[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 179 (Tuesday, October 28, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7766-S7779]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

    TERMINATING THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY DECLARED TO IMPOSE DUTIES ON 
                     ARTICLES IMPORTED FROM BRAZIL

  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. I ask the Chair to execute the order of October 
7 with respect to S.J. Res. 81.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume legislative session, and the Committee on Finance is discharged 
of S.J. Res. 81, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 81) terminating the national 
     emergency declared to impose duties on articles imported from 
     Brazil.

  Thereupon, the committee was discharged and the Senate proceeded to 
consideration of the joint resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                    Unanimous Consent Request--S. 29

  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about my 
Sunshine Protection Act--a bipartisan, bicameral bill that returns 
power to each State and its citizens and that will end the twice-yearly 
time change and make daylight saving time the national, year-round 
standard.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of the Sunshine Protection Act, which is at the desk; 
further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and 
that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I do object to the legislation, and I will 
outline my reasons a bit more later. But I defer to my good friends 
from Florida, Alabama, and Rhode Island to speak on behalf of that bill 
before I explain my opposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. First, I want to recognize the Senator from 
Rhode Island to speak about the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, each November, we fall back into 
darkness very literally. If we pass my Sunshine Protection Act and make 
daylight saving time permanent, we would gain an hour of afternoon 
sunlight in the winter months for families to soak up after work and 
after school.
  This measure has been so bipartisan that it has previously passed 
this body by unanimous consent.
  Here is what President Trump said about it:

       The House and Senate should push hard for more Daylight at 
     the end of a day. Very popular and, most importantly, no more 
     changing of the clocks, a big inconvenience and, for our 
     government, A VERY COSTLY EVENT!!!

  My cosponsor before Senator Scott came here was his predecessor from 
Florida, Senator Rubio, who is now our Secretary of State, who said 
that we should ``stop enduring the ridiculous and antiquated practice 
of switching our clocks back and forth. Let's . . . end the need to 
`fall back' and `spring forward' for good.''
  I don't always agree with President Trump and with former-Senator, 
now-Secretary Rubio, but I sure do agree about this.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. I would like to recognize my cosponsor from 
Alabama, Senator Tuberville.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to once 
again talk about the outdated practice of changing our clocks twice a 
year.
  This weekend, my constituents back home in Alabama and across America 
will be forced to change their clocks. As a result, it will be dark in 
Washington, DC, at 5 p.m. next week. In the 5 years I have served here 
in the Senate, making daylight saving time permanent is the No. 1 issue 
that I hear about back home.
  I am proud to have joined my colleague Rick Scott earlier this year 
in reintroducing the Sunshine Protection Act to make daylight saving 
time permanent on the Federal level. Unfortunately, it hasn't been 
brought to the floor for a vote. So here I am advocating once again to 
make the outdated practice of changing our clock a thing of the past.
  For nearly 60 years, Americans have changed their clocks back and 
forth twice a year, but the roots of daylight saving time trace back 
much further. Daylight saving time was introduced during World War I 
and then reused again during World War II as a temporary way to help 
conserve fuel and energy. Following the ends of both wars, the decision 
to spring forward and fall back was returned to individual States. It 
wasn't until 1966 that the system of changing our clocks twice a year 
that we use now was made permanent.
  Changing our clocks twice a year might have made sense in the 1960s, 
but it doesn't make sense anymore. The twice-a-year time change doesn't 
make sense today.
  We know the devastating impact the disruption from so-called standard 
time has on Americans' health. Studies have suggested that disruption 
of sleep patterns due to time changes increases the risk of 
cardiovascular disease and physical injury. Northwestern Medicine found 
that ``fall back'' and ``spring forward'' are connected to a 6-percent 
spike in fatal car accidents and a 24-percent higher risk of heart 
attacks. Think about that. Additionally, the long-term health effects 
linked to changing our clocks include weight gain, cluster headaches, 
and depression. You would think we would listen to all of that.
  The bottom line is that shifting our clocks disrupts sleep patterns, 
and it has been proven time and time again to be harmful to our health.
  Thanks to R.F.K., Jr.'s, great work at HHS, a lot of Americans are 
taking

[[Page S7767]]

their health more seriously by trying to eat healthier and to get more 
sleep. Switching the clock back and forth is the exact opposite of the 
Make America Healthy Again movement that R.F.K., Jr., has championed. 
It is bad for sleep, it is bad for nutrition, and it is bad for overall 
health.
  For that reason, I push back and try to get this on the floor sooner 
rather than later.
  I yield back to my colleague Rick Scott.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. I want to thank Senators Whitehouse and 
Tuberville for their support.
  Our Sunshine Protection Act is a bipartisan, bicameral bill that will 
allow States to end the twice-yearly time change and make daylight 
saving time the national, year-round standard.
  In 2018, when I was Governor of Florida, I signed legislation that 
would allow the State of Florida to stop the practice of changing the 
clocks. I have been working to get this passed since I have been in the 
Senate so the people of Florida, not the Federal Government, can make 
this choice for the families of Florida.
  Nearly two dozen other States have joined Florida in choosing to lock 
the clock, pending the Federal approval that will come by passing the 
Sunshine Protection Act, while still allowing other States to opt out 
if they wish.
  This bill is about States' rights. It allows the people of each State 
to choose what best fits their needs and the needs of their families. 
In Florida, that is permanent daylight saving time. I hear from 
Floridians on this constantly. I am sure many of you have heard from 
your constituents as well. The American people are sick and tired of 
changing their clocks twice a year. It is confusing, unnecessary, and 
completely outdated.
  It is an understatement to say that our Nation has changed since the 
United States began changing the clocks over a century ago.
  For example, American households have electricity now. We also have 
self-driving cars, computers, and cell phones. Now, changing the clocks 
twice a year proves more of an annoyance to families than a benefit to 
them. The American people love having an extra hour of sunlight, 
especially in my State of Florida. That means more time to enjoy the 
outdoors and activities with families.
  Studies also show the potential for reduced cardiac issues, stroke, 
seasonal depression, reduced robberies, and benefits to the 
agricultural and general economies with an extra hour of sunlight.
  With President Trump committed to finally ``lock the clock,'' we can 
finally get this done for the American people. This bill is completely 
about individual States having the right to make their own decisions. I 
ask my colleagues to support the passage of the Sunshine Protection Act 
to make a commonsense change that will simply benefit the lives of 
Americans and allow people of each State to choose what is best for 
themselves and their families.
  I yield to my colleague from Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. In January of 1974, billions of Americans traveled to 
work and school in darkness. Commuter trains were delayed, 
schoolchildren carried flash lights. Tragically, some of these kids 
were struck by cars and killed while walking to school in the dark.
  One woman from Long Island, speaking to the New York Times, summed up 
the black mood of the Nation: ``It's the end,'' she said. ``I can't 
cope any more . . . I'm just staying in bed.''
  What calamity had befallen our Nation? Had Soviet Russia finally 
attacked America? Had we suffered a nationwide power outage? Were the 
heavens conspiring to plunge our Nation into darkness?
  No. As it turns out, the answer was more mundane and foolish. A few 
months earlier, Congress, in its eternal wisdom, had imposed a top-down 
change on every Americans' daily life, eliminating standard time and 
adopting daylight saving time year-round. Such a change to the Nation's 
clocks had never happened before, except as an emergency rationing 
measure during wartime.
  While briefly popular, it proved deeply unpopular when reality set 
in. According to opinion polls, support for permanent daylight saving 
time fell by 30 percentage points in just 3 months. Only a few weeks 
after it was implemented, it was underwater. Congress beat a hasty 
retreat, repealing the law and changing the clocks back in October. 
What was supposed to be a 2-year experiment ended in abject failure 
after less than 1 year.
  It is said that those who don't learn from history are doomed to 
repeat it. That is what would happen if Congress passes the so-called 
Sunshine Protection Act, once again ending standard time and imposing 
daylight saving time year-round.
  If permanent, daylight saving time becomes the law of the land. It 
will again make winter a dark and dismal time for millions of 
Americans. By moving the clock back an hour in winter, permanent 
daylight saving time would push winter sunrises to an absurdly late 
hour, depriving Americans of morning sunshine that is essential for our 
safety and well-being.
  For many Arkansans, permanent daylight saving time would mean the Sun 
wouldn't rise until after 8 o'clock or even 8:30 a.m. during the dead 
of winter. Three months out of the year, kids in towns like 
Bentonville, Fayetteville, and Fort Smith would start school ahead of 
the Sun.
  Americans in northern States and on the western side of time zones 
would be even worse off. For instance, the Sun wouldn't rise until 
nearly 9 o'clock during winter in Seattle. In Grand Rapids, the Sun 
would rise as late as 9:15 a.m., and in Williston, ND, they would not 
see the Sun until almost 9:45 a.m.
  The darkness of permanent daylight saving time would be especially 
harmful for schoolchildren and working Americans. As we saw in 1974, 
kids would either walk to school in the pitch black or schools would 
have to push back start times. The choice would be between danger on 
the one hand and disruption on the other.
  Meanwhile, construction workers, farmers, and others who rise before 
the Sun or who need the Sun to work would be penalized. These workers 
might go 3, 4 or even 5 hours in morning without seeing the Sun, which 
would hurt their quality of life and, potentially, their safety in the 
workplace.
  Then, of course, there are the health consequences of permanent 
daylight saving time. The Senators from Alabama and Florida correctly 
indicated that clock changes can be bad for health. But the best 
evidence suggests that the natural rhythms of our internal body clocks 
align more closely with standard time than daylight saving time. A 
shift to permanent daylight saving time would make it harder to go to 
sleep at night and harder to wake up in the morning.
  Some of the Nation's top medical associations, including the American 
Academy of Sleep Medicine, the American Medical Association, the 
American Academy of Neurology, and the American College of Chest 
Physicians have called for daylight saving time to be abolished, not 
extended. As one sleep scientist put it, of all the options available 
to us, ``permanent [daylight saving time] is the worst solution.''

  Of course, the advocates for permanent daylight saving time try to 
put, well, a sunny face on this bill. Back in 2022, the Senator from 
Massachusetts argued that it would be mean ``more daylight hours'' and 
``more smiles.''
  By the way, since the Senator from Rhode Island mentioned it, let me 
say a word about what happened in 2022. We heard from him that the 
Senate ``unanimously passed'' this bill. It is true, as far as it goes, 
but the story is a little more complicated than that. To let you in on 
how things operate, when Senators want to seek unanimous consent to 
pass a bill without a recorded vote, as my friends are doing today, an 
email goes out to all other Senate offices asking if a Senator objects. 
I didn't personally object in 2022 for two reasons. First, I hadn't 
adequately communicated to the staff the depth of my opposition to this 
bill. Second, because of a miscommunication, I expected another Senator 
who also opposed the bill to object. I take full responsibility for 
this mistake--though the search for someone else to blame is actively 
ongoing. A chief suspect, as usual, may be the Republican floor 
Secretary.

[[Page S7768]]

  In any case, it is only a mistake if you don't have time to fix it. 
Fortunately, I fixed it later that year with like-minded friends in the 
House.
  Despite that setback, the proponents of permanent daylight saving 
time refused to, if you will, let the Sun set on this bill. They 
allege, as we heard, that the change would stimulate the economy and 
even save the environment by reducing energy use. On the contrary, 
permanent daylight saving time would have negligible effects on energy 
use, as indicated by most studies and plain common sense. Any reduction 
in electricity use in the afternoon will be counterbalanced, of course, 
by increased uses in the morning. It is, largely, six in one hand and 
half a dozen in the other.
  As to the supposed economic benefits, no doubt that a handful of 
industries would gain from the bill. That is why they lobbied so hard 
for it over the years. This bill would benefit, for example, outdoor 
entertainment venues, seaside resorts, and bars. My good friends from 
Alabama and Florida sponsor this legislation, and they are representing 
their States well by doing so. An extra hour in the winter for the 
resorts in South Florida, the beautiful golf courses in southern 
Alabama and across the State of Florida, or deep-sea fishing in the 
Gulf of America or the Atlantic would be welcome by many of the 
residents of those communities.
  As for my friends in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, have you ever 
spent a winter in Boston or Providence? The Sun disappears there barely 
after 4 p.m. Little wonder they have joined the effort. These Senators 
represent States that overwhelmingly benefit from year-round daylight 
saving time because of their latitude and longitude. I understand, and 
I respect their positions.
  But as is often the case, these highly concentrated benefits for a 
few industries and a few regions are offset by widely distributed costs 
across many more industries throughout the entire country, that is to 
say nothing of moms sending their kids to school in the dark of night.
  So why should we repeat history? It is probably because we have 
forgotten it. Most people don't remember the permanent daylight saving 
time debacle of 1974. Just about everyone hates to ``spring forward and 
fall back,'' as the saying goes. I don't like the biannual clock 
changes any more than the rest of you do. But unless we are willing to 
adopt permanent standard time and sacrifice the extra hour of evening 
light in the spring and summer for Little League ball games and summer 
vacations across the country, there is just not much to be done, which 
is, when you think about it, a fundamentally conservative outlook.
  Not every human problem has a legislative solution. Sometimes we have 
to live with an uneasy compromise between competing priorities and 
interests. That is doubly true when considering how the movement of the 
stars and the planets affects the lives of 350 million souls spread 
across our vast continental Nation.
  It brings to mind the story of King Cnut, who wanted to teach 
sycophants a lesson about the limits of mankind's power. He famously 
set his throne on the seashore and forbade the tide from coming in. Of 
course, the tide, nonetheless, came in and, as one historian recounted, 
``disrespectfully drenched the King's feet and shins.''
  The moral of the story, the King reminded his fawning court, is that 
``the power of kings is empty and worthless, and there is no king 
worthy of name save Him by whose will heaven, earth, and sea obey 
eternal laws.''
  Good King Cnut's wise words are as true now as they were then. No 
earthy ruler--not even this Congress--can alter the movements of the 
heavens, not today, not 1974, not ever.
  Therefore, I oppose the Sunshine Protection Act and will always 
oppose any effort to adopt daylight saving time year-round.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.


                         Operation Midway Blitz

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for the last 2 months, the people of 
Illinois have been living under President Trump's so-called Operation 
Midway Blitz. I have watched it up close. I have seen its victims, and 
I have seen its methods. I want to tell you that this Operation Midway 
Blitz is trampling over Illinois residents' constitutional rights and 
civil liberties. This reckless campaign is not aimed at public safety; 
it is a calculated show of political theater and force that is designed 
to spread fear and terror in our communities.
  Every weekend since this operation began, I have returned to Chicago 
to visit these communities and to meet with members and leaders who 
have been targeted by Donald Trump with Federal, militarized agents. I 
have reported back on what I have seen and heard on this floor for 
weeks now.
  What I see time and time again are good people whose only desire is 
to raise their children, go to work, and contribute to their 
communities. These same people are now afraid to leave their homes, to 
walk to school, to church, to the grocery store, or to a restaurant out 
of fear of being caught in one of these cruel raids.
  The President insists his immigrant enforcement operations focus on 
the worst of the worst. Oh, you have heard him over and over again. At 
his rallies, he would give the speeches, and he would rail about the 
rapists, the murderers, the terrorists, the criminally insane: These 
immigrants, we have got to stop them.
  Well, I can tell you this: More than 70 percent of the people who 
have been detained have no criminal records whatsoever. They are 
American citizens--some--and they are workers and parents with clean 
records. They are peaceful protesters and community members who are 
carrying whistles. They are even children.
  Federal agents have been sweeping up anyone they encounter, including 
bystanders who pause to record their activities. Then they scramble 
later to justify the detentions.
  When you ask what happens to an individual who disappears from one of 
these scenes, you wait--sometimes for hours, sometimes for days--to 
find out where they have been taken. These actions violate due 
process--full stop. A democracy cannot survive with a law enforcement 
strategy of ``arrest now and ask questions later.''
  The reach of these actions is only growing more brazen. Federal 
agents have confronted people outside of childcare centers and schools. 
Some Head Start Programs have moved online to protect families. 
Children have been zip-tied and yanked away from their families. In 
many cases, peaceful protesters have been met with tear gas. At Funston 
Elementary School near Logan Square, an entire playground had to be 
evacuated. Residents who locked arms to protect their neighbors were 
gassed in their own streets.
  U.S. district court judge Sara Ellis issued a temporary restraining 
order earlier this month that prohibits agents from using tear gas 
indiscriminately on peaceful protesters, journalists, or anyone else 
not posing an immediate threat to law enforcement.
  The orders of the court for these people--for these law enforcement 
agents sent in by President Trump--to wear video cameras, like so many 
police do every day, routinely, have been largely ignored. It is time 
for this court order to be enforced.
  Just this weekend, chemical canisters were thrown into a crowd of 
residents who had gathered in the Old Irving Park neighborhood of 
Chicago. For what reason? Was it a terrorist meeting? No. It was a 
children's Halloween block party, and they threw in tear gas canisters.
  Concerned onlookers and their children watched as Border Patrol 
agents tackled a landscaper to the ground and arrested him on a 
resident's front lawn. Agents then deployed multiple tear gas canisters 
at the neighbors without warning and even arrested one unsuspecting 
resident in his late sixties who had just returned from a morning run. 
The video footage shows the agents' recklessness, their seemingly 
disregard for the court order, and their ongoing violations of due 
process.
  It is hard to describe what is happening here, but I don't have to; 
it is all captured on videotape.
  Our Armed Forces are banned from using tear gas on the battlefield, 
but ICE and the CBP have no problem using it on Main Street in Chicago, 
IL. Recent footage even shows Gregory Bovino, the Border Patrol 
commander-at-large, who has been tasked with leading Operation Midway 
Blitz, deploying a tear gas canister on a crowd

[[Page S7769]]

of peaceful protesters in Little Village with no advance warning--
despite a court order, with no advance warning.
  DHS was quick to publish statements on social media regarding the 
incident. They stated that a ``mob of rioters'' provoked the attack, 
but the video shows that was a lie.
  Judge Ellis called Mr. Bovino to court this morning to answer for the 
Federal agents' continued indiscriminate use of tear gas in the streets 
of Chicago, pepper spray, and other excessive force. She opened the 
hearing by reading her previous order out loud. Given recent events, 
she wondered whether her order wasn't clear. Immigration agents didn't 
bother to read it, or if they read it and understood it, they decided 
to ignore it and challenge the authority of the court.
  Judge Ellis said:

       [K]ids dressed in Halloween costumes, walking to a parade, 
     do not illicit an immediate threat to the safety of a law 
     enforcement officer. They just don't.

  At the hearing, she instructed Bovino to appear before the court to 
provide daily reports moving forward. Bovino also agreed to undergo 
training for body cameras and begin wearing one as soon as Friday.
  In light of these alarming abuses, I am working to fulfill my role 
under the Constitution as a Member of Congress with the authority to 
conduct oversight of the executive branch. The Trump administration 
claims to be the most transparent in American history, but when Senator 
Duckworth and I recently arrived at the Broadview ICE processing center 
to provide oversight, we were barred from viewing it.
  If this were truly a lawful operation targeted on public safety 
threats--the rapists, the murderers, the terrorists, and the criminally 
insane--they wouldn't stop us from seeing who was being held. DHS would 
welcome the oversight. Instead, they hide. What do they not want us, 
the American people, to see?
  The Trump administration has turned Federal Agencies into tools of 
political intimidation. They have targeted cities and States run by 
Democrats who didn't vote for the President in the last election.
  Operation Midway Blitz is a desecration of all the basic liberties 
guaranteed by the Constitution. But Chicagoans and Illinoisans are not 
backing down. We have survived a flood; we have survived a fire; we 
have survived disco night in Comiskey Park, and we will survive this as 
well. They are linking arms and demanding accountability, and they are 
refusing to be silent in the face of intimidation and injustice. I am 
going to continue to be part of that effort.
  There is a guarantee under this Constitution of freedom of speech. As 
long as we are engaged in nonviolent activity, that Constitution 
protects us. The people of Chicago and Illinois deserve so much better. 
They deserve a Federal Government that honors one of its highest 
duties, the duties to defend the rights and freedoms of all people.
  I will continue to do everything I can to try and ensure our 
government once again lives up to their promise, and I hope my 
colleagues will join me.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                 Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 466

  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, American families are struggling to pay 
for groceries and rent. Federal workers are missing paychecks. 
Americans across the country are watching as their health insurance 
premiums skyrocket.
  But what is President Donald Trump focused on? He has pardoned a 
convicted crypto billionaire who helped the Trump family get even 
richer.
  Changpeng Zhao, known as CZ, founded Binance--a giant crypto exchange 
that became a home for terrorists, child abusers, and other criminals. 
Both Republican and Democratic policymakers have been ringing the alarm 
on Binance for years. Two years ago, several of my Republican 
colleagues warned that this crypto platform was facilitating 
``significant illicit finance activity'' and that it could ``be 
providing material support to entities engaged in terrorism under 
Federal law, or being willfully blind to the fact that it may be doing 
so.'' Another one of my Republican colleagues warned that CZ was 
misleading the public about Binance's operations in China.
  Republicans and Democrats were right to be worried. Binance 
facilitated financing for terrorist organizations like ISIS, Hamas, and 
al-Qaida. It opened the spigot for Iran. Binance made it easier to 
finance child sexual abuse. One Binance employee even wrote that they 
needed a banner that said:

       [I]s washing drug money too hard these days? Come to 
     Binance, we got cake for you.

  Binance put its profits ahead of following the law and ahead of 
America's national security. This was criminal activity. Binance 
pleaded guilty to multiple criminal charges and was required to pay a 
penalty of more than $4 billion. CZ pleaded guilty to criminal charges 
and went to prison for willfully failing to maintain an effective anti-
money laundering program that could have prevented financing these 
terrorist and drug traffickers.
  Oh, but CZ got a lucky break. A month after he was released from 
prison, Donald Trump was elected President, and CZ had bet on the right 
horse. Remember, CZ is still the biggest shareholder in Binance, and 
right before the election, Binance reportedly offered to strike a 
crypto business deal with the Trump family. When Trump launched his own 
crypto venture, Binance allegedly wrote the code. And now, all of this 
is paying off big time for CZ, Binance, and the Trump family.
  In May, a United Arab Emirates investment firm used the Trump 
family's stablecoin to buy a $2 billion stake in Binance, and President 
Trump and his family will make millions of dollars in fees and interest 
off just that one deal. In the middle of all of this, CZ applies for a 
pardon. And last Friday, Donald Trump gave it to him.
  When asked about his pardon of CZ, the President said that ``a lot of 
people say he wasn't guilty of anything.'' But one of my Republican 
colleagues rightly said:

       He was convicted. He's not innocent.

  Once again, President Trump has shown the American people that he is 
willing to turn a blind eye to money flowing to terrorists and child 
abusers so long as it lines his own pockets. Pardoning convicted crypto 
billionaires sends a message: If you have money and the right 
connections, you don't have to follow the law. You get a special deal 
after you have broken the law.
  Congress needs to stop this kind of corruption. Today, we can send a 
message, a message that President Trump's pardon is wrong. We also have 
an opportunity to head off more corruption as Congress considers crypto 
market structure legislation. If Senate Republicans don't let us fix 
this, then the Senate Republicans own this corruption and lawlessness.
  I yield the floor to my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator 
Warren's resolution condemning President Trump's decision to pardon 
Changpeng Zhao.
  Last week, President Trump once again put his wealthy allies, family 
members, and business partners ahead of the public trust when he 
granted a pardon to the founder of Binance.
  In 2023, Mr. Zhao was sentenced to prison after his company pleaded 
guilty to serious crimes, including failing to prevent money laundering 
and letting billions of dollars flow through Binance to sanctioned 
regimes and criminals, to facilitate child sex abuse, drug trafficking, 
and terrorism.
  At the time, the Treasury Department estimated that Binance had 
allowed over 1\1/2\ million currency trades that violated American 
sanctions, including hundreds of millions of dollars that shirked 
sanctions against Iran, against Syria, against Cuba, and against 
Russia. For these crimes, Binance paid one of the largest fines in U.S. 
history: $4.3 billion in fines. Yet, after serving only a fraction of 
his sentence, President Trump stepped in to grant Zhao a pardon and 
wiped his slate clean.

  Why? Why do such a thing? Because Mr. Zhao is part of a wide web of 
financial interests tied to the President and his allies--that is why--
including a crypto venture that poured billions into Binance.
  The President's pardon came after a stablecoin from World Liberty 
Financial--the Trump family crypto venture--was used to purchase a $2 
billion stake in Binance, marking the most

[[Page S7770]]

significant use to date of that Trump Binance stablecoin and once again 
increasing the value of the Trump family holdings.
  That is not the use of a pardon to correct an injustice; that is the 
use of a pardon to commit an injustice. That is corruption of the most 
blatant kind, and it is illustrative of the same message Donald Trump 
continues to send donors and friends: If you have got enough money or 
the right political connections, the law simply doesn't apply to you.
  The President isn't using the power of his office to ensure hungry 
families have access to food next month. He is not using the power of 
his office to make sure that Americans can afford to pay for their 
healthcare. He is using the power of his office to pardon a convicted 
billionaire and one who just happens to be doing business with the 
Trump family crypto platform, World Liberty Financial.
  We have seen this story before. And this is just the latest example 
of the President's use, abuse of the pardon power as a means of 
rewarding wealthy donors, family members, allies, and benefiting 
himself personally.
  We saw it when Trump pardoned corporate executives convicted of 
bribery and campaign finance crimes as a thank-you for donating 
millions to his campaign. We saw it in his first term when he pardoned 
operatives like Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, and Steve Bannon who helped 
him or his allies evade accountability. And we saw it when he issued 
sweeping ``unconditional'' pardons for 1,500 individuals involved in 
the January 6 attack on this Capitol, including many who were convicted 
of violent crimes, violent acts, against law enforcement.
  In fact, the President even stacked the offices tasked with reviewing 
pardon applications with his allies, installing Ed Martin as pardon 
attorney at the Justice Department after his failed nomination to be 
U.S. attorney for DC.
  In case after case after case, the message has been clear: Loyalty to 
Donald Trump is more important than the rule of law; it is more 
important than anything in the public interest.
  This is not what the Framers intended when they gave the President 
the authority to grant clemency. And they certainly never envisioned it 
as a ``get out of jail free'' card for political allies, campaign 
donors, and business partners.
  But this administration has turned the pardon power into a tool for 
corruption and self-dealing, which is why Senator Warren and I have 
introduced this resolution to shine a light on the rampant corruption 
of this administration and to hold those responsible accountable.
  I urge my colleagues to join us in sending a clear, bipartisan 
message that the U.S. Government should act in the public interest, not 
the financial interest of the President, and that the pardon power must 
not be for sale.
  With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee 
on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration and the 
Senate now proceed to S. Res. 466; further, I ask unanimous consent 
that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that 
the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table 
with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, article II, 
section 2, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives the President 
complete discretion to issue executive clemency. In Ex parte Garland in 
1866, the Supreme Court even said that the President has ``unlimited 
powers in respect to pardons, extending to every offense under the 
law.''
  Congress must be mindful of its proper role as part of our 
constitutional separation of powers. For those constitutional reasons 
alone, I cannot support this resolution.
  With respect to Binance in particular and the individual who was the 
subject of this pardon specifically, I continue to have concerns with 
their past activity that may have facilitated illicit finance. In 
October 2023, House Financial Services Committee Chairman French Hill 
and I wrote a letter to the Department of Justice urging that 
prosecutors take a close look at whether Binance was willfully blind to 
bad actors using their digital asset exchange for illicit purposes and 
whether Binance may have facilitated fundraising relating to the 
October 7 attacks on Israel. I continue to stand by my letter today.
  This is why I am working day and night on bipartisan digital asset 
market structure legislation which will ensure that commonsense illicit 
finance rules apply to digital asset exchanges and that bad actors that 
use digital assets are rooted out.
  There is a renewed sense of optimism and energy around market 
structure talks today, and I am hopeful that we will have legislation 
on the Senate floor before the end of this year.
  I want to make one final note, the hypocrisy that is patently obvious 
here. Where was the outrage from my colleagues when President Biden 
brazenly pardoned his own son for crimes he absolutely committed? And 
don't forget, President Biden repeatedly told the American people 
before an election that he would not use his constitutional pardon 
power to pardon his son.
  That hypocrisy is staggering. The American people delivered a 
decisive mandate for President Trump, and that includes his 
constitutional authority to issue pardons. Democrats need to accept the 
election results and stop their partisan theatrics every time this 
President exercises his legitimate powers.
  For these reasons, Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I am noticing that the Senator, rightly, 
points out that the President has the power to pardon. There is nothing 
in our proposed resolution that tries to take that away from the 
President. We understand that.
  But we do think it is time for Congress to use its voice for this 
U.S. Senate to stand up and say: Pardoning a convicted criminal who has 
facilitated child trafficking, who has facilitated drug trafficking, 
who has facilitated terrorism around the world is a really bad idea.
  That is what this resolution is all about. So I understand that the 
Senator has concerns, but those concerns could be registered by the 
Republicans by simply signing on to a resolution that says we do not 
believe it is right to pardon someone under these circumstances.
  I am glad to hear that the Senator is working on a market structure 
bill that will presumably avert this kind of problem and deal with the 
corruption of the Trump family as it relates to cryptocurrency. So I 
look forward to seeing that and just can't wait to see what the 
provisions are that stop Donald Trump from this kind of self-dealing 
and from what appears to be bribery right out in the open for the 
entire world to see.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. President, I just want to join in raising a few 
points in response to our colleague. First, the pardon power is not 
absolute. If the pardon power were absolute, a President could order 
vast branches of the U.S. Government to break an infinite number of 
laws and then simply pardon all of the offenders.
  The Constitution is not interpreted as a matter of constitutional law 
so as to negate all other sections of the Constitution. If it were 
absolute, it would negate all other sections of the Constitution. It is 
not absolute.
  But we are not contesting whether the President has the power to 
grant this particular pardon. What we are contesting is the morality of 
doing it. What we are contesting is whether we should sit blindly while 
the pardon is used in such a corrupt fashion toward friends and allies 
and to enrich the President's family.
  The fact that he may have the power to do it doesn't make it right to 
do and the fact that he may have the power to do it doesn't prevent us 
from condemning it.
  And by the way, vis-a-vis President Biden, I did condemn the use of 
his pardon, but that certainly does not justify the use of the pardon 
here.
  It simply cannot be, should not be the case that a President gives a 
pardon to a convicted criminal who has helped launder money to avoid 
sanctions on our adversaries and that we

[[Page S7771]]

simply shrug and say: He has the power to do it, and we shall not 
condemn it.
  We should condemn it. And the absence of condemnation, I think, will 
only be an encouragement for the President to continue abusing the 
pardon power.
  Mr. President, I urge support for the resolution, and I thank the 
Senator from Massachusetts for offering it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I renew my objection as someone who was 
spied on by the Biden Justice Department--one of eight Senators to be 
spied on--in violation of the separation of powers.
  I respect the separation of powers. And in this case, the separation 
of powers protects the President of the United States' pardon power. We 
need to protect it as well.
  For those reasons, I further object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask permission to display on my 
colleague's desk my office supply of ground coffee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                Tariffs

  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a vote that we will 
cast in a few hours with respect to President Trump's imposition of a 
50-percent tariff on all goods coming from Brazil.
  President Trump's tariff regime--global tariffs, Brazilian tariffs, 
Canadian tariffs, tariff deals announced then paused, tariff deals 
negotiated, exceptions granted and, in some cases, not granted--has 
created huge chaos in the national economy.
  Three universities looked at the Virginia economy in the last month, 
and a summary of those three universities' reports was published in a 
Virginia publication last week titled ``Virginia's GDP Growth Drops 
6.2% to 1.7%.''
  And the analysis of this precipitous decline--a 75-percent decline, 
nearly--in the Virginia GDP in the first year of Donald Trump's 
Presidency cited a number of factors: mass layoffs of Federal employees 
and contractors, cancelation of highly valued economic development 
projects, clawback of research funding and other programmatic funding.
  But, importantly, a key component affecting the Virginia economy and 
the national economy right now is the President's chaotic tariff 
regime.

  Tariffs are attacks on American consumers; tariffs are attacks on 
American businesses; and they are attacks that are imposed by a single 
person: Donald J. Trump.
  In Virginia, we are seeing it nationally. We are seeing the effects 
of the Trump economy, and it is well-summarized in the reports I 
referenced: fewer jobs, jobs declining; higher prices, whether it is 
food, building supplies, energy, healthcare higher prices; and slower 
growth.
  I want to talk about one aspect of this economic malpractice, the 
imposition of tariffs, and, in particular, the imposition of tariffs on 
Brazil.
  The President has imposed a tariff on Brazil of 50 percent on all the 
products that the United States imports from Brazil. I want to get to 
Brazil and the tariffs and the effect it is having on American 
consumers in a minute, but first, what is the power that the President 
cites enabling him to put such a sizable tariff on Brazilian products?
  What he cites is a statute called IEEPA dealing with international 
economic emergencies. And that is a statute that was passed by 
Congress, signed into law decades ago, allowing the President, under 
some circumstances, to take actions following the declaration of an 
international emergency.
  What is an international emergency?
  The IEEPA statute 50 U.S.C. section 1701 says that the emergency that 
a President must declare is ``any unusual and extraordinary threat, 
which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United 
States''--the threat being to the ``national security foreign policy or 
economy of the United States, if the President declares a national 
emergency with respect to such threat.''
  So the 50-percent tariff on all products from Brazil is justified by 
President Trump declaring that Brazil represents a national security 
threat.
  The 50-percent tariff was imposed in two actions: The President 
imposed global tariffs on most nations in the world in April and 
imposed a 10-percent tariff on Brazil in that action, but then added an 
additional 40 percent in a ruling from the White House at the end of 
July, combining to be a 50-percent tariff.
  Now, Mr. President, you have followed President Trump's logic on 
tariffs. The global tariffs that were imposed were imposed because he 
claims other nations are ripping America off in trade--other nations 
are ripping America off in trade.
  They are selling us more of their stuff and not buying enough of our 
stuff, and the President says that is a rip-off.
  I disagree with him on whether or not that is a rip-off, but you 
would have a hard time making a case that Brazil is ripping off the 
United States in trade. We have a trade surplus with Brazil. Many of 
the other nations that the President has imposed tariffs on, there is a 
trade deficit as measured by goods. The President usually doesn't look 
at the deficit in goods and services. If you look at both, the picture 
actually looks much better for the United States.
  But Brazil, we have a trade surplus with Brazil of nearly $7 billion 
in goods and nearly $23 billion in services annually. Last year, the 
trade surplus we had with Brazil was $30 billion. They buy 30 billion 
more of our stuff than we buy of their stuff.
  So that makes Brazil a very unusual--a very unusual--subject or 
target of a tariff regime designed to stop other nations from ripping 
us off.
  So if that is not the emergency--if we are in trade surplus with 
Brazil, if that is not the emergency--why is the President declaring 
that there is an emergency with Brazil that warrants taxing American 
consumers by raising the price of any goods brought in from Brazil by 
50 percent?
  This has got to be the most unusual use of IEEPA in American history. 
It is the most extreme and illogical declaration of an emergency in 
American history, and that is saying a lot because President Trump 
declared an energy emergency on day one of his tenure, even though 
America was producing more energy than at any time in the history of 
the United States. Oil, gas, wind, solar, battery storage, we are the 
leaders in the world in energy production, but President Trump declared 
an energy emergency so he could get an E-ZPass lane around 
environmental regulations to oil, gas, and coal projects.
  So I thought that emergency declaration was pretty extreme, but I 
have a more extreme one: President Trump is unhappy that Brazil is 
prosecuting a friend of his.
  The former President of Brazil, on his way out the door, inspired a 
lot of people to try to protest and even overturn the peaceful transfer 
of power when he lost an election. So Brazil is prosecuting him under 
Brazilian laws. When the President heard that former President 
Bolsonaro was being prosecuted, he threatened 50-percent tariffs if you 
don't stop the Bolsonaro ``witch hunt'' trial.
  How is that trial an emergency for the United States? How is that 
trial a threat to American national security or our economy?
  The President is mad that a friend of his is being prosecuted. How is 
that an emergency?
  We went on. As the trial got underway in the middle of July, FOX 
News: ``Trump calls for immediate end to `unjust' trial of former 
Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro.''
  ``Unjust trial.''
  I don't think President Trump is a lawyer, and I know he is not a 
Brazilian lawyer. I doubt he has an expertise in Brazilian law. By what 
right would he call that trial unjust? By what right would he claim 
that the trial of this President for trying to inspire the overturn of 
power--by what right would he claim that that is an emergency for the 
United States?
  President Trump wasn't done. By making these demands and threatening 
tariffs, he had his administration take another step--highly unusual: 
``US sanctions Brazilian judge for prosecuting Trump ally Bolsonaro'' 
until the end of July.
  I am threatening tariffs; I am claiming that the prosecution is 
unjust. The United States even used sanctions power that Donald Trump 
has the unilateral ability to use to sanction the judge presiding over 
the case.

[[Page S7772]]

  Go back to the definition that I read you earlier.
  How is a prosecution of a potential Brazilian lawbreaker an ``unusual 
[or] extraordinary threat . . . to the national security, foreign 
policy, or economy of the United States''?
  I would assert, if we allow President Trump to declare this 
prosecution an emergency, we will have given any President a completely 
blank check to invent an emergency and do whatever they want and bypass 
Congress for doing so.
  This is not an emergency, and that is why I have filed, with other 
Senators, a resolution to terminate President Trump's emergency.
  But this isn't just about a misuse of Executive power. It has real-
life consequences. Let me just bring up one that, I have to admit, I am 
really biased about, which is coffee.
  Like a lot of people in this Chamber, I drink too much coffee. 
Americans drink just about more coffee per capita than any country in 
the world, and coffee imports are the most significant agricultural 
import we bring into the United States.
  I lived in a great coffee-producing country when I was a missionary, 
in Honduras. They produce a lot of coffee. The United States doesn't 
produce so much. I think the President knows that in the United States 
the only places where coffee is grown are Hawaii and Puerto Rico. 
Nowhere else in the United States are there conditions that allow for 
the growth of coffee.
  Sometimes, we put tariffs on products coming in from other nations to 
grow and inspire a domestic industry. If we make Brazilian steel more 
expensive, maybe we will make more steel in the United States.
  I am here to tell you there is no amount of tariff that would turn 
the United States into a nation that could produce a lot of coffee. And 
if every bit of coffee that could be produced in Puerto Rico and Hawaii 
were produced, it would meet precisely 1 percent of the coffee that 
Americans drink.
  So we bring in coffee, and our single largest source of coffee is 
Brazil. And 35 percent of American coffee comes from Brazil. The next 
source is Colombia, at 27 percent, and then other nations. Vietnam 
produces a good bit of coffee, and other nations in Central America 
produce a good bit of coffee. But the real powerhouse--and I can be 
sure that in my office's supply of ground coffee that we use to make 
coffee every morning, there is a lot of Brazilian coffee in there. The 
real powerhouse is Brazil.
  After the President announced that he was going to do these tariffs, 
the news started up right away. The prediction: U.S. coffee drinkers 
and businesses will pay the price for Trump's Brazil tariffs.
  Sometimes, the President likes to say that other nations pay them. 
No, this is a sales tax directly on those that consume the product, and 
that was the prediction.
  And the prediction turned out to be true. The tariffs went into 
effect at the end of July. By September 12, 6 weeks later, CNN Business 
reported:

       Coffee prices haven't surged this much in decades.

  ``Haven't surged this much in decades''--and the surging is very, 
very noticeable.
  By the end of July, coffee prices kept surging, and it is likely to 
get worse. By the end of July--remember, at the end of July, there was 
only the 10 percent imposed on Brazil in April. The extra 40 percent 
didn't kick in until the end of July. But coffee had already surged 14 
percent at the end of July, from July a year before.
  I don't have the chart to show you today. The statistics just came 
out about September. The price of coffee, a staple in virtually every 
American household, has increased by 40 percent between September 2024 
and September 2025. And every American experiences it at the grocery 
store when they are buying coffee, and every American experiences it 
when they are in coffee shops purchasing coffee.
  I held a roundtable with small businesses in Northern Virginia, two 
Fridays ago, at a tea shop out near Reston called Eldon Street Tea 
Shop. And I had tea shops--they are getting hit by tariffs because tea 
comes from nations like India, China, and Vietnam. And I had coffee 
shops, and I had chocolate shops. All of these are products that are 
being imported, and they are all being dramatically affected.
  And these small businesses said: If you have a chance, Senator, 
please do something. Please do something to stop this tariff madness.
  And so that is why I am on the floor today. I have used coffee as an 
example because I didn't want to bring a side of beef in and put it on 
the desk. We get a lot of beef from Brazil. Fifty percent tariffs have 
dramatically driven up the price of ground beef in supermarkets all 
over this country.
  People are paying more for coffee. They are paying more for beef. 
They are paying more for fruits and vegetables that come from nations 
that have been socked by Trump tariffs.
  People are paying more for building supplies. People are paying more 
for energy. People are paying more for healthcare.
  That is why the economist who looked at the Virginia economy said the 
Trump economy is one of higher prices, fewer jobs, and slower growth.
  It is my hope that my colleagues will stand up for their constituents 
and say: Enough is enough.
  No President, Democrat or Republican, should be able to declare a 
national emergency, justifying the imposition of 50 percent tariffs, 
because a friend of theirs is being prosecuted for breaking the law in 
another country. If this body allows that, this body will be opening 
the door for untold mischief committed by future Presidents who will 
decide: I can declare anything an emergency, and the Senate will just 
lay down and let me walk over them and not speak out against it.
  And it also is important for us to acknowledge that this isn't just 
about an abuse of Presidential power. It is about abuse of Presidential 
power that people are feeling every time they walk down a grocery store 
aisle to buy coffee for their families, to buy ground beef for their 
families.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in an effort to reverse the 
declaration of a national emergency and save everyday people and 
businesses some money.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, you know, President Trump has 
singlehandedly raised taxes more than any President in my lifetime. He 
has, without any consultation or approval from Congress, imposed 
billions of dollars in new tariffs.
  These are taxes. They are paid for by the American people. They hurt 
small business owners who need raw materials that just aren't available 
here in the United States.
  They cut off crucial export markets for our farmers when other 
nations inevitably retaliate, and they are sending prices soaring 
across the board, from big things like cars to everyday essentials like 
groceries.
  Trump's tariffs have already raised retail prices for families by 5 
percent--5 percent--and this year alone, his tariffs are expected to 
cost American households an average of $1,800. That is staggering.
  Still, nearly every Senate Republican has refused to vote with us to 
end this chaos. I will say it another way: Republicans are refusing to 
stop President Trump from raising taxes on working families.
  Now, we all saw Republicans move Heaven and Earth this year to shovel 
more tax breaks at billionaires. But you know, when it comes to taxes 
on working families, well, they are downright eager to force families 
to pay more every time they go to the supermarket.
  I am not going to let this get swept under the rug, especially not 
when Trump shows us every day that his tariffs are not about any sort 
of economic strategy or any real emergency. Trump's tariff policy is as 
strategic as a toddler who plays with a light switch.
  Last week, we saw Trump raise taxes on Americans. Why? Because he was 
mad that Canada ran an ad quoting Ronald Reagan. That is about as 
ridiculous as it gets.
  My State shares a border with Canada. There are countless families 
and businesses that span our northern border, people who have built 
businesses that rely on strong trade relationships, from farmers who 
send their crops north to shops that bring in products, to towns that 
serve tourists and visitors that come down from our neighbors. And 
these Washington business

[[Page S7773]]

owners are all having their livelihoods completely turned upside down 
on a whim by President Trump.
  And, again, let's be clear. All Canada did to unleash more blind fury 
and boneheaded tariffs from President Trump was quote President Ronald 
Reagan.
  Now, for all the policies I disagree with, Reagan at least had enough 
sense to understand that we, the American people, are the ones who pay 
those tariffs.
  For my colleagues, these are the words that Donald Trump does not 
want you to hear. This is what Reagan had to say about tariffs, 
verbatim:

       Over the long run, such trade barriers hurt every American 
     worker and consumer.
       Then the worst happens: markets shrink and collapse; 
     businesses and industries shut down; and millions of people 
     lose their jobs.

  But do you know what? If Republicans don't want to listen to Reagan 
this time, well, then how about they start listening to American 
families and farmers and small businesses back in their own home 
States, because as someone who has had countless discussions about 
tariffs with the people that I represent back home, I have no doubt 
Republicans' own constituents will tell them firsthand just how painful 
Trump's trade war has been for them.
  I have heard from businesses across my home State of Washington that 
are getting crushed by Trump's tariffs: an Asian grocery store that 
sells goods you simply have to source from abroad, like green tea; 
coffee shops that are getting hit, as the Senator just talked about, 
since most of our country can't grow coffee beans; clothing stores that 
tell me they are struggling with higher prices for cotton canvas, or 
zippers, threads, and buckles.
  And then there are farmers--across my State and, really, across the 
country--that are getting boxed out of key markets by these trade wars 
Trump is starting left and right for no reason.
  And there are the jobs at our ports that are threatened as every new 
chaotic tariff Trump decides to tweet out whittles away at imports and 
exports alike. It grinds our really busy, bustling ports to an absolute 
standstill, and that puts thousands of jobs in jeopardy.
  Foreign imports are now down by a third at our ports in Seattle and 
Tacoma--a third. The reality of Trump's tariffs is painfully obvious to 
families and business owners who are bearing the brunt of this ham-
fisted trade war.
  You can't just ``make it in America'' when the ``it'' in question is 
fruits and vegetables we can't grow at scale here in the United States. 
You can't just ``make it in America'' when even making something here 
requires parts and raw materials from across the globe. There are just 
higher prices for working families, tighter margins for our struggling 
businesses, and even more worry for our families and our businesses who 
are being pushed to the edge.
  Families are feeling those price hikes every single day. Small 
businesses in my State and across the country are facing very difficult 
decisions right now in trying to decide whether they can even keep 
their doors open. Right now, people across America, across party lines, 
across economic backgrounds, and across nearly every divide imaginable 
are now speaking out.
  The time has come now for Republicans to actually listen. The time 
has come to hold President Trump accountable for raising prices on 
families across the board. The time has come to end President Trump's 
new taxes on everything. And the time has come for Congress, us, to 
start asserting our authority on tariffs, instead of ceding every 
single part of our jobs to a President who is joking he is the Speaker 
of the House.
  Is he going to start calling himself majority leader too?
  I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting for this resolution 
so we can start rolling back Trump's taxes on Americans and take some 
pressure off our families and small businesses in the States that we 
are all here to represent.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Curtis). The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise to support my colleagues Senator 
Kaine and Senator Paul on their joint resolution to terminate Donald 
Trump's order placing blanket tariffs on products Americans buy from 
Brazil. I am going to start with the impact on Americans.
  Donald Trump's unilateral tariff spree is an unprecedented tax on 
American families who are already struggling. The tariffs on Brazil are 
no different. We get lots of coffee from Brazil, and coffee prices are 
up 21 percent from a year ago. Ground beef is up 13 percent from last 
year--that is according to FOX News--and Brazil is a major supplier. 
But instead of getting rid of these tariffs, Donald Trump is sending 
$40 billion to subsidize ranchers in Argentina.
  I recently held townhall meetings at home, and surprisingly not a 
single Oregonian told me they wanted to pay more for their morning 
coffee, or more for a hamburger.
  In all, Donald Trump's tariffs are going to cost the average American 
family more than $2,000 this year, according to the Yale Budget Lab.
  That, Mr. President, is the what--higher prices on coffee, beef, and 
building materials Americans get from Brazil. Now I am going to talk 
about why.
  Donald Trump didn't unilaterally slap those 40 percent tariffs on 
things we buy from Brazil to help the American worker. No, America had 
a $7 billion trade surplus with Brazil last year. And while food prices 
in the United States are shooting up, Trump's tariffs have lowered food 
prices in Mexico and Brazil.
  The real reason--and this is what is crucial--the real reason Donald 
Trump is imposing these tariffs, by his own words, is to settle 
personal scores, and pressure the Brazilian Government to let their 
corrupt former President off the hook. In his letter announcing the 
tariffs, Donald Trump called the prosecution of former President 
Bolsonaro ``a witch hunt.'' Colleagues, Mr. Bolsonaro was convicted of 
masterminding a failed coup.
  There is no way that taking money out of Americans' wallets to 
protect one corrupt politician in South America makes even a bit of 
sense.
  This is a brazenly illegal and corrupt effort by Donald Trump that, 
in my view, is directly hurting the American people. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to vote yes on the Kaine-Paul resolution to end the Brazil 
tariffs.
  This body is going to vote on more of these resolutions in coming 
weeks. I see my friend from Kentucky here, who is joining me in a 
crucial one of those. My legislation with Senator Paul would repeal all 
of Donald Trump's global tariffs.
  I am committed to seizing back Congress's constitutional role over 
trade, which is spelled out in the Constitution. It is my hope that 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle will exercise their best judgment 
on these crucial, key tariff issues, listen to constituents, and vote 
for Americans instead of for Donald Trump and corrupt foreign 
strongmen.
  I yield and look forward to hearing my colleagues talk further today 
on this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, ``Taxation without representation is 
tyranny.'' This was the rallying cry of our Founding Fathers. This was 
the rallying cry of American patriots in the years leading up to the 
American Revolution. It was the rallying cry of militiamen at the 
Battles of Lexington and Concord. And it still should be the rallying 
cry of Congress. ``No taxation without representation'' is embedded in 
our Constitution. The Constitution forbids any one man or woman from 
raising taxes.
  Revenue is not only a question for Congress, but the Constitution 
commands that taxation legislation originate in the House of 
Representatives. This is the only issue that specifically has to 
originate not only in Congress but in one specific House. Our Founders 
thought that the House of Representatives, elected every 2 years, was 
closer to the people, and the things they feared the most were big 
taxes and big government. They said taxes must originate in the House. 
Yet these taxes are originating with the White House.
  The idea that no one should have taxes imposed on them without their 
consent is central to the ancient concept of what constitutes a free 
people. That principle is enshrined in the Magna Carta, that taxation 
should be

[[Page S7774]]

imposed only after obtaining the common counsel of the kingdom. It was 
reaffirmed in the 1689 English Bill of Rights when it declared that 
there shall be no taxation without the consent of Parliament.
  In 1765, the American patriot who helped formulate the grievances 
against the British crown, James Otis, called for a defense of this 
principle by popularizing the phrase ``Taxation without representation 
is tyranny.'' This principle was said by many to have been the 
principle--the spark--that sparked our Revolution.
  Yet, today, the Senate is compelled to act because one person in our 
country wishes to raise taxes without the approval of the Senate, 
without the approval of the House, and without the approval of the 
Constitution.
  The idea that one person can raise taxes is contrary to our founding 
principles. The Constitution forbids it.
  As Montesquieu wrote in ``The Spirit of the Laws":

       When the legislative and the executive are combined and 
     united in [one] person . . . there can be no liberty.

  Our Founders took that lesson to heart and embedded that in the 
Constitution--the principle of the separation of powers as well as a 
system of checks and balances. They knew that combining the legislative 
and executive powers would lead the country down a path to tyranny.
  Allowing taxes to be levied, doubled, tripled, and then one day 
perhaps forgiven is a recipe for chaos. The tariffs are implemented. 
The tariffs are canceled. The tariffs are delayed. The tariff rate 
changes daily. Just this week, the President added a special 10-percent 
import tax on Canada because he was mad about the nation's Ronald 
Reagan ad--an ad, by the way, which was showing Ronald Reagan verbatim 
speaking.
  News flash to the administration: Reagan was a free trader. Reagan 
believed ``that protectionism costs consumers billions of dollars, 
damages the overall economy, and destroys jobs.''
  Ronald Reagan's vision for America can be seen in our trading 
relationship with Canada. In 1986, President Reagan said that ``our 
trade policy rests firmly on the foundation of free and open markets.'' 
Further, he said, ``I recognize . . . the inescapable conclusion that 
all of history is taught: The freer the flow of world trade, the 
stronger the tides of human progress and peace among nations.''
  It was Bastiat, who wrote: When trade and when goods don't cross 
borders, armies will.
  It is not a guarantee of peace, but one way to achieve peace is to 
attempt to have good relations and trade with all nations.
  No country, no business, no family can plan a budget when the tax 
rates--the import tax rates--and the costs of every commodity are 
determined by the whims of one man. There are now tariffs on steel; 
there are tariffs on aluminum; there are tariffs on lumber, and they 
change day to day. But not one of these tariffs was voted on by the 
people's elected representatives in Congress. These tariffs are simply 
announced by Presidential proclamation.
  Perhaps more fundamental than a debate over what these tariffs are, 
what the rates are, and what they do to our economy is the question of 
whether Americans ought to perpetually live under emergency rule. This 
administration has declared emergencies with over 100 nations. With 
these emergency declarations, the President claims the unilateral right 
to levy import taxes.
  Think about this. What do you think of when you think of an 
emergency? You think of a war, a tornado, a famine. You don't think of 
trade policy that all of a sudden we have to give up on all of our 
constitutional prerogatives, all the separation of powers, all that is 
embedded in the Constitution because there is an emergency in trade 
policy. If that were true, imagine what emergencies might come forward; 
imagine where we would be and what lack of restraint would happen. And 
for Republicans, imagine what it is going to be like when someone from 
the other party is elected and they declare an emergency over the 
climate and ban cars and whatever might happen. We shouldn't be living 
this way.
  People say Congress is messy; Congress goes to gridlock. It is called 
debate. It is called discussion. The only way we typically get 
somewhere is we have to agree with some people on the other side. That 
is one of the things we are trying to overcome now.
  Our Founding Fathers anticipated a President might attempt someday to 
usurp the powers--the constitutional powers--of the legislature. 
Madison wrote that our constitutional government would pit ambition 
against ambition; the ambition of a President or ambition of a Congress 
to usurp power be checked by the other guarding their power; that we 
would limit the power of any one branch through checks and balances and 
prevent abuses of power.
  Madison, if he were here today, would be aghast to witness today's 
Congress that seems to lack any ambition to defend the constitutional 
separation of power.
  Emergency rule rejects the premise of a constitutional republic with 
limited powers and full accountability. Emergency rule is rule by one 
person.
  We will perpetuate emergency rule that provides the President 
extraordinary powers to tax us without our consent. Is that what we are 
going to allow or will we restore constitutional government in which 
taxes are debated and voted on by the people's representatives? I, for 
one, still believe in the principle of no taxation without 
representation and will vote to terminate this contrived emergency and 
end these unconstitutional import taxes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                           Government Funding

  Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, the United States is stuck in the 
painful throes of one of the worst, longest government shutdowns in our 
history. Americans are calling out for leaders in the White House and 
Congress who will cut through the chaos and begin to restore order.
  Last week, our President played his ``Trump'' card. In the middle of 
the shutdown with healthcare for 35 million Americans on the line, the 
President gave a green-light to a $40 billion bailout--$40 billion 
bailout; I had to read that twice--to Argentina. You heard me right. 
President Trump decided to prop up the far-right agenda in Argentina 
right before their elections and leave Americans nervous that they are 
going to be able to afford their healthcare. It doesn't make a lot of 
sense.
  The real gut punch, he did it right as 20 million Americans are 
bracing for their healthcare costs to, in many cases, double or more 
when the ACA premium tax credits expire. If you think about that for 
just a moment, instead of spending $40 billion to lower healthcare 
costs for 20 million Americans, President Trump decided that $40 
billion should go to Argentina. That is certainly not ``America 
First.''
  Instead of spending $40 billion to make sure that seniors can afford 
their insulin, cancer patients can continue their chemo, sick kids can 
see a doctor, President Trump is sending $40 billion to Argentina. 
Twenty billion of that bailout is backed by all of you, the American 
taxpayer.
  Trump promised to lower costs for working families, but food prices 
are up, electric bills are up, and now healthcare prices are going to 
be exploding. It is all because of what the MAGA Republicans and the 
President are doing.
  Here is the reality. In July, Republicans passed their budget bill 
that is going to strip roughly $1 trillion out of Medicaid and the 
Affordable Care Act. It is the largest cut to healthcare in the history 
of this country--the largest cut to healthcare in American history. It 
is exploding our national debt by trillions, and it gives pretty lavish 
tax breaks to some of our largest corporations and some of our 
wealthiest individuals.

  As if working families needed another hit, 20 million Americans are 
going to see their healthcare premiums double when ACA tax credits 
expire at the start of the year. On this Saturday, every single 
American can log online and see the new cost of their premium if they 
are on the exchange. In Colorado, the Denver Post reported today that 
premiums will double--will double--and for far too many, this is going 
to be financially devastating. We are trying to get our arms around the 
increase that we are going to see in medical bankruptcies.
  In Colorado, a family of four making a combined $128,000 is going to 
have to

[[Page S7775]]

pay $14,000 more for their healthcare. They are making $128,000 and at 
the end of the month, they are still trying to make sure they balance 
the household budget and now they are going to have to spend $14,000 
more just on healthcare. If that family lives on the Western Slope in 
Colorado, west of the Rocky Mountain divide, or whether it is out on 
the Eastern Plains, they will pay even more, somewhere between $16,000 
and $21,000 in additional premiums. Nobody has that kind of money.
  I am not sure why the President doesn't understand that. Small 
businesses, some with very tight margins already, are going to be 
forced to choose between insurance or layoffs. Roughly 225,000 
Coloradans are in that group that are going to see their premiums 
double--double. It is so much more expensive, that an estimated 4 
million Americans will be priced out of their healthcare next year, 
including roughly 75,000 Coloradans.
  And for those people with preexisting conditions, boy, that is taking 
a dangerous hit. If you think you are safe because you receive 
insurance through your employer, think again. People are going to 
continue to get sick regardless of whether or not they have healthcare. 
The fact is, of course, that more Americans get sick when they can't 
afford basic preventive care. That is why they call it preventive care.
  Here is a startling fact that came out of a Harvard study in 2009. 
Americans without health insurance in any given year have a 40-percent 
higher risk of death than those with insurance in that same given year. 
I am going to repeat that. Americans without health insurance have a 
40-percent higher possibility of dying than those with insurance in any 
given year.
  The result? Where there are fewer insured Americans in the entire 
system, insurance companies raise premiums on those who do have 
insurance to make up the shortfall. That means we are all in the same 
leaky ship.
  A little over a week ago, I spoke with one of the many Americans who 
will be impacted, a young woman named Mercedes who lives in Commerce 
City, CO. Mercedes and her family, U.S. citizens, live in a district 
represented by Congressman Gabe Evans, who has been a vocal advocate of 
Trump's budget bill, the same budget bill that is going to cut $1 
trillion from Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. In Representative 
Evans' district, one in four Coloradans are on Medicaid, including 
86,000 children--86,000 children--one in four people on Medicaid.
  Just over 7 weeks ago, Mercedes's family of three became a family of 
four. She gave birth earlier than expected to a baby girl. Her newborn 
spent 49 days in the intensive care unit, the NICU, before they were 
finally able to bring her home last Friday. Doctors diagnosed their 
baby with a rare disorder that is going to require some level of 
specialized care for life.
  Even now at home, their baby still depends on a home health nurse and 
a feeding tube. So when Mercedes recently opened a letter informing her 
that her insurance premiums are going to skyrocket once the ACA tax 
credits expire, it wasn't a function of being frustrated; for her, it 
was terrifying. Mercedes's premium is already more than $1,000 a month 
and is about to jump even higher. In addition to running their 
business, caring for their newborn with a fragile health condition, and 
raising their 7-year-old daughter, Mercedes and her husband now have to 
worry about their ability to be able to afford healthcare, to be able 
to stay on the healthcare that they have. They have a baby who is fully 
dependent on expensive hospital care. If their premiums go up, how are 
they going to afford the NICU bills? What will they have to sacrifice? 
Will food take a cut? Will rent go into arrears? Will they afford their 
medications?
  Mercedes doesn't have to go through this. No American should have to 
go through this. Mercedes isn't alone. There are 20 million Americans 
bracing for these types of cuts--20 million more people just like 
Mercedes who depend on their healthcare to afford their prescriptions, 
to keep a roof over their heads, and, importantly, to stay out of the 
hospital.
  It doesn't have to be this way. All the President and MAGA 
Republicans have to do is extend the healthcare tax credits. If they 
can find $40 billion to send to Argentina, they can almost assuredly 
find $40 billion to begin to stop premiums from doubling for Mercedes 
and 20 million Americans.
  I think we have lost our bearings. We lost our North Star in this. 
Healthcare isn't political. It impacts every single one of us, 
Republican or Democrat, urban or rural. And it often interrupts our 
lives when we least expect it, especially when we are most unable to 
afford it.
  This problem is easy to solve. Republicans and Democrats can reopen 
the government today and fix this healthcare crisis. We need to start 
talking together and having a discussion, but we can work together and 
reopen the government.
  Working families want us to take leadership on this. They want us to 
get back to the issues they sent us to Congress to solve to make life 
better for them and their communities and for us to hold down the costs 
that are making their lives more difficult. I think we need to listen 
to Americans. I don't think it is too late, but it is long overdue.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to display three 
charts during my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              S.J. Res. 69

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with me today is Mr. James Shea, one of 
my colleagues from my Senate office.
  Mr. President, I want to talk today about the owls. There are 19 
species--or kinds of owls--in the United States. Did you know that? 
There are 19, and I want to talk about two of them: the spotted owl and 
the barred owl. That is ``barred,'' B-A-R-R-E-D. Both of them are God's 
creatures.
  I also want to talk today--and the Presiding Officer will understand 
what I mean in a moment--about the Federal Government's proclivity--
repeated proclivity--to do the dumbest thing possible that won't work.
  Now, the Federal Government, which can't even deliver the mail when 
it has the address right there on the front, and, more specifically, 
the Department of the Interior have promulgated a rule. This rule says 
that unless Congress stops them, they are going to hire hunters--right 
here--to kill 453,000 barred owls. There are only 4 million in the 
United States, but the Department of the Interior wants to kill 453,000 
mama barred owls, daddy barred owls, and baby barred owls because the 
Department of the Interior thinks--says--that the barred owl is a 
better hunter than the spotted owl.
  The Department of the Interior is not saying the barred owl is eating 
the spotted owl. The Department of the Interior isn't saying that the 
barred owl is hurting the spotted owl. The Department of the Interior 
says it wants to kill over 10 percent of the barred owl population 
because the barred owl is a better hunter than the spotted owl, and 
they want to tip the scales of nature in favor of the spotted owl even 
though the spotted owl is not on the endangered species list.
  My resolution, which will be voted on tomorrow, will stop this 
nonsense.
  First, I want to talk a little bit more about the barred owl. In 
doing so, I will talk a little bit about its cousin, the spotted owl. 
As I said, they are both God's creatures.
  This is a barred owl. It is beautiful. If you have ever seen a barred 
owl, it has very, very soulful eyes. Their feathers are incredibly 
soft. It is called barred, B-A-R-R-E-D, because of the bars that run 
across here, as opposed to a spotted owl.
  The barred owl--10 percent of which our brainiacs at the Department 
of the Interior want to kill--has been around for 11,000 years. 
Sometimes the barred owl is called a hoot owl. That may be the term you 
know it by best. The barred owl is about 2 feet long. It has incredible 
eyes. Man, it can see. It is like superman or superwoman. It has 
incredible eyes and incredible hearing.
  The barred owl, like the spotted owl, is nocturnal. They come out at 
night. They hide during the day, and they come out at night.
  The barred owl is a great hunter--a great hunter. The barred owl eats 
mice. The barred owl eats squirrels. The

[[Page S7776]]

barred owl eats snakes. The barred owl eats lizards. The barred owl 
eats spiders. The barred owl even eats bats.
  The barred owl lives--as does the spotted owl, for that matter--in 
old-growth forests. In fact, I have a pair of barred owls that lives in 
the forest behind my house. They are great. They always come in pairs, 
about which I will talk in a second. In fact, you can attract barred 
owls--many people do--by building what is called a nest box, and you 
can have barred owls come and live if you live near a forest. If you 
are not handy like me and you want to know how to build a nest box, 
just go to YouTube.
  Barred owls marry for life, and they mate for life. When a male 
barred owl is courting a female barred owl--I have seen videos; it is 
really cool--the male barred owl courts a female by bowing. The male 
barred owl bows, and it opens its wings up a little bit--it doesn't 
want to be intimidating to the female, so not full out, but it opens 
its wings up a little bit--and the barred owl wobbles its head back and 
forth, back and forth, side to side. If the female is impressed, the 
female says ``I do,'' and they stay married the rest of their lives 
together. That is why you see them in pairs.
  They have babies once a year, generally two to five babies.
  These are two of the babies that the Department of the Interior wants 
to kill. They are going to pay the same price, by the way, to the 
hunter to kill the babies as they are to kill the mama. They don't 
care. They just want to kill them all.
  When the babies are little, little bitty, when they are born, they 
are not covered in feathers. Little babies are covered in soft, white 
down. They don't start getting feathers until about 2 weeks.
  The mama barred owl stays with the babies for the first few weeks. 
Sometimes the babies, like Senators, fall out of the nest as they start 
exploring around, and the mama or the daddy barred owl--unless the 
daddy is out hunting for food--has to get them back into the nest.
  The babies learn to fly after about 10 weeks.
  Now, what does this have to do with the spotted owl, which is also 
one of God's creatures?
  The barred owl is native. It is originally from the Eastern United 
States and southeastern Canada. It has existed there for 11,000 years. 
But over the past 100 years--100 years is just the blink of an eye in 
time--over the past 100 years, the Northeast has gotten more and more 
crowded, and the old-growth forests that the barred owl lives in have 
been cut down, and subdivisions have been built. So the barred owl, as 
happens all the time in nature, has started moving west, and it is 
moving west, and it is moving west. Now the barred owl is entering 
Washington State, Oregon, Northern California, and British Columbia in 
Canada.
  Well, that is where the spotted owl lives. The spotted owl also lives 
in old-growth forests but not exactly in the old-growth forests in the 
West as the same place as the barred owl. The spotted owl prefers an 
old-growth forest at a higher elevation.
  The barred owl is a better hunter. It is slightly bigger than the 
spotted owl. The barred owl is a better hunter than the spotted owl.
  Let me say it again because there has been a lot of confusion about 
this. The barred owl doesn't hunt the spotted owl. In fact, many times, 
a barred owl and a spotted owl will get married. I know they are 
cousins, but that doesn't matter as they are distant cousins. Sometimes 
they get married, and they interbreed. So this isn't a question of one 
animal killing another. The Department of the Interior is mad at the 
barred owl because the barred owl is a better hunter. The barred owl is 
just a better hunter. That is just the way it is.
  You know, it is just like the Senate's Presiding Officer. The 
Presiding Officer is better looking than me. I accept that. That is the 
way God made us.
  God just made the barred owl a better hunter, and the Department of 
the Interior is all up in arms. They say this is threatening the 
spotted owl. Now, the spotted owl isn't on the endangered species list, 
but they say: This isn't fair. The barred owl is a better hunter than 
the spotted owl, and that is causing the spotted owl's population to 
decrease.
  So the Department of the Interior, in its infinite wisdom, has come 
up with DEI for owls. They have come up with quotas for owls.
  The barred owl, because nature, God--whatever you believe in--made 
them better hunters, now has to give up its rights--has to give up its 
life because the spotted owl is not as good of a hunter.
  As I mentioned, the spotted owl and the barred owl don't always live 
in the same place. Out West, the spotted owl prefers higher elevations 
than the barred owl. But they do--it is undeniable--they compete for 
food, and they both live in old-growth forests.
  Let me tell you something--and the Department of the Interior doesn't 
like to admit this. The spotted owl population was declining even 
before the barred owl decided to move. Do you know why? It had nothing 
to do with food. It had nothing to do with the barred owl. It had to do 
with the same thing happening on the west coast that has happened on 
the east coast. Many of the old-growth forests have been cut down to 
make way for more people. You might have noticed we have had a few 
forest fires, and they have been causing the population of the spotted 
owl to be reduced but not to the point of endangerment. The Interior 
Department just says they are threatened. That is the problem for the 
spotted owl. It is not the barred owl.
  This regulation that I am trying to overturn was promulgated under 
President Biden's Department of the Interior, OK? Yet the Department of 
the Interior--I want to make this clear--under President Trump has 
embraced this rule. They think that this is the greatest rule--this is 
the greatest idea--they have ever heard of. It tastes like pumpkin pie 
to them.
  In fact, I got a call from Secretary Burgum, whom I love and respect. 
He was as mad as a mama wasp. ``Pull down that regulation.'' He accused 
me of slandering the Trump administration.
  I am not slandering the Trump administration. This was a President 
Biden regulation.
  Now, I was polite with the Secretary, but I told him that he was 
confused and that he needed to call somebody. He had the wrong person 
on the line. The Secretary needed to call somebody who cared what he 
thought, because I think he is wrong. I think he is wrong. I think he 
and the other members of the administration and the Department of the 
Interior have decided to play God, and they are wrong for at least five 
reasons.
  No. 1, their plan--their brainiac plan--which looks like it was 
designed by a heroin addict with a socket wrench, won't work. It won't 
work.
  Now, let me tell you what they are going to do. They want to hire 
hunters--they want to hire Elmer here--to go out at night with a 
flashlight and shoot the barred owls. Now, this is at night, OK? The 
barred owl lives about 40 feet up off the ground and in a tree. Do you 
know what else lives about 40 feet up off the ground and in a tree? The 
spotted owl. Do you think that these cowboys, who are going disco 
because they have a Federal contract, are going to be able to always 
tell the difference between a barred owl and a spotted owl? They are 
going to shoot them both and let God sort them out because they are 
being paid.
  Look, I am a duck hunter. I am not a big hunter, but I like to duck 
hunt and dove hunt. I eat what I kill. But, a lot of times, when I am 
duck hunting, there are different points for different species of duck. 
I can't tell which duck is which. I have passed up shots before because 
I thought it might be a mallard, when I can't kill any more mallard. Do 
you think these cowboys that they are going to hire from the private 
sector are going out there with their little flashlights--old Elmer 
here, with his little red hat--in the middle of the night with a 
flashlight are going to tell the difference or care about the 
difference between a barred owl and a spotted owl? No. They are going 
to shoot them both.
  No. 2, the other reason it won't work is that spotted owls are not 
stupid. Once you start shooting at them, they are going to move up into 
Canada. The Canadians aren't dumb enough to do something like this. 
They are going to move up into Canada. They are going to wait until the 
shooting stops, and then they are going to come back

[[Page S7777]]

down. So what have we accomplished? Have we done anything for the 
spotted owl? No.
  No. 3, I have been through this reg stem to stern. I can't find out 
whether this regulation prohibits Elmer Fudd from going out there and 
using lead shots. When we hunt ducks, you can't use lead shots. You use 
steel shots. Do you know why? Because a lot of times other birds and 
other animals will eat the lead shot and they die from it.
  So these cowboys are going to go out, if they are not prohibited from 
using lead shots. Yes, they are going to kill some barred owls and 
spotted owls. They are going to end up killing eagles and hawks and 
other wildlife using their lead shots.
  The second reason this won't work--let me say it again--the barred 
owls aren't the problem. The problem is that we are losing old-growth 
forests in the West, which is the habitat of the spotted owl. And where 
it is naturally occurring is where more people have moved--to 
Washington and North Carolina and Oregon--and we have wildfires that 
have burned our forests.
  Don't go pick on the barred owl. You can kill every barred owl there 
is, and it is not going to help the spotted owl if you don't maintain 
the appropriate habitat.
  No. 4, this is going to be incredibly expensive. This comes under the 
theme of ``let's do the dumbest thing possible that won't work.''
  Our Department of the Interior has already issued one contract. I 
don't know how they got the authority to do it. But back in 2004, they 
issued a contract to a private vendor--Elmer here--to go kill 1,500 
barred owls. I guess they wanted to test it out. Do you know what they 
paid? It was $3,000 a bird--$3,000 for a mama barred owl, $3,000 for a 
daddy barred owl, and $3,000 for a baby barred owl. Give me a break. 
And now they are going to go out and kill 453,000, over a billion 
dollars--over a billion dollars. It is not their money, but it is 
taxpayer money--on a plan that won't even work.
  Here is what one person from the Department of the Interior said, in 
a rare moment of candor. He might have gotten fired. But he is a 
Wildlife and Fisheries agent. He told the press:

       I think all we can really do is try our best to provide a 
     habitat for spotted owls, and in the long run, we're just 
     going to have to let the two species work it out.

  The final reason this is a bad reg--and then I am going to wrap this 
up. I know that the bureaucrats at the Department of the Interior--I 
realize this--they are smarter, and they are more virtuous than you and 
I. I get that. But who appointed them God? Who appointed them God?
  Barred owls are expanding their habitat because the forests in the 
East have been cut down. That is called adaptive range expansion. And 
do you know what? Whether you believe in God or nature or whatever, 
that happens every single day in our ecosystem. It is a naturally 
occurring ecological phenomenon. It is a core behavioral characteristic 
of mammals.
  All the barred owls are doing--they are not hurting anybody. They are 
just doing what nature teaches them to do.
  We are going to change nature? We are going to control our 
environment to this extent? We are going to pass DEI for owls? We are 
going to pass quotas for owls? Spotted owls, good; barred owls bad. But 
the barred owls won't lose their constitutional rights. They will kill 
them. They are going to kill 453 of them, dead as Jimmy Hoffa. Give me 
a break.
  This is foolish. This is reckless. This is expensive. It is 
unsupported by evidence. It is unnecessary, and it won't work. I cannot 
think--I cannot think--of a better example of the arrogance, the hubris 
of the Federal administrative state. If we let them go through with 
this, this will rank right up there with those $10,000 Department of 
Defense toilet seats, except part of God's creation will already be 
dead.
  Ecosystems are like markets. They regulate themselves. Trying to 
change nature is like trying to have a Federal Government direct a free 
enterprise system. It won't work. It never has, and it never will.
  I don't mean any disrespect to anybody. I don't. I am not--well, I 
guess I am calling somebody Elmer Fudd. I don't know who they are going 
to hire, but I know they hired a bunch of Elmers and gave them $3,000 a 
bird, and it didn't work. But this, to me, is just bone-deep, down-to-
marrow stupid. I have rocks in my driveway that are smarter than this. 
I do.
  Here is my advice to my friends at the Department of the Interior--
and full disclosure: This thing is supported by President Biden's 
people, and it is supported by President Trump's people. Secretary 
Burgum loves this thing. He loves this idea like the Devil loves sin. 
He has a right to his opinion, but here is my advice: Life is hard--
life is hard--but it is a lot harder when you are stupid. Don't do it. 
Pass my resolution, and let's stop this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.


                              S.J. Res. 81

  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to S.J. Res. 81, which 
would terminate the rule of law national emergency declared with 
respect to Brazil.
  I agree with my colleagues that tariffs should be more targeted to 
avoid harm to Americans. I have made precisely that point at the 
Finance Committee meeting in May.
  We should consider more exemptions, whether for unavailable natural 
resources, capital equipment, or other key inputs.
  It is equally important that enforcement guidance provides the 
clarity U.S. companies need to comply with tariffs and make critical 
business decisions.
  Similarly, as the administration continues to negotiate with our 
trading partners, I appreciate that my colleagues, as well as our 
constituents, may be nervous about what comes next. However, at this 
juncture, this resolution is counterproductive--counterproductive to 
helping American families and businesses of all sizes.
  The President's historic trade negotiations are bearing fruit. 
President Trump already announced new deals--trade deals--with major 
trading partners, including, most recently, Cambodia and Malaysia. 
Other such announcements may still be forthcoming. I urge other trading 
partners to reach similar trading deals.
  Consequently, S.J. Res. 81 is counterproductive to the progress 
already made by President Trump and to new gains that he can still 
achieve in the ongoing negotiations with our trading partners.
  On April 30, the Senate rejected the joint resolution of disapproval 
on IEEPA-based reciprocal tariffs for the same reasons. And for these 
reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Brazilian tariff 
resolution that is before the body, and I will speak briefly since I 
spoke about 4:30 about it.
  The first point to mention is, this is a Presidential invocation of a 
very rare emergency power. The IEEPA statute says that it has to be an 
unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security foreign 
policy or economy of the United States, and the President has to find 
the existence of such a threat.
  What has the President said about the threat posed by Brazil? What is 
that threat posed to the economy, national security, or foreign policy 
of the United States?
  The President has said it is Brazil's decision to prosecute its 
former President.
  If you surveyed the American public and asked them about the 
Brazilian prosecution of former President Bolsonaro, 99 percent of the 
American public wouldn't even know about it.
  How can this be a national emergency allowing the President to 
unilaterally impose a 50-percent tariff on goods from Brazil? We have a 
trade surplus with Brazil; $7 billion a year in goods; $23 billion in 
services. We have a trade surplus from Brazil.
  This President has said that their prosecution of a disgraced former 
politician is a national emergency for the United States. How could 
that be?

[[Page S7778]]

  If this is a national emergency for the United States, any President 
of any party could say that anything is a national emergency for the 
United States. So the first reason that I asked my colleagues to 
support this resolution is to not allow the President to end-run 
Congress and create a bogus emergency to unilaterally claim powers--in 
this case, trade powers--that are given to Congress in the 
Constitution.
  And the second reason that I ask my colleagues to support this is 
that people are suffering--people are suffering. They are paying more 
for ground beef. A lot of ground beef comes from Brazil. They are 
paying more for coffee. Americans are the biggest coffee drinkers in 
the world. Coffee is the biggest imported product--agricultural--that 
we bring into this Nation.
  Coffee prices have gone up by 40 percent in 1 year from the end of 
September of 2024 to the end of September of 2025 because of President 
Trump's tariffs. Thirty-five percent of our coffee comes from Brazil. 
Twenty-seven percent of our coffee comes from Colombia, being heavily 
tariffed right now. The third nation that grows coffee that comes to 
the United States is Vietnam, heavily affected by U.S. tariffs.
  People are suffering. They are paying more for food, more for 
clothes, more for healthcare, more for energy, more for building 
supplies because of President Trump's tariff policy.
  Trade is a power given to Congress in the Constitution that can be 
delegated to the President, but in statutes like IEEPA, we have 
retained the right when a President is going the wrong direction and 
our constituents need someone to stand up for them so they don't pay 
more than they should for their morning cup of coffee or the hamburger 
that they are having.
  Congress has the power to roll that back and end these tariffs.
  So for those two reasons--the fact that this is not an emergency that 
would have ever been within the contemplation of those who drafted this 
statute and the second, to save Americans some money, to save them a 
few bucks when they buy their cup of coffee every day--I ask for 
support for this resolution.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my friend the Senator from 
Virginia Senator Kaine for his great work not only on this proposal but 
on so many. He has been a watchdog for the American people, for the 
American consumer. And when these willy-nilly proposals that come out 
of Donald Trump's office and his head--whatever pops into his head--
does such damage to the American people, Senator Kaine is the watchman 
at the gate trying to preserve some sanity in our tariff policy and 
some reduced costs for the American people.
  Now, this week, the Democrats are forcing, as you can see, a series 
of votes here in the Senate to put an end--an end--to Donald Trump's 
reckless tariffs.
  Six months ago, Trump promised liberation. Then he started a 
disastrous trade war that has brought chaos to the economy, confusion 
for small businesses, and high costs for American families. A recent 
analysis showed that Americans are eating 90 percent of the total cost 
of Trump's tariffs. Ninety percent is going right out of the pockets of 
the American family.
  That is not liberation. It is a national sales tax. That is what 
these tariffs are. It is a financial nightmare for working and middle-
class households. So today, Democrats will present Republicans with a 
simple vote: Do you want lower costs for families or tie yourself to 
Donald Trump as he runs our economy into the dirt with his trade war?
  First vote happening tonight is to end Trump's tariffs on Brazil. 
Once again, I thank Senator Kaine for his leadership on this resolution 
and for speaking so urgently on the floor today.
  In July, Trump declared a national emergency to increase tariffs on 
Brazil to 50 percent, using a totally bogus and ridiculous 
justification; the tariffs had nothing to do with improving trade 
relations with Brazil.
  We, in fact, have a trade surplus with Brazil. They had nothing to do 
with trying to lower costs for the American people. This is Trump. This 
is the kind of bull that comes out of his administration, led by him. 
These tariffs were simply an attempt to bully Brazil into dropping 
corruption charges against Trump's MAGA buddy, former President 
Bolsonaro, and it has hurt Americans. It has hurt Americans.
  The price of coffee--and Brazil is our largest importer of coffee. We 
import more coffee from Brazil than any other place--40 percent higher. 
Every American that wakes up in the morning to get a cup of java is 
paying a price for Donald Trump's reckless, ridiculous, and almost 
childish tariffs.
  While Donald Trump uses his trade war to meddle in another country's 
politics, families at home are paying more and more for goods as 
commonplace, as I said, for coffee and lots of other produce as well.
  Because of Trump's tariffs, everyone is paying more for their morning 
cup of coffee. But Trump doesn't care that you are paying more for your 
coffee. He is more interested in helping corrupt foreign leaders get 
out of jail than he is in helping lower costs for Americans.
  And Americans know Donald Trump is stabbing them in the back. He 
promised lower costs on day one, and instead costs have continued to go 
up. It is one of the biggest reasons why his trade war is so unpopular.
  A recent CNBC poll showed 56 percent of Americans disapprove of 
Trump's tariffs--56 percent. Today, and through rest of the week, we 
will give our Republican colleagues a choice: Stand with Trump's 
idiotic, disastrous, and often juvenilely inspired tariffs or stand 
with American families and vote to lower costs for people back home 
because the longer these tariffs are in place, the more damage it will 
cause for our economy and the more money families back home will pay.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote yes on Tim Kaine's fine resolution 
and end Donald Trump's tariffs on Brazil.
  Mr. President, I yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. All time 
is yielded back.
  Under the previous order, the clerk will read the title of the joint 
resolution a third time.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading 
and was read the third time.


                          Vote on S.J. Res. 81

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the 
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
  Mr. KAINE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 594 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Alsobrooks
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt Rochester
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Gallego
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Markey
     McConnell
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Slotkin
     Smith
     Tillis
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--48

     Banks
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Curtis
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Husted
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Justice
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McCormick
     Moody
     Moran
     Moreno
     Mullin
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Rounds
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sheehy
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young
  The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 81) was passed, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 81

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That, 
     pursuant to section 202 of the National Emergencies Act (50 
     U.S.C. 1622), the national emergency declared on July 30, 
     2025, by the President in

[[Page S7779]]

      Executive Order 14323 (90 Fed. Reg. 37739) is terminated.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________