[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 81 (Wednesday, May 13, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2250-S2256]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
DIRECTING THE REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES
WITHIN OR AGAINST THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN THAT HAVE NOT BEEN
AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS--Motion To Discharge
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote on a simple
question: Will Congress embrace and exercise its constitutional
responsibility to decide the question of war?
As Madison summarized:
The Constitution supposes, what the History of all
Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of
power most interested in war, and most prone to it. [The
Constitution] has accordingly with studied care, vested the
question of war in the [legislative branch].
With studied care.
The Founders said that no one person, not even the President, should
be able to take this Nation to war.
They would observe that throughout history, Executives were inclined
to commit troops and treasure to battles that made no sense in a
government by and for the people in a democratic republic. So they
stipulated there had to be a debate and a vote here in the legislative
branch, an act of Congress, a declaration of war, or an authorization
by legislation for war. Yet we have had neither. We have had neither.
In the 1973 War Powers Act, there is a third option. It is a
condition in which the United States has been attacked or is under
imminent threat of an attack.
[[Page S2251]]
Some colleagues have said that imminent threat was real, and
therefore the President has 60 days to conduct a war before he is in
violation of the Constitution.
Now, I disagree. Many of us and many experts believe nothing close to
an imminent threat existed that justified that third option--the
President having 60 days to respond without action by Congress. But
many colleagues across the aisle have said: We will give the benefit of
the doubt to the President's contention that there was an imminent
threat, but we will reconsider our position when the 60 days has
expired.
Well, my friends, the 60 days expired on May 1. We are way past that
deadline.
Now the President has a new excuse. He says: Well, we are no longer
conducting acts of war. We are in a cease-fire.
But what matters are the facts on the ground. Are we, in fact--have
we, in fact, suspended all the acts of war? No, we have not. We are
still engaged on a daily basis. The United States is still blockading
Iranian ports. That is an act of war. We are still firing on Iranian
warships. That is an act of war. We are still firing on Iranian
vessels. That is an act of war. Iran is still blockading the Strait of
Hormuz. That is an act of war. They are still firing on U.S. Naval
vessels. That is an act of war. They are still attacking U.S.-flagged
tankers. That is an act of war.
Both sides are engaged in a daily war as defined by international
law. Is it at a somewhat lower level than the bombing campaign? Yes, I
will grant you that. But it is a war by every definition. It has not
ended. Our troops have not been withdrawn.
So here we are. Are we going to honor that oath to the Constitution?
Each and every one of you took that oath. The Constitution is very
clear: War can be conducted by the United States only with
congressional authorization. We are now past that 60 days, so that
excuse, that reason, is gone.
How seriously do you take the Constitution? If you don't take it
seriously, maybe you shouldn't be serving in this Chamber.
It is clear how important that debate is in this Chamber when you
look at the catastrophe that has unfolded with this war of choice.
Catastrophe. Undermined the reformers. Massively strengthened the hard
line--massively. Enriched Russia extensively. We lifted the sanctions
on Russia. They are able to sell their oil at a world price--a world
price that is double what it was before. We have lost men and women in
uniform. We have hundreds that are injured. We are spending $1 to $2
billion a day.
Here at home, there are massive increased costs for the American
family. People keep saying it is $4 for gas now--$1.50 higher than it
was. Well, in Oregon, it is over $5. Diesel is over $6. The cost to a
family in the course of a year at this point is about $2,700 additional
cash out of hand, posttax dollars--gone.
When energy goes up, everything goes up. Our agricultural community
is looking at the increased cost for fertilizer on top of the chaos of
the tariffs affecting their inputs and their outputs. The inflation
index is way up--3.8 percent last month, which is the highest year-
over-year in 3 years, and more is coming.
We have undermined our alliances. We said to the Europeans: We don't
need you.
President Trump said: We do not need you. Then he said: Please,
please come and help.
They said: This war you have embarked on is unwise. You did not ask
us for help. You did not consult with us beforehand. This is your
choice. It is a big mistake. And, no, we are not going to partner in
this massive catastrophe.
The enriched uranium is still buried deep underground. There is a
path on the uranium question. The path will look something like this:
Iran will agree not to enrich for 5 years or so. That would be face-
saving for the United States of America. But then they will be free to
enrich to a low level, protecting and defending their sovereignty, with
international inspections. The enriched uranium--60 percent--they will
be in agreement that will be moved to Russia or somewhere else.
Those three features--all part of the JCPOA, the agreement that was
reached through diplomacy rather than war, the agreement that President
Trump tore up in his first administration and created an expanded
pathway to more enriched uranium in Iran because he tore up the
agreement.
So costs at home, deaths of servicemembers, cost to the Treasury,
undermining alliances, enriching Russia, failing to retrieve uranium--
mistake after mistake after mistake. That is why the Founders said that
a President by himself should not be able to go to war and wrote a
Constitution that we each have pledged ourselves to. We are a
democratic republic, not an authoritarian power--authoritarian power,
the President or the Chief Executive, the dictator, whatever you want
to call him.
But we have a responsibility, and today, we will test whether or not
we honor that oath to the Constitution. Will we?
Option 1, have we done a declaration of war? We have not.
Option 2, have we passed an authorization for the use of military
force? We have not.
Option 3, the President has 60 days when there is an imminent threat.
So colleagues who have asserted that is a legitimate option, I
disagree, but those who have asserted it, 60 days is up.
So will you or will you not honor your constitutional responsibility?
That is the question that will be in the vote today.
Mr. President, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1546(a) and in accordance with
section 601(b) of the International Security Assistance and Arms Export
Control Act, I move to discharge the Committee on Foreign Relations
from further consideration of S.J. Res. 163.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to discharge from the Committee on Foreign
Relations, S.J. Res. 163, a joint resolution to direct the
removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within
or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been
authorized by Congress.
Mr. MERKLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
The majority whip.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor having just heard
the Senator from Oregon is proposing a resolution, a War Powers Act
today, heard him say this was about protecting the Constitution.
What they are doing--the Democrats are doing is not about protecting
the Constitution; it is about obstructing the President of the United
States. That is what is happening here today. That is exactly what
Democrats are trying to do.
Going back to 1973, there have been a total of 17 War Powers Act
votes in Congress. That is when the War Powers became law--1973. There
have been 17 votes in 53 years, and 14 of the 17 votes were from
Democrats aimed specifically at President Trump--53 years; 17; 14 of 17
by the Democrats actively going after President Trump.
Democrats--here they are saying they are protecting the Constitution.
They introduce absolutely zero War Powers Resolutions under President
Obama, and that was despite his strikes in Libya. Democrats introduced
absolutely zero War Powers Resolutions under President Biden despite
his actions in Syria. So we have Libya, Syria, and they say nothing.
This is the eighth vote on Iran this very Congress. We have also had
War Powers Resolutions and votes regarding Cuba and Venezuela.
Well, let's talk about Iran. For nearly 50 years, Iran has waged war
against our Nation. Iran is the world's largest, leading sponsor of
terrorism. They regularly chant ``Death to America.'' Iran has murdered
thousands of Americans, tens of thousands of Iranians, and has tried to
build nuclear weapons.
For decades, American Presidents have pledged that Iran would not get
a nuclear weapon. Only President Trump had the courage and the strength
to keep his word. Earlier this year, President Trump responded with
military precision. Now we are deploying economic pressure as well and
diplomatic pressure.
[[Page S2252]]
Under President Trump, America continues to restore peace through
strength around the world. Today, Iran is losing $500 million a day in
revenue. They are going to lose that much today, yesterday, and they
will again tomorrow.
That is the impact of what the President is doing to Iran right now.
Iran's cash cow of oil exports has collapsed.
By contrast, America is pumping out record amounts of oil and natural
gas.
Iran's economy is on life support. Its leadership has been
eliminated.
Thirteen days ago, President Trump sent a letter to Congress about
the conflict in Iran. The President made it very clear--clear that the
major fighting is halted; clear that the American cease-fire has held
for more than a month, and our Naval blockade is working.
This week, President Trump is meeting with China overseas. Democrats
right here in the Senate want to pull the rug out from under him.
Let's be clear: President Trump has complied with the law. Enforcing
a blockade is not the same as active hostilities under the War Powers
Act. That is the established and binding precedent that governs the
U.S. Senate.
Democrats don't seem to care. Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia said in
January that their goal--the Democrat goal, he said, is to ``flood the
Senate calendar.'' So they want to run out the clock on the Republican
majority.
The Senate has now rejected each and every one of these Democrat
delays. We need to reject this one as well. We should reject it because
it is partisan. We should reject it because it is written by Democrats
to weaken our Commander in Chief. And we should reject it because it
encourages Iran to doubt the resolve of our Nation.
Iran is going to be watching this vote today. China will be watching
this vote. America must continue to show strength and resolve.
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. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The Democratic leader is recognized.
Trump Administration
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, yesterday, Donald Trump told a reporter:
``I don't think about Americans' financial situations.'' I don't think
of anyone.
I repeat: Donald Trump actually said this. He said:
``I don't think about Americans' financial situations.''
Can you believe it? You wouldn't believe it coming from any other
President. But, sadly, from this President, it smacks of reality. He
says almost anything, and he doesn't care.
Clearly, Donald Trump doesn't care about Americans' financial
situations, considering that, just this morning, we saw wholesale
inflation skyrocket to 6 percent, the highest it has been since
December of 2022--wholesale inflation, 6 percent. As those costs
trickle down to Americans, Americans are going to be paying more and
more and more, and they hate it.
Now, what is Donald Trump thinking about instead? Himself, especially
his new ballroom, at a time when 77 percent--that is 77 percent--of
Americans say that Donald Trump's policies have increased their cost of
living.
Trump and the Senate GOP try to force through a bill that would spend
$1 billion taxpayer dollars on a gilded ballroom and not one penny on
bringing down American costs. Trump may be trying to build a ballroom,
but, clearly, he is living in the theater of the absurd.
Really? Do Americans want a ballroom when wholesale inflation just
hit 6 percent--the highest level in 4 years? Do Americans want a
ballroom when food prices just went up more in April than in any month
in nearly 40 years? Do Americans want a ballroom when the cost of a
gallon of gas has increased a dollar and a half since March?
Of course not.
I would say Trump has completely lost touch with the American people,
but that would assume that Trump was ever in touch with the American
people to begin with. And on this issue, he sure as heck isn't.
Iran
Mr. President, on Iran, Trump was talking about his disastrous Iran
war when he said:
I don't think about Americans' financial situations.
Trump launched this war without a plan, without a clear objective,
and without any thought to how it might affect the American people.
When Hegseth and other Pentagon officials came to testify, at the end
of April, they said this war cost American taxpayers $25 billion. Well,
yesterday, they revised that figure to $29 billion. Trump has forced
American taxpayers to sink at least $29 billion into a war that still
has no end game.
And $29 billion is just the sticker price and doesn't include the
hundreds of additional dollars American families will have to pay this
year just to fill up their tanks. Americans are paying over $4\1/2\ a
gallon at the pump--more than a dollar and a half above what it was
when Trump started this war.
If Senate Republicans care about Americans' financial situations,
which they should, they need to vote for our War Powers Resolution
today to limit Trump's ability to continue this war without
authorization. Senator Merkley will be introducing that War Powers
Resolution, which I am proud to cosponsor, in a little while.
Today's vote will be the Republicans' seventh--seventh--opportunity
to support our resolution to withdraw our troops from hostilities with
Iran and stop the economic fallout from this historic blunder.
Americans' financial situation is dire, and Republicans don't think
about anyone other than Donald Trump.
China
Mr. President, on China, Donald Trump may have no interest in helping
the American people get ahead, but he certainly seems willing to give
China a leg up. We all ought to fear what Donald Trump may concede to
China just so he can claim a headline. Trump has fantasized about $1
trillion in Chinese investments in America that would give the Chinese
a stranglehold on our economy, threaten our supply chains, our economic
independence, and our national security.
This is Trump empowering Xi's ``Made in China'' ambitions--selling
out American manufacturers and workers, giving CCP businesses an edge
in undermining America building the industries of the future here at
home.
He is opening the door. He is saying: China, you come here. Use all
American innovation and technology and everything else; and then send
it back to China, and let China take the lead over America on industry
over industry.
What a disgrace. The American people--American businesses--aren't
going to fall for this bunk.
And then there are many other things we all worry about that Trump
would or could do to weaken American workers, families, and businesses
when he gets outnegotiated by Xi. And that has happened time and time
again.
Here are some of the things that Donald Trump could do that we all
worry about--American workers, American families, American people,
American companies worry about.
Donald Trump could sell out American autoworkers by allowing Chinese
EVs to flood our markets and crowd out domestic manufacturing.
Donald Trump could sell out America on chips and AI, allowing the
sale of our AI chips and semiconductor equipment to China so they can
catch up in the technology race that will define the global economy for
the next decade. This is a clear and present threat, not just to
American jobs but to our national security.
Donald Trump could sell out on fentanyl, failing to use American
leverage to extract real and meaningful concessions from the Chinese
Communist Party to prevent the deadly flow of fentanyl poisoning our
communities. This is an issue I brought up directly with Xi years ago.
We were making some progress. Will Donald Trump sell it out? We all
worry about it.
Donald Trump could sell out Taiwan, whose people want to continue
living in freedom, instead of under the jackboot of the Chinese
Communist Party. Any threat Trump allows Xi Jinping to
[[Page S2253]]
make against the Taiwanese is a threat to the global democracy. It is
also a threat to the global economy, given how many semiconductor chips
are made in Taiwan.
So in all of these things, forget the ``Art of the Deal.'' Trump is
practicing the ``art of the duped.''
Forget the ``art of the deal.'' Donald Trump is practicing the ``art
of the duped.''
Nomination of Kevin Warsh
Mr. President, on Mr. Warsh, Donald Trump has made it clear he will
stop at nothing--nothing--to undermine the independence of the Federal
Reserve at the expense of the American economy and the American people.
As the Senate prepares to vote on Kevin Warsh's confirmation as Fed
chair, Donald Trump has shown no sign he intends to stop his crusade
against an independent Fed.
Trump undermined the central bank with his attempt to oust Lisa Cook
and his sham investigation against Chairman Powell. Those attacks on
the Fed ought to concern everyone who is worried about the cost of
living and interest rates going up.
The more Donald Trump interferes with an independent Fed, the more
chaos he injects into the markets. And the more chaos he injects into
the markets, the more the interest rates go up.
Markets like certainty. Donald Trump doesn't offer that.
With this administration's disastrous war and failed economic agenda
driving up costs, Donald Trump will only seek to exert more pressure on
the Fed to manipulate interest rates to his own political advantage.
Appointing a new Fed Chair amid this chaos and coercion could further
undermine the independence of the Fed.
I urge Senate Republicans to join Democrats in protecting the Fed and
restoring some stability to our economy.
Congressional Review Act
Mr. President, on CRAs, later today, the Senate will have a series of
votes on the Trump administration's undermining of key protections for
the American consumer against predatory corporate practices that raise
costs and limit opportunity.
The CFPB, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, has played a
critical role on the side of people to help them avoid junk fees,
predatory medical debt, and payday lenders who take advantage of people
in need, including military servicemembers.
The Trump administration has chosen to prioritize undermining these
critical protections, and, today, Senate Democrats stand up and say
``enough.''
As someone who helped authorize the CFPB, years ago, I feel strongly
that we cannot let Trump undermine and constrain this vital Agency. So
I thank Senator Warren and so many of my Democratic colleagues for
leading these joint resolutions of disapproval to fight on behalf of
the American people, of the American consumer.
The joint resolution of disapproval that I am leading is against the
Trump administration's decision to reverse CFPB protections on mortgage
lending called ``contract for deed'' transactions, that without the
proper guardrails can be predatory to people trying to live the
American dream in purchasing a home.
For millions of Americans who can't access a traditional mortgage, a
contract for deed can seem like a lifeline, but all too often these
arrangements are traps. The buyer takes on every obligation of home
ownership immediately--taxes, repairs, risk--but doesn't receive the
deed until they have paid every last dollar. You miss a single payment,
and you can lose everything--no equity, no recourse, evicted like a
tenant.
Over 200,000 New Yorkers are in these arrangements right now.
The CFPB has heard reports of many unfair, deceptive, and abusive
practices in ``contract for deed'' transactions and took action in 2024
to crack down on these practices by applying the same lending
protections to these loans as other consumer and mortgage loans.
What does Trump want to do? Of course, he wants to give a green light
to the bad actors, that they are free to exploit American potential
homeowners in this way by eliminating the protections of CFPB.
Apparently, Trump wasn't paying attention during the 2008 financial
crisis. Giving these predatory lenders free rein only hurts the
American people and the American economy.
I call on all of my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans alike--to
join me in protecting Americans who just want a fair shot at the
American dream.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). The Democratic whip.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that the
following Senators be permitted to speak prior to the scheduled
rollcall vote: Senator Cornyn for up to 10 minutes and Senator Kennedy
for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Food and Drug Administration
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, like many families across America, mine
was touched by the disease of cancer when I was a young man. At the age
of 14, my father died of lung cancer. I was 14; he was 53. Seeing my
dad struggle changed my life. I made it a priority during my time in
Congress to try to spare others from the suffering. We have made
significant progress in reducing smoking over the last several decades.
After I passed legislation banning smoking on airplanes, it turned out
to be a tipping point. And, increasingly, we have seen tobacco and
cigarettes disappear from public spaces.
But Big Tobacco did not dissipate like a cloud of smoke. They
rebranded with flashy new products: vaping and e-cigarettes. And they
followed the same playbook they used to sell Marlboro cigarettes and so
many others: They targeted our children in America.
Tobacco companies have donated generously to Donald Trump's election,
his inauguration, and his ``Great Gatsby'' ballroom with the
expectation of favorable treatment, and President Trump's
administration has delivered for tobacco. Last week, the Food and Drug
Administration did something it had never done before. After pressure
from President Trump, the FDA authorized the first ever flavored e-
cigarettes.
Why is that important? That is what lures the children into this
deadly habit. Scientists, doctors, and parents--even the FDA's own
studies--all acknowledge sweet and fruity flavored e-cigarettes are
responsible for addicting our children. Health experts I have spoken to
believe the true number of high school kids vaping is at least 40
percent--40 percent of our kids vaping--a percentage that teachers,
principals, and students acknowledge. These are not kids vaping to quit
cigarette smoking. These are kids who first became addicted to nicotine
because of flavored vaping.
Why would an administration supposedly committed to making America
healthy again unleash this new wave of addiction on our children?
Formaldehyde, chromium, and heavy metals like nickel and lead all are
present in e-cigarettes. A recent study found that vaping is likely to
cause cancer.
We should not trust Big Tobacco when they promise they won't market
to kids. We know better.
Then, on Friday, the Food and Drug Administration granted a free pass
to scores of illegal vapes, permitting them to stay on the market
without having met the law's requirement that they first prove to the
FDA that their product is ``appropriate for the protection of public
health.'' They didn't try to do it because they can't do that; they
can't prove it.
But even that gift to vaping and cigarette titans like Altria and R.
J. Reynolds was not enough to spare the Commissioner of the Food and
Drug Administration. Yesterday, President Trump canned him, forced his
resignation. Dr. Makary is gone for his resistance to this expansion of
vaping in the high schools of America.
What a disgraceful display in Washington. The President wants yes-men
no matter the consequences, even if it harms our children.
While I did not agree on everything that Dr. Makary did, I
appreciated his commitment and focus on protecting kids from Big
Tobacco.
Whether it is for drugs, medical devices, or tobacco products, it is
never a good idea for the President and the White House to pressure
regulators to approve applications. That is a recipe for deadly
consequences.
As the President's whims have created dangerous vacancies now at the
[[Page S2254]]
Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control, my
Republican colleagues should have the nerve and fortitude to call out
this alarming, unacceptable, and dangerous behavior and treatment of
our children.
American Cures Act
Mr. President, on a separate topic, every family, like my own, has
wrestled with a dangerous medical condition. When you or a loved one
receive a diagnosis, there is only one question on your mind: Is there
a cure? Is there a treatment? Often, thank God, the answer is yes.
America's world-class medical researchers and institutions have
pushed the boundaries of science and achieved so many important and
lifesaving breakthroughs. Medical researchers have turned terminal
illness into treatable conditions in many instances--from HIV and AIDS,
to heart disease, to many types of cancer--and they have developed
treatments that have given patients what they desire the most: more
time with their loved ones.
This work is primarily supported by the National Institutes of
Health, or NIH. It is not only the Nation's premier medical research
agency; it is the world's premier medical research agency.
Today, the budget of the National Institutes of Health is nearly $50
billion. The vast majority of their research is competitively awarded
to scientists, research institutions, and small businesses in every
State across the Nation. Last year, Illinois hospitals and universities
received more than $1.2 billion in NIH funding.
What do we have to show for this investment? Well, thanks to NIH
research, cancer deaths have declined by 34 percent between 1991 and
2022, and death from heart disease and stroke fell by 78 percent
between 1968 and 2013. Medical research works. Because of NIH funding,
we are on the verge of curing--yes, curing--sickle cell disease.
Consider this: Between 2010 and 2016, the FDA approved more than 200
new drugs and treatments. Every single one of them benefitted from NIH
research funding--money well spent.
Congress has long recognized the importance of NIH, which is why we,
on a bipartisan basis, provided NIH with $19 billion in additional
funding over the past decade, a 60-percent increase. I was part of that
effort, and I am proud to announce that it was bipartisan from the
start. Senator Roy Blunt, a Republican from Missouri, was chairman of
the key Appropriations subcommittee. Senator Patty Murray, who is the
ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, was a leader in this
field. Senator Susan Collins did remarkable work in the same area. It
has been bipartisan from the start. And working together as a team, we
have achieved an amazing investment in medical research.
However, thousands of chronic diseases still need treatments, causing
millions of families to suffer. These families are depending on us to
support NIH in groundbreaking research today. So, this week, I have
reintroduced the American Cures Act, which would provide our top
medical research agencies with 5 percent real funding growth every
year. My bill would ensure that the United States remains at the
forefront of new treatments and would provide researchers with the
strong, stable funding they need to continue their lifesaving work.
This legislation is more important than ever since we currently have
a new administration that seems hell-bent on dismantling America's
medical research infrastructure. No nation has ever made such a
significant investment in science as the United States. No nation's
scientists have ever done more to improve the quality of life on Earth.
Through government support for scientific research, we have split the
atom, defeated polio, and mapped the human genome.
American leadership comes with the responsibility to continue to move
forward, to never be satisfied when there are those suffering with
sickness, and to push the boundaries of what is possible. Let's pass
the American Cures Act on a bipartisan basis and give families facing
terrible illnesses today the hope of treatment and cures tomorrow.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Waiving Quorum Call
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the
mandatory quorum call with respect to the motion to proceed to Calendar
No. 296, S. Res. 526.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Water Assurance and Treaty Enforcement for the Rio Grande Farmers Act
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, eight decades ago, the United States and
Mexico signed an agreement now known as the 1944 Water Treaty to govern
the sharing of waters in the Colorado River and the Rio Grande.
According to this treaty, the United States is required to deliver 1.5
million acre-feet, or just under 500,000 gallons, of water from the
Colorado River to Mexico each year. Similarly, Mexico is obligated to
deliver 1.75 million acre-feet to the United States from the Rio Grande
River every 5 years.
And while the United States has dutifully held up its end of the
bargain, Mexico has been delinquent on repeated occasions. Now, Mexico
is hundreds of thousands of acre-feet behind in their required water
deliveries. In the most recent cycle, which ended in October of last
year, Mexico had delivered less than half of the water it was obligated
to deliver under the terms of the treaty. Furthermore, Mexico has not
been consistent in their water delivery, sometimes waiting until the
very end of the 5-year period to deliver a substantial amount of water
in an attempt, ostensibly, to catch up.
This uncertainty in and of itself has made life difficult, you can
imagine, for the more than 400,000 farmers and ranchers who call Texas
home. Imagine trying to grow crops not knowing whether you are going to
have any water for as long as 4 years, only to receive a huge lump sum
at the end of year 5. It just doesn't work out. But this is a very real
dilemma faced by many of my constituents in South Texas.
Water deliveries from Mexico are vital to irrigation farming and
municipal use in the Rio Grande Valley, helping generate billions in
economic productivity for the region. Water shortages created by
Mexico's failure to follow this treaty have wreaked havoc on the
ability of farmers and ranchers to plan and to tend their crops, which
has, in turn, had a terrible economic cost on our entire State. In
2024, the Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers, which ran the only sugarcane
mill in Texas, announced they were forced to close operations after
more than 51 years because of these water shortages. Five hundred
American jobs were lost as a result.
If Mexico continues to fail to live up to the treaty, more and more
farmers and ranchers and other producers will face the same fate. Many
growers will potentially default on their financing, and they will be
unable to secure any additional financing for future crops without the
ability to plan on future water deliveries. Imagine running a bank that
offers credit to farmers in the community. If you know the farmer will
not be able to access the water they need in order to grow their crops
and have a profitable business, obviously that makes it a much riskier
bet to offer them a line of credit or a loan.
Further delay of water deliveries could result in bankruptcies, land
auctions, more lost jobs, supply chain disruptions, and higher prices
at the grocery store for Americans around the country.
I am grateful to Secretary Rubio--the Secretary of State--and
Secretary Rollins of the U.S. Department of Agriculture for their
leadership on this issue and for their willingness to engage with
Mexico and indeed put pressure on them to hold up their end of the
bargain.
But South Texas farmers cannot wait. They have already suffered too
much from the draught caused by Mexico's failure to live up to its
obligations.
The ``carrot'' approach is clearly not working, so now it is time to
bring out the ``sticks.'' For this reason, I am introducing legislation
called the Water Assurance and Treaty Enforcement for Rio Grande
Farmers--or WATER for Farmers--Act, which will impose penalties in the
form of tariffs on Mexico if they continue in their delinquency.
This bill will establish annual benchmarks that Mexico must meet in
order to be considered compliant with the 1944 Water Treaty. These
annual benchmarks will help ensure that water deliveries are
predictable for the farmers
[[Page S2255]]
in South Texas. Waiting until the end of a 5-year treaty period to
deliver water is neither realistic nor acceptable and certainly what
anybody contemplated when this treaty was enacted.
This bill would also direct the Secretary of State, in consultation
with the U.S. Commissioner of the International Boundary and Water
Commission and the Secretary of Agriculture, to determine each year if
Mexico has met the requirements of these benchmarks. If Mexico does
not, this legislation directs the U.S. Trade Representative to impose
tariffs on the shortfalls accumulated at the end of each year.
While this may seem like an extraordinary measure, Mexico has had
ample time to make things right. As I said, we have tried ``carrots.''
Those don't work, so now it is time for the ``sticks.''
By imposing severe tariffs on Mexico, I hope they will pick up the
pace and begin delivering the water they are already committed to
delivering so that South Texas farmers and ranchers will have the
predictability they need.
South Texans and the agricultural community there are counting on us
to ensure that Mexico complies with this treaty that they agreed to way
back in 1944.
I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this legislation, and I
will not give up on this matter until the farmers in Texas are made
whole.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
S. Res. 526
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in a few minutes, we are going to be
voting on S. Res. 526, and I wanted to spend a few moments explaining
what my resolution would do.
First, it is a resolution; it is not a bill. This resolution will
only affect the U.S. Senate. It will not affect the U.S. House of
Representatives.
Very simply, this is what my resolution would do. When we shut down
the government--and by that, I mean, of course, when Congress, House
and Senate, refuses to provide funding for an Agency in government and
in some cases, all of government, and those Agencies or all of
government, as the case may be, have to shut down, that means that
Federal employees for the most part aren't being paid.
My resolution would require--or stipulate, rather, that Senators
wouldn't be paid either. It is called shared sacrifice.
Now, I want to be clear so my colleagues understand exactly what this
resolution would do because I have worked hard to get the votes to pass
this, and I have had to make a few accommodations.
First, a Senator would not lose his or her salary. The money would be
escrowed. The Senator's salary just would not be available to that
Senator while we are in a shutdown, but once the shutdown is over, you
will get your money.
No. 2, again, to repeat, this bill will not apply to the House of
Representatives. It will only apply to the U.S. Senate. The House can
take care of its own business.
Because of the 27th Amendment and in order for my resolution to be
constitutional, the resolution will not take effect until the day after
the midterm elections. The 27th Amendment provides pretty clearly that
our compensation as Members of the Senate--and the House, for that
matter, although this resolution doesn't apply to the House--can't be
changed until after an election, and the soonest election, of course,
is midterms.
If I could, if I were King for a day--I am not. I don't aspire to be.
But if I were, I would make this resolution effective immediately
because I am very concerned--I hope I am wrong. If I am wrong, I will
apologize. I am very concerned that my Senate colleagues on the
Democratic side are going to try to shut down the government yet again
right before the election to try to create chaos to affect the midterm
elections. If I am wrong in that prediction, I will come here and
apologize to every Senator by name. So if I could, I would make this
resolution apply immediately.
Frankly, if I were also King for a day and I wanted to stop
government shutdowns, I would do more than this. I would do two things.
I would say that if government shuts down, a Senator loses his pay. It
is not escrowed and you get it back later; you just don't get your pay.
I would also say that you can't leave Washington; you can't go home.
If you make people forfeit their pay and tell them they can't leave
Washington, we won't have any more shutdowns, and everybody in this
body knows that. But I can't pass that. I would if I could, but I
can't.
So to repeat one more time, all my resolution would do would say: If
we choose to shut down government, you are not going to be paid. You
will get your money later, but while we are in a shutdown, you are not
going to be paid.
This is about shared sacrifice. I mean, what we have done this year
in terms of keeping government open--last October--I looked it up
before I came to the floor--last October, we shut down government for
43 days. That is the longest shutdown in history. We had FBI agents,
national park rangers, CDC scientists, our staff here in Congress--
nobody was getting paid. Then 3 months later, after we finally got out
of that 43-day shutdown, we shut down the Department of Homeland
Security. It was shut down for 76 days. This is all in 1 year.
We ought to hide our heads in a bag. It has to stop. Shutting down
government should not be a default solution to our refusal to work out
our issues and our differences.
So that is what my Senate resolution will do. Vote how you want to. I
am not saying this is going to stop all shutdowns. As I say, if I were
King for a day, I know what to pass that will stop them, but maybe this
will help.
So vote for it if you want to. Don't vote for it if you don't want
to. Follow your heart. Be sure and take your brain with you, because
this is about shared sacrifice. This is about putting our money where
our mouths are.
I yield the floor. Thank you for your time and attention.
My work here is done, and I can show myself out.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask that our vote scheduled for 11:30
begin immediately.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Vote on Motion to Discharge
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
discharge S.J. Res. 163.
The yeas and nays were previously ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the
Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Ricketts).
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 118 Leg.]
YEAS--49
Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
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--50
Armstrong
Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fetterman
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NOT VOTING--1
Ricketts
The motion was rejected.
(Mr. BANKS assumed the Chair.)
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schmitt). Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair
lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will
state.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
[[Page S2256]]
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 motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 296, S. Res. 526, a resolution
withholding the pay of Senators if a Government shutdown
occurs.
John Thune, John Kennedy, Pete Ricketts, Marsha
Blackburn, Thom Tillis, Bill Hagerty, Rick Scott of
Florida, John Cornyn, Tim Sheehy, John Barrasso, Joni
Ernst, David McCormick, Steve Daines, Ashley Moody, Jon
Husted, Roger Marshall, John Hoeven.
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
motion to proceed to Calendar No. 296, S. Res. 526, a resolution
withholding the pay of Senators if a Government shutdown occurs, shall
be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the
Senator from Nebraska Mr. Ricketts.
Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Nebraska Mr.
Ricketts would have voted ``yea.''
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 119 Leg.]
YEAS--- 99
Alsobrooks
Armstrong
Baldwin
Banks
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Cantwell
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Fetterman
Fischer
Gallego
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Lee
Lujan
Lummis
Markey
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Merkley
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Reed
Risch
Rosen
Rounds
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schmitt
Schumer
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Sheehy
Slotkin
Smith
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NOT VOTING--- 1
Ricketts
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Armstrong). On this vote, the yeas are 99,
the nays are 0.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The motion was agreed to.
____________________