[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 120 (Wednesday, July 22, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4222-S4224]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Unanimous Consent Request

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, Americans are worried that the money in 
their pockets will not cover the increasing costs of gas and groceries 
and housing or healthcare. Meanwhile, the President of the United 
States, Donald Trump, is worried that the money in Americans' pockets 
doesn't currently have his face or his signature on it.
  You know, in 2020, Congress passed a law to produce new coins to 
celebrate America's 250th anniversary. In that law, we wrote that the 
coins should be emblematic of our 250th anniversary--the U.S. 
semiquincentennial celebration of 250 years of the vision of a 
democratic Republic--of a government by and for the people; of our 
values as a free people, with the rights of free speech and free 
assembly and free expression. Well, certainly, this we know--that the 
symbol of putting a sitting President or leader on a coin is not a 
symbol of a democratic Republic; it is a symbol of an authoritarian 
strongman.
  If we turn the clock back to the year 44 BC, Julius Caesar was 
Emperor and he decided to have a coin with his face on it. He was the 
first to do so. It was a radical departure from Roman tradition, and it 
alarmed the Senate. It was viewed widely as a blatant display of 
personal power--of personal authoritarian power. And if you missed the 
point, on the backside of this coin, it had the words ``dictator 
perpetuo''--``dictator in perpetuity'' or ``dictator forever.'' That is 
what it represents to put your face on a coin.
  Then, at the time our Nation was founded--and, again, we are 
celebrating the 250th anniversary of that vision--King George III put 
his face on a coin, on the silver sixpence, and it was viewed, as it 
was with Julius Caesar and the Emperors who followed him, as an 
expression of authoritarian personal power.
  Does our Constitution provide for an authoritarian structure of 
government, where power flows down from the King to the people? I think 
not. It flows up from the people through elections.
  That is why putting your face on a coin just is absolutely wrong and 
why it violates the very premise of the law that created the permission 
to have this 250th anniversary coin. The design that Trump has come up 
with--that of a fake gold coin with his face on it--violates the law 
that we passed. It is widely out of sync with the values of our Nation. 
It is widely out of sync with our history and our best traditions. So 
these coins should never be made, and, if made, they should never be 
distributed.
  It is part of a long list of this authoritarian, would-be strongman, 
dictator President, who is trying to stamp his name onto every public 
place available.

[[Page S4223]]

He is renaming the Kennedy Center for himself; renaming the U.S. 
Institute of Peace for himself; hanging ``Dear Leader''-sized, North 
Korean-style banners on the sides of the buildings here in Washington, 
DC; putting his face onto passports; putting his face onto the national 
park passes; naming a class of warships after himself; insisting that 
it be his signature, not the Treasury Secretary's signature on the 
currency; planning to build a massive triumphal arch to himself--and 
let's not forget: tearing down the ``People's House''--the East Wing of 
the White House--to build his gold-plated, billion-dollar ballroom 
boondoggle.
  I say to my colleagues, whether they sit to the left of the aisle or 
to the right of the aisle, didn't we take the same oath to the same 
Constitution? Didn't we pledge ourselves to sustaining a democratic 
Republic, not a strongman state?
  So I urge you: Join together--Ds and Rs together--to defend our 
Constitution; to defend the vision of a government by and for the 
people.
  If we want to turn to the opinion of George Washington 250 years ago, 
what was his opinion? He was strongly opposed to having his portrait 
put on coins. Why? Because he considered it a King-like act, completely 
out of sync with the vision of the Nation we were founding.
  Washington's example has endured. It has endured for 250 years until 
now. Well, my colleagues may say that there was one exception--one 
exception in 1926--when there was a coin of George Washington, and 
behind him, there was the outline of a face of President Calvin 
Coolidge, but it wasn't Calvin Coolidge on the coin. It wasn't his 
portrait; he wasn't alone; and you would have to be really 
knowledgeable to know that that outline hanging in the background 
happened to be of Calvin Coolidge.
  Well, this is quite different. This is a full-on, Caesar-style, King 
George III-style, self-ego amplification that just doesn't fit with the 
United States of America. So Congress should immediately pass the 
Change Corruption Act, which I have introduced with Senator Cortez 
Masto, so as to ban all coins from featuring the image or signature of 
the sitting U.S. President or living former Presidents--aimed at the 
principle involved, not aimed simply at President Trump.
  You know, families need foundations to thrive, foundations like 
healthcare, housing, education, and good-paying jobs. What they don't 
need is to have President Trump's face on fake gold Trump bucks. 
Instead of putting his face on our money, like a King, let's ask our 
President to focus on putting money back in the pockets of working 
Americans. Let's honor 250 years of government by and for the people. 
Let's prohibit this Caesar-esque-, King George III-, Louis XIV-style of 
displaying authoritarianism. Let's pass the Change Corruption Act.
  Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule 
XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of my bill, the Change Corruption Act, which is at the 
desk; that the bill be considered read three times and passed; and that 
the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, I have 
been very proud to work with my colleagues and very much want to 
continue to work with my colleagues to make our currency work better 
for all Americans.
  That is why, a year ago this month, Republicans passed the Working 
Families Tax Cut Act. It did exactly what my friend from Oregon just 
asked us for, which is to concentrate on how we can make our currency 
in our country work better for the American people. That is why we 
passed no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security 
benefits--so we can help the very working families who are struggling 
in this economy. Millions of Americans have taken advantage of the 
benefits provided them in the Working Families Tax Cut, but not a 
single Democrat voted for the bill--not one. So, instead of focusing on 
what is on our Nation's currency, I would urge my Democratic colleagues 
to join Republicans and focus on pocketbook issues that impact all 
Americans.
  I might add, interestingly, that I, too, was thinking: Wow. Why would 
we build an arch in Washington, DC, or near Washington, DC? That sounds 
a little French to me, like the Champs-Elysees. I found out that it has 
been planned for years. It wasn't planned by President Trump to self-
aggrandize. It has been planned for years, but nobody built it. Then 
President Trump talks to his friends who are willing to open their 
pocketbooks to do things that haven't been done previously but that 
have been planned for our Nation's Capital.
  When we recognize the risk that we now put our Presidents in when we 
have large events like the National Press Club or, you know, a press 
dinner at the Hilton hotel here in town, where an attacker with guns 
was just about to enter a roomful of elected officials and Cabinet 
Secretaries and the President and the Vice President and their spouses 
and shoot the place up, the President recognizes we have to have a 
secure ballroom that we can use to entertain foreign dignitaries; in 
which to have special events; that has special bulletproof glass that 
is very expensive on the windows; and that has a foundation structure 
that will support all that because it is very heavy.
  The design is so complementary to the White House. The design is very 
much in keeping with the historic facade of the White House.
  It is going to be safer for elected officials and visiting 
dignitaries. It is going to be elegant, and it is going to be befitting 
of the White House campus that it sits on, in celebration of our 250th 
anniversary.
  Come on. Let's quit attacking the person who holds the Office of 
President, every day with every bill, and maybe think about what he is 
doing for the American people, with nontaxpayer money, to make 
Washington, DC, something we can be totally proud of--safe, clean, and 
beautiful.
  And why don't we, as a Congress, focus on ways to make Americans' 
lives better so they can keep more of their own money, so they can 
self-determine how they spend it, so they can maybe buy a house or help 
their kids buy a car or help their kids buy an education. You do that 
by keeping more of their dollars in their own pockets.
  That is what we did last summer with the Working Families Tax Cut 
provision, and we can do it again this year.
  So I would encourage my Democrat colleagues and friends to join us in 
helping the American people instead of obsessing about who is in the 
White House right now.
  So, Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I so enjoy working with my colleague from 
Wyoming. But I did notice that her speech had nothing to do with my 
point that sitting Presidents don't belong on coins because it is an 
authoritarian symbol.
  And I also noticed that her description of the bill passed last year 
involved changing the name of it. Trump called it the Big Beautiful 
Bill. And it became widely ridiculed because it cut nutrition, and it 
cut healthcare to fund tax breaks for the very richest Americans.
  It had nothing to do with working Americans. In fact, when you take 
the impact of the healthcare cuts and the nutrition cuts, the little, 
smallest crumbs on the table that were sprinkled to the less affluent 
Americans don't make up for the cuts to healthcare and nutrition. So 
they come out the losers. It was a ``families lose and megamillionaires 
win'' bill, and I am happy to debate that all day long.
  I realize they renamed it because it was such a horrific attack on 
ordinary people and, quite frankly, an embarrassment.
  So I do support my colleague's vision of fighting for families. But 
to fight for families, we don't need legislation that is ``families 
lose and billionaires win.'' We need legislation that is ``families 
thrive and the affluent, they pay their fair share.'' Their marginal 
tax as a percent of their income is a tiny fraction of what the working 
American pays.
  You know, in any sane system, the richest Americans would pay a 
higher

[[Page S4224]]

percent of their income in taxes, not a lower percent.
  But these are disagreements that I am sure we will continue to 
debate. And I know my colleague is not planning to run for reelection 
and won't be here next year. I am going to miss that a great deal. But 
we still have time and several other things that we are working on 
together, and maybe that is a topic we will switch to in our next 
conversation.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.

                          ____________________