[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 185 (Wednesday, November 5, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7916-S7925]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to resume
legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Government Funding
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am going to be uncharacteristically
brief.
Tomorrow, I will be bringing two bills before the Senate. They both
have to do with the shutdown and congressional pay.
The first bill is the No Shutdown Paychecks Act. The second bill is
the Withhold Member Pay During Shutdowns Act.
The first bill would provide that, as long as we are shut down--and I
will explain why in a moment--as long as we are shut down, no Member of
Congress can be paid. And the money will not be--will not be--
reimbursed at a later date or repaid at a later date.
The second bill, to address any 27th Amendment concerns, will say:
During a shutdown, Members of Congress will not receive their pay, but
their pay will be escrowed, and they will receive it after the
government is opened back up.
Look, we are in day 36. Like the Presiding Officer, I have heard a
lot of rumors about ``we are that close to reaching an agreement.'' We
have been ``that close'' for a week.
Frankly, I hope I am wrong in saying this, but I don't think we are
really that close. I wish we were, and I hope we are. But I think we
are going to be in this shutdown a while longer. That doesn't give me
any joy to say that.
In the meantime, none of our staffs are being paid. No Federal
employees are being paid. I got some numbers in this morning that
Federal workers have had to borrow $365 million so far during this 36-
day shutdown in order just to pay their rent.
Our military is only being paid partially. Our air traffic
controllers are not being paid.
People who receive SNAP payments are only being partially paid. I
don't think anybody wants to see anybody go hungry in America. And that
is not a partisan statement. I think that is a bipartisan statement.
There is precedent for this.
Some may say: Well, this violates the 27th Amendment.
I don't think it does. That is why I am offering two different
flavors of bills.
But in 2013, President Obama did the same thing that I am doing now.
They were in a shutdown, and President Obama supported legislation that
said: If you don't open up government by this certain date, then you
are going to lose your paychecks.
And guess what. Members of Congress had an epiphany, and they found
religion. They had a Damascene moment, and they opened up the
government. And that is all this bill would do.
[[Page S7917]]
I am not trying to grandstand. I wasn't going to bring this bill.
When I got back here Monday, I heard all the rumors, like everybody
else, that we were close. And I hope we are close. But we are not close
enough.
And so I am offering these bills tomorrow, and people can vote yea or
they can vote nay. But what is good for the goose is good for the
gander.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. 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 Connecticut.
2025 Elections
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from
Louisiana yielding to me, and I am here with Senator Padilla because we
are leading a group of colleagues to talk on the floor of the Senate
about a right of the American people that was exercised in overwhelming
numbers yesterday: the right to vote. And it was an enormously
heartening and encouraging and inspiring example to us of good
citizenship and interest in the electoral process.
But we are here because the right to vote is increasingly under
assault by this administration--systematic, strategic, relentless
assault by an administration that wants to discourage the exercise of
that right to vote and to degrade the protections of it that many
Americans take for granted because they are so ingrained in our system.
What this administration has done overall in seeking to impound
election equipment, collect voter information, intrude on privacy, and
discourage election workers by creating fear and intimidation, not to
mention dismantling the election protection mechanisms in the CISA and
voting rights section of the Department of Justice, the Cybersecurity
Infrastructure and Security Program--these kinds of measures create a
real and present danger to our election process.
And it began, literally, with President Trump pardoning the January 6
rioters. Remember, they not only assaulted the Capitol, but their
purpose was to stop certification of a lawful transition of power that
resulted from the vote. It was an effort to undermine the vote.
In the face of many of these actions, we need to rely on the courts.
They are the bulwark that, in many instances, will protect us. We are
dependent on organizations that are willing to go to court, and we need
to support them with resources.
One example, on March 25, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive
order, 14248. Among other things, it attempted to impose on the States
new documentation requirements for mail-in voter registration and
voting procedures--just one example of this administration's assault on
the right to vote--and it probably went under the radar so far as most
public attention was concerned. But it was real. It was potentially
destructive and damaging to the right to vote.
And, thankfully, Judge Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia knew our laws well enough that she,
rightfully, held that this Executive order was so patently illegal, so
flagrantly unlawful and a blatant violation of our Constitution's
carefully crafted separation of powers that she struck down that
Executive order. And she wrote:
The States have initial authority to regulate elections.
Congress has supervisory authority over those regulations.
[But] [t]he President does not feature at all.
And that is why Judge Kollar-Kotelly found that Trump's Executive
order ``violates the Constitution by usurping power over federal
election procedure that is vested in Congress and the States--not in
the President.''
Sounds to me like the President of the United States might need a
civics lesson or at least a reread of the Constitution. The Framers
regulated elections in this manner on purpose, part of a carefully
crafted compromise between State and Federal legislative power. They
did it in this manner to serve a specific end, which was a balancing of
responsibility that accorded States their proper sovereign control over
elections cast in their borders.
They are sovereign. Our States remain sovereign, as they were then,
and their electors are entitled to respect in State and Federal
elections under rules that are set by sovereign States.
And that compromise is sound public policy, just as it was when our
Framers propounded it. It is right that States and communities--not the
President--should determine, in the best instance, how best to conduct
elections.
And it is right that, in situations when uniform national election
standards are necessary, those determinations are made deliberately by
a large body of elected officials directly representing their local
communities in Congress.
As the judge said, ``The President does not feature at all.''
More importantly, the Framers' diffusion of power over elections
divided both among the States and within the branch of the Federal
Government closest to the people--namely, the Congress--is one of our
Nation's most powerful safeguards against autocracy. They were wary of
an overbearing Executive. They had just fought to be free of a
monarchy. They explicitly avoided giving any power to the President in
the realm of elections.
The framework they created establishes a decentralized structure
where it is difficult for any single individual or entity to unduly
influence or wield unchecked power over elections.
``No King.'' That was their mantra, literally. They had just
overthrown a King. No single authority to control elections and
potentially bring to bear another authoritarian ruler.
But, now, this President has moved us toward a totalitarian regime,
and there is no more salient or significant aspect of his effort than
the destructive assault on our election system.
A system where one person alone can decide how elections are run is
the definition of ``tyranny.'' Russia has a Constitution. Other nations
like Russia have constitutions, but elections are rigged. And whether
it is China, Russia, Hungary--totalitarian regimes have one ruler. It
may not be called a King, but it is a ruler who controls the election
process. And lo and behold, 90 percent of the voters in the old Soviet
Union, now in Russia, all decide that the guy in power is to be
retained.
That is no accident. It is the result of totalitarian control over
elections, and that is why this judge's ruling is so profoundly
momentous.
The voters of California, Virginia, New Jersey, and New York made
their voices heard yesterday, and they were saying as well, no Kings.
They exercised the right to vote in tremendous numbers.
In our State of Connecticut, towns where Republican first
selectpeople or mayors were in power for decades saw a move from red to
blue. What is more important than red to blue is overwhelming numbers
of people came to the polls because they were angry and anxious about
our democracy and about affordability, about paying the rent, affording
groceries, paying for electricity, and, yes, health insurance.
They were looking at the open enrollment exchanges for whether they
could afford health insurance. They saw premiums doubling and tripling.
They were hit by that sticker shock, and it made them fearful and
outraged about what was happening to healthcare, as well as everything
else they were paying to afford. And they couldn't afford healthcare
and everything else that they needed for their families, and that was a
factor as well.
So this outpouring of anger and anxiety that we saw on the issue of
affordability was an exercise of the franchise that this administration
wants to undermine and undercut and, eventually, eviscerate.
So we need to elevate the judges. Let's name this one--Judge Kollar-
Kotelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Judge
Kollar-Kotelly is a hero in sustaining and protecting the rule of law,
in preserving free and open elections, by striking down an Executive
order that very simply egregiously overrides State sovereign authority.
Now, I will say States' rights used to be the province of Members of
this body who sought to protect segregation. Maybe they were
endeavoring to stop Federal law enforcement and the use of States'
rights as a sword or a shield had limits and the courts limited them.
[[Page S7918]]
But in this instance, there is no excuse and no precedent that
permits the President of the United States to take over our election
system, and I call on my colleagues in this body to stop rubberstamping
his usurpation of our authority. We are the ones, along with States,
that have that responsibility.
Congress was specifically chosen to protect our election system when
it came to Federal supervision because we are closest to the people,
and we should zealously guard that authority because it is essential to
our constitutional structure.
I know that a lot of this may seem abstract or opaque, but it goes to
the core of our constitutional system, and I call on my colleagues to
protect our authority and State officials to safeguard theirs because
it is a matter of our democracy, our freedom, and our right to vote.
I note that my colleague Senator Padilla is here. I started this
floor bloc, but I am proud that he and I have worked together on
enlisting our colleagues. He is a major champion of election rights. He
is one of the leaders in our body that has worked zealously to protect
that right, and I am proud to be standing here with him in this cause.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking my good friend
the Senator from Connecticut Senator Blumenthal for his partnership not
just on these issues but in a lot of matters before the judiciary,
generally.
But we and others have come to the floor today to celebrate
yesterday. Yesterday, Americans in States across the country came out
to participate in a tradition as old as the Nation itself: casting
their ballots in a democratic election.
And while ballots are still being processed and final results will
come in the coming days, it is safe to say that, thanks to the hard-
working and unsung heroes known as election workers and volunteers
across the country, these elections largely went off smoothly and
successfully. Because of their work in States like Virginia and New
Jersey, we saw a record turnout. Because of their work in cities like
New York, we saw the highest turnout there since 1969 in a municipal
election.
From a race for State supreme court justices in the State of
Pennsylvania to a statewide proposition in my home State of California,
Americans showed up in overwhelming numbers to say in one loud and
clear voice that they have had enough.
The question after an election is always: So what message did the
voters say? What was the mandate when it comes to a high turnout in an
election with larger than expected margins?
The takeaway is this: Enough of the Republican chaos, enough of the
power grabs, enough of the corruption, and enough of Trump's
billionaire assault on working families.
That is the power of democracy, that we are able to send that type of
a message. The people sent that type of a message, that loud of a
message, by exercising the right to vote.
But even after the success of last night, let's also be clear about
this: One free and fair election does not guarantee the next one. We
have to fight to ensure future elections. We have to keep asking
ourselves, what do we do between now and next November to protect the
next election? Because at this very moment, the President and his
allies are doing everything they can to rig the rules of the game.
The reality is that at some point in the last couple of months, the
President came to a harsh realization. We have known that his policies
have been bad ones. We have known they have been harmful. He has
figured out his policies are also very unpopular. Prices on everything
from groceries, to housing, to energy bills are going up. Healthcare
premiums are spiking. SNAP benefits are being cut. But for the
billionaire class, things are just fine because Trump gave them the tax
cut that they wanted, and somehow there is now funding for a ballroom.
Americans, though, are fired up. They are angry at a President and a
party that are looking out for themselves rather than looking out for
the country as a whole. But rather than change their policies that are
causing such harm, instead of changing their policies before the
midterm elections, President Trump and Republicans would rather change
the rules.
We have a responsibility to sound the alarm before it is too late.
Let me revisit my home State of California, where voters came out in
big numbers to pass Proposition 50 by a wide margin. Why? We are not
celebrating a middecade redistricting. Proposition 50 passed because
they have been waiting to respond to the madness because Donald Trump
is the one who forced California's hand.
In between trying to pile a little gold covering to every square inch
of the White House that he can that hasn't been demolished and
pardoning billionaire criminals, President Trump has been making some
phone calls. So has the Vice President. They called GOP State lawmakers
to redraw congressional maps and to silence Democratic opposition.
It began when President Trump called Texas Governor Greg Abbott and
told him to find him five more Republican seats.
When I first heard that, it sounded eerily similar to the call we all
heard about from 2020 when President Trump called the secretary of
state of Georgia and demanded he find him 11,000 more votes.
We knew what Texas was going to do--a midterm partisan redistricting.
Californians knew right away that enough was enough, and that is what
yesterday was all about--leveling the playing field.
By the way, at any moment, Republicans can actually end this
redistricting arms race altogether, because there is more than just
chatter about Ohio, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, and others. To end that
arms race, I invite my Republican colleagues to join me--to join us in
supporting true nationwide redistricting reform. Yes, we do have a bill
to do just that--independent redistricting once every 10 years after
the census, which is when it should be properly done. But, no,
Republicans would rather try to cling to power by changing the rules of
the game.
It is why just yesterday the White House issued yet another threat,
this time a threat to issue another illegal Executive order to ban
mail-in voting. It is why, as races were being called last night and
Trump knew things were not going to go his way, the President took to
social media to demand Republicans kill the filibuster and ban mail-in
voting and other laws that are designed to keep our elections secure
but make it easier for eligible U.S. citizens to exercise their
fundamental right to vote, to cast their ballot and have their ballot
be counted. That is what we are up against.
But wait, there is more. At the same time, the Trump Department of
Justice has its hands full. Boy, do they. The Department of Justice has
sent letters to at least 40 different States demanding information
about their voter maintenance policies and practices. They filed
lawsuits against eight States and probably growing--including
California--that have refused to hand over the personal, private
information of voters. It kind of reminds me of a game that kids
sometimes play: Heads, I win; tails, you lose.
What the administration is saying is, you can give us your voter
rolls so we can start systematic purging, or you can choose to protect
voter information, but we will see you in court, and we are going to
claim voter fraud anyway.
But wait, there is more. Donald Trump is also staffing up the White
House with like-minded election deniers and conspiracy theorists,
hinting at future actions that would disenfranchise even more voters.
Of course, the President has been slandering places like California
and our election practices for years, and he did it once again just
yesterday, on election day--his words, not mine. The President lies and
shouts ``fraud'' without a shred of evidence. He didn't wait until
election day; he started prior to because he knew he was going to lose.
The White House restated its threat to issue a new, even more illegal
Executive order to ban mail-in voting despite the fact that the
President himself votes by mail.
On top of all these brazen efforts, they are laying the groundwork
for the nuclear option once again.
[[Page S7919]]
Think about what we have seen over just the last few months--troops
deployed domestically into cities in response to pretend rebellions
that exist only in Donald Trump's mind.
Going back to this Proposition 50 in California, I was there with the
Governor and other State leaders when we first launched the effort. We
held a rally to announce a new, legal, democratic ballot initiative--
small ``d,'' democratic--because ultimately it was going to be up to
the voters to decide.
The day of that rally, the day of that kickoff--don't tell me it was
a coincidence--who shows up at the doors and the perimeter of this
building? Armed Border Patrol agents to try to intimidate people coming
in to participate in the kickoff and the announcement.
The election deniers in the administration have been lobbying for the
White House to declare a fake national emergency to try to seize
unconstitutional powers over our elections.
So I raise all these examples as a shocking reminder of how quickly
Donald Trump is moving to upend our free and fair elections, but the
reality is, none of this should be surprising. I know it is not to me
because he has done it before. It has been 5 years since Donald Trump
first tried to steal the 2020 election, and since then, he has only
grown more extreme.
We all agree it is important to protect the security and integrity of
our elections, but even at a moment in history like this, I remind
myself that American democracy was here long before MAGA, and it will
be here long after MAGA Republicans are no longer in power. But it will
not be by accident.
Members of Congress can and must stand up to every one of Trump's
unconstitutional power grabs over State election authority. I am
committed to doing my part. If the Trump White House tries to declare
some fake national emergency to create a pretense for Federal
intervention, I will force a vote here in the Senate to stop it.
But no matter what happens, voters cannot lose hope. That is what is
most important. We need Americans to keep showing up each and every
election and show up in overwhelming numbers--just as they did
yesterday, just as they did for hundreds of years prior--and make clear
that it will be the people and only the people who will determine the
future of our democracy.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I would have hoped that the basic
operation of American democracy and particularly the basic integrity of
America's elections would not be a topic that we would have to come to
the Senate floor to worry about, but the character down the road in the
Oval Office is making all sorts of threats to the cornerstone of
America's democracy--our elections.
I will mention three. First, he nonstop lies about rigged elections.
He can't bear to face the fact that Joe Biden beat him by millions of
votes fair and square, and so he invented a story of rigged elections.
Well, as has repeatedly been shown, if any election has been rigged
recently, it was Donald Trump's first election, where study after
study, report after report showed that Russia had been messing around
in that election, using covert influence operations to influence
American voters and steer them towards their favorite--Donald Trump.
But the lying about rigged elections is a bit of a warning sign
because the other thing we have learned about Trump is that his
accusations tend to be actual confessions. The bad stuff that he
intends to do he announces by accusing others of doing the same thing.
So when people notice the mischief that he is up to, he says: Well,
everybody does it. That doesn't make it anything other than a lie.
Then he has been out, bullying Republican States, to try to get him
more seats in Congress by doing a midseason gerrymandering of their
States. This succeeded, kind of, in Texas. When I say it succeeded
``kind of,'' it succeeded in the sense that they got the gerrymandered
districts.
But here is the rub: When you gerrymander more Republican districts
into a State, you make the freeboard--the win ratio--for each of those
districts a little bit less.
And if yesterday was any message, Republicans need to worry about a
wave election washing away Trump's poison and nonsense. In a wave
election, those gerrymandered districts that you thought you had moved
into the Republican column could get sunk in the wave.
In particular, we have already seen from yesterday's results--more
analysis will follow--that it looks like Latino voters, important in
Texas, are abandoning Trump. So it may be that Texas's gerrymandering
blows up in its face, and wouldn't that be a nice turnabout?
Maybe that is what Republicans in Indiana were thinking when they
refused to gerrymander their State. They might well be looking at Texas
and saying: You know, voters in Texas might actually have cared more
about electric bills, about their homeowners' insurance crisis, about
their cost of living, and wanted Texan legislators to do something
about that, instead of going off on a partisan gallivant to redistrict
the State. And those voters might just hold those Republicans
accountable for choosing as their priority to use gerrymandering so
that politicians can choose their voters instead of paying attention to
the voters who want help with costs, who want their homeowners'
insurance problems solved, who are concerned about their electric
utility bills, and who are sick to death about what is happening with
grocery costs.
The third avenue of attack on elections by Trump is that he is
modeling government election interference in front of our faces right
now. When you send the National Guard into American cities, when you
deploy masked, plain-clothed, presumably ICE agents to yank people off
the street and fling them into unmarked vans and disappear them, you
are getting people used to images that Americans are not used to. You
are inoculating Americans against that kind of abuse of both military
and law enforcement capabilities so that, when it is election day and
that kind of nonsense takes place around polling places to discourage
voters, we have gotten used to it.
So the lying--the constant lying--about rigged elections, the
bullying--the constant bullying--to force State legislatures to
gerrymander even though that is not what their voters want, and the
constant modeling of government interference in elections--all of that
is a signal that we have to be on our guard to protect our democracy.
It is not just Trump. In doing this, Trump has allies. He has allies
on the packed and captured Supreme Court--a Court that Republicans
packed and captured specifically to help their big, creepy billionaire
donors acquire more power in American democracy. And, boy, have we seen
enough creepy billionaire power in American democracy: dark money--the
secret, sneaky dark money floods that are poisoning our elections, that
allow billionaires to channel multimillion-dollar contributions into
races by hiding behind front groups and screens and super-PACs so that
voters can't do their duty as citizens of figuring out who is telling
them what because the loudest and noisiest and most prolific messages
are coming from behind masked entities.
It was one of the dirtiest deeds ever done to our democracy, and it
was done by the Roberts Court: voter suppression, making sure that
White legislatures could discourage Black and Latino voters by changing
the rules for when you can vote and how you can vote. We passed a
Voting Rights Act in the Congress to stop that kind of behavior, and
this Supreme Court--the Roberts Court--has been diligently pulling out,
piece by piece, those Voting Rights Act protections.
When they do, what happens? Instantly, those southern legislatures go
to work to make it harder and harder for minorities to vote. Hundreds
of bills get filed.
Third, when they were confronted with partisan gerrymandering--
distorting Americans' right to vote by letting politicians pick voters,
instead of voters picking politicians--they said: Oh, well, that is all
fine. We are not going to look into any of that. Courts are not allowed
to look into whether gerrymandering is legal or illegal, constitutional
or unconstitutional.
Those three decisions of flooding our elections with corrupting dark
money, letting State legislatures make it harder for certain people to
vote whom
[[Page S7920]]
they don't want voting, and gerrymandering districts against the will
of the public--people hate gerrymandering--those three things have
collectively done immense damage to our democracy, and those bad
decisions are going to play out in this coming election.
I will close with a point about all three of those cases.
The Citizens United case that let filthy, unlimited dark money
pollute our elections, the Shelby case that tore down an essential
element of the Voting Rights Act, and the Rucho case that allowed
uncontrolled, partisan gerrymandering--all three of them share a very
important characteristic in common, and that is that they hang on a
false fact. To get where the Court wanted to go, those Republican
appointees had to make up a false fact that the decision hung on.
In Citizens United, it was that all the unlimited money would be
transparent. Well, we know that was false. Every billion dollars in
dark money that falls into our elections proves that was false.
In Shelby, it was that things have changed. You didn't need to worry
about southern legislatures trying to keep Democratic voters from
showing up. But you saw that that was false because all of those laws
were immediately passed to suppress voters.
And in the Rucho case, it was that courts can't figure out
gerrymandering stuff; it is just too complicated. But, in fact, courts
were figuring it out. It is not even that hard to figure out. The Court
just made up, falsely, that this was too hard.
When a court is making up false facts to get to an outcome that it
wants, that is not a sign of great integrity in those proceedings.
So we have a lot to worry about, and we have more to worry about
after yesterday because last night showed that voters do not like what
Trump and his Republican cohorts here in the House and the Senate are
doing to our country. This was a small wave, and with any luck, it is
building to a bigger wave. Instead of adjusting to popular opinion,
what we know they are going to do is to try to use even more tools to
corrupt democracy, corrupt elections, and defeat our ability to have
the American people decide who they want to lead them at the polls.
That is the predicament we are in, and it requires us to be on high
alert.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to thank my friends Senators
Padilla and Blumenthal for putting together this floor block.
Yesterday was election day for many Americans. They stood at the
ballot box and voted their consciences, but they weren't just voting
for a candidate; they were voting for a vision of our Nation.
Will we continue to be that Nation that stands for those powerful
words carved over the entrance to the Supreme Court--``Equal Justice
Under Law''--or will we allow MAGA politics and President Trump's
assault on the rule of law to damage the democratic process that we
hold so dear?
Well, the American people certainly answered that question yesterday
with resounding votes rejecting the Trump administration's disastrous
policies.
We know the right to vote is under attack from those who seek to
undermine and, in some cases, deny the very will of the American
people--the heart of our democracy. There has been an effort for years
to restrict access to the ballot under the false banner of ``election
integrity.'' Under the Trump administration, this effort is being led
by the very government entities that were created to protect the right
to vote. This betrayal is deliberate, and it is eroding the foundation
of our democracy.
Let me be clear: There is no longer a functioning Federal entity
actively safeguarding each American's right to vote--our most
fundamental, constitutional freedom. The Department of Justice's Civil
Rights Division--once the defender of voting access for communities of
color, those serving in the military, rural voters, and people with
disabilities--has been devastated by President Trump.
Let me tell you a little anecdote.
Last night, I was in the grocery store on Capitol Hill, buying a few
things to eat. A woman came up to me and said she knew who I was, and
she wanted to let me know what her situation was. She works in the
Civil Rights Division in the Department of Justice, and she is
furloughed at the present time.
She said: Do you know how many people are left in the Civil Rights
Division, which once had almost 200 employees? 63.
It has been devastated by Trump.
Under the Trump administration's reimagined mission, aligned with
MAGA politics and driven by the lie of widespread voter fraud, the
Civil Rights Division's Voting Section has abdicated its role in
confronting the real and rising tide of disenfranchisement.
Attorney General Pam Bondi removed the Voting Section's leadership
team and ordered the dismissal of the section's active cases.
The Voting Section is responsible for enforcing Federal laws that
were enacted to protect the right to vote, including the Voting Rights
Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens
Absentee Voting Act, the National Voter Registration Act, and the Help
America Vote Act. The decision to gut this section by Attorney General
Bondi and the White House will harm American voters and cause long-
lasting damage. It is part of the Trump legacy.
The Trump administration also ordered the Justice Department to
monitor polling sites in California and New Jersey before yesterday's
election, at the request of Republican Party officials. While election
monitoring is a crucial tool, deploying monitors on a partisan basis is
outrageous. We know that voter fraud is extremely rare--extremely--but
President Trump and Republicans continue to baselessly claim it is
rampant in trying to suppress the vote.
We must fight these dangerous attempts to restrict the right to vote
and restore confidence in our democracy by ensuring that every eligible
American has access to the ballot. That is why, in honor of my late
friend and voting rights pioneer Congressman John Lewis, I have been
proud to introduce a bill that bears his name, the John R. Lewis Voting
Rights Advancement Act, which would restore and strengthen the Voting
Rights Act.
It has been an honor to work with Senator Warnock of Georgia--and
Senator Leahy before him--to lead this legislation as the former chair
and now ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. I remain committed
to seeing this bill signed into law.
This legislation should be a no-brainer. The issue of access to the
ballot used to enjoy overwhelming bipartisan support. Now it has been
gamed and politicized by the MAGA bunch. But since the conservative
majority in a divided 5-to-4 Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act
of 2013 in its Shelby County decision, this has become an increasingly
partisan issue.
Attacks on voting rights aren't happening in a vacuum. Across this
country, Republican lawmakers and litigators are using every trick in
the book to change the rules of the game in their favor and cling to
power--purging voter rolls, closing polling places, making it more
difficult by restricting mail-in voting, and undermining the Voting
Rights Act--all for one purpose: to limit access to the ballot box.
The Republicans actually believe we are a better nation if fewer
people vote. I believe every eligible person should vote if you want a
true democracy working.
President Trump is hell-bent on continuing to undermine faith in our
elections and attack the rule of law, whether by inciting a violent mob
on January 6, which overran the Senate Chamber, to overturn the results
of a free and fair election or by demanding that blue States turn over
reams of voter data to his administration. President Trump has led a
long, coordinated campaign to suppress the vote in America.
We now face a critical question: Will we sit idly by while Trump and
MAGA Republicans steamroll the great American experiment, or will we
cause some ``good'' and ``necessary'' trouble, as John Lewis once said,
to save our democracy and our ``precious, almost sacred'' right to
vote?
If yesterday's elections are any indication of how the American
people feel about this administration, I would say they better get
ready for more ``good'' trouble.
[[Page S7921]]
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I appreciate the chance to rise today to
talk about a success story in Virginia and the elections last night,
but I am going to take a little bit of a different tact than my
colleagues, and I am not going to talk about my pride in my friends who
won elections; I am instead going to talk about the turnout in the
elections.
Virginia has Governor's races every 4 years. We do them in an odd-
year cycle, where the Governor's race is the year following the
Presidential race. This has been our practice for a very, very long
time.
We can look at the turnout--although the State has grown in
population, we can look at the total turnout in the Governor's race and
get some sense for what is happening and how engaged our electorate is.
Virginia has had a history in the past of significant obstacles to
voting.
My father-in-law fought in the submarine corps in the Pacific during
World War II. He came back to the State, and the first Governor's race
after he got back from World War II was in the late 1940s. He noticed
that the total turnout in that race represented almost single digits in
terms of the eligible voter population. Virtually nobody voted.
My father-in-law Lin, who later became Governor of Virginia, said:
Wait, I was in the Pacific fighting for a democracy, and I come home to
my home State, and virtually no one is even voting for Governor?
That led him to start a career in politics that eventually achieved
him the distinction of being the first Republican ever popularly
elected to be Governor of Virginia in 1969.
What was happening in Virginia in those days was poll taxes and
literacy tests and other things that restricted people's ability to
vote. We have had a remarkable transformation under both Democratic and
Republican leaders that has expanded the franchise and expanded
participation.
What I want to stress very clearly is voting turnout, voting
participation--making it easier to participate is not a partisan thing;
it helps Republicans, and it helps Democrats. You can tell that by
looking at the history of gubernatorial elections and seeing what
happens when turnout goes up. Sometimes it is great for Democrats;
sometimes it is great for Republicans.
I will give you an example. Four years ago, in 2021, we had a race in
Virginia, and Republicans swept all three statewide offices.
Republicans elected Glenn Youngkin to be our Governor, and he has now
served the single 4-year term that Virginia grants to Governors. We are
the only State where you can't run for reelection. Virginia elected our
first woman Lieutenant Governor, Republican Winsome Earle-Sears. She
was also the first woman of color to hold a statewide office. And
Virginia elected 4 years ago Jason Miyares--Mr. President, you and I
were chatting about him earlier today--who is a Cuban-American, to be
our attorney general.
Why do I bring up that election from 4 years ago? I bring it up
because it was notable in that the Republicans swept, but it was
notable for another reason: The turnout in that race in 2021 was 25
percent higher than the turnout 4 years previously. It was the second
largest jump in turnout between any Governor's races in Virginia.
I will say with a matter of pride that the first biggest jump was
between my father-in-law's two Governor's races in 1965 and 1969. He
ran for Governor as a Republican in 1965 and lost. He ran for Governor
as a Republican in 1969 and won. And the turnout jumped by 68 percent.
Why? Because the Supreme Court struck down poll taxes and the Voting
Rights Act struck down poll taxes in Federal elections. When poll taxes
went away, it brought a huge surge of additional participation.
When Governor Youngkin and Winsome Earle-Sears won and Jason Miyares
won in 2021, why were they able to get a 25-percent increase in voting
participation in Virginia? They did it because Virginia made reforms to
guarantee and expand the right to vote. We embraced mail-in voting. We
embraced no-excuse absentee voting. We allowed people to vote for 45
days before election day. By doing those three things--some of which
President Trump said should be banned at the national level--it helped
a Republican ticket sweep all races in Virginia.
We went, by most estimates, from being one of the States that made it
harder to vote--traditionally, in the 51 States plus DC, we were
usually ranked about 45th in the ease of access to the ballot. We went
from the bottom to the top 10, and it was good for a Republican ticket.
Governor Youngkin, Lieutenant Governor Sears, and Attorney Governor
Miyares won a big election with increased turnout. Expanding access to
the ballot is not a partisan thing.
Last night, Democrats had a sweep. My friend Abigail Spanberger, who
served in the House with a number of my Senate colleagues, was elected
to be Virginia's first woman Governor. My friend Ghazala Hashmi, a
State senator--actually, my State senator. She is the one I write
cranky letters to when I have to write a cranky letter to an official.
She was elected to be Lieutenant Governor of Virginia. And get this--
this is pretty amazing--she is the first Muslim-American woman ever
elected to a statewide office anywhere in the United States. My friend
Jay Jones, whom I have known since he was 11 years old, was elected to
be Virginia's first African-American attorney general.
They also saw a big increase in turnout. The turnout we had last
night was about 10 percent higher than the turnout we saw in 2021.
The point I just wanted to make by standing here is that my
colleagues have talked about the variety of threats there may be to
ballot access, whether it is forced redistrictings or whether it is
President Trump saying that we should abandon vote-by-mail or make it
harder for people to vote. The history of my State shows that if you
make it convenient for people to vote, No. 1, more people will vote,
and No. 2, that can be good for Republicans or Democrats, depending
upon the political dynamic of the time and the strength of the
candidates and their campaigns.
It used to be that voting and voting rights in this Chamber were
pretty bipartisan. When the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965
nationally, it wouldn't have passed without Republican votes. Yes, it
was a Democratic President, L.B.J., who put it on the table, but it was
Republican Senators disproportionately who carried the torch to victory
on the voting rights bill in 1965, as many southern Democrats opposed
that bill.
As the voting rights bill has been reauthorized over time, it was
always reauthorized significantly with both Democratic and Republican
votes. It has only been in the aftermath of the Shelby decision, which
happened right as I came into the Senate, that voting rights have
started to seem like a partisan issue, where Democrats have tried to
restore some of the voting rights provisions--for example, the
preclearance provisions in section 5--but have struggled to find any
Republican willing to do it.
So the point that I want to make as I conclude is just that I am
happy in Virginia because my friends won last night, but I am happy
anytime we have elections where people really participate. Where I get
really depressed about elections is when turnout is low.
Last night, we had big participation; that benefited Democrats. Four
years ago, we had big participation; that benefited Republicans. The
kinds of things we have done in Virginia to make elections more
accessible to all are commonsense and convenient rules that I embrace
at the national level and that are good for democracy--sometimes
benefiting one party, sometimes benefiting another, but ultimately good
for democracy and good for voters.
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.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schmitt). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I want to thank Ranking Member Padilla
and Senator Blumenthal, Ranking Member Padilla of the Rules
[[Page S7922]]
Committee, and Senator Blumenthal for organizing a group of my
colleagues for coming to the floor today and for their leadership on
this issue.
We are focused on, as we saw last night, Americans turned out in
droves to vote, to exercise their constitutional right and, really,
their duty to vote. And we want to make sure that people can continue
to stand up, to show up, whether they are Democrats, Republicans, or
Independents, to protect voting rights and ensure that every eligible
American can make their voice heard in our democracy.
I also want to thank the State and local election administrators,
secretaries of state, poll workers, and everyone else in States like
Minnesota, Virginia, California, New Jersey, and more who made sure
that yesterday's elections went smoothly.
It takes a lot of people and a lot of planning to do that. Yesterday,
millions of people exercised that sacred right. According to
preliminary data, Minneapolis saw its second highest turnout for a
municipal election with more than 147,000 people casting a ballot in an
off year, and in Virginia 3.3 million people voted this year, the
State's highest ever turnout in a non-Presidential election year.
As Congressman John Lewis once said, voting is the most powerful tool
we have to create a more perfect Union.
In recent years, from the January 6 insurrection to election
conspiracies to threats against polling sites in New Jersey, we have
seen an alarming rise in dangerous rhetoric and threats against
election workers and polling places. Sometimes it is from other
countries trying to do harm, regardless of the political outcome, but
wanting to mess around in our democracy.
Sometimes it is people trying to influence an election from either
side. We have also seen repeated attacks on access to the ballot box
from this administration.
The Justice Department has turned away from its mission of enforcing
the Voting Rights Act, and the President has issued an unlawful
Executive order to overhaul our Nation's elections that would purge
American citizens from voter rolls and make it harder for the men and
women of our military to vote.
Just as the President overstepped his authority by implementing the
across-the-board tariffs, I was at the Supreme Court oral argument
today, along with Senator Lee and Senator Markey. I will say it was a
well-argued case with pointed questions from the Justices. I am very
impressed by some of the arguments that were made against these tariffs
by both the States and the lawyers for the small businesses, as well as
some of the Justices' discussions when it came to the tariffs about
Congress's right under the Constitution, under article I, our authority
to assess taxes--not an unconstitutional delegation or an overreach by
the administration.
And so we have seen this overstep with regard to the tariffs, which
is having calamitous effects on my constituents, small businesses,
farmers, ranchers. One soybean farmer told me it was the perfect storm
of ugly.
But we have also seen this overstep when it comes to the Constitution
and people's right to vote. The White House recently confirmed that the
President intends to continue his unlawful attacks on voting rights by
issuing a new Executive order targeting mail-in voting.
Mail-in voting is nothing new. It dates back to the Civil War, and
the President himself has said that voting by mail, voting early, and
voting on election day are all good options. I agree. And Americans
across the country agree.
In Minnesota, we have made it easier, not harder, for all eligible
Americans to vote, including by giving everyone the chance to vote by
mail. We have people who vote by mail. Some of these States like Utah
and Oregon, they have almost the vast majority of people vote by mail.
We are not actually that. We are kind of a mix. We have the highest
voter turnout in the country nearly every election in the country.
I go into a hardware store or a cafe, and I know that 70, 80 percent
of the people have voted. Sometimes they will come up to me and say:
Well, I didn't vote for you, but I did like this one thing you did or I
have an idea for you. That means something in a democracy.
But that is because we make it easier to vote, not only with the
mail-in voting and the drop-off ballots, but we also have it with same-
day registration, which when you look at States that have that, whether
they are red or blue or purple, that is probably the most defining
thing about if you are going to have high voter turnout. And when you
have high voter turnout, believe me, my State has elected everyone from
Jesse Ventura to Michele Bachmann to me.
But what all of us have in common is that we had extraordinarily high
voter turnout when the people got elected, and that makes people feel
like they are part of the franchise. That makes them feel like, wow, we
are part of this democracy. We are not left out of it. And that alone
is worth something in a democracy, regardless of who gets elected.
In 2024, 36 States allowed voters to cast their votes by mail, and
nearly one-third of the voters did, and that is post-pandemic. So
instead of creating barriers to the ballot box, we need to expand
access to the polls to ensure all eligible Americans can vote in the
way that works best for them, regardless of their ZIP Code.
That is why I have led the effort with Ranking Member Padilla to
advance commonsense bills to protect our democracy, including the
Freedom to Vote Act. That bill will increase ballot access and reform
our campaign finance system to ensure that our democracy is of, by, and
for the American people.
And I would also note, with regard to some of the things that
happened coming out of Texas, it also would make sure that we have a
fair system when it comes to the House of Representatives and districts
and what is going on there.
That is also why I also strongly voted to support the John Lewis
Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore and strengthen key portions of
the Voting Rights Act. And it is why I worked to give reliable Federal
support to State and local governments, so that they can continue to
administer safe, secure elections.
This is something we should all be able to agree on. We must support
our local election offices and help them maintain their election
infrastructure to keep pace with new technology and combat
cybersecurity threats.
We should also be able to agree that we should stand by our election
workers, including volunteers, who face a barrage of threats and
intimidation.
I remember hearing, when I chaired the Rules Committee, from the
election officers in places like Pennsylvania, where a Republican
election official was threatened simply because he upheld the election
results. His entire family was threatened. Or secretaries of State who
have the voicemails of the recordings of their families being
threatened or their homes being threatened.
And you think about these volunteers, particularly in rural areas, or
election officials where they don't have the police there nearby to
protect them.
That is why I led the Election Worker Protection Act--legislation to
provide States the resources to recruit and train election workers and
ensure their safety. Protecting election officials should not be a
partisan issue. The security of our elections is directly tied to the
security of our election workers.
Nothing is more fundamental to our democracy than our free and fair
elections. Voting is how the American people make their voices heard
and ensure their elected leaders are held accountable. So while we
continue to see attacks on our democracy, it is our duty to never give
up hope.
Every election it is inspiring to see Americans, Republicans,
Democrats, and Independents alike exercise their sacred right to vote
however they choose.
It was quite a reminder last night how people are going to vote. And
they are going to vote for their families and they are going to vote
for their own economic security and they are going to vote because they
believe in our democracy. Even in an off-year election, when no Senator
is on the ballot, when no President is on the ballot, where not even a
Member of Congress is on the ballot, but two Governors and some
referendums about the judiciary and
[[Page S7923]]
some referendums about the elections and some local officials and
mayors, people turned out, and they turned out in record number.
So I hope that makes people realize that our democracy is thriving,
but our democracy only thrives when we make it so people can vote. And
I have been so proud of my State over the years, and, again, we are a
purple State. We have elected Republican and Democratic Governors in
the last decades. We have elected Republican Senators in the last
decades. We have a split legislature. One house is Republican, the
State house; the State senate is Democratic.
There was an election last night. On that front, we have an evenly
split congressional delegation--four and four--because we don't have
gerrymandering, and we have actually competitive elections.
A number of years in these congressional seats, and there we are with
the one or two highest voting turnouts in the Nation. Why is that?
Because people feel like they are a part of it. That is what we want to
have happen in this Nation.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moreno). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Trump Administration
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, today is the anniversary of the election of
President Trump in 2024, and, today, the shutdown of our Federal
Government is officially the longest it has ever been--36 days--because
we can't come to agreement between our parties and our Chambers. In
fact, the House isn't even at work and hasn't been for weeks because
Republicans won't work with us to ensure access to healthcare.
We are in a dangerous and unsettled place here at home, but we are
also in a dangerous and unsettled place abroad and around the world. My
role in appropriations in this Congress is as the senior Democrat on
the subcommittee that funds all of our defense and intelligence. Given
that role, wherein I have worked with Senator McConnell, the chairman,
to write the bill that we should be moving forward that would fully
fund the security apparatus of the United States, I wanted to come to
the floor for a few minutes today and talk with my colleagues and our
Nation about what it is that actually keeps us safe at home and abroad.
For my entire life, we have relied upon the U.S. military. We will
soon celebrate Veterans Day next week, and all of us should thank those
who have served or who are serving. We have relied on them to be
something that we often take for granted--nonpartisan, nonpolitical, an
all-volunteer, professional, career military. For that to be
sustained--for the folks to continue to step forward, to raise their
right hand, and to swear to defend the Constitution against all
enemies, foreign and domestic--we need a nation that supports our
warfighters; for it is our warfighters who answer the call to serve and
to defend no matter what party is in charge, to respect and obey the
chain of command and to execute all lawful orders.
I think we rely on the best equipped, the best trained, and the most
professional military in the world and, in partnership with them, a
global network of alliances. We are the envy of the world not only
because of our weapons--the most advanced and sophisticated weapons
systems--but because we have the best trained, the best respected, and
the most supported military in the world. That additional factor is
something stronger than envy, which is respect.
I have traveled over my 15 years here on the Foreign Relations
Committee to dozens of countries on literally every continent and have
seen directly the respect that other armed forces around the world have
for our military--for its civilian control, its professionalization,
its training, and equipment.
I grew up in the shadow of the Vietnam war. It was raging as I was a
young man. I still remember being in elementary school, with classmates
who had older brothers in combat. I still remember, as Saigon fell,
when I was in middle school, and as the POWs, including our former
colleague, John McCain, were released from years of imprisonment, being
shocked at the way some returning veterans were treated--disrespected--
and at how there had been a real loss of a sense of respect and
appreciation for those who served.
Over the years, our Armed Forces have earned their way back to a
place of deep and broad respect in the hearts of the American people.
Over the years that I served as county executive, I went to ceremony
after ceremony as units of the Delaware National Guard deployed over
and over, and then, often--9 months or a year later--as we would
welcome them home at wonderful homecoming celebrations, I saw deep and
broad support and respect for the men and women of the Armed Forces of
the United States.
Tragically, I have also had the opportunity, along the flight line of
Dover Air Force Base, to welcome home America's fallen, to get to know
the families grieving over their loss, and, this year, to be joined by
Members of the House and Senate as we have welcomed home our fallen
heroes who died serving us overseas. The difference in tenor, in
respect, in affection for the men and women of our Armed Forces over
the arc of my lifetime--from the 1970s during the Vietnam war to
today--has been striking.
Today, as I rise to speak on the 1-year anniversary of President
Trump's election, I just wanted to look back and reflect on how, in
that year, he and Secretary Hegseth have set us on a course that risks
losing again all of that accumulated good will, all of that respect. I
want to talk about how they have weakened our alliances, politicized
our military, dulled down our military readiness, and brought us closer
to needless, even dangerous, wars of choice--all of that leaving us
weaker and less safe as we confront the most dangerous world since the
end of the Cold War.
President Trump is a master of distraction. So you don't ever have
time to step back and look at the bigger pattern. It is amazing how
many times a day the topics change. Are we talking about the tearing
down of the East Wing or the planning of a new ballroom or the renewed
threat to invade a country in Africa--apparently, Nigeria, this week?
It is a constant, unending smorgasbord of tweets and greatest hits
designed to prevent us, with its blizzard, from ever seeing any
pattern. One year after his election, I wanted to take a few minutes
and show that pattern to you today.
In his first 10 months as President of the United States, President
Trump has fired or pushed out more than 15 of our most senior admirals
and generals, starting with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the
Chief of Naval Operations--fired because they were somehow considered
DEI hires or too woke, which is something I find to be utterly without
foundation in their service or in the opinions of others who served
with them in the Armed Forces.
He hijacked the 250th anniversary parade to celebrate the history of
the U.S. Army and turned it into a birthday parade for himself.
More recently, President Trump and Secretary Hegseth gathered all of
our most senior military leaders from around the world for a speech
here near Washington, at Quantico, which was a massive national
security risk, just so they could give political speeches about
grooming and about using the military against the enemy within--pulling
these decorated and seasoned men and women from core jobs, literally
around the world, of protecting America against our adversaries on the
frontlines, to be props for a highly political speech.
In unprecedented decisions in modern times, the President has
federalized the National Guards from California, from Illinois, and
from Oregon over the objections of Governors and has deployed them into
cities over the objections of mayors who say: We can deal with the
challenges of crime. If you want to send us Federal resources, we would
welcome your sending us additional Federal law enforcement, like the
ATF and the FBI.
This administration also mobilized the Marines to go into Los
Angeles. All of this takes away our military from
[[Page S7924]]
their central missions and training for partisan political ends.
This brings us to a second key pillar of our national security--the
best trained and equipped military in the world.
Secretary Hegseth, at the beginning of this year, supported a full-
year continuing resolution for the Department of Defense for the first
time ever. Senator McConnell and I, as the chair and ranking member of
the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, were struck at how much harm
that does. We are on the verge of doing it again for a terrible second
year.
Ask any senior military leader. It makes it impossible to plan, and
nothing requires more stable, certain long-term funding than designing
and building the next generation of fighter aircraft, building and
deploying nuclear-powered submarines, recruiting and training the
world's best military and then equipping them with things on land, air,
and sea that make them the most lethal Armed Forces on Earth. We can't
do that if Secretary Hegseth continues to support full-year continuing
resolutions.
It is also important that our warfighters be respected because they
know they have the support engagement of the American people on
difficult and dangerous missions--something that is lacking when they
refuse to fully brief, support, and engage the Senate of the United
States--a challenge that is happening right now.
We need a plan, we need preparation, and we need clarity to Congress
about what is going on in the Caribbean and what preparations are being
made with regard to Venezuela.
I have no objection to the idea that we need to work together to
strengthen the interdiction of drugs coming to the United States, but
this body, given the Constitution and our role, deserves to be
consulted and included so that we can build consensus, common
agreement, to support a plan of action so that our warfighters, the men
and women of our Armed Forces, know we have their backs. That is the
best way to send them into harm's way.
All of this is built on another of President Trump's broken promises.
He ran on lowering costs, making America healthy again, and avoiding
new foreign wars. On the campaign trail, I often heard that was one of
his most popular promises.
Since then, the threats to start new wars with friends and allies and
foes alike have been dizzying--Canada, Mexico, Denmark, Panama,
Colombia, and Nigeria. Our President tosses these things off casually,
but in a meeting I had earlier in his term with leaders from Denmark
and Greenland, they were alarmed, frightened, and concerned about how a
trusted NATO ally could threaten to seize Greenland--a seemingly casual
remark that was then reinforced and repeated over and over.
I am worried that we are now sleepwalking into a war with Venezuela
and an effort to overthrow Maduro, all while leaving the People's
Republic of China free rein to run roughshod over the Indo-Pacific,
while they massively increase the scope and scale of their aggression.
Let's be clear. There is no love lost between me and Maduro--a brutal
dictator--but we should have clarity about how and why we might use our
Armed Forces.
Last, a key pillar to our security for the last eight decades, since
the end of the Second World War, has been a remarkable global network
of powerful alliances. I have long said that one of our key advantages
over the People's Republic of China is our network of trusted and deep
alliances.
China has nervous neighbors and client states. President Trump is
putting all of that at risk. Our adversaries are increasingly aligning.
Russians are using Iranian drones, North Korean soldiers, and Chinese
technology and funding to help carry out their brutal war of aggression
in Ukraine. Meanwhile, our alliances are fraying.
As I mentioned, the President threatened to invade NATO allies like
Canada and Denmark and kicked President Volodymyr Zelenskyy out of the
Oval Office but rolled out the red carpet for Vladimir Putin; held up
crucial arms deliveries and sales to nations that rely on us for their
security--from Ukraine to Taiwan; and put at risk our commitment to
article 5 and to collective security that have been at the heart of
NATO since its founding.
The tariff deals our President has imposed on some of our closest and
most trusted allies--allies that have free-trade agreements with us,
like South Korea--have put them profoundly on the back foot as they
look and wonder whether they can count on our security agreements.
All of this means that over the past year, President Trump has
steadily hacked away at the pillars of our military that protect our
Nation, making it less stable, making it more likely that the trust and
confidence the American people have in our warfighters will crumble.
This is a critical and concerning, even alarming picture from which
he is trying to distract us.
The Nation we had a year ago was strong, secure, and moving in a
positive direction. Today, I am gravely concerned about the constant
distraction and the threats and moves against our allies, our partners,
and the ways in which we have undermined our warfighters.
So what should we do from here? Pass our bipartisan appropriations
bills. Put on this floor, pass, and get to the President the Defense
appropriations bill that I have worked so hard on this year and all the
other appropriations bills and move us out of this cycle of
rescissions, reconciliation, and continuing resolutions and back to
reliable, steady, bipartisan support. Strengthen our alliances.
Reassure our nervous partners. End this recklessness with tariffs that
is an on again-off again regime where these taxes, these tariffs, add
to Americans' bottom line in a disastrous way and destabilize trust and
confidence from our partners and refocus on training and preparing for
real wars, not culture wars. This is how we keep our Nation safe.
Just a few days ago, I was up in my father's hometown of Boston and
drove through Lexington and Concord, where 250 years ago this year, our
forefathers took up arms against the Crown and began what was a long-
shot fight, a revolution for liberty and independence for our Nation.
We have to remember all who have taken up arms and served our Nation.
I am from a family of veterans. My brother, my sister-in-law, my
father, my uncles, my great-great-grandfather, and back to the
Revolution, members of my family have stepped forward and served.
For all who have done the same, who have signed on the dotted line,
up to and including their lives, committed their willingness to
sacrifice, we owe them nothing less than the full measure of devotion
that says we will support them. That support requires engagement and
trust from this body, engagement and trust with our allies, and the
support that our service men and women deserve.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3072
Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, President Trump promised Americans
during his campaign that, if elected, he would lower costs on day one,
and Americans trusted him to do so. Yet all President Trump has done
from day one of his Presidency until now has been to raise costs for
our families and our businesses.
One of the most outrageous examples of this is with his erratic
blanket tariffs that he has imposed on our allies and trade partners,
as you have heard from my colleague from Delaware talking about.
But let me be clear. These tariffs for the American public are
nothing but taxes. Tariffs are taxes. That is what the American people
are seeing every single day, and many of them are seeing it first thing
in the morning when they have their cup of coffee.
This is an unacceptable burden to be putting on the American people,
and the tools this administration is using to do so are clearly
unconstitutional. They are actually being heard in the Supreme Court
today.
The good news is, Congress has the authority to do something about
it. There is bipartisan, bicameral agreement that not only can we act,
but we must. That is why I am here today to pass the bill that I wrote
with Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. It is called the No Coffee Tax Act.
It is a very simple bill. It would roll back President Trump's tax on
our coffee.
[[Page S7925]]
Let me explain why this is important. The United States is the
largest importer of coffee in the world. Why? Because even though we
all love our morning coffee, the United States does not have the
natural climate or growing conditions needed to produce the amounts of
coffee Americans consume every day. Ninety-nine percent of the coffee
in this country comes from another country.
Until President Trump took office, Americans had never paid broad
tariffs on coffee imports, but now this President has decided to
recklessly impose these blanket tariffs on our top sources for coffee--
Brazil at 50 percent, and other main coffee producers, like Vietnam,
Indonesia, Colombia, and Ethiopia, are being tariffed at outrageous
rates.
I don't need to tell you what that has meant for Americans because we
have all felt it every single day. I am hearing it from my coffee
roasters and wholesalers in Nevada who have been forced to raise their
prices to keep up with these tariffs. That is filtering down to local
coffee shops--our small businesses--that are in turn having to raise
their prices on consumers.
The price of a cup of coffee has skyrocketed nearly 40 percent since
last year--40 percent. This is happening all over the country. And it
is not just businesses where coffee is their main product; restaurants
that serve breakfast are being impacted as well. This is what these
irresponsible tariffs have done to America, because, as I have said,
tariffs are taxes.
Now, I know that responsible, targeted tariffs on our adversaries can
be good for American workers and our national security. There is a
smart way to do this, however. Taxing our coffee and raising prices for
Americans isn't it.
The bipartisan, bicameral bill Senator Paul and I introduced would
bring coffee tariffs back to the level they were at before President
Trump took office--zero percent.
The Senate has already passed legislation supported by both Democrats
and Republicans to repeal President Trump's tariffs on Canada and
Brazil as well as his global tariffs on the rest of our trading
partners. The No Coffee Tax Act is equally important to the American
public. Prices are already too high in this country. Getting rid of
this unnecessary coffee tax will make Americans' lives and their
mornings just a little bit easier.
For that reason, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill, the No Coffee
Tax Act, which is at the desk; 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 an objection?
The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I rise in
opposition to S. 3072, the No Coffee Tax Act.
The bill seeks to exempt from the President's IEEPA tariffs only a
single commodity--coffee.
I agree with my colleagues that tariffs generally should be targeted
as much as possible to avoid harm to Americans.
We also should consider more exemptions to address the harms arising
from potential unintended consequences, including exemptions for
unavailable natural resources. The administration agrees.
The very recent trade deals with Cambodia and Malaysia explicitly
exempt coffee and some other mostly unavailable natural resources from
the reciprocal tariffs. By all accounts, the administration is working
to identify similar exemptions in other active trade negotiations. I
strongly encourage the President to pursue productive courses of
engagement with U.S. stakeholders in doing so.
Voting for one-off exemptions on the Senate floor in isolation of a
larger negotiation strategy and broader stakeholder concerns, like S.
3072 asks us to do so now, does not facilitate a predictable process
for our negotiators or for any broader segment of the stakeholder
engagement.
Therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. CRAPO. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I have a lot of respect for my
colleague from Idaho, and I appreciate his comments. I respectfully
disagree.
I do think that we have to consider, as the negotiations are taking
place, as my colleague talked about the administration is engaging in--
how long will that take? I know the USMCA took at least 2 to 3 years.
That was just two countries--Mexico and Canada--that we were trying to
negotiate with.
While this administration goes through this indiscriminate
negotiation without any involvement from Congress, what am I to tell my
businesses back home? Those businesses, those coffee shops that closed,
those individual breakfast restaurants that are there that are passing
off the costs to the consumer--how long do they have to wait until they
get an answer from this administration?
That is why this commodity, this particular product--there had never
been a tariff on it before because 99 percent of the coffee that we
consume comes from out of the country. So it really is having a
devastating impact on our small businesses. And they really shouldn't
use this leverage in a negotiation tactic for this reason.
I appreciate the comments, however, from my colleague from Idaho.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
____________________