Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to grant floor privileges to my interns for their shadow days on the following dates: Amelia Nason for November 13, 2024, and Rufaro Muchaka for December 3, 2024.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all postcloture time on the Court nomination be considered expired at 2:30 p.m. today.

Reserving the right to object.

My colleague whom I am pleased to work with on a number of issues has come to the floor with a unanimous consent request that would constrain the power of our President to protect our public lands. So while we may agree on a number of things--and I hope that doesn't hurt his reputation back home--on this particular proposal, I do bring a different perspective.

I think in my role working on the Interior Committee--and understanding that the authority we have granted the President is so essential to making sure that the lands that are publicly held remain a treasure for every single American.

It was not that long ago--well, it seems like quite a few years now, maybe a decade, I attended a hearing in which a number of folks came forward to explain different damages that had occurred to the water table in their community from fracking.

Now, in this case, my real concern here is about constraining the President's ability to protect our treasures, our public lands, from these types of effects.

I think Americans who have traveled to our national parks and our BLM land and our Forest Service land understand that this is a responsibility that we in the Senate take very seriously, but there is also a little bit more to my concern here as well.

One is that if we are going to tackle climate chaos, we have to have international cooperation. And if we continuously say we are going to reduce the ability of the United States to have policies and abilities to address our own production of fossils, then, of course, every other country is like, well, the United States and China are the biggest producers of climate gases--both methane, known publicly as natural gas, methane gas--and they have very large footprints, if they are not going to act, why should we act?

So if we want to address this challenge and sustain international cooperation, we can't be consistently restricting the potential flexibility of our President.

The third is that the climate impact in my home State is very substantial. We have seen a loss of snowpack in the Cascades that is devastating--the water in late spring and early summer--to our ranchers and farmers. Our rural foundation, our rural pillar is our farming and our ranching. And when you constrain the water in our rivers because of the dropping snowpack, that is a big impact.

And in addition, our water tables have been dropping that many farmers have depended on. In fact, we are investing heavily in piping our irrigation ditches at huge expense, knowing how precious every drop of water is.

So if we care about our rural areas, we have to take on climate chaos and not just our farmers and ranchers, our foresters, too, because we are seeing significant devastation to Oregon's famous forests over drought and insect infestation with climate chaos.

Of course, it is not just Oregon that is affected. Every single State is affected. I was very concerned earlier this year, earlier this summer, when I heard about the 115 to 120 degrees in a heat dome that passed over my colleague's State and the impact that that was having. I think every State has their effects that they are experiencing.

So this is a big issue that we need to wrestle with, and this brings me to the fourth item mentioned about energy security. In the last 4 years, under the Biden administration, we have become energy independent. There has been a vast increase in the production of oil and a vast increase in the production of gas. As a result, we are now the largest producer of oil and gas, and we are the largest exporter of gas.

Now, kind of the interesting little piece here is that the goal of the gas industry is to export gas and raise prices on Americans, so it is more expensive for Americans to heat their homes and heat their water. But we could do the opposite. We could, in fact, say we are going to repeal the 2015 law that put us into the world market and created these massive exports and lower the price here in America for our families.

That is a much better idea than raising the prices. Let's lower the prices. In fact, here is the thing. Let's start right now by ending our exports of oil and gas to China. Now, my colleagues just not so long ago advocated that we end any sale of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to China with good reason. Why should we lower their prices and increase our prices? But that is true for the exports that are going to oil and gas as well.

So let's stand together on both sides of the aisle. Let's lower the price for American consumers and ban these exports to China. And for that reason, I have prepared just such a solution and an opportunity to have it embraced by my colleagues.

And so I turn to the formality here that I ask the Senator to modify his request and that the Merkley substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, so that we will have the ability to end these exports to China and lower the prices for American consumers.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object--a couple of points--the first is that my colleague mentioned that the bill I am proposing would restrict our ability to support our allies, who count on us.

Actually, my bill is about stopping exports to China. They are not our ally, last I checked. We are in competition with them, and these exports are making their life easier and their economy stronger and making things more expensive for us here in the United States of America. If you want more available for allies, hey, let's stop the exports to China. It is actually compatible with the goal my colleague suggested.

The second is he challenged the question--and I realize we are doing this on short notice; so we have various facts flying around--about whether the United States was the largest exporter of natural gas last year. So I have in front of me the information from the Energy Information Administration, which produces all of the stats on this, and the headline is:

The United States was the world's largest liquefied natural

exporter in 2023.

Now a third point, outside of North America, China is the largest recipient of our gas. We are directing more gas to China, whom we are in competition with, than any other nation. That is just a little bit crazy, and I want to support our allies. I want to support our consumers at home through lower prices.

So I am disappointed that I didn't win over your support with my presentation.

But given that I would much prefer to have a bill that lowers prices rather than one that endangers our public lands and raises prices for our consumers, I object.

Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. I will share a few of my thoughts on this, but first I wanted to note that my colleague from Iowa is celebrating his birthday today. So a very happy birthday to you.

And I understand it is his 91st; is that correct?

We should all want to be able to engage in public policy and public debate and dialogue when we have reached the start of our 10th decade, so congratulations to you.

This topic that you have brought up today is one that I have had deep engagement in because I share your concerns about these congregate care facilities.

Back in 2018, I was the first Member of the House or Senate to go down to the border and to witness the separation of children from their parents and then to go up the road to knock on the door of Casa de Padre, which was run by Southwest Key, where I had heard a rumor that perhaps a thousand boys were being warehoused. When I knocked on the door, they didn't want to let me in to see what was going on, so we did a live stream feed of the conversation. I was trying to get the manager to come out and brief me, and the manager said, yes, he would be out, but actually what he did was he called the police to have me arrested.

The police didn't arrest me, but they did tell me that Casa de Padre, run by this organization, Southwest Key, had no interest in letting a Member of Congress come inside, a Member of the Senate come inside; move on. But because this was live-streamed, it became national news. As a result of that, the press got in the following weekend, and I was able to go back with a group of legislators 2 weeks later.

So I very much understand the challenge in the congregate care system and undertook a deep dive with experts across the country on, how do we address this problem? The long and short of it is, those experts all came together, and they helped draft a bill called the Children's Safe Welcome Act, because the issues that exist at Southwest Key are not unique to Southwest Key. In fact, we have had really deep challenges in one congregate care facility after another. Putting children into large, mass settings just does not at all provide a foundation for them to thrive.

I will just note that this policy brief--and I ask unanimous consent that the policy brief by the Women's Refugee Commission be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it is called ``Decreasing OOR's Dependence on Congregate Care: Four Recommendations of Progress,'' written by the Women's Refugee Commission. But I assure you, this document is not alone. There is commission after commission, expert after expert who has weighed in to say that we have to eliminate these congregate care facilities, which is exactly what the Children's Safe Welcome Act does.

You know, these are children who are going through the process of claiming refugee status, and they are going to go through an adjudication of that status, and they are either going to be able to stay in the United States--and that is eventually adjudicated--or they are going to be sent back home.

If they are going to stay in the United States, we want a strong foundation for them to thrive as residents of our Nation. If they go back home, we want a strong foundation for them to thrive back home in the country they left.

In either case, we have a moral responsibility to these children. That moral responsibility compels us to eliminate these congregate care facilities that are not the right setting. Children should be quickly sent to small settings, to homes. They should be in school. They should be with host families. When there isn't a host family that is related, they should be with a host family that is providing a foundation for them. They shouldn't be in a mass congregate care facility--the name sounds much nicer than the reality.

So I am not going to take the time tonight to go through all of these various reports on how bad congregate care is for the children because I think

you have already touched on how bad it is with one provider. But shutting down one provider and sending them to other congregate care facilities now means the system is maxed out, which means the children coming in not only go to the remaining beds in a system that is maxed out, it also means that now we have to create temporary influx facilities, which are far worse than congregate care.

So this plan I know is so well-intentioned, and I certainly share the criticisms of the particular company you are addressing, but this is not the right answer. The right answer isn't to max out congregate care and create temporary influx facilities that are even worse; the answer is to get rid of these congregate care facilities and do what report after report, recommendation after recommendation has said will provide a foundation for these children to do well.

The National Center for Youth Law said that these influx facilities that would have to be created ``placed children's safety and welfare at risk.''

The Customs and Border Patrol facilities, which are the other option if we don't create the influx facilities, are described as so dangerous that children have died.

It goes on and on and on.

So given your deep interest in this topic and, really, desire for the children to be well-treated, I wanted to invite you to join me in this structure, this bill, the Children's Safe Welcome Act. Experts have said this is the right thing to do for the children.

For that reason, I will do the formal request, but the informal is, I know your heart is in the right place. I know you are pointing out flaws that are very, very real and that I have been personally witnessing since 2018. But the answer isn't more congregate care for these kids or influx facilities or Customs and Border Protection; it is eliminating these congregate facilities and doing what expert after expert, panel after panel has suggested.

So I am following up here. I ask that you, Senator Grassley, modify your request and that the Merkley amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would just like to note that this bill, put together by the best child welfare experts across the country, has in it a requirement under section 223 requiring background checks to be conducted for each resident of a foster care placement for a noncitizen child. It prohibits children from being placed in a home if a resident has a conviction for child abuse or trafficking or convicted of any offense that has a direct and immediate impact on the safety of a child.

I know that these sorts of dialogues--our staff worked quickly to try to prepare responses. But your actual criticisms are inaccurate. And, indeed, what these experts say is that a child should be put in the least restrictive setting that approximates a family in which the child's needs can best be met consistent with the best interests and special needs of that child.

The experts know congregate care is not the place to do that. The problems that exist in one mass setting are bad, but they exist in the other mass settings. So I do invite you--because I know you want to do the best for the children--to meet with the same experts who live this, night and day, seeking to have a system that creates a safe welcome for children and allows them to thrive so that when they get to that point of that asylum hearing, whether they head back to their home country or whether they become residents of the United States, they will be in a great place, not the sort of terrible place that congregate facilities put them. And, unfortunately, your approach continues to rely upon those very congregate facilities experts say need to be eliminated.

So for that reason, I object.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture motion with respect to the Pennell nomination be withdrawn.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I have seven requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 815 and that the Senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions: S. Res. 815, National Hispanic- Serving Institutions Week, and S. Res. 823, Hispanic Heritage Month.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, September 18; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that following the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Court nomination; further, that the cloture motion with respect to the Court nomination ripen at 11:45 a.m.; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Wednesday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Madam President, I am taking the floor tonight to ring the alarm bells for our democracy, with grave concerns about the opening up of a casino for betting on our elections.

Imagine this. Election day is approaching. Ultrarich Americans and huge corporations bet billions of dollars on the outcome of which party controls the House of Representatives or bet those same billions on who controls the U.S. Senate. But as the election approaches--it is 45 days out; it is 30 days out--and one or two races might make the difference on whether they win or lose that bet, they now have a huge incentive to spend another vast sum smearing the candidate they want to lose. They now have a vast incentive to spread disinformation to get the outcome that they have wagered millions of dollars on or billions of dollars on. That is a profound corruption of our democracy.

I am sure you are thinking: That could never happen here in America. That is not government by and for the people. That is not elections as a way of choosing who will best lead us forward or cast the votes consistent with our principles. That is, instead, just turning elections into a casino.

But if you think this could never happen here, you are wrong. This isn't fantasy.

Last week, less than 60 days before one of the most consequential elections in the history of our Nation, a Federal district judge--a DC district judge--threw the doors wide open for just such a gambling scheme on our elections, allowing individuals and corporations to bet up to $100 million apiece. No, this is not some research project where people can bet $10 to see, kind of, the influence of whether or not the way people bet is a better prediction than polling. No, this is not a research project. This is vast, powerful people betting huge sums and then, with dark money authorized through Citizens United court decisions, being able to put their thumbs on the scale. That is what happened last Thursday.

Fortunately, shortly after the ruling was announced, it was appealed by the CFTC, or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, to the circuit

court, and the circuit court put a stay on it--a stay that will give them time to think about whether they should allow this casino to go forward at this moment in time. They are going to make that decision, they say, by Thursday, 3 days from now.

So I am ringing the alarm bells that there is an enormous threat to the integrity of our elections. It will be based on a decision of a circuit court 3 days from now. Will they, like the district judge, throw the doors open to the casino, allowing individuals to bet millions of dollars--up to $100 million--and do so knowing those same individuals can then spend massively to put their thumb on the scale and affect the outcome of the election?

Let's go back a little bit to the lead-up to this moment. In 2020, a Wall Street firm called Kalshi was authorized by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or the CFTC, to do a limited amount of bets or contracts on events, ranging from what the daily temperature will be in Chicago to what countries will have a recession--lots of event contracts.

Fast forward 3 years, and Kalshi decided to go way beyond that kind of structure, and they filed paperwork to say they wanted to allow an event contract allowing bets on the outcome of who controls the House and the Senate.

Given this unprecedented move and concerns about how this type of action could corrupt the elections, the CFTC initiated a 90-day review period to study the issue and 30 days for public comment. In that comment period, I led a group of fellow Senators to weigh in, urging the CFTC to reject this event contract on elections.

The letter stated:

Mass commodification of our democratic process would raise

widespread concerns about the integrity of our electoral

process. Such an outcome is in clear conflict with the public

interest and would undermine confidence in our political

process.

In September of last year, the CFTC agreed, and they rejected Kalshi's request, concluding that betting on elections is contrary to the public interest and would undermine the integrity of our elections.

But Kalshi sued, and that is what put it in to the DC District Court that led to the decision last Thursday of a district court judge siding with Kalshi and allowing them to start offering or taking bets on who controls the House and Senate.

I have in my hand here some of the legal language for the CFTC. Here is what it says:

Under CEA section 5c(c)(5)(C)(i), the Commission may

determine that contracts in certain excluded commodities . .

. are contrary to the public interest if [they] involve: (1)

activity . . . unlawful under Federal . . . law; (2)

terrorism; (3) assassination; (4) war; (5) gaming; or (6)

other similar activity determined by the Commission, by rule

or regulation, contrary to the public interest.

Here is the thing. This law clearly gave the Commission the power to proceed to control gaming. And what is gaming but a bet on an event?

Despite the clear language that is in the law, despite the fact that gambling and gaming are used interchangeably in all kinds of rules and statutes, a district judge said: No concern about the public interest here. We will just throw the doors of the casino wide open.

That is a vast concern, and I am hoping that the DC circuit judges are paying attention to the law having given the power to the CFTC to turn down contracts allowing gaming.

Now, we just had, today, an attempted assassination attempt on former President Trump. Do you want to put contracts on assassinations when you know that people can put their thumb on the scale and actually try to assassinate someone? No. That is why the law is written like this.

Do you want to be able to have people bet on the outcome of an election and then spend vast sums smearing the candidate they want to lose, corrupting the election from the vision of guiding our country forward into a simple gaming exercise about enriching those who cannot just make huge bets but can influence the outcome of those bets? Absolutely not. That is why the law is written in this fashion.

So, at a minimum--at a minimum--the circuit court should stay this decision, not allow this to be unfolding now, less than 60 days before the election, 7 weeks from tomorrow. I think that makes it 43 days--49, 50--50 days, 7 weeks from tomorrow.

It is not OK--not OK--to allow corruption of our elections in this fashion.

I was thinking about the fact that this law allows insider trading. For example, Exxon--that is the decision of the district court--Exxon, an oil company, could be planning to fund a PAC, and that PAC is going to do a huge amount of ads involving disinformation, involving smearing a candidate--maybe, you know, the last 2 weeks of the election. They know that, but they are not banned from betting. So they can turn around and put a massive bet on the outcome of the election while they have the insider information about the huge campaign the PAC is planning that nobody else knows about.

What an incentive to create that type of strategy--a strategy where the very rich and the very powerful can both cast the bet and heavily influence the outcome--not an influence about government by and for the people but about enriching, through a rigged bet, the most powerful people in our country. That is not the purpose of elections. That is why Congress wrote the law the way they wrote it, giving the CFTC the power to turn down this type of event contract.

How about Russia, Russian nationals? Maybe they are lent money. They are here in the country. They can bet on the outcome of this election. Maybe they have allies who can donate to a PAC.

Do you want to further incentivize public disinformation and election rigging by foreign powers? We already know how much China does. We already know how much Russia does. Do we want to give them such an easy platform to make this happen?

There are certain principles core to democracy. One is that citizens have access to the ballot box. A second is the peaceful transfer of power. The third and the theory behind a democracy is that when votes are cast and when campaign donations are made, they are made because the person sees a representative who corresponds to their values.

But in this case, it isn't about a person who corresponds to your values. You may, in fact, want somebody to win who is on the right end of the spectrum, but then you make a huge bet thinking the person on the left end is going to win, so you proceed to heavily smear the very person you, according to your principles, want to win because of your pocketbook now being at risk.

This profoundly affects the public interest. This is a profound corruption of our democracy.

We already have a lot of challenges. Social media is a problem. Cable television presenting different sets of facts in different parts of our universe is a challenge. Bots that create fake commentary, try to create themes that move people and make things appear real that are not real. Voter suppression--that is a challenge. AI, deepfakes are a challenge. The last thing we need is a casino on elections that, at its very core, incentivizes rigged bets contrary to the public interest and election outcomes driven by profit, not driven by values.

So that is where we are. So I hope that the circuit court of DC will pay attention about how much is at risk.

Now, I have noted that the current contract is about who controls the House and who controls the Senate, but once that is allowed, what is to prevent Kalshi from putting up an event contract on the outcome of a specific Senate race or a specific House race? Then we have a ton of really close races. Do we want those really close races to be affected by people betting--a bet up to a hundred million dollars followed by dark money smear campaigns under Citizens United--determining what the outcome of those races is? I think not--not if you believe in the vision of democracy, not if you believe in the vision of a republic, not if you believe that who comes to stand in this room is to be the person you think will honor our Constitution and work toward a better future.

So, Madam President, I will just summarize by saying, just 3 days from today, there could be a decision. It could have a profound impact on the integrity of the coming election. That decision should be a stay that prevents these election contracts. Then this body should get to work and outlaw specifically, in the law, such contracts.

It already appears that they have because it says the CFTC has the power

to turn down event contracts based on gaming that are contrary to the public interest. But if one district judge has said that doesn't carry the day, there is another judge out there somewhere who will do the business of helping out some corporation trying to open the doors to that casino.

So let's here come together--Democrats and Republicans, left and right--and say: We care about the integrity of our election, and we will not let this happen. But, first, we need a stay from the court to prevent it from happening this Thursday.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my interns be granted floor privileges for their shadow days as follows: Mabel Knapick for September 18, 2024; Amelia Nason for September 25, 2024; Sophia Spry for November 14, 2024; Sophie Davenport for November 19, 2024; Donovan Young for November 21, 2024; Max Townsend for December 4, 2024; Karis Rohrer for December 10, 2024; Gissel Narvaez-Santiago for December 12, 2024, and Jordan Montovino for December 17, 2024.

Mr. President, as a long-standing advocate for public health and environmental protection, I commend the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) for its 20 years of unwavering dedication to ending asbestos-caused disease and to protecting Americans from the devastating effects of asbestos exposure.

Since 2004, ADAO has been an indispensable partner in our efforts to reform toxic substance regulations and ban asbestos in the United States. Their work has been instrumental in shaping critical, lifesaving legislation, including the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which amended the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 2016.

ADAO's commitment to science-based advocacy and policy reform has been crucial in educating lawmakers, the public, and regulatory agencies about the ongoing dangers of asbestos exposure, of which there is no safe level, and in keeping the issue at the forefront of our national health agenda. Their work has brought stakeholders together to make real change.

ADAO has played a pivotal role in the development and promotion of the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act. Since 2017, my distinguished colleague from Oregon Representative Suzanne Bonamici and I have been proud to introduce this critical legislation. Named in honor of ADAO's founder Linda Reinstein's late husband Alan, it represents our shared commitment to finally and fully ban asbestos in the United States.

Congratulations to the entire ADAO community on 20 years of

lifesaving advocacy. Your dedication inspires us all as we

work toward a United States free from the threat of

asbestos.

Madam President, the Postal Service in the United States has always in the past been about great service. Their motto said all: Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night shall stop these courageous couriers from swift completion of their

appointed rounds. That just rings with the ethic of good service.

But today the Postal Service is run by a man named Louis DeJoy. Louis DeJoy is the Postmaster General, and I am sorry to report that there is no joy in DeJoy-ville.

Smalltown America relies on the U.S. Postal Service. In the Postal Service's own words, it ``operates as a basic and fundamental service provided by the Government of the United States to the American people.''

It continues:

Our basic mission is to provide prompt, reliable, efficient

mail and packaging service to all Americans, regardless of

where they live and at affordable rates.

So one can understand, then, why so many Members of this Chamber on both sides of the aisle are alarmed by the growing chorus of complaints about the deteriorating quality of service by the U.S. Postal Service.

Postmaster General DeJoy labeled his restructuring plan ``Delivering for America.'' A better name for this plan would be ``Delaying Mail in America.'' You only need to look at what is happening in my home State. Postmaster DeJoy's 10-year ``Delivering for America'' reorganization plan for the U.S. Postal Service calls for consolidating mail processing, which means downgrading regional mail processing facilities, which means sending all the mail to Portland, OR, to be sorted before it is returned to the community it originated in.

Now, my State is 300 miles north to south, 400 miles east to west. That is a very large place, so it takes a lot of time if all the processing occurs in Portland.

Medford in Southern Oregon was the postal sorting facility. It sorted, postmarked, and distributed millions of pieces of mail every year for Southern Oregon. But now, under ``Delivering for America''-- otherwise known as ``Delaying Mail in America''--now all that mail has to be shipped to Portland, OR, 270 miles to the north, and sorted and then trucked 275 miles back to the south even if you are sending a letter just across town. The Postal Service claims that this doesn't delay mail, but they refuse to explain how adding on 500 to 600 extra miles of driving doesn't delay the mail.

Meanwhile, for this deteriorating service, they are raising prices. July 14--a single stamp now costs 73 cents. So, folks, just start to think about, if I want to send a letter, it is going to cost me a dollar, the envelope and the stamp.

The Postal Service says: Our new system is more efficient and more cost-effective.

It is not more cost-effective if people quit using the service because it is so terrible.

You know, these price hikes and these delivery delays--they hit our rural communities the hardest. Smalltown Americans rely on the Postal Service to deliver lifesaving medications, to pay their bills, to run their small businesses. When they get an order, they need to be able to mail out the product. Newspapers in rural and coastal communities rely on the Postal Service for timely delivery. Even large corporations like Amazon and FedEx and UPS rely on the Postal Service to deliver a huge portion of their packages.

Reliable, timely mail service keeps our friends, families, businesses--and in vote-by-mail States like Oregon--keeps them connected.

That is why I have been raising the alarm about this ``Delaying Mail for America'' plan of DeJoy's over this last year. I called him up to discuss it. He didn't call me back, so I called him again, and he didn't call me back. So I organized a bipartisan group of Senators to send him a letter. Hopefully it didn't get delayed because he took away so many processing centers. Well, we know he did get the letter because we sent a bunch of them, and we did get some replies. But these letters are from bipartisan Senators who have been seeing the challenges that his plan is creating in their communities.

The letter said: Stop doing this. Stop taking away our processing centers. That is making mail so much slower.

Do you know what? We won a round. He said he will stop taking away these centers at least for the balance of this year--meaning until after the election. Well, that is politics. That is not good business; that is just politics.

But in States that have already suffered the downgrade of their facilities--places like Oregon, Georgia, Virginia, States all over this country--we need those distribution centers reopened. We need the sorting machinery reinstalled. We need reliable, affordable mail service restored.

The Postal Service has repeatedly said to my team that they aren't hearing about any significant issues for the Delivering for America plan. Well, maybe that is because they are not asking, or maybe that is because the letters of complaint came to us rather than them.

So I have collected some concerns from my Oregon constituents. I asked them--particularly in the Medford and Eugene area, where the two service centers were recently downgraded--if they had been affected.

I didn't receive one or two letters. You know, if you asked DeJoy, apparently, he would only expect me to receive letters that say how great the Postal Service was doing. I didn't receive any letters like that. I received hundreds of pages of responses, and they are describing--these Oregonians--the same problems that the Postmaster General's inspector general found in his recent report on Virginia.

And, right now, the inspector general is preparing a report on Oregon, and I fully expect it will have similar issues documented. But, for now, let me document the issues by citing those letters that my constituents sent to me.

A woman in Medford said:

I am a 71-year-old disabled senior citizen. I order

medicine, food, and household items through the mail. It is

consistently late.

A constituent in Klamath Falls reported:

It's taking 2 to 3 weeks to send mail from Klamath Falls to

Klamath Falls. Ridiculous!

Her comment, of course, is a reflection of the mail having to be trucked almost 300 miles to be sorted and then trucked back.

I have heard from many small-town Oregonians who are concerned about the delivery of their lifesaving medications. An Oregonian from White City shared:

My elderly mother relies on mail delivery of her

medications. Twice in the last few weeks she's had to go days

without necessary inhalers because of postal delays.

Miserable, breathless, dangerous days.

Patricia Coats, in Waldport, on the coast said:

We get our medications through the mail. . . . In some

instances it's been delayed to the point that my husband has

gone without for up to 5 to 7 days.

Antoinette Corrente Evans, in Grants Pass, said:

My insurance company will not let me order early to

compensate for the delays.

So, if I run out before delivery, I need to pay the full

price for my expensive medicines.

And these delays can seriously affect medical care as well as the delivery of pharmaceuticals.

Blanche McKenna, in Ashland, a mother, said:

As guardian for my son with severe disabilities, I need to

go through mail service to give written consent for his

services. . . . It took weeks for a simple consent to get to

his provider, delaying much needed services.

Those are services for her disabled son.

These late deliveries risk lives; they risk livelihoods. Businesses of all sizes depend on the Postal Service.

Honora Ni Aodagain, in Grants Pass, said:

I depend a lot on the mail as part of my business. . . .

Packages are not showing up when they are supposed to.

Payments for bills are not getting to the vendor on time.

It's a source of major frustration.

And that word, ``frustration,'' showed up time and time and time again.

Carolyn Rust, in Eugene, described how hard it is to keep the books balanced:

Our company has seen our accounts payable deliveries

delayed by 5 to 10 days. This has resulted in late fees.

We finally resorted [to] paying all of our vendors a week

early so . . . our payment would be received within a day of

being due.

We also have seen checks from our customers take 3 to 4

weeks to be delivered.

Now, businesses aren't the only ones getting smacked with late fees for bills they have paid on time; ordinary folks are as well.

Nadya Geras-Carson, in Eugene, told me:

My bills arrive basically a day before they are due. . . .

Which means, even if I mail the payment back on the next day,

it is already late, and I am charged a late payment fee.

Diana Dillard, in Brookings, said:

On March 27, we mailed our Verizon and Geico payments as

usual.

On April 10, we received notification that our payments had

not been received and . . . we were facing [a] cut-off of

services.

We made arrangements to pay over the phone and were shocked

and angered when Verizon charged us $10 to speak to a

customer service agent. . . . Extremely frustrating.

A woman in Baker City said:

I pay my estimated taxes quarterly. . . . More than one

time, checks I have mailed never reached their addresses. . .

. Local services recommend using a credit card to avoid late

payment because of poor USPS service--even just across town.

Another constituent, Denise Brooks, wrote to say:

I work with a non-profit organization in Medford that

provides assistance to the working poor and [to the]

homeless. The one-week delivery time can have catastrophic

outcomes to families [who are] already struggling.

The delays cause late fees of $75 added onto . . .

families' rent obligations and the potential for eviction

from their rental.

Late deliveries are a massive problem for one of the Postal Service's most important customers: newspapers. Timeliness is essential for newspapers. In this fast-changing world, nobody wants to read news that happened 3 or 4 days earlier. That seems like it is almost a month old. It just feels that way. But most small, local, and regional newspapers can't afford to hire a delivery service. So they rely on the Postal Service to deliver the papers.

But since July of 2022, the Postal Service has jacked up the delivery prices for newspapers by about 42 percent. It makes it a lot more expensive for small newspapers that are often already struggling from the loss of advertisements for local goods in this electronic age, the loss of classified ads. It makes it much more expensive to deliver their newspapers.

We need these smalltown newspapers to thrive. But if the newspapers are delivered late and if the cost of delivery is going up, that is just one more challenge affecting them and making it harder for them to thrive.

And when people get their papers late, it isn't just that they are frustrated; it is that they start canceling their subscriptions--again, hitting our small newspapers hard.

Publisher Joe Warren, with Country Media, which has community papers up and down the Oregon coast, told my team:

Delivery is sporadic. Some weeks local mail--which is

guaranteed the same day if we get papers to them by a certain

time [of day]--is not happening. . . . Some weeks it's the

next day or two.

Other publishers have told me that they have taken it upon themselves to hand-deliver papers to some subscribers because the Postal Service simply did not deliver, while still charging them an arm and a leg.

Perhaps Matt Hall, who has multiple newspapers in Southern Oregon, said it best when he said to my office:

The USPS treats newspapers like a mine.

They know we are a reliable source of revenue, but they

keep extracting, and soon there will be nothing left.

Postmaster DeJoy claims that their service changes are necessary to run the Postal Service like a profitable business. But here is the thing: Profitable businesses thrive by delivering good service. If they don't deliver good service, they don't stay profitable, and, very soon, they are out of business.

That is the challenge. This is not a sustainable situation. The challenges reported by my constituents back home in Oregon: late deliveries of lifesaving medications; small businesses and individuals struggling to pay their vendors, struggling to get their checks delivered on time to avoid late fees; newspapers losing subscribers; mail taking weeks to go to a house just down the street because it has to go hundreds and hundreds of miles to be sorted, instead of going to a more local regional sorting facility.

Now, we need to reverse DeJoy's downgrades. Now, we need to restore reliable, affordable mail delivery. Now is the time to take the Delivery for America plan and return it to the sender.

Let's restore the vision that is so powerful in the USPS--U.S. Postal Service--motto: that rain nor heat nor gloom of night shall stop courageous couriers from swift completion of their appointed rounds.

Let's not accept a world where there is no ``joy'' in ``DeJoyville'' and our constituents are so poorly served.