[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 181 (Thursday, October 30, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7842-S7845]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TERMINATING THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY DECLARED TO IMPOSE GLOBAL TARIFFS
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagerty). Under the previous order, the
Committee on Finance is discharged from and the Senate will proceed to
the consideration of S.J. Res. 88, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 88) terminating the national
emergency declared to impose global tariffs.
Thereupon, the committee was discharged, and the Senate
proceeded to consider the joint resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all time has
expired.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading
and was read the third time.
Vote on S.J. Res. 88
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
Mr. DURBIN. 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.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Missouri (Mr. Schmitt), and the Senator from Mississippi
(Mr. Wicker).
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:
[[Page S7843]]
[Rollcall Vote No. 600 Leg.]
YEAS--51
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
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--47
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
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Young
NOT VOTING--2
Schmitt
Wicker
The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 88) was passed, as follows:
S.J. Res. 88
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 April 2,
2025, by the President in Executive Order 14257 (90 Fed. Reg.
15041) is terminated effective on the date of the enactment
of this joint resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3079
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I have a brief question for this body
before I proceed to my motion: What is it that keeps our Nation secure?
It is millions of Armed Forces, Active-Duty Reserves, National Guard,
civilians supporting them, the Department of Defense, the Coast Guard,
the intelligence Agencies; they are keeping us safe now, like all
Federal employees, not knowing when they will get another paycheck.
Our military is less than 1 percent of our Nation. That is how many
people sign on the dotted line up to and including their lives to keep
us safe. They put their lives on the line to secure liberty and
security, and I am grateful to the thousands serving today at Dover Air
Force Base, the Delaware National Guard, and throughout our Armed
Forces.
They and their families deserve the same devotion to them that they
are providing to us.
I come from a military family. My father, brother, sister-in-law,
uncles all served in the Army, and my father long said he first really
understood what it means to be an American when he was responsible for
others and others' lives when deployed.
Taking care of them is our sacred obligation. So while we keep
fighting for better healthcare, more affordable healthcare for all
Americans, my bill will pay our Armed Forces now.
It will pay Active-Duty, Reserves, National Guard, Coast Guard,
civilians at the Pentagon, and intelligence Agencies, and give those
who keep us safe, often at great sacrifice, a small piece of security
in return.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of S. 3079 introduced earlier today; that the
bill be considered read three times and passed, and the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, government shutdowns have real
consequences. I have said that countless times during my time here.
Incredibly, it seems to have taken Democrats a month to remember that
the proverbial stove is, in fact, already hot. And yet, they aren't
ready to turn it off, just turn it down a notch; just low enough that
they can take the political heat.
My friend from Delaware is right: Our military deserves a lot better
than a government shutdown that jeopardizes their paychecks and the
services military families count on. During Democrats' shutdown, the
President has had to scrape together unobligated balances within the
Defense budget in order to uphold the Nation's promise to
servicemembers through another pay period.
I certainly hope he won't have to divert resources from urgent
modernization again to make payroll in another 2 weeks, but that ball,
of course, is in the Democrats' court. I hope they realize the surest
way--the surest way--to help servicemembers and civilian DOD employees
is to simply turn government funding back on and pass full-year
appropriations.
I know my counterpart on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, of
all people, understands this. He knows what would really help our Armed
Forces because he and I worked closely together on a full-year bill for
Defense that would pay servicemembers and invest more in the
capabilities they need to keep America safe.
I am grateful for Senator Coons' collaboration on the bipartisan bill
that earned overwhelming support in committee and would add $22 billion
above the President's defense request. This, by the way, is the bill
that almost every Democrat voted against considering 2 weeks ago.
I know the ranking member cares about the promises we made to the
all-volunteer force and the challenges we expect them to make. I know
he is concerned about the erosion of Congress's authority to set and
fund national security priorities. So am I. And if we cannot
appropriate, we will render ourselves completely irrelevant.
The way to provide real certainty and to deliver serious full-year
appropriations is to just open the government back up and pass our
bill. It is really that simple.
Therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I want to convey my thanks, my gratitude to
the chair of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, my colleague and
friend from Kentucky. We and our staffs have had a genuinely
constructive and positive process in appropriations this year.
Frankly, overall, the Senate Appropriations Committee has worked
well. We have passed out of committee a significant number of major
bills by big bipartisan margins--26 to 3 in the case of our bill and
the Labor, Health and Human Services bill. But there is a stark
contrast between the real progress we are making on appropriations and
the lack of progress on addressing the core issue of can Americans
afford their healthcare.
Of course, I want to move ahead and appropriate, as my colleague from
Kentucky has indicated. Of course, we need to do our job and
appropriate, for this body to carry out and to continue its core
article I responsibility. But part of what has got us to this moment is
a vote earlier this year on the Big Beautiful Bill in July to destroy
healthcare for millions of Americans.
We need to find a path forward toward ensuring that millions of
Americans do not lose insurance through the Affordable Care Act and
Medicaid, something that will raise insurance costs for everyone and
that will increase ER wait times in my State and in every other.
This Saturday, 20 million Americans will see how much their premiums
go up. And if the calls that come into my colleagues are anything like
the calls I am getting, there will be then an accelerated motion toward
resolving this issue and moving forward with appropriations.
I will close by just citing one conversation I had yesterday.
I spoke with a small business owner from Delaware. Her name is Jan.
She is a stage IV cancer survivor. She is a small business owner.
She told me yesterday that, without the Affordable Care Act, she
would have died 10 years ago because insurance would have dropped her.
And if her rates double, she will need to close her business of 30
years.
This is one of many stories of entrepreneurs and families, of
veterans, of servicemembers, of constituents that have reached out to
me.
There is an urgency about reopening the government--yes, I agree--and
an urgency about finding a path forward on healthcare. We should be
negotiating both now.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
[[Page S7844]]
Tariffs
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, this week, the U.S. Senate voted to
terminate national emergency declarations that enabled President
Trump's tariffs on Brazil and Canada.
Next week, November 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a
majority of trade cases challenging President Trump's authority to
impose global tariffs under the Emergency Powers Act.
The law is clear that the President does not have authority under the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sweeping tariffs
on imports on more than 80 countries around the world. I am pleased
that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce endorsed the Trade Review Act,
legislation proposed by myself and Senator Grassley. The Cantwell-
Grassley legislation focuses on the fact that it is this body's job and
responsibility to do trade acts.
The Chamber of Commerce clearly states in their letter that they are
representing millions of businesses around the United States of all
sizes to try to press upon us the importance of why Congress needs to
reinstate its role.
The U.S. Chamber writes to the Members of the U.S. Senate:
``The U.S. Chamber of Commerce urges Congress to pass
legislation to reclaim its constitutional role in setting
tariffs, including the Trade Review Act. Doing so would
restore appropriate procedural deliberation in the enactment
of taxes on trade, benefitting the millions of Americans
whose livelihoods depend on international commerce and the
certainty that supports investment in our economy.
Members of Congress continue to hear from farmers, workers,
and business owners about the harm inflicted by broad-based
tariffs and the associated economic uncertainty. American
families are facing thousands of dollars in higher prices as
a result of these increased taxes. Small businesses,
manufacturers, and ranchers are struggling with higher costs,
with additional economic pain likely coming in months.
The Chamber--
Meaning the U.S. Chamber.
has long supported legislative proposals to reassert
congressional prerogatives on trade as a means to secure
durable outcomes. The Constitution grants exclusive authority
to Congress ``to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and
excises . . . [and] to regulate commerce with foreign
nations,'' and exercising leadership on this front should be
a priority in the context of today's challenging economic
outlook.
By establishing a more deliberate process for enacting
tariffs, Congress can ensure that [the] appropriate
stakeholder consultation and a methodical assessment of costs
precede any decision to raise [costs] on traded goods. To
date, several proposals have been introduced that address
these concerns, including but not limited to the bipartisan .
. . Trade Review Act as well as resolutions terminating the
national emergency [declaration on] tariffs (S.J. Res. 88
[and] S.J. Res. 77). The Chamber urges members of Congress to
work across the aisle to enact [this] legislation requiring
an up-or-down vote for any new tariffs and those imposed in
the year to date.
This is signed by Neil Bradley, Executive Vice President, Chief of
Policy, Head of Strategic Advocacy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
October 27, 2025.
To the Members of the United States Senate: The U.S.
Chamber of Commerce (``the Chamber'') urges Congress to pass
legislation to reclaim its constitutional role setting
tariffs, including the Trade Review Act. Doing so would
restore appropriate procedural deliberation in the enactment
of taxes on trade, benefitting the millions of Americans
whose livelihoods depend on international commerce and the
certainty that supports investments in our economy.
Members of Congress continue to hear from American farmers,
workers, and business owners about the harm inflicted by
broad-based tariffs and the associated economic uncertainty.
American families are facing thousands of dollars in higher
prices as a result of these increased taxes. Small
businesses, manufacturers, and ranchers are struggling with
higher costs, with additional economic pain likely in the
coming months.
The Chamber has long supported legislative proposals to
reassert congressional prerogatives on trade as a means to
securing durable outcomes. The Constitution grants exclusive
authority to the Congress ``to lay and collect taxes, duties,
imposts and excises . . . [and] to regulate commerce with
foreign nations,'' and exercising leadership on this front
should be a priority in the context of today's challenging
economic outlook.
By establishing a more deliberative process for enacting
tariffs, Congress can ensure that appropriate stakeholder
consultation and a methodical assessment of costs precede any
decision to raise taxes on traded goods. To date, several
proposals have been introduced that address these concerns,
including but not limited to the bipartisan and bicameral
Trade Review Act as well as resolutions terminating the
national emergency declared to impose broad-based tariffs
(S.J. Res. 88, S.J. Res. 77). The Chamber urges members of
Congress to work across the aisle to enact legislation
requiring an up-or-down vote for any new tariffs and for
those imposed in the year to date.
Sincerely,
Neil L. Bradley,
Executive Vice President, Chief Policy Officer, and Head of
Strategic Advocacy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I hope that as we continue to talk about
trade, that Congress will take the steps necessary to end tariffs on
U.S. small businesses and American families.
Healthcare
Now, Mr. President, I also want to rise to talk about the serious
healthcare crisis and the affordability crisis that is affecting our
Nation. In just 2 days, on Saturday, November 1, millions of Americans
are going to go online to sign up for their 2026 Affordable Care Act
health insurance plan.
As we know, keeping healthcare affordable is a key priority, and I
see that the premiums that are being talked about are going to increase
by hundreds or thousands of dollars every month for the same coverage
they just had this year. That is, next year is going to go up thousands
of dollars.
Some people are going to say, ``I can't go without health insurance.
I have to find a way to cover this extra cost by cutting back on food
and prescription drugs or working longer shifts.'' But for about 5
million Americans, including 80,000 in my State, they will probably be
forced to say, ``I just can't afford health insurance anymore.'' They
are going to hope they don't get sick. They are going to hope that they
don't have an emergency, but we know that that is uncomfortable.
Last week, my office released a case study detailing what this
decision would look like for a married couple in Washington State
making $120,000 a year. Across all 39 counties in my State, couples in
this situation would have to decide what to do in the face of an
average premium increase of a whopping $1,049 per month. That is, their
costs will go up $12,000 per year.
Here is just one example in King County, my State's largest county.
This couple would go from paying $425 a month to $1,386 a month. This
problem isn't unique to Washington. There are other parts of the United
States that are seeing the same thing.
Hopefully, all of this data is being released to individuals, and
hopefully, our colleagues are paying attention to this because it is
showing what premium increases look like, but a couple in the State of
Alabama--I am sorry, a single woman in Alabama making $65,000 a year
could see her premium increase 43 percent from the 2025 levels. It
would mean she would pay an additional increase from going from $314 a
month to $452 a month.
Another example, for a family of four in Texas, for parents making
$70,000 a year but don't just get insurance through their jobs, their
insurance would cost $505 in 2025, but without the extended premium tax
credit, likely to face $1,551 cost per month in 2026.
So these costs are adding up on American families. Together, these
costs continue to hold individual households and their budgets in an
undesirable position. We are already hearing stories about people
squeezing in medical procedures before the end of 2025.
To make matters worse, for families with massive increases in
premiums and with the rise in inflation we have seen since January of
this year, households are trying to decide whether they take care of
healthcare or groceries or electricity.
And the sad truth is that we could have worked this out. We could
have done this in the bill passed earlier this year. Congress could be
working right now, even, on working down the cost of insurance premiums
for 24 million Americans. But instead, people are refusing to come to
the table to discuss this issue.
The Senate needs to be the place we used to be: that is, getting
legislation done. We need to work together collectively to have votes
and to discuss how to solve these problems in good faith
[[Page S7845]]
across the aisle. We should be extending the ACA premiums now and
making sure these prices don't rise and continue to work on long-term
solutions to make health insurance more affordable for Americans.
So I urge my colleagues to continue to work with us. The ACA tax
credits expiring at the end of this year and this enrollment that we
are going to see on November 1, that everybody is going to see how much
these costs are going up--I am asking my colleagues, let's roll up our
sleeves. Let's work to lower these costs.
I know that in the Affordable Care Act, there are States like New
York, Oregon, and Minnesota who have the basic health plan. The basic
health plan provision, modeled on something our State had first done,
lowered the costs for a lot of working families across the United
States. Programs like this should be considered, as well as solutions
that would help us lower costs for the future.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Nomination of Joshua D. Dunlap
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of Joshua
Dunlap to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Josh is an attorney of extraordinary intelligence, extensive
experience, and demonstrated integrity. He is highly respected in the
legal community throughout the State of Maine, and I urge my colleagues
to support his nomination to the First Circuit.
Josh grew up in Vassalboro, ME, and now lives in Scarborough with his
wife Sydney and their three children.
He graduated first in his class from Notre Dame Law School, where he
received the law school's highest honor, awarded to the student with
the most distinguished academic record.
He then clerked for Judge Paul Kelly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit.
In 2009, Josh joined the very well respected law firm Pierce Atwood
in Portland, ME. During his 16 years at the firm, he has specialized in
complex civil litigation matters and currently serves as cochair of the
firm's appellate team.
Josh is admitted to practice in multiple U.S. courts of appeal and
the U.S. Supreme Court. He has also assisted special masters in three
original jurisdiction proceedings before the Supreme Court.
Finally, Josh also chairs the Maine Appellate Rules Committee, to
which he was appointed by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.
This impressive experience, coupled with his intelligence and
integrity, makes Josh exceptionally well qualified to serve on the
First Circuit. His substantial appellate litigation experience will
also bring a practitioner's perspective to the court.
The nonpartisan American Bar Association unanimously rated Josh as
``well qualified'' to serve on the First Circuit. I would note that
that is the highest possible rating for a judicial nominee. It reflects
the ABA's assessment of his integrity, experience, and temperament.
There were several compelling letters of support submitted to the
Senate Judiciary Committee in favor of Josh's nomination, and I would
like to highlight a couple of them.
A diverse group of faculty and alumni from his law school who taught
Josh or studied alongside him praised him for his ``respect for
differing views'' and ``deep appreciation for the rule of law.''
A letter signed by a group of leading Maine attorneys who describe
themselves as representing a broad spectrum of political views and
legal philosophies wrote that Josh has all the qualities the very
finest judges exhibit: He is hard-working, courteous, and judicial in
temperament, very smart, and of sterling character, with a commitment
to fairness and the rule of law.
At his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee,
Josh testified that Mainers are famously independent and that he
suspects that characterizes him as well. That is exactly what we want
in a judge.
Maine is proud of our history of supplying superb, well-qualified,
independent-minded jurists to the Federal bench. I know that Josh will
continue in that fine tradition. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in
favor of his nomination, for he truly deserves bipartisan support.
Mr. President, seeing that there are no other speakers, I would ask
unanimous consent that the already scheduled vote begin immediately.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination
of Executive Calendar No. 370, Joshua D. Dunlap, of Maine, to
be United States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit.
John Thune, Bernie Moreno, Katie Boyd Britt, Chuck
Grassley, James Lankford, Pete Ricketts, Markwayne
Mullin, Tim Sheehy, Jon Husted, Eric Schmitt, Jim
Justice, James E. Risch, Tom Cotton, Steve Daines, Ted
Budd, John R. Curtis, John Boozman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
nomination of Joshua D. Dunlap, of Maine, to be United States Circuit
Judge for the First Circuit, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Missouri (Mr. Schmitt) and the Senator from Mississippi
(Mr. Wicker).
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 601 Leg.]
YEAS--51
Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Young
NAYS--47
Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Schmitt
Wicker
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). On this vote, the yeas are 51,
the nays are 47.
The motion is agreed to.
____________________