with the videographers right behind them. Upon command, the Federal agents threw down tear gas. They threw down these bang-snap devices that sound like gunfire going off--flash-bangs, they are called; it sounds like gunfire--and pepper balls. And, of course, you suddenly have a cloud of smoke. You are hearing what sounds like gunfire, and people are retreating from the tear gas. And they were taking videos of that, trying to say they were disrupting a riot; they were dispelling a riot.

This is like ``Wag the Dog,'' where a totally artificial war is reported, only in that case, it happened overseas. This is the first time I know of in American history that a President has staged a fake riot to try to convince the courts or one of his news stations that serve him so well that something is there that isn't there; that a riot is there when it is not there.

Any true-blooded patriot of the United States of America should be terrified that we have a government faking a riot to try to be able to justify sending troops into our cities. That is what we face right now.

This picture to my right was witnessed by the news media. They put this up. You have a woman who is talking to two officers. She had not disobeyed any command they had given her. There was no physical confrontation.

A third agent walks up holding pepper spray in his hand and, after a few seconds, fully unleashes it straight into her face and to the man standing next to her.

That is the type of assault from these Federal agents occurring on peaceful protesters, recorded by the news media and reported. This is not something from some bystander who happened to put the scene up on TikTok, who didn't witness the entire thing or understand what was happening, but from the major news media.

Here is a case in Chicago. A pastor in the traditional motion of praying and blessing is standing outside the building, by himself--no obvious resistance to any kind of command--and he is shot in the head from agents on top of the building. He reports that he was hit twice in the head and, I think, five times on the body.

Wow.

These folks are unleashing rapid-fire attacks, apparently with pepper balls or, as he described it, some kind of ammo that releases some kind of chemical taking him right down to the street by this attack, for praying--an attack by Federal agents on a pastor praying in front of a building.

This is an extraordinarily dangerous moment in which an authoritarian President is proceeding to attack due process, to attack freedom of speech, to attack freedom of the press, to weaponize the Department of Justice, using it against those who disagree with him, and then seeking to get the court's permission to send the military in the streets to attack people who are peacefully protesting who disagree with him.

We are at the moment right now where we are awaiting a decision from a panel of three judges in the Ninth Circuit. The district judge who adjudicated the effort by Trump to federalize the Oregon National Guard said: There is nothing close to rebellion. There is nothing close to an invasion. So the standard is not met.

Then President Trump said: I am going to send the federalized force from California and Texas to Oregon.

In fact, 100 agents arrived from California. The same judge said: The same standard applies.

Regardless of what happened that federalized those folks in California or Texas, the question is: Is there a rebellion or invasion in Oregon?

And there is not. So she put a temporary stay on it.

The Ninth Circuit said: We are going to take a look at this. So we are going to freeze things in place.

Those Oregon National Guards and those 100 from California are going to stay at a training ground until they make their ruling. Their ruling--they held a hearing today--may be tomorrow. It may be days from now. We don't know.

Of course, that will be appealed to the Supreme Court.

There are legal scholars who are saying: Here is the challenge. Although there is an objective standard in the law, we have a Supreme Court that has already invented things that are not in the Constitution, interpreted things in a way that was totally different from the way they were considered at the time the law was written.

So the Supreme Court may say--in spite of the fact that there is an objective standard for federalizing the National Guard, the Supreme Court may say we are simply deferring to the President.

Are you kidding me?

This is a fundamental issue in the United States of America, that the military might be used against American citizens. There is a standard in the law.

Supreme Court, wake up. Do your job in the framework of the Constitution and in the framework of the laws that were passed. Quit inventing things to create an authoritarian state.

Why am I so worried that our Supreme Court has gone so far off track? Because, last year, they found invisible ink in the Constitution.

They had a case, Trump v. the United States of America. In that case, the question was: Is the President above the law? Is the President immune from any potential criminal prosecution for acts that he deems acts of the government?

I thought, well, absolutely not, of course. Our Founders were terrified that a President would become a King. If they wanted the President immune from prosecution, they could have put that in the Constitution.

Can you find that in the Constitution? Can any of my colleagues on the left side of the aisle or the right side of the aisle show me that in the Constitution? It is not there because our Founders were that worried about the President becoming a King. So they did not give the President immunity from prosecution.

But the Supreme Court did because they thought that is too big a burden for the President to bear. They thought: In our judgment, we think it is a good idea to give the President protection, so he doesn't have to stay up late at night worrying whether he is creating a crime or not.

Well, let me tell you, the Constitution says policy is written here-- written here in the U.S. Senate and in the House of Representatives down the hall. That becomes policy when the President signs it. Policy is not the purview of the Supreme Court of the United States. They are supposed to be defending the Constitution.

The pastor said:

It was clear to me that the officers were aiming for my head.

He was shot seven times with pepper balls in the face and arms and torso without warning, a Presbyterian pastor.

That is what our country is coming to--an assault on anyone who stands up and exercises freedom--freedom--to share their opinion.

Aren't there 100 Senators here who stand for freedom? Why is there not one Senator across the aisle standing for freedom here on the floor of the Senate today, not one? Why? Why is there not one Senator standing up and saying that there is no clause in the Constitution that makes the President a King--immune from prosecution for crimes committed under their law? Why is there not one Senator across the aisle saying that we will not stand for the attack on due process? the attack on free speech?

I assure you, if there were a President saying to FOX News that ``you have to take a program off the air'' that the President doesn't like, every Senator across the aisle would be standing up and saying that that is a breach of free speech. I would be standing up and saying the same thing, just as I am now, because it shouldn't matter whether it is a right-leaning or a left-leaning network. They should be able to put on air what they want. That is what freedom of the press is.

So we have seen 9 months of this President making this country sicker and poorer; 9 months of personal corruption, selling access to himself through his crypto enterprises; 9 months of covering up the Epstein files that he doesn't want released because his name is in them; 9 months of slashing healthcare for families to fund tax breaks for billionaires; 9 months of cutting nutrition for children to fund tax breaks for billionaires. A bill passed this body that runs up $30 trillion in additional debt, over 30 years, to fund tax breaks for the richest Americans.

It is a families lose, billionaires win vision, and it is the wrong vision here in a Republic where we celebrate government by and for the people. A Republic that is exercising appropriately would be families thrive and the affluent and the powerful pay their fair share. That is the vision that all of us should be pursuing.

The fact that this horrific bill came out and passed--the ``Big Ugly Betrayal of Americans Act''--that slashed healthcare in order to fund more riches for the richest among us shows you it is not working right.

What is really not working right is that the President of the United States is deploying military forces, hoping to establish that it is OK to do so; that it is OK for them to accept orders to go out and attack our cities, to attack peaceful protesters; that he will get a court decision that gives him this power.

Colleagues, let's be 100 strong behind the vision of freedom, the vision of rights for Americans and say: Hell no.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source