[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 118 (Monday, July 20, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Page S4149]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Bipartisanship
Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the basic duty
we all took an oath to carry out--and whether we are living up to it.
The U.S. Senate was never designed to be easy. It was designed to be
deliberate, to force people who disagree to sit in the same room and
work something out anyway. That only works if everyone here still
believes in the underlying premise that we were sent to govern no
matter who is the President. The goal is not to defeat the other side
for its own sake but to do the hard, unglamourous work of running this
country together, in good faith, even when we would rather not.
Americans did not send Republicans and Democrats to Washington
expecting us to agree on everything. In fact, my constituents would be
very concerned if we did. They sent us here expecting us to take the
job seriously. That means engaging with the substance in front of us,
debating it, amending it, fighting for it on the merits, rather than
reflexively blocking whatever comes to the floor simply because of who
sits in the White House.
Last week, this Chamber fell short. There is a real difference
between principled opposition and blind obstruction, and the American
people can tell which one they are watching. Opposing a policy because
you believe it is wrong for the country is exactly what this
institution is built for. Opposing something simply because you dislike
the President and you are trying to jam him when there is international
conflict is something else entirely, and it corrodes the very system we
are sworn to protect.
I was very troubled to watch every Senate Democrat vote against even
beginning the debate on the National Defense Authorization Act, a bill
that has, historically, enjoyed strong bipartisan backing.
Now, I am not suggesting Members can't or shouldn't oppose the NDAA
when they have genuine concerns; that is a legitimate part of the
process. Voting no is often the easy move around here, and I have done
it myself when I thought it was warranted. But this looked less like
principled opposition and more like reflexive obstruction, a decision
to block the process itself rather than engage with the substance of an
important bill.
I also think of the SAVE America Act when I say this because it is a
case in point. Here is a bill built around a premise that 83 percent of
the American people--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike--
already agree on, that only citizens should decide American elections
and that voters should be able to prove who they are when they cast a
ballot. This is not fringe. This is not one party's obsession. It is
about as close to consensus as the American people get on anything
these days.
And yet it cannot get a real hearing on the merits in this Chamber--
not a real debate, just a wall. That is not principled opposition. That
is the process itself being blocked on a question the country has
largely answered.
Good faith is not a partisan virtue. It doesn't belong to one side of
the aisle or the other. It is the minimum the American people are owed
by everyone who serves here. They are watching to see whether we can
still disagree honestly, argue our positions openly and persuasively,
and still find a way to get the Nation's business done. When we can't,
when the obstruction becomes the default setting instead of the
exception, we are not defending the Constitution. We are quietly
letting it fail.
We are stewards of something bigger than any one bill or any one
election cycle. We are stewards of a system that only survives if the
people who serve in it still believe in doing the work, in doing the
right thing, in doing what the Constitution outlines is our duty to the
American people. That is what Americans expect of us. It is time we
start living up to it every single day, not just when it is politically
convenient.
I yield the floor.
(Mr. ROUNDS assumed the chair.)