[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 76 (Thursday, April 30, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2150-S2151]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST

  Mr. SHEEHY. Mr. President, we saw last weekend a terrible event and, 
yet again, a product which is of a self-governing society, which is 
sometimes--we get mad at each other, and sometimes that anger expresses 
itself at our elected leaders in tragic ways--in a third assassination 
attempt against our President at a venue that we also saw President 
Reagan, over 40 years ago, also was attacked at this venue. 
Unfortunately, that attempt was almost successful. Thank God it wasn't.
  Presidents of both parties have been subject to violence throughout 
the course of our Republic, and that is part of what comes with being a 
self-governing nation--is that things can get messy. And, 
unfortunately, that is a reality of democracy and of living in a 
Republic.
  But we don't have to make it easy, and we should be able to host--as 
the most powerful Nation in the history of the world, we should be able 
to have events in our Nation's Capital anchored by our President of 
either party, of Cabinet Members. We should be able to host heads of 
state without the expectation that gunfire will erupt at our places of 
gathering, that our Nation can host other nations here without them 
having to worry about being gunned down at an event that is hosting the 
President of the United States.
  Our State Department issues travel advisories for other countries for 
exactly these reasons, and yet it happens right here in Washington, DC.
  So it is incumbent upon us to make sure we can protect not just our 
own people, but also members of our government who are protecting and 
leading the greatest Nation in the history of the world.
  The President has the statutory authority to make modifications, to 
make additions to Federal facilities, particularly the White House. And 
the ballroom project has long been considered by Presidents of both 
parties throughout the years. And the White House has been modified by 
Democrat and Republican Presidents alike, to make sure that our 
residence for the head of state can be safe, can be efficient, and can 
be a place of honor to host foreign heads of state, as well as our very 
own citizens.
  Unfortunately, recently the district court decided in a partisan 
ruling that the President did not have the authority to do this. This 
is incorrect. The President does have the authority.
  And the events of last weekend reminded us why both parties need to 
be able to have a head of state, an elected President of the United 
States, that can host events in a safe, secure location; that can host 
an appropriate number of people and not have to worry about violence 
erupting.
  The ballroom project, as proposed by President Trump, would create a 
safe and secure location entirely funded by private donations. No 
taxpayer dollars are being spent. At a time when we are worried about 
our national debt, our ballooning debt, and we are trying to explain to 
Americans how we are going to make their lives more affordable, we 
should not be spending their money on a project like this, and we are 
not. This is private donations.
  And, today, I am proposing the unanimous consent of a bill that would 
enshrine the already existing right of this White House--of any 
administration, of any President of either party--to make modifications 
to the Presidential residence. And in this case, modifications that are 
for the express purpose of a safe, secure venue, paid for by private 
donations, not taxpayer dollars.
  And this legislation specifically includes language to ensure no 
donor can receive favorable treatment from any administration or any 
legislative body in exchange for these.
  These are donations from companies who have benefitted from the 
greatest economy in the history of mankind. These are companies who 
recognize they are lucky to be American companies doing business in our 
Nation, and they are giving back to this great Nation by helping ensure 
our head of state can host functions in a safe, secure, and world-class 
venue.
  I ask for support for this bill. I ask for support for the American 
President to be able to host world-class events because we all deserve 
to be safe and secure, and this facility never has been so needed than 
the events last weekend illustrated, but now is the time to do this. I 
hope this passes. I hope my colleagues allow this to pass so we can 
green-light this project to move forward.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of my bill, which is at the desk; I further ask 
that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the 
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid be upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  As the Washington Post has pointed out, this is an all-consuming, 
favorite project of the President. It is a massive, giant ballroom to 
be built on the ruins of the East Wing, the ``People's House.''
  I certainly agree that security for the President is absolutely 
essential, but this project was not conceived as a security project. It 
was conceived as a massive ballroom so large that it turns the White 
House into an auxiliary

[[Page S2151]]

dwelling unit. It is like the big mansion is the ballroom, and you have 
this little, tiny house one-fourth the size that is the White House. 
That is this gilded project the President was undertaking to put his 
Louis XIV ``I am a monarch'' stamp on the President's grounds. But we 
took an oath to a Constitution that doesn't have a monarch, and it 
doesn't have a King, and Trump is not Louis XIV, so I have a number of 
concerns about this.

  First, my colleague mentioned that it is going to be paid for by 
private donations; however, a number of his colleagues have been 
advocating fiercely that it be paid for out of our Treasury.
  Certainly $400 million buys a lot of support for education and 
housing and healthcare--24,000 kids going to Head Start, 52,000 
children being able to benefit from childcare, and the list goes on.
  The argument has been made that this would be a great place for State 
dinners, but we already have a great place for State dinners. We have 
the State Dining Room at the White House that seats 140. We have the 
East Room that seats 200. And State dinners are intimate affairs--
appropriately so--a conversation between leaders of our House and 
Senate and the executive branch, along with the leaders visiting from 
overseas--not a massive ``Let's turn out 1,000 people or more'' because 
of the size of this. Recognize that this is a 3.6 million-cubic-feet 
ballroom--about four times the volume of the White House. So State 
dinners certainly aren't a justification for this.
  When it comes to security--well, the judge that took a look at the 
legality issues found that there wasn't authority for the President--in 
fact, this very bill being proposed by my well-intentioned colleague 
from Montana creates the legal authority that is lacking, and that is 
why it is being proposed--to be able to create that framework that 
makes it possible to overrule the court's ruling. But that judge did 
find that the security work being done below level could proceed 
because that part was related to the President's security.
  This project is also about, in the President's mind, holding 
inaugurations. I am going to tell you that is probably one of the worst 
ideas President Trump has ever come up with--hide away the inauguration 
in a ballroom as opposed to doing it on The Mall.
  I know that President Trump is very sensitive about the fact that a 
whole lot more people attended Obama's inauguration than his 
inauguration, so maybe he wants to see those moved inside to avoid any 
future embarrassment as he ponders whether he is running for a third 
term, which is not allowed under our Constitution. But what this type 
of ballroom does do--it is a massive fundraising scheme--a massive 
fundraising scheme. You can seat 1,000 people at once, all those people 
who make those massive donations and all of their friends, all those 
people who donate to campaigns. Oh, let's invite them to come be at 
this massive ballroom. But that is not a great idea.
  Philip Kennicott put it this way:

       Trump has previously been unable to convince the American 
     public that the White House needs an ornate entertainment 
     venue that would dwarf the historic mansion. Now he seeks to 
     convince them he can't be safe without it. This suggests he 
     plans to leave behind not just a radically transformed White 
     House complex but a different conception of the presidency.

  And what is that conception? That conception is the President has the 
powers of an authoritarian ruler--of a King. They have a fancy name for 
it; it is called a unitary executive. And the President has proceeded 
to utilize 10 different strategies to undermine the checks and balances 
of our Constitution.
  But building this Louis XIV, gilded ballroom for fundraising and to 
symbolize that the President is a King--hell no.
  Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Ohio.

                          ____________________