[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 174 (Tuesday, October 21, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7179-S7184]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2070

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, Americans are watching members of the 
military patrolling the streets of major cities in the United States of 
America. I never thought I would utter those words anywhere, let alone 
on the floor of the U.S. Senate--members of the military in our 
neighborhoods, on our streets, patrolling under authority.
  What authority? That is the question. That authority has been 
challenged, and it will continue under challenge because the courts are 
continuing to decide whether Donald Trump has turned the National Guard 
into an illegal police force, in effect, to serve his political ends 
and personal whims.
  But there is no question as to the fact that members of the military 
are in major cities despite clear and consistent objections from 
Governors, from mayors, from police chiefs, from community groups, from 
citizens across the United States, and, yes, from Members of the U.S. 
Senate.
  Today, in DC, California, Oregon, and Illinois, these National 
Guardsmen are not only patrolling the streets, they are aiding and 
supporting ICE crackdowns--again, despite challenges to their legality. 
Now, three district courts in California, Oregon, and Illinois have 
said it is illegal. One court of appeals has allowed it to go partially 
forward, but there remains a court order stopping it in Illinois, and 
the litigation will go forward.
  But here is the threat, the really dire and dangerous threat: 
President Trump has said that if those challenges prevail, he will 
invoke the Insurrection Act. He has said that if courts or Governors 
delay the deployment, he will invoke an act that is 217 years old, 
which was written after the Whiskey Rebellion and the Battle of the 
Wabash, when local police simply didn't exist in most places or were 
overrun in those areas by the farmers who were objecting to Federal 
taxes. That original Insurrection Act was written at a time when police 
forces were limited and poorly equipped. The Insurrection Act provided 
for a Federal force when a genuine insurrection, rebellion, or armed 
violence was occurring beyond the control of local or State officials, 
and that is the point here.
  The Founders found abhorrent the idea that there be a standing 
military force that could somehow act as a policing mechanism. In fact, 
they objected--many of them--to a standing army at all. But the concept 
of a military force defending the United States was that it be aimed at 
foreign adversaries and enemies. The threats from abroad were its 
target, not internal policing, not problems of law enforcement within 
the homeland.
  That is precisely what President Trump is using the military now to 
do--a violation of the Constitution, of the spirit and purpose of the 
Insurrection Act, and the modern-day realities of law enforcement. 
Those realities are that police forces are the ones equipped and 
trained to contain the kinds of potential threats in cities or towns or 
States that purportedly Donald Trump wants to use the military to 
quell.
  Well, the simple fact is, on the streets in those neighborhoods, 
there is no threat of violence that justifies these kinds of police 
state tactics. The court in Oregon specifically found that in the last 
weeks and couple of months, there has been no violence on any 
widespread scale. The same findings more or less have been done by 
courts in other jurisdictions. But even if there were, police forces 
there have state-of-the-art weapons, equipment, analysis tools, 
communication platforms, and training--all that is necessary to do the 
job of addressing the kind of threat or violence that President Trump 
seems to feel exists there. There was no such professional force, 
locally or statewide, when the Ninth Congress passed the original 
Insurrection Act.
  Today, in the 119th Congress, the problems that law enforcement was 
designed to address simply are no longer commensurate with the dangers 
it is creating now. And I will note that I introduced the Insurrection 
Act of 2024 before the current administration took office. In fact, a 
Democrat was President at the time.
  But after the President's decision to deploy Active-Duty marines 
along with the National Guard in Los Angeles, I reintroduced this 
legislation with my colleagues from California and 16 other States.
  The danger of the President invoking the Insurrection Act is no 
longer hypothetical or abstract; it is real. It is happening now. The 
President shows no signs of stopping these deployments. They are 
becoming more widespread, not less. The President's threat to invoke 
the Insurrection Act is real. It

[[Page S7180]]

has to be taken as real. And I believe the courts will continue to rule 
against him and that he may well use the Insurrection Act as a weapon 
to expand his deployments and turn these cities and States into armed 
camps and police states. He will, in short, circumvent both Congress 
and the judicial system because of the current breadth and expansive 
powers under the Insurrection Act.
  When it was written, there was no danger of abuse. Now, there is.
  When 600 armed rebels attacked government troops during the Whiskey 
Rebellion, there was a need for Federal troops there. Nearly 1,000 
Federal troops, in fact, died at the Battle of Wabash.
  We are not seeing armed rebels organized to resist Federal taxes 
coming against local police. We are not seeing the troops in a pitched 
battle with organized rebels here in DC or in Portland or Chicago. What 
we are seeing are members of the military going through streets in 
armed vehicles, enabling ICE to crack down.
  Now, let's be clear, this issue is unrelated to enforcement of our 
immigration laws. We can advocate strongly that immigration laws be 
vigorously pursued and prosecuted. It just shouldn't be done by the 
U.S. military. We have ICE to do it. And we can be critical of ICE for 
the kind of masked raids in unmarked cars that occurred just recently 
at an apartment building in Chicago, taking citizens as well as 
immigrants out of their apartment.
  We are here because of the need to specify in the Insurrection Act 
when it can be invoked, and this measure that I have reintroduced would 
very simply create checks and balances and limit the Executive's 
authority to deploy troops domestically. It wouldn't interfere at all 
or relate to his use of troops abroad, outside the boundaries and 
borders of the United States.
  It allows Congress to support the President's decision to extend the 
deployment through a joint resolution of approval, but it requires that 
he come to Congress for approval after a certain period of time. It 
requires the Attorney General to certify that alternatives are 
insufficient and for the Joint Chiefs of Staff to detail the size, the 
scope, and the expected duration of deployment and certify that the 
forces to be deployed can execute the mission.
  And it provides for judicial review. It ensures that courts can 
prohibit flagrant abuse--not substituting their judgment for the 
President's but review whether there is a coverable basis for this kind 
of action. And finally, it clarifies that the original Insurrection Act 
does not allow the President to suspend habeas corpus and impose 
martial law or deputize private citizens.
  The President should have that power to use our military to quell a 
genuine rebellion, organized and armed, creating violence that cannot 
be contained by local and State police. It should not enable him to 
deploy our military willy-nilly because of his unbridled authority 
under the current law.
  I have the utmost respect for our National Guard, our Connecticut 
National Guard. As I say, when you call out the National Guard, you 
call out America, and they should not be abused to police their fellow 
citizens, to act as local police in missions that they are not trained 
or equipped to handle.

  I fear for the future of our National Guard and the future of our 
military if the President is emboldened or enabled to use them for 
partisan political purposes. He has already, I fear, damaged the 
credibility and trust in our military by deploying them in the way that 
he has done already.
  Our National Guard is there when disaster strikes. They help to clear 
the roads and enable people to go back to their homes. I have seen 
them, in the wake of natural catastrophes, be lifesavers, literally, 
for the people of Connecticut and, I am sure, for others all around 
America.
  They are vital to our defense when they are deployed abroad under the 
President's authority to use them abroad against our enemies, as they 
are now deployed from Connecticut and elsewhere all around the globe.
  But we need to stem the tide of Executive overreach. We can protect 
our civil liberties, our communities, and our military by imposing 
these checks and balances in the Insurrection Act that I have 
submitted. It well serves the interests of our States--indeed, our 
States' rights--our military, and the traditions and ethos of our great 
National Guard and Active-Duty military, and it serves the American 
people in preserving rights and liberties that our Founders were 
zealous to protect.
  And so, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that 
the Committee on Armed Services be discharged from further 
consideration of S. 2070 and the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed 
and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is an 
amazing picture to me to see our Democratic colleagues resisting 
restoration of law and order in these communities across our country, 
including in the Nation's Capital--here--where the Mayor, Mayor Bowser, 
has welcomed the deployment of National Guard to help keep the peace 
and support local law enforcement in enforcing the law.
  I won't go through the statistics, but one I remember, in particular, 
after an episode of carjacking by juveniles who basically had impunity 
because they weren't prosecuted by the U.S. attorney here in the 
District of Columbia, the previous U.S. attorney--once President Trump 
deployed the National Guard, those carjackings went down 87 percent--87 
percent.
  And as I drive through some of the areas of Washington, DC, like 
Barracks Row, over near the Marine barracks, or Lafayette Park, I see 
more people out enjoying the weather and the beautiful city that we 
happen to be in, unconcerned for their personal safety now that 
President Trump has taken this important, important step to deploy the 
National Guard.
  Now, I would just point out to my colleague--he knows this--that the 
National Guard is organized under State authority ordinarily, under 
title 32 of the United States Code, but they can be federalized under 
title 10. And there is no question that President Trump, as Commander 
in Chief, has the authority to call up the National Guard to enforce 
Federal law and to protect Federal facilities.
  Federal law applies to the entire Nation. It really is amazing to me 
to see our colleagues on the other side of the aisle employ some of the 
same arguments made by the pro-slavery States back before the Civil 
War--this doctrine of nullification is what it was called; it was sort 
of back in the heyday of States' rights--where the Federal law would 
apply to the Nation but southern legislators, Governors, and Members of 
Congress would say: Well, the State has a right to nullify Federal law.
  Well, that obviously is a discarded theory that has no weight 
whatsoever. President Trump is well within his constitutional bounds to 
enforce the law--Federal law--in cities across the country. In fact, 
just yesterday, the Ninth Circuit panel authorized President Trump's 
deployment of the National Guard in Portland, staying the lower court's 
unlawful order.
  It is mind-boggling to me to see now Senate Democrats, who have sworn 
an oath to uphold the Constitution like all of us have, opposing 
Federal efforts to intervene in cities to enforce Federal law and to 
protect Federal property, just as they have done here in Washington, 
DC. But the response has been dramatically different in cities like 
Portland or Chicago, led by Democratic mayors. Even though in 
Washington, DC, Mayor Bowser, I think, is not exactly a rock-ribbed 
conservative, but she understands the importance of law and order to a 
prospering city where everybody feels safe.
  Last year, Portland was ranked in the top three largest cities in the 
country with the highest property crime rates, with nearly 1 incident 
for every 25 residents, a staggering amount. More than 5,000 car thefts 
were reported across the city of Portland. I can't imagine that any 
individual resident of Portland or any other crime-ridden city wouldn't 
welcome the opportunity to live in a safe environment.
  I encourage the mayor of Portland and the mayors of other blue cities 
rife with violent crime to look to Mayor

[[Page S7181]]

Bowser as an example, here in DC, of how to work with the Federal 
Government to enforce the laws and make their cities safer.
  As I indicated earlier, here in the District of Columbia, it is like 
day and night, compared to how it was under the previous 
administration.
  Here are some statistics: Compared to 2024, homicides have declined 
25 percent; robberies have gone down 35 percent; and overall violent 
crime has gone down by 28 percent. I already mentioned the reduction in 
carjackings.
  So President Trump is making our cities and streets safer by 
enforcing Federal law, and I would hope our Democratic colleagues would 
not try to thwart those efforts, which will make our cities less safe.
  There can be no legitimate argument that President Trump does not 
have this authority to enforce Federal law using Federal officials, and 
we know this has happened by our various States in the past. For 
example, during the 4 years of the Biden administration, where we 
essentially had open borders, Governor Abbott, the Texas Governor, 
ordered the National Guard and the department of public safety to back 
up the Border Patrol, who were overwhelmed by the open border policies 
of the Biden administration.
  Now, they weren't actually doing police work, but they were taking a 
huge burden off of the Border Patrol that allowed them to do their job 
and to focus on securing the border. That is largely the role the 
National Guard is playing now. They are not doing police work. They are 
supporting local law enforcement, freeing them up so they can do their 
job to keep their communities safer, something I would think that we 
would all applaud.
  Mr. President, I object to the unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, before I turn to my distinguished 
colleague Senator Welch from Vermont I have a few quick points in 
response.
  First, I would note that my friend from Texas has not mentioned at 
all the Insurrection Act. My problem is not only with the use of the 
National Guard as a police force but, even more alarmingly, the 
potential use of virtually unchecked power under the Insurrection Act.
  The measure that I seek unanimous consent on is the Insurrection Act 
that I have offered to provide limits on the President's power, if the 
court should tell him that he can't use the National Guard in the way 
that he has done, and he makes good on his threat to invoke the 
Insurrection Act.
  Second point, the Senator from Texas and I have worked together on a 
number of measures. I am proud of the work that we have done. One area 
where we agree is that there ought to be law enforcement rigorously and 
vigorously to stop crime, to deter it, to punish it, and to make sure 
that our neighborhoods and streets are safer.
  In fact, he and I both served as attorneys general of our States, and 
we are both on the Judiciary Committee.
  The question here is, really, fighting crime and how best to do it. 
My feeling is that the best way to fight crime--local and State 
offenses--is to bolster local and State police forces, not to cut them 
and the resources supporting them, as President Trump has done.
  He has, in effect, cut the Byrne grants from the Department of 
Justice. He has stopped training programs. He has reduced the 
provisions and programs for equipment.
  So the restrictions that are imposed on resources going to the 
Federal Government for local and State police were contrary to the 
goals of fighting crime.
  Using the National Guard as a substitute for local and State police 
is not only contrary to law. It is also contradictory to the practical 
demands of policing, which require a different kind of equipment and 
training than our National Guard have.
  Local and State police ought to be supported as enthusiastically and 
fully as we can do, and not, in effect, use the National Guard as a 
quick fix.
  They won't stay in the District of Columbia for months or years. They 
are here very temporarily. And if they have accomplished a reduction in 
crime, the same could have been done by simply providing more 
resources, more cops on the streets with the equipment that they need 
to accomplish the same thing.
  We are not talking about securing our borders. We are not talking 
about nullification of Federal law. We are talking about overreach and 
possible overuse, contrary to the spirit of our Federal system of a 
National Guard force that should be fighting our adversaries abroad or 
taking care of natural disasters or catastrophes, not employed as local 
police, which they are not equipped or trained to do as readily as 
civilian police.
  With that, I will turn to my colleague from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Connecticut, and 
I support his effort to put constraints and definition on the 
Insurrection Act.
  Here is what is going on. Essentially, this President, from day one, 
has been overreaching the use of Executive authority and declarations 
of emergencies. And it is everything from tariffs, where article I 
gives the Congress authority to pass those or to invoke those, not the 
President, and now to the use of the Guard as a private police force. 
And it basically serves the will of the President and for political 
purposes.
  It is extraordinary, in our country, to have the National Guard 
deployed. It is even more extraordinary to have the military deployed. 
There are certain circumstances where that can be done, but not at the 
whim of an Executive who does it for political reasons.
  You know, the bottom line here is that the law enforcement 
responsibilities that are incredibly important for local policing are 
managed locally, and where you have a President sitting back in the 
Executive Office, deciding he wants to go to Portland, he wants to go 
to Los Angeles, he wants to go to Chicago, he wants to go to Baltimore; 
and then where there is a review by the courts, and they categorically 
reject what he is presenting as a factual basis to allow him to act; 
and when there is a rejection, his main adviser, Stephen Miller, calls 
the judge's ruling legal insurrection.

  What you are seeing is an act of political will for a political 
purpose, not for a public safety purpose--an abuse of this claim of 
emergency authority of the President.
  You know, a couple of things: Trump's decision to federalize the 
California National Guard was ostensibly to quell a rebellion and 
ensure that Federal immigration law was enforced. The judge there 
reviewed the evidence--not the political statements of the President 
and the White House--and found that there was no rebellion, nor was 
civilian law enforcement unable to respond to the protests and enforce 
the law. And the judge rejected what he called a ``top-down, systemic 
effort . . . to use military troops to execute various sectors of 
federal law.''
  That is the job of local law enforcement and local Federal 
authorities in law enforcement, and to suggest that the concern the 
Senator has about giving some definition to the Insurrection Act has 
anything to do with our views on crime, which we are all in favor of 
reducing--and you, as an attorney general, the senior Senator from 
Connecticut, did an incredible job on that. Criminals did not like you 
at all.
  So what we have is a situation where, if we are going to level with 
the American people, you have got a President who is using the 
authority of his office, his power, to basically make political 
decisions and then target blue States and do it for his own personal, 
political reasons, as opposed to public safety reasons.
  You know, in Portland, the judge who reviewed that case concluded 
that the President had violated the 10th Amendment, which protects 
States' rights.
  By the way, that is not nullification. That is rights that States 
have, which does not include nullifying any valid Federal law.
  And the judge concluded with this:

       This country has a longstanding and foundational tradition 
     of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form 
     of military intrusion into civil affairs. This historical 
     tradition boils down to a very simple proposition: This is a 
     nation of constitutional law, not martial law.

  Now, you know we saw that video that the White House put out with the

[[Page S7182]]

President wearing a crown and ``King Trump''; and he is flying a 
military jet, and he is dumping stuff on the American people who are 
protesting. The bottom line is there is some reality to that displaying 
what the attitude of this President is: The King is the law. That is 
what the President, fundamentally, is saying.
  The Constitution is the law, and that is what we are saying.
  Make no mistake, there is no limit to what this President will do. He 
starts in L.A. and goes to Portland. He wants to go to Baltimore. And 
then, for the purpose of putting down what he claims is lawless 
behavior, but upon review of local judges who have the evidence, they 
find that it is nothing out of the ordinary that the local jurisdiction 
and law enforcement forces can't handle.
  What is next? Will we see the military deployed to cities where the 
President does not like the outcome of the vote in the next election? 
That is a fair question. That is a fair question.
  So the importance of the Senator's bill is that this Congress act to 
set definitions on what so-called emergencies are and not leave it up 
to an Executive who has demonstrated repeatedly that he will 
overreach--that he will overreach.
  He has, and he will.
  So I join in the effort to present this legislation on the floor and 
allow us to debate it and to pass it.
  With that, I yield to the Senator from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for 
being here. We will be followed by others who have not yet come to the 
floor. I expect them momentarily. I want to thank my colleague from 
Vermont for being here today and for his very powerful remarks.
  Despite the objection, we are committed to pursue this issue, to seek 
a change in the law that will assure Americans that our military is 
used properly for the purpose that the Founders and all of us want them 
to do.
  I am pleased to be followed now by my colleague from California 
Senator Schiff.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Curtis). The Senator from California.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. President, I thank Senator Blumenthal for leading 
this special order opportunity on the Senate floor, on such a vital 
issue, at such an important time.
  I stand in this well in support of my colleague's request as the 
Senator representing both the State first impacted by the President's 
abuse of our military and one against which he has threatened further 
action and deployment.
  So here we are. The President deploys thousands of members of the 
California National Guard on the streets of Los Angeles, against the 
wishes of the mayor and Governor. Here we are. The President tells the 
Marines--those who have trained to land on beachheads and be the tip of 
the spear--that their next mission will be Los Angeles.
  These might sound like hypothetical scenarios or the futuristic plot 
of some film, but this is what actually happened.
  And the President did not stop there. From Los Angeles, he turned to 
our Nation's Capital. He put the National Guard on corner after corner 
and even called on them to, well, pick up trash--because this has never 
been about crime or quelling some kind of rebellion or insurrection for 
the President who refused to act when our Capitol was under actual 
insurrection on January 6. This has never been about public safety. It 
has been about control. It has been about crushing dissent. It has been 
about using our troops as political pawns to show anyone in any city in 
America that the President is not to be crossed.
  But such deployments of our servicemembers are dangerous. They are 
destructive, and they are illegal.
  We are grateful to our National Guard to lend a hand in times of 
natural disasters like fires and floods--and we have all too much 
experience of both in California. But it is plainly not permitted under 
the law to use the Armed Forces to assist the President in some 
ambiguous campaign of fear or domestic policing or indiscriminate 
immigration raids.
  That is not the purpose of the military. That is not the function of 
the military. That is not a lawful use of the military.
  Courts around the country have recognized the lawless nature of these 
deployments and the false representations made to justify them or try 
to, as one judge in Portland observed that the administration claims 
are ``untethered to facts.''
  Because the legal justification for these deployments has been found 
legally wanting, the President and his administration, including the 
chief architect of this campaign of suppression, Stephen Miller, have 
dusted off and may be prepared to deploy a different archaic law to 
form an even more dangerous and expansive legal basis for these 
deployments, and that is the Insurrection Act.
  The Insurrection Act was originally enacted in 1792 during a very 
different era, when our Republic was in its infancy. It was intended to 
provide the President, in only the rarest and most extreme 
circumstances, with the ability to federalize our military to respond 
to and ``suppress'' a ``rebellion'' or ``insurrection'' against the 
authority of the United States. It was not enacted to empower the 
President to deploy the military to pick up trash or to engage in 
domestic policing or do things that local police or law enforcement 
could do on their own--no. It was enacted to suppress a rebellion 
against the government or an insurrection against the government. The 
law was, in fact, intended by Congress as an exception to another law--
the Posse Comitatus law--that otherwise forbids the military from 
undertaking domestic law enforcement.
  The Insurrection Act, therefore, must be understood as an authority 
that Congress enacted at the outset of our Republic for a President to 
use only in the narrowest and most exceptional and extreme of 
circumstances where all other means of protecting our country and 
enforcing our laws have been exhausted. That is clearly not the case 
here.
  The history and purpose of this law is clear and should not be abused 
by any President. It should only apply to cases of demonstrable 
insurrection or rebellion against the United States and where all other 
means of protecting Americans and enforcing our laws simply do not 
exist.
  Now, let's look at the plain facts of the matter. There is no 
rebellion or insurrection--not in Los Angeles, not in Portland, not in 
Chicago, not in San Francisco, not in Washington, DC, nowhere to be 
found.
  So what is really going on here? Well, I think the President admitted 
it very plainly when he spoke to generals and admirals last month at 
the Pentagon when he spoke of an ``invasion from within.'' And he spoke 
of his real goal, which was that ``we should use some of these 
dangerous cities as training grounds for our military.'' But our cities 
are not military training grounds, and there is no way to assert an 
insurrection like the Shay's Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion that 
had occurred shortly before the Insurrection Act was passed in the 
1790s to justify today the unjustifiable. There is no disorder in this 
country that cannot be dispersed by State and local law enforcement.
  But despite the clear letter of the law not being met here, the 
President continues to flirt with invoking the Insurrection Act anyway 
because the President's goal here is not to prevent disorder but to 
create it; not to quell unrest but to provoke it; to enlist the 
Nation's military in a civil dispute against his perceived enemies, 
against community organizers, against American cities, against 
clergymen, against those who fight to uphold the checks and balances in 
our Constitution, against a free and fair press, against journalists, 
against our courts, against anyone who dares to raise their voice 
against him.
  It is no accident that this President and his administration have 
deliberately tried to paint all of his opposition--political 
opposition, everyday citizens out protesting on No Kings Day--he would 
paint them all--all who stand up for our Constitution and our rights as 
Americans--he would paint them all as some kind of terrorists or 
extremists. That is the language we hear from the White House, and that 
is the language we hear from authoritarians who use it to justify using 
the

[[Page S7183]]

awesome power of the state, including its military, against its real or 
perceived domestic opponents.
  We should not take this President's threats idly. We should make 
clear, as Senator Blumenthal would do with his legislation, that the 
President's flirtations with this law are not within his powers; that 
the military is not his to deploy for pageantry, political theater, 
vengeance, or intimidation.
  In the President's words, he calls this law ``unquestioned power,'' 
and that is really what the President is after--unquestioned power. 
Does that sound like a President who believes in a system of checks and 
balances? Does that sound like a President who believes in democracy? 
Or does that sound like a President who wants to be a King and will use 
any law, archaic or otherwise, as a pretext? Because the use of this 
law could forever erase the line between an apolitical military and the 
political whims of the Oval Office.
  Now, Donald Trump has repeatedly sought to pit State against State 
and deploy the Guard from one State against another State, and this not 
only tears at the social cohesion of our Nation but also undermines our 
military, which has the broad trust of our people, and squanders that 
trust.
  When you consider the sacrifices that are made by men and women in 
uniform, to squander that sacrifice by deploying the military against 
our own citizens, to take them away from the focus of their job, the 
mission of their job, which is to protect our country from foreign 
enemies and adversaries, it is not only dangerous to our people but 
also disastrous to the military.
  I say to my colleagues here: Even if your city is not Chicago, like 
Senator Durbin's, or your State is not Connecticut, like Senator 
Blumenthal's, or your State is not California or Oregon and may not be 
on the tip of the President's tongue now, there is nothing that will 
protect you when he turns against your State next--not if you don't 
stand up now. This slippery slope only gets steeper.

  The voice of dissent must get louder. We must stand now, before the 
troops are quartered in every city, pulling your community's families 
out, hog-tying the children in your cities in front of their parents; 
before Black Hawk helicopters are landing on your roofs; before your 
citizens are being asked for their papers and paying fines just to go 
about their lives.
  Now is the time to speak louder. Now is the time to insist on 
adherence to the law. Now is the time to push back against even greater 
abuses of the law like we would see with invocation of the Insurrection 
Act.
  I thank my colleague for leading this debate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me first thank Senator Blumenthal for 
bringing us together on the floor this afternoon and also Senator 
Schiff for his excellent statement on this issue, which is so timely 
and important.
  I speak to this issue in the usual, personal position. My State, my 
home State of Illinois--the State that I am elected to represent in the 
Senate, a State that I love--is under siege by this administration. If 
you think I am exaggerating, imagine, if you will, for a moment a 
President who has decided to declare that your town, your State is 
somehow on his list to face punitive action by the delegation of 
military force. That is what is happening in Illinois. That is what is 
happening in Chicago.
  This last Saturday, we had the No Kings rallies across the United 
States. Millions of Americans took the time to peacefully protest this 
administration's policies.
  In Chicago, I cannot tell you the number of people in the crowd 
because no one is sure. I am sure it was over 100,000. My wife and I 
looked at that sea of people at the Petrillo band shell in Grant Park 
and thought, how many people could possibly be here? They were there, 
and they marched peacefully, nonviolently, to really use their 
constitutional rights to express themselves.
  The President has designated Chicago as uninhabitable, unlivable, 
violent. It is just a fraud and a lie. It is not true. Does Chicago 
have its problems? You bet it does. So does a city in the State of 
California or Connecticut or even Utah. Each of our cities has its 
challenges. There will always be someone who will break the law and 
disappoint you. But to argue that the city is dangerous and needs to be 
occupied by National Guard troops from Illinois and the State of Texas 
is completely, completely wrong.
  I recall that the President was right in one respect. Two weeks ago, 
there were people running through the streets of Chicago--53,000 of 
them, as a matter of fact, in the Chicago Marathon and thousands of 
others who came there to witness and cheer them on. It was a beautiful 
scene on a Sunday morning and afternoon in the city of Chicago, and it 
certainly didn't tell the story that President Trump and others are 
trying to tell about the city.
  Just last week, President Trump called the Insurrection Act ``the 
strongest power a President has.'' President Trump is known for 
exaggerating, but this time, he wasn't. In his hands--the hands of a 
man who wants to be King, who nearly every day undermines checks and 
balances in the Constitution--the Insurrection Act as it stands today 
would serve as another tool for dangerous Executive overreach.
  Since its enactment in the 1800s, Presidents of both parties have 
relied on the Insurrection Act selectively, and, as we have discovered 
over time, the law is dangerously outdated, vague, and vulnerable to 
abuse if wielded by a President who refuses to act in good faith.
  President Trump talks frequently about the so-called enemy within in 
the United States. He has no qualms about spreading baseless lies about 
a rebellion or an emergency in American cities to justify his abuse of 
power. Whether it is unleashing Federal agents to detain people based 
on the color of their skin in Chicago or improperly deploying marines 
for civil law enforcement in Los Angeles, you see example after 
example.
  The Founders of this Nation designed the Constitution to protect 
generations of Americans from abuses unfolding before our eyes today. 
To prevent Presidents from using the military as a weapon of tyranny, 
the Framers of the Constitution constrained the role of the military in 
civilian affairs, gave Congress control over when the military may be 
deployed, and barred the Federal Government from usurping State powers.
  While the Insurrection Act gives the President greater authority to 
deploy the military within the United States, it was never meant to be 
used for the purpose President Trump is proposing.
  Congress must act to update this law to ensure it can only be used to 
safeguard the Nation, and I want to commend Senator Blumenthal for 
taking steps with legislation he has introduced along those lines.
  If you don't agree with me, listen to what Jack Goldsmith, Assistant 
Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel under President Bush, 
wrote in the New York Times with Bob Bauer just this last Monday. He 
wrote:

       The Insurrection Act was written for a different century 
     and a different conception of the presidency and presidential 
     self-restraint.

  Listen to what experts at the libertarian think tank CATO said:

       The sweeping language of the Act makes it a potentially 
     decisive and lethal tool in the hands of an authoritarian 
     chief executive.

  Earlier this month, the Republican Governor of Oklahoma criticized 
the deployment of Texas Guard troops to Illinois as a violation of 
``States' rights.'' He went on to say further--to rightly call out the 
hypocrisy of his own Republican Party. Imagine the outrage, this 
Governor of Oklahoma said, if Governor ``Pritzker in Illinois sent 
troops down to Oklahoma during the Biden administration.''
  I can imagine it, and you can too.
  Republican Senators who are quiet about the President's misuse of his 
office and misuse of power would not be quiet if their own State and 
their own towns were at stake in this debate.
  The reform bill my colleague from Connecticut has introduced 
preserves Presidential discretion to respond to genuine crisis while 
ensuring accountability and oversight and reducing the risk of abuse.
  I don't exaggerate when I tell you that, having spent my life in 
government service, I am more worried now than I have ever been about 
the fate of this Republic. But I see the possibility

[[Page S7184]]

of the use of the Insurrection Act by this President. I worry that our 
democracy will struggle to survive.
  I believe so dearly in this country that I have taken an oath 
willingly and happily to uphold its Constitution. I have turned to 
military leaders under President's Trump first term that I respected, 
like General Milley, and asked him basic questions such as: Given a 
choice, are you going to take your orders from the Commander in Chief 
or from the Constitution?
  He said: Always the Constitution.
  We have a lot at stake now in this national debate. It is about a lot 
more than who gets the morning headline and who wins the next election. 
What is at stake is the future of our democracy, and this Insurrection 
Act can be misused by this President in ways unimaginable. We have seen 
evidence of it already in my State of Illinois and the city of Chicago.
  I thank the Senator from Connecticut for leading us in this 
conversation that must continue.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today and join my colleagues in 
support of Senator Blumenthal's bill to curtail the President's 
authority under the Insurrection Act. This legislation is critical, 
given President Trump's blatant disregard of our democratic values and 
the rule of law.
  He has deployed National Guard troops throughout the United States 
over the objections of Governors, mayors, and the local communities. 
These deployments are intended to incite fear and distract from 
Republican attacks on healthcare, social services, and the release of 
the Epstein files.
  Trump isn't keeping anyone safe. He is sowing chaos in our 
communities, not to mention fear. His plan could not be more clear: He 
wants to manufacture a confrontation. I fear his next step is to invoke 
the Insurrection Act, a law that was passed over 217 years ago.
  This extreme action would allow Active-Duty troops to take the place 
of local law enforcement. Under the Insurrection Act, our military 
could execute search warrants and arrest American citizens.
  We cannot allow this violation of civil liberties to happen over a 
crisis of President Trump's own making.
  I support this legislation because it adds important checks on the 
President's power under the Insurrection Act. It would first require 
commonsense congressional approval; two, protect habeas corpus; and, 
three, provide a clear avenue for judicial review to ensure Americans' 
liberty and our safety are protected.
  Now is not the time for the military to be distracted with domestic 
policing and President Trump's political agenda. Our troops are not 
trained or equipped to replace local law enforcement. Given the 
national security challenges that we face around the globe, our 
military's focus must be on their own readiness to do the mission that 
they are constituted to do.
  But, instead, from the Department of Justice to the military, we have 
a President who is politicizing traditionally nonpartisan Agencies for 
his own political agenda. What could be more chaotic than that?
  This bill is an opportunity for Congress to finally step in and check 
President Trump's abuse of power.
  I yield the floor.