Legislative Session
Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 168, H.R. 5371.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Mr. President, Democrats are grasping at straws these days. The other day, the Democrat leader came to the floor and tried to reboot the notion that the clean CR sitting before us here in the Senate is a partisan CR. Yep. Apparently, a bill with no partisan add- ons, strictly a bill to fund the government, is a partisan bill--only in ``Democratland.''
The Democrat leader, of course, continues to try to push this ludicrous narrative that Republicans--or President Trump--shut down the government.
That is right. The party that demanded nothing and put forward a clean, nonpartisan bill is the party that shut down the government.
And the party that demanded $1.5 trillion to keep the government open--until Friday, until Halloween; that is what their bill will do-- $1.5 trillion in new spending to keep the Federal Government open until Friday.
I wonder if Democrats have seen some of the recent headlines like this one, and I quote: ``Benefits cliff amps up pressure on Senate Democrats'' and ``Largest federal workers union calls for an end to the shutdown, putting pressure on Democrats.''
``Putting pressure on Democrats,'' not Republicans. Now, why? Because Republicans are ready to reopen the government today, and we are not demanding a single thing in exchange. It is the Democrats who are refusing.
In fact, the Democrats latest ploy is--get this--moral outrage that the President isn't stepping in to save Democrats from the consequences of their actions. That is right. Democrats are outraged--outraged--that they are coming face-to-face with the consequences of their decision to shut down the government, and so they are flailing around, blaming President Trump for not stepping in to somehow save the SNAP program from running out of money to pay benefits.
Yes, that is right. The very same people who were content to let the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women Infants and Children-- more commonly known as WIC--run dry are now positioning themselves as crusaders for nutrition benefits.
President Trump did step in to save Democrats from themselves on WIC. He somehow managed to find money to cover the program for the time being. But there is a limit to what he can do.
That is kind of the reason we like to, you know, have the government open. But, apparently, Democrats are still not willing to contemplate allowing the government to function because the SNAP bill that they tried to UC yesterday was not just a cynical political ploy to insulate themselves from the consequences from their own actions, it was also a disturbing signal the Democrats are ready to continue this shutdown, I guess, forever.
Do Democrats have any--any--end date in sight? Are there any consequences bad enough to get Democrats to reopen the government again?
Because things are getting pretty serious here. The shutdown had consequences from day one. But now, 30 days in, the consequences are really stonewalling.
Here are some headlines I think that describe the situation:
``Government shutdown could lead to $14B in lost GDP, CBO reports.''
``Shutdown could close Head Start programs this week, jeopardizing child care.''
``Shutdown crushes small business owners as losses hit billions-- industry leaders beg Congress for `clean CR.' ''
``Ongoing government shutdown threatens holiday travel.''
``National Guard Training Grinds To Halt Amid Shutdown--With No Pay In Sight.''
``U.S. government shutdown: 60,000 aviation safety staff face financial strain as crisis deepens.''
``Largest federal workers union calls for `clean' bill to end shutdown.''
Those are just a sampling of the headlines out there, and they represent the consequences as the Democrat shutdown accelerates.
So when will the Democrats put an end to this? When the economy is ruins? When Federal workers have lost their homes? When housing assistance and small business loans and Head Start and National Guard training are distant memories? I hope the pain of the American people is worth the plaudits the Democrats are getting from their liberal base.
I don't know if listing out the consequences of Democrats' shutdown moves Democrats anymore. I really don't. In fact, more than one Member of their party--way more than one Member of their party--described using the pain of the American people as ``leverage.''
Let me give you an example of some of the things they have been saying, starting with the Democrat leader:
The whip, the No. 2 position among House Democrats, says:
The Senator from New Mexico: Paying our troops ``gives the President more leverage.'' That is a really good reason not to pay the troops, right?
The Senator from Arizona, when asked about it, said: Hey, I would just go back and ``shut it down again.''
The Senator from Delaware:
Very unpleasant if you are a worker who lost their job and are not getting paid.
And, of course, the Senator from Vermont:
It is all about leverage. That is what they are making it all about-- leverage. The question is, When are the American people going to matter more than their leverage?
If there are any Democrats out there who can still see beyond the demands of their far-left base, if there are any Democrats who care about the damage that this shutdown is doing, then I have the bill right there at the desk--a clean, nonpartisan continuing resolution to fund WIC, SNAP, troop pay, air traffic controller pay, farm programs, housing assistance, our national defense, and every single other government priority. We just need five Democrats to show some courage and join the three Democrats who are already with us, and we can get this government open. That is all it takes.
Everybody knows that in the Senate, it takes 60 votes to do anything. Democrats come down here and consistently say that Republicans have control of the Senate, the House, and the White House. The Republicans in the House, Senate, and White House all agree: Open up the government. You can't do that in the Senate unless you have 60 votes, meaning we have to have a few Democrats. We have a few already. We need five Democrats with a backbone, five Democrats with the courage to take on that far-left base and say: We care more about the lives of the American people than about gaining some political leverage.
It just takes five, Mr. President.
Enough is enough. I urge my Democrat colleagues to agree to reopen the Federal Government and to do it today.
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. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. President, this weekend, Americans face a healthcare crisis unprecedented in modern times. Open enrollment begins in just 2 days, and Republicans have spent the entire shutdown with their heads in the sand--a shutdown they caused because they would not negotiate with Democrats.
Republicans are pretending that the ACA premium crisis does not exist. They should go ask families who are getting their insurance premium increases today, tomorrow, Saturday.
Republicans have brought Americans to the brink of financial disaster. They have ignored a growing catastrophe. We have demanded they act, and they have refused.
The shutdown is on them. The healthcare crisis is on them. And the American people will see so this weekend as the bills start coming in.
To show the breadth, depth, and severity of the ACA crisis, if the ACA enhanced premium tax credits expire, over 20 million Americans will see their premiums more than double on average. That is a 114-percent increase according to KFF. That is a fact.
Four million people on ACA plans will lose healthcare coverage entirely if these tax credits don't get extended. That is also a fact.
If these enhanced tax credits expire, the people hurt, by far, the most--the people hurt the most--will be working families, people who live paycheck to paycheck, small businesses owners, farmers, ranchers, and older Americans. They are all going to be sitting at their kitchen tables this Friday night or Sunday evening and saying: How the heck are we going to pay these bills? We can't afford $4,000 a year more for health insurance.
Do my kids get no healthcare? Do we have to lose the doctors who have been treating us for a long time? Do we have to travel 50 or 100 miles to go to a clinic or a hospital?
Are my parents going to be kicked out of their nursing home, and I will have no place to put them?
This is a fact. People are hurt badly--probably more than by any other healthcare crisis we have had.
Americans who work more than one job, and Americans who live in red States will all be hurt. That is a fact.
And here is another one: This crisis didn't come out of the blue. It is not that people are just learning about it. It is not that Senators are just learning about it this week.
Democrats have demanded that Republican leaders negotiate with us about this crisis since the summer. Republicans said no. They put together a partisan bill that did nothing to improve the healthcare crisis, that had no input from Democrats, and said: Take it or leave it.
Republicans had more than three chances this year to vote on extending these ACA premium tax credits--as far back as February. What did Republicans say? No, no, and no.
Today, Republicans still insist they will not move a muscle to fix ACA premiums until it is too late. They have spent the entire shutdown avoiding talking about healthcare. When that didn't work, they resorted to lying--just making up total lies--about who gets the healthcare and who doesn't.
As they trigger a healthcare crisis, they are also now triggering a hunger crisis. Trump is doing that by halting SNAP benefits and ordering his own Department of Agriculture to rip its own contingency plan.
The money is there--over $6 billion in emergency funds that could keep SNAP going--and Trump has said: Don't spend a dime. We want to use hungry people as hostages in this crisis.
Trump is a vindictive politician and a heartless man.
Meanwhile, here in the Senate, this is still Leader Thune's position on the ACA: Let's deal with this house fire later.
But the house is on fire. Republicans are living in a fantasy, pretending as if the issue will fix itself.
Starting November 1, so many Americans are going to have to make choices. Do they give up their healthcare? Do they have to take a plan that has many higher deductibles and copays, with different doctors and different hospitals, and watch their families suffer when they are sick?
That is what it reality looks like for people back home. Yet our Republican colleagues do nothing.
In Louisiana, the average 60-year-old couple, making $85,000 a year, in a middle-tier plan, will see their premiums increase by $25,700. That is right. How does that family come up with $25,000?
People in their fifties are looking for their retirement. What are they going to do?
In South Dakota, that same couple on the same plan would see an average increase of $26,000. In Florida, it is an annual increase of $27,000.
Republicans have brought the American people to the brink. Republicans have refused to do anything. They have sat on their hands and have stuck their heads in the sand. Now families--millions of families--from one end of America to the other--mostly, actually, in red States--face the specter of financial disaster because, when healthcare costs go up, more people lose coverage, more people get sick, and more people die. Republicans just don't seem to care.
Now, Mr. President, on the China deal, in the middle of the second longest government shutdown in American history, Donald Trump left the country and traveled all the way to Asia to meet President Xi. And what did he do? He bowed down to President Xi. China has called Donald Trump's bluff, and Donald Trump has folded, leaving American families and farmers and small businesses to deal with the wreckage from his blunders, from his erratic on-again, off-again tariff policies.
Americans beware: Trump will spend the next few days trying to spin the so-called agreement as a win for America, but that is total bull. Don't believe Trump. He has folded to China. Donald Trump caved to China in Busan. The so-called deal has left us no better off than we were before Donald Trump's trade war began. If anything, things are worse. Prices have gone up. China has agreed to nothing of substance that will improve trade between our nations.
On soybeans, this has been a total capitulation. Donald Trump's trade war has decimated soybean farmers in the United States, and, this year, he is saying: Isn't it great? They will buy half the soybeans--China will--that they bought last year.
So many farmers are suffering, and then so many other farmers are seeing that their Chinese customers to whom they sold soybeans are now making deals in Argentina and Brazil. And those are not 1-year deals. Those are going to be 3-, 4-, 5-year deals. So the customers that Americans had are not coming back.
China is still buying fewer soybeans this year from the United States than before China's trade war. How is that a win for soybean farmers?
Trump's delusion is unbelievable. He starts a trade war; creates a giant mess for businesses, consumers, and soybean farmers; and then he celebrates for trying to clean up the very mess he created in the first place.
Don't believe Trump. Trump has folded on China. Don't believe his BS. He has created the mess. Now he is trying to clean up the mess, and he says: Don't I deserve 17 pats on the back?
Americans have heard this old song and dance from China and Trump before. I have long pushed Presidents of both parties to take tougher action on China for its rapacious trade policies that have harmed American workers, American businesses. None--absolutely none--of the fundamental abuses by China are addressed in this agreement. Trump didn't even bother talking about China's abuses against American manufacturing.
He secured no clear actions from China to address their funneling of chemicals that fuels America's fentanyl crisis. In other words, he says we are doing something on fentanyl. There is nothing specific--a lot of lip service. And the fentanyl that China makes--those precursor chemicals that go to Mexico and then are made into fentanyl and are flooding across our borders? There is nothing specific, nothing real-- more bunk.
Maybe, most egregiously--and this one I know many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are furious about--he is the first President in decades to walk back export controls that are vital for our national security, essentially handing China vital chips necessary for technologies like AI.
Where are our China hawks from the Republican side? I hope they are going to speak up and decry this abdication. America is handing out-- Trump is handing out--American-made technology like it is Halloween candy but straight into the hands of our biggest rival.
In the past, China has been desperate to get this technology, but now they don't have to worry--Trump is just giving it away. With these chips that China now doesn't have and can't make themselves, China will dominate AI in a few years, and it will have severe consequences for America and for the world.
When it comes to chips, Donald Trump, it is not ``America First''; for you, it is ``China First'' so you can
America will regret the move of sending these chips to China for generations. We will come in second on AI if this continues to happen. They will set the rules of the road, and America's greatness will diminish--all because Trump wanted to claim a false victory and brag that he got a deal with Xi.
The list of Trump's capitulations to China goes on and on and on. For months, Americans have been taking it on the chin, paying higher prices for everything from appliances to Halloween candy and Halloween costumes because of Trump's disastrous trade policy. Now, looking at this agreement, it only begs the question: What was it all for?
Trump had no strategy, no planning, no strategic decision making, and his bumbling has only emboldened President Xi, who must be laughing all the way back to Beijing. You flatter Trump with a few words, and he gives away things that America desperately needs.
When it matters most, when Trump comes face to face with autocrats and dictators, the American people know Donald Trump is all talk and no strength.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
Mr. President, I come to the floor today as the minority leader Chuck Schumer leaves the floor because I saw some very interesting new polling this week about the Schumer shutdown of our government. It actually came, of all places, from CNN--not exactly a Republican-friendly outlet. Let me share what the poll shows.
Since the Schumer shutdown began, approval of Republicans in Congress is up 5 percent. By contrast, Democrats are now at their weakest and lowest position in 20 years.
The American people are clearly paying attention to the damage being wrought on the American people by the Democrats, and the American people are sick and tired of the Democrats' dangerous political games. They resent being used by Democrats as pawns, as leverage. They resent being treated as pieces on a chessboard. Millions resent having their paychecks held back; now it has been a full month.
Americans know who is to blame for the Schumer shutdown. They heard the Democrats loud and clear.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island, just this Tuesday called the shutdown ``the only lever we have.'' People are suffering. To him, it is a lever.
Senator Chris Coons of Delaware said almost the exact same thing last week to a national television audience. He said:
He even admitted that shutdowns are, as he said, an ``unpleasant tool.'' Then he voted for the 13th time yesterday to use the tool to keep the government closed.
Food pantries in Senator Whitehouse's home State of Rhode Island are getting ``slammed.'' Democrats call that leverage. Families in Delaware are making ``backup plans,'' according to the news, just to get groceries. Democrats call that leverage. It is not leverage; it is picking pain--pain for people--for political purposes. It is using hunger as a bargaining chip. Democrats refer to it as unpleasantness.
We are now 30 days into the Schumer shutdown. It is the longest full shutdown in the history of this country. For 30 days, Democrats have chosen leverage over lives, they have chosen politics over paychecks, and they would rather fight President Trump than feed American families.
This weekend, 42 million Americans will lose food assistance. Let me say that again--42 million Americans. That is one in eight; twice as many Americans as are on the failed ObamaCare exchanges, as the minority leader was just talking about, which Democrats are still trying to prop up even though it has failed on its promise to control costs. As the headline in the New York Times on Sunday said, ObamaCare is pricey.
Democrats are putting free healthcare for illegal immigrants ahead of American families, ahead of American seniors, ahead of American veterans, ahead of American soldiers, and ahead of American workers. That is their priority--free healthcare for illegal immigrants.
We have citizens in this country, real people in real pain, and they count on food assistance to put food on the table. Now these families are living in limbo, and their balance is about to hit zero.
So what happens to them next week if the Democrats keep the government shut down, as they voted 13 times to do? And what about the week after that? Families will go hungry because Democrats keep playing this dangerous political game.
Even some Democrats are calling on the Democrat party to change course. Listen to the words of Senator Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada. She was interviewed, actually, yesterday on CNN. She said:
She said:
Senator Cortez Masto is one of the few reasonable Democrats who has been voting for a clean continuing resolution to reopen the government.
Here is the simple truth: Senate Republicans have voted 13 times on a clean, bipartisan continuing resolution to reopen the government. That is 13 votes for funding food assistance, for paying the troops, for paying Federal workers, for paying TSA agents, for paying air traffic controllers, for paying Border Patrol, for paying Capitol Police, who are here and have been working for the last month without pay. Every single time, Senator Schumer and radical Democrats have voted no--voted 13 times against funding food assistance, against paying for our troops, against paying Federal workers, against paying TSA, against paying air traffic controllers, against paying Border Patrol, and against paying the Capitol Police.
Democrats stand here and claim President Trump can fund food assistance on his own? They know what they are asking him to do is against the law.
Democrats are not, in the words of Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon, ``powerless'' to fund that program--$9 billion a month. Democrats had the power 13 times to end the shutdown. They voted no 13 times. The Democrats are the ones who have the power. They are not powerless; they are unwilling to help American families.
The Senate should be funding those programs today. We tried again yesterday. It failed. The clean, bipartisan continuing resolution that is sitting right there on that desk right now could be passed if we get Democrats to vote for it. It funds SNAP. It pays our Federal workers. It pays our troops. It pays TSA agents. It pays air traffic controllers. It pays Border Patrol agents. It pays Capitol Police. It reopens the government, which is what we ought to be doing.
We need five more Democrats to say yes.
The most ironic thing about this, the hypocrisy of it all, is that Democrats had no problem voting for a clean, bipartisan continuing resolution 13 times when Joe Biden was President. What has changed? Donald Trump is in the White House. They are not happy about that, and they are not happy about anybody who voted for him. So now they are more interested in what they describe as leverage than children going hungry in this country.
It is no wonder that Republicans' approval rating has gone up, as the CNN poll shows, and that Democrats' polling has gone down during the Schumer shutdown to the lowest and weakest point in 20 years.
Enough with the politics of pain. It is time to reopen the government, and it is time to feed these vulnerable families.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
Mr. President, I was just checking the Congressional Record. You see, we have a tradition here in the Senate. The tradition is that what we say on the floor is printed and available the next day right at our desk. It is kind of an amazing thing. It goes back to the Congressional Record being the record of the proceedings in this body, and the timely printing of it is part of the history.
I wanted to check and see, based on the statements made by my friend and colleague the Senator from Wyoming, whether the Congressional Record printed yesterday contained the efforts of Democratic Senator Ben Lujan of New Mexico to fund the SNAP program.
Here it is. The page number is S7808 for the beginning of the debate by Senator Lujan, who came to the floor and wanted to make sure that we wouldn't have any gaps in coverage when it came to the SNAP or food stamp plan across America. You see, the reason he did it was that 42 million people--1 out of 8 people in our population--need help putting food on the table.
The SNAP program doesn't sound extremely generous--$6 a day. Imagine if you had to feed yourself with that amount of money each day, the sacrifices you would make.
So Senator Lujan came to the floor. Why was he taking on this responsibility? It is because he is the chairman--or the ranking member now of the subcommittee that funds the SNAP program. He came to the floor to make sure that there would be no gaps in coverage and that people would still get their paychecks starting November 1. I call them paychecks, but they are basically SNAP checks that are a credit for purchases at the store.
Do you know what happened when he came to the floor? There was an objection. The objection came from the Republican leader of the Senate.
The Republican leader of the Senate yesterday, on the floor, page S7808 and 7809--you can find it in the Congressional Record--was asked if he would approve Senator Lujan's effort to protect all the SNAP recipients across the United States, and he said no. He objected. He wanted us to pass another bill. But he had a chance, with Senator Lujan's request, to make sure that there would be no suffering of anybody across America because of the SNAP program, and on page S7808, Senator Thune said no.
Now we have the argument that was made by the Senator from Wyoming that one of the reasons that it cannot be done is it is illegal. Now, that is a real hoot, to use a technical term, as far as I am concerned.
So the Senator from Wyoming said it would be illegal in a government shutdown to feed 16 million kids, 8 million seniors, and 4 million people on disability during the shutdown. Well, the last record shutdown under President Trump, in his first term, went for 35 days, and he kept the SNAP program going.
Was he doing it illegally, I ask the Senator from Wyoming?
I think not.
In fact, the Trump administration, on their own website, acknowledged that they were going to make this payment under the SNAP plan even with the government shut down. They put that on their website, and we have copies of it.
Guess what happened to that assertion on their website. It disappeared. Just a few days ago, it disappeared. So a program they used under Trump's first administration, a program that they said they could follow again under this second Trump administration and second Trump shutdown, disappeared magically from the website.
So, across America, some 42 million people, 12 percent of our population, will not be able to put food on the table because of a decision by the Trump administration not to feed Americans. Of all the priorities, wouldn't you think that keeping our population--the poorest among us, the neediest among us--with food on the table would be the highest priority? Don't you think they could come up with the money for it?
Well, it seems like the President can come up with money for Argentina, when he said Argentina is in a terrible economic situation and he was going to send $20 billion of American tax dollars to Argentina--that was a week or two ago--and then find $20 billion in the private sector to also go to Argentina. There was plenty of money for Argentina but not enough money to pay for the SNAP program.
How can that be? And yet it is the reality.
We have 2 million recipients of SNAP in my home State of Illinois, and we know we can take care of them. The Trump administration is making the choice. They have the resources. They have the authority. They just don't have the political will to take care of the problem.
I was on a radio call-in show in Bloomington, IL, this morning, and we talked about the SNAP program. A lot of people really depend on it. A third of the recipients are kids, another third are disabled, and a third are seniors. They are needy people.
Long before the government shutdown, Congress sent the U.S. Department of Agriculture funds for this purpose. The U.S. Department of Agriculture used these funds, as I mentioned, in Trump's first shutdown, his first decision to not fund the government. In fact, a month ago, as I mentioned, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's shutdown plan said this is exactly what they would do: They would pay the SNAP benefits. And then, when it became public that they made that claim, that vanished from the website--just a matter of a few days ago. Why?
During this shutdown, the Trump administration did have the money for Argentina. The President seems to be able to find money for things that are important to him. Obviously, SNAP and the benefits are not important to the President.
Well, I have news for the President. Because of his decision on the SNAP plan, millions of Americans are going to have to struggle to feed their families--Americans paying a price for this decision by the President.
I recently heard from one of them: Michelle, from Hodgkins, IL. She had a message that goes beyond her letter to me--her email to me--and really is a message for all Americans. Here is what she said:
You are forgetting about the seniors that are age 60 to 65. I already cut down my meals to two a day. I really don't want to try to live on one meal. I take medicine, and I need to eat. My size shows that I have not been eating. I know for a fact many eat cereal for dinner. It is filling and cheap.
That is the plight facing poor people if the SNAP program is, in fact, shut down by President Trump.
Here is another message, from Martin in Macomb:
Martin, of Macomb, IL, went on to say:
And, sadly, there are millions of other individuals who will suffer in silence because they receive this assistance but basically are concerned about the stigma that might be attached to them if they say anything publicly.
Meanwhile, for the past 6 weeks, Republican Members of the House of Representatives have been gone. I am not sure what they are doing. I hope they are home at least tending to their constituents, but they should be in Washington. If we would have passed Ben Ray Lujan's--the Democratic Senator's--proposal yesterday to fund the SNAP program, we would have needed action by the House of Representatives, but it is not here. And it hasn't been here for 6 weeks--6 weeks.
We need them. We need the President, when he comes home from his trip overseas, to make this a high priority. The House has not held a vote since September 19. President Trump is tearing down part of the White House to build a new, lavish $300 million ballroom. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem found $200 million during the shutdown to buy two luxury Gulfstream jets for her and her top staff. The Trump administration sees those efforts as priorities, but it will not send our most vulnerable American citizens $6 a day to afford to eat.
I suppose nobody should be surprised that is where we are. Under the President's leadership this summer, the Republican-led Congress passed their so-called Big Beautiful Bill, which made the biggest SNAP cuts in history. So the program that they are now refusing to fund at all was reduced dramatically to make it more difficult to pay out those payments--food stamp-type payments--to SNAP recipients under the Big Beautiful Bill, which I will refer to again in a moment. They made the biggest cuts in the history of the SNAP and Food Stamp Program, cutting the program by 20 percent, and now they are lamenting on the floor that they
We know that is not true.
President Trump has decided we can't wait any longer. He wants to stop SNAP funding on Saturday and hurt 42 million Americans to teach the Democrats a lesson--another example of cruelty to people who are vulnerable by this administration.
I appreciate the leadership of Ben Ray Lujan, my Senate colleague from New Mexico. He really believes this in his heart of hearts. If the Congressional Record, which I referred to earlier in my statement, can be referenced, you can read the words of Senator Lujan, which were touching because he does care about not just in New Mexico but across America what this is going to do.
I hope my Republican colleagues will allow us the opportunity to vote on Senator Lujan's bill today before we leave. Let's make sure that there is no gap in the program, and let's put away this argument that was just heard on the floor that somehow it is illegal to feed people.
This week, the Secretary of Agriculture appeared on CBS News to defend her Agency's refusal to fund SNAP. Here is what she said:
Well, after abandoning vulnerable families receiving SNAP and helping South American farmers over U.S. farmers, President Trump and his U.S. Department of Agriculture has certainly had an unprecedented effect on American communities but not for the reasons she thinks.
The bottom line as well is bad news for people who may not be receiving SNAP but are struggling to make payments for hospitalization insurance. The cost of living continues to go up under the Trump administration. And the issue which we are trying to drive home to our friends on the other side of the aisle is it should be a bipartisan concern, what is happening to health insurance premiums across America.
Take a look. If you are on an Affordable Care Act plan, you are going to see a dramatic increase. In Illinois and the city of Chicago, people who are under that plan, thousands of them, are going to see their health insurance premiums double--double. At a time when they are struggling to make grocery payments and electric utility payments, they are going to double. Why? Because the Big Beautiful Bill, the budget bill of President Trump, passed by all Republican votes--no Democratic votes--unfortunately, has eliminated the tax credits that were available to people in middle-income categories.
Who are these people, these faceless people? We will put a face on them. One out of every four farmers--one out of every four farm families in our country use the Affordable Care Act. Half of the people who own small businesses use it. They are the ones who are facing these heightened premiums.
What we are doing is begging the Republicans to correct the mistake they made in the Big Beautiful Bill; come forward with sensitivity not just to those receiving SNAP and food stamps but to the families who are struggling to make health insurance premium payments. These families need help. The cost of living goes up for them every single day, and this is going to be a hardship many of them can't endure.
Millions--literally, millions--of Americans will lose their health insurance because of the Big Beautiful Bill. We have a chance to correct it, and we should do it as soon as possible. It is time to sit down at the table as soon as the President gets over his jetlag and comes home--to sit down at the table immediately.
The Republican leaders have got to come back to Washington, from the House, and the Republican leaders in the Senate as well as Democratic leaders--on both sides. They are the only ones who can solve this.
I have been in Congress for a number of years. I think I have seen every major shutdown, and I have seen how they all end. There will be some triggering device that does it. I hope that, whatever it takes, we get it done and done quickly.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. President, it is hard to believe, even in a place like the Nation's Capital that seems so detached from the rest of the country--but it is hard to believe we have now reached the 30th day of this completely pointless, profoundly dumb government shutdown at the hands of Senate Democrats. Senate Democrats have now voted 13 times to keep the government shut down, blocking the continuing resolution that has been passed by the House of Representatives weeks ago. That is the key to unlock the door to this government shutdown.
We are nearing a full month of that shutdown, a shutdown in search of a rationale. My suggestion is, to our friends across the aisle, that they need to look in the mirror and listen to their own people. The American Federation of Government Employees, or AFGE, the largest union that represents Federal Government employees, called on Congress to ``Reopen the government immediately under a clean continuing resolution that allows continued debate on larger issues.''
That is exactly what we have asked for, time after time after time, but to no avail.
Families across America, including the 31 million-plus Texans that I have the privilege of representing, are continuing to deal with this uncertainty.
Now, it is true that many people are not directly affected by the government shutdown, but a lot of people are, including the very people who are here in this Chamber--our staff, government employees. But it is much bigger than that. It is not only the Federal employees' union; it is the military; it is our Border Patrol; it is TSA, the air traffic controllers. All of these people are working, because their jobs are deemed essential, without any pay.
One in six Americans live paycheck to paycheck. I haven't heard a single Senator on that side of the Chamber who said they are withholding their pay during the government shutdown, which leads me to conclude that they continue to get paid while they deny the same benefit to their own staff and the U.S. military and all the other Federal employees that I have mentioned. If that isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is.
And now, at the first of the month, November 1, 42 million Americans who rely on SNAP, WIC, other nutrition assistance programs--food stamps--will stop receiving the benefits they rely on as a safety net to put food on the table. This includes 3.5 million of my constituents in Texas, 1.7 million of whom are children.
These are among the most vulnerable people in our country. Our Senate Democrat colleagues are literally taking food out of the mouths of hungry children because of their stubbornness. It is shameful.
I have been hearing from food banks in Texas who are writing in with their concerns, saying they will require a 50-percent increase in food supplies next month in order to keep up with the increased demand for people who aren't getting paid and people who are being denied this basic assistance.
Well, what is the rationale? I mentioned a moment ago that our Senate Democratic colleagues seem to be in search of a rationale for this profoundly idiotic and dumb shutdown. Well, the Senate Democratic leader, the fearless leader of our Senate Democrats, said to a news outlet:
Of course, that leads to the question, Who is ``us''? Not the 31 million Texans I represent; not the 800,000 Federal Government workers who are part of the union; not the children who depend on nutrition assistance to be able to eat.
Well, not to be outdone, House Democratic whip Katherine Clark recently said:
As if that is no big deal.
She said:
So all of these Americans, our fellow citizens, who are being harmed by this shutdown are leverage, political leverage.
I was disappointed to even hear one of the Members on the other side who I look to as sort of a rare person of common sense among the crazed Democratic Party these days who said that
And now Democrats are trying to turn the tables and say it is Trump's fault. This is surreal.
The American people are the ones paying the price for the intransigence, the stubbornness, and the idiocy--that is what Chuck Schumer once called government shutdowns. He called it idiocy. The American people are paying for the idiocy of the Democrats who continue to vote against reopening the government. I have to wonder, what do they say to a mother who can't feed her own child because of their intransigence and their stubbornness? ``Sorry for the inconvenience; you are part of our leverage.''
We get paid--they get paid--not me, not people on this side of the aisle who have had their paychecks withheld in solidarity with the government employees who aren't getting paid. They get paid, and you can't feed your kids?
What do they say to the Federal worker, including members of our staff, people working here in the Senate, who wonder: Can I pay the utility bill? How about my rent or my mortgage payment? Can I buy gasoline for my car to take my child to school?
I guess their response is, well, you should expect some unpleasantness during this shutdown because you are part of our political leverage.
The best way in this disaster--this nightmare, really--for many Americans who are directly affected is for just five of our colleagues on the other side--just five--to vote with Republicans to reopen the government, to pass this continuing resolution that will take us at least to November 21. But we have burned so much of the time already because of the shutdown--it is the 30th of October. This continuing resolution would open the government until 3 weeks from now, and then what happens? Are we going to go through this movie again and again and again?
And then how about those Americans who depend on safe and timely air travel for their jobs, or maybe they just want to take some time off if they have some vacation plans. We can no longer depend on the timeliness, and I fear for the safety of our air traffic control system because so many air traffic controllers are overstressed and so many airports are understaffed that they are literally having to shut down some of the air traffic, and flights are being delayed. And I have no doubt--or at least I worry that public safety is being endangered.
Earlier this week, Austin Airport, where I live, issued a ground delay due to air traffic control staffing problems. The same day, over at Dallas-Fort Worth, one of the largest airports in the country, they experienced 413 flight delays and multiple flight cancellations due to staffing shortages.
Air traffic controllers--the people who keep these airplanes flying safely--will miss their first full paycheck this week. TSA screeners-- the people who are supposed to make sure that air travel is safe--are similarly working without pay.
One air traffic controller recently said:
They will miss their first one this week, but they don't know if they are going to get the next one because they don't know how long this profoundly stupid idea of a government shutdown is going to last.
One Transportation Security Administration worker said that ``morale is crumbling.''
You know, it is not just imposing a hardship on these innocent Americans. What does this say about America and our ability to work together to solve the Nation's problems? It is embarrassing. It should be embarrassing. In the world's greatest deliberative body--that is what the U.S. Senate is sometimes called--what a joke. What a joke Democrats have made of the world's greatest deliberative body when they have shut down the U.S. Senate and made it impossible for us to pass a simple, stopgap spending bill that would take us to November 21.
Well, I applaud the men and women who are continuing to go to work to keep the planes in the air and trains running on time even though they are not being paid, but it is entirely unfair, unjustified for Democrats to impose this burden on these individuals. They didn't do anything wrong.
This is only weeks before the holidays and holiday travel begin in earnest. If Senate Democrats don't let up soon, you might have to ditch your Thanksgiving visit with your friends and family. And then who knows how long this will go on--maybe Christmas. They will be responsible for families having to cut back on their celebrations during our holiday season--not just because of delayed air travel or canceled flights but because they can't afford it. If they are not getting paid, how are they going to buy the food items that we typically enjoy during holidays like Thanksgiving and Christmas?
What will Senate Democrats tell parents who haven't been paid for an extended period of time when they have to tell their children ``Well, Santa isn't coming this year because your mom and dad haven't gotten paid; we don't have the money''?
Well, all this goes to show the utter callousness, the insensitivity, and the wrongheaded motivation behind this government shutdown, all so our friends on the other side can gain leverage. They don't have any leverage. It is on them.
The American people deserve better than for their elected officials to treat their livelihoods as political playthings, and that is what is happening.
So it is high time for our Democratic colleagues to come to their senses and vote to reopen the government. Is this going to go on forever? What is their endgame? They don't know. They can't say because they don't know. They know they have gotten themselves stuck in a supremely stupid idea, and they can't find their way out of it.
I can make a suggestion. Three of them have already voted for the House-passed continuing resolution to end this nonsense. We need five more. Are those five Democratic Senators going to continue to listen to the Democratic leader, the Senator from New York, who led them into this box canyon in the first place? He is worried about being thrown under the bus by a political opponent in the next Democratic primary election.
This is about retaining power, using innocent Americans as leverage, with no plan on how to exit this supremely dumb government shutdown.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. President, I rise to the podium today to address my colleagues as we are headed into one of the darkest times of the year, when daylight saving time ends and our clocks fall back 1 hour. This weekend, we will perform the outdated and unnecessary ritual of changing our clocks.
Most countries don't even observe daylight saving time. The practice was first adopted in Germany in 1916, and the United States followed 2 years later. The United States did that to save fuel during World War I. Although most people think it was adopted to give farmers more daylight, the agriculture industry at the time actually opposed it.
So flash-forward to now. We are still practicing shifting our clocks twice a year.
In 2018, the great State of Florida, which leads the way on so many issues--the State where I am proud to say I am the newest U.S. Senator--Florida became the first State to call for year-round daylight saving time, but we need Congress to affirm this change through legislation.
After Florida took that step and led the way, 20 States followed and have already passed laws or resolutions that would end the practice if Federal law permitted, and we almost accomplished this.
In 2022, the U.S. Senate voted unanimously to end it, though it went nowhere in the House.
When we choose not to end this absurd practice, we do so to the detriment of Americans' health, and it is not just about our health. It is about parental sanity.
I am a mom with a young kid in school, and that is somewhat of a rarity here in the U.S. Senate. Yes, I am a rookie here, and I am also balancing having a kid in school.
And there is nothing more frustrating than changing your clock twice
Making daylight saving time permanent makes time together as a family outside with activities possible. We can lock the clock, once and for all, by passing the Sunshine Protection Act that I have cosponsored with my fellow Florida Senator Rick Scott.
We don't have to continue to fall back. We can spring forward once and for all--no more changes, no more anxiety about waking up at the wrong time or worrying about getting to church on time.
Florida is the Sunshine State. We are proud to lead this mission to give families more sunshine in their day. And as Florida's newest Senator, I am renewing the fight and urging my colleagues to put an end to this archaic practice.
The Sunshine Protection Act has previously passed in the Senate unanimously. I am hopeful we can come together on this bipartisan issue once again, especially now that President Trump has said it is time to lock the clock.
As a Senator but, more importantly, as someone who promotes common sense in Washington, and as a mother of a young child, I am fully supportive of ending this onerous twice yearly time change.
With that said, I hope we can count on the Presiding Officer.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. President, I rise to promote the passage of S.J. Res. 88, a resolution to repeal Donald Trump's price-hiking global tariffs.
American families are being squeezed by prices going up and up and up. More than three-quarters of families say their monthly expenses have increased by more than $100 a month.
There is however, colleagues, something the Senate can do today. Today, it is possible for the Senate to focus on bringing families relief to their wallets. Congress can vote to repeal Donald Trump's trade taxes and stop taking money out of Americans' pockets.
Trump imposed these global tariffs by declaring an economic emergency. In my view, Donald Trump's actions clearly go beyond what the law allows, which is why I am urging passage of this bill to finally end the President's unlawful tariffs.
The average family will see about $2,800 in higher costs because of the Trump tariffs and taxes. The Senate ought to cancel that tax hike.
Let's cancel this tax hike. Let's cancel this tax hike.
Donald Trump won't do it. He is paying for tax cuts for billionaires on the backs of working families.
Fortunately, Congress, not the President, has got the final word on tariffs and taxes and trade. Senators can vote today to end the harmful and dangerous global tariffs.
It has been 6 months since the Senate tied 49-49 on this same proposal. Since then, our Nation's trade policy has looked pretty much like a dog chasing a squirrel: more tariffs threatened, added, taken away.
Thousands of packages are being destroyed because the Customs Service wasn't prepared.
There are secretive deals to lift tariffs for certain companies and products that have influence with the White House.
People across the country are being harmed by tariffs. In my State, tariffs take a chunk out of the bottom line of everybody, from blueberry farmers to brewers, to small manufacturers, to our crucial semiconductor industry. Thousands of good-paying jobs in my State are under pressure because of tariffs.
In many ways, red States and rural areas are being hit the hardest. In Columbus, IN, thousands of jobs depend on manufacturing, mostly diesel engines for export markets. They also use parts from overseas to make the engines. The mayor of Columbus and business leaders warned that tariffs are causing economic damage that will take years--years-- to recover from.
Farmers are getting a double whammy from the Trump trade taxes. They have to pay more for fertilizer and tractors and a variety of inputs, while their markets overseas evaporate.
In Kansas, farmers harvested a bumper crop this year, 20 percent more of sorghum than normal. Farmers called it a ``blessing,'' but they are not better off. Trump's trade war drove buyers to Brazil and Australia. Prices for American sorghum are less than half of what they were in 2022.
Let me close by way of saying--and I thank my colleague Senator Kaine. He and I have been on this floor for days talking about the need to get rid of the Trump taxes.
And we are going to wrap up by saying potato farmers in Oregon, Idaho, and across the West say the same thing. Buyers in Canada, Mexico, and China have slashed orders for french fries, hash browns, and a variety of other frozen potatoes.
The Senate is not a spectator to the workings of the Federal Government. When it comes to international trade and tariffs, in particular, the U.S. Congress has clear authority--not authority that is up for grabs, not authority that hasn't been addressed. It is clear authority. This is Congress's job. It is not a partisan issue. It is a jobs issue, a kitchen-table issue.
I urge all Members to support this resolution. Roll back the arbitrary global tariffs.
I thank Senator Kaine. We have been partners in this effort for months now.
This is the big issue. This is going to affect people not just in our country but all over the world, and we will be better positioned to get more jobs in America if we get rid of these global tariffs.
I yield to my friend.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. President, I rise to speak, and I thank my colleague, the lead Democratic Senator from the Finance Committee, Ron Wyden, for his passionate advocacy. And I join him in this effort to get colleagues in the Senate to vote for the resolution that will be pending before us to eliminate Donald Trump's global tariff regime announced in April.
This is a regime that, together with the other tariffs that he has announced, is leading to serious harm in Virginia, as I have laid out the last few days: higher prices, fewer jobs, and slower growth.
The IEEPA statute, as I have laid out, allows a President to declare an emergency when there is an extraordinary and unusual event posing a serious threat to American national security, foreign policy, or the economy.
What was that extraordinary and unusual event that Donald Trump used as the justification for this unilateral tax increase affecting consumers and businesses? The threat that he declared was the existence of trade deficits with many nations around the world.
Let me dig into the nonsensical nature of the President's declaration and the use of trade deficits in the way he has calculated them.
First, the President and his team imposed tariffs based upon trade deficits in goods. We don't live in the 19th century anymore. We have an economy that is not just about goods. It is about goods and services. And if you look at the actual trade figures, including both goods and services, the United States looks better positioned in virtually every country when you add in services.
Why doesn't the President be honest with the American public about the extent of these trade deficits, if they are, in fact, such an emergency?
The President has used these tariffs to impose tariffs on nations where we have trade surpluses, like Brazil. He is imposing tariffs on nations that have no trade barriers to the United States, like Israel and Singapore. And he is measuring trade deficits the wrong way, by only including goods, not services.
Second, the President has calculated these trade deficits on goods without calculating the effect of the population of the countries involved.
So let me give you an example.
The President says: If we have a trade deficit with Vietnam, they are ripping us off because they are not buying as much American stuff as we are buying Vietnamese stuff.
That is what the trade deficit in goods basically is. We are buying more of their stuff than they are buying of our stuff.
But hold on a second. Vietnam is a third the size of the United States. Vietnam is a country with per capita income much lower than American per capita income. They don't have the purchasing power that the United States does. So why is it a problem that they aren't purchasing as much American goods as we are purchasing Vietnamese goods? They are a smaller country.
It is the same with Canada, the same with Japan, the same with so many nations around the world. They are dramatically smaller than us, and so, naturally, they don't have the purchasing power that the American consumer has.
Finally, and I will conclude with a word about the House after this, the way that the President has imposed the tariffs is leading to nothing but chaos: announce tariffs on everyone; then announce that they may be suspended or delayed while I work out one-on-one deals with different nations. And I may give an exception to this country or that industry sector or that company. If you come and plead and make nice with me, I will give you an exception.
This has led to a chaotic circumstance. When the President announced the tariff rate with Korea, Toyota's stock--get this. There is going to be a tariff on Korean imports. Toyota's stock went up. Why did it go up? Because the rate that he announced was less than the tariff that is being applied to automobiles coming in from Mexico and Canada, which has a lot of the content of American automobiles.
It is a strange thing when you are cutting deals with other nations that disadvantage American production. That is what this chaotic tariff regime has done, and that is why my businesses around Virginia are telling me: We want to make investments. We want to grow, but we can't grow until we know what the rules are.
And every new announcement of a tariff or a delay or a suspension or an exception or a new deal for some other country that makes our products competitively disadvantaged slows down investment in Virginia.
The last thing I will say is this. I hope this passes as the two previous resolutions did. And if it does, it will be up to the House to take this up.
The House has done something that should really shock people in the public and in this body. This matter is privileged in the House, as it is in the Senate. If it passes, House statutes and rules suggest that it should be taken up for a vote on the floor of the House. The rule in the House was that it would need to be within the committee for 15 days and then be reported and then pending for 3 days on the floor. Action would be taken on these matters within 18 days in the House.
Guess what. The House is so afraid to vote on tariffs, they are so afraid of the effects these tariffs are having on their constituents, but equally afraid of crossing Donald Trump, that they passed a rule that said: For purposes of this and this only--this and this only--the day to day extends through the remainder of Congress.
So with the 15 days plus 3 days, it ripens in 18 days. Action must be taken in 18 days. They have defined today as a day that lasts until the end of Congress. So the matter will never ripen and be privileged in the House.
If they are that afraid of a vote on tariffs that they would resort to that kind of legislative chicanery, that should tell us something.
They need to do a discharge petition in the House, put this matter on the floor, and put every House member on record, as Senators will go on record, as to whether they are for higher prices or lower prices.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be permitted to speak prior to the scheduled rollcall votes: myself for 5 minutes and Senator Sullivan for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
And Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call in relation to the Dunlap nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I rise in opposition to S.J. Res. 88, which would terminate the trade deficit national emergency.
I agree with my colleagues that tariffs should be more targeted to avoid harm to Americans. I made precisely that point at a Finance Committee hearing in May.
We should consider more exemptions, whether for unavailable natural resources, capital equipment, or other key inputs.
It is equally important that enforcement guidance provides the clarity that U.S. companies need to comply with the tariffs and make critical business decisions.
Similarly, as the administration continues to negotiate with our trading partners, I appreciate that my colleagues, as well as our constituents, may be nervous about what comes next. However, at this juncture, this resolution is counterproductive to helping American families and businesses of all sizes.
It is no secret that, for decades, countries around the globe have raised tariff and nontariff barriers against Americans and against American businesses and have raised the cost for Americans and American businesses without response by the United States. President Trump is now responding and saying these countries need to take down their tariff and their nontariff barriers and deal with us in fair and free trade.
The President's negotiations are bearing fruit. President Trump already announced new trade deals. Just today, because of his negotiations, President Trump announced that China has agreed not to implement its rare earth export controls. China also agreed to address the flow of fentanyl and to purchase soybeans.
Other deals are, hopefully, forthcoming.
Consequently, S.J. Res. 88 is counterproductive to the progress already made by the President and the new gains he can still achieve in the ongoing trade negotiations.
On April 30, the Senate rejected this same resolution for these reasons, and I urge my colleagues to reject the resolution for these same reasons again today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. President, we are getting ready to vote on my CRA, S.J. Res. 80. And, by the away, I appreciated the strong bipartisan vote yesterday to get on this bill.
This is a really important resolution for our country, for my State, for the Native people, and the workers of America.
So I am asking my Democrat colleagues to really think hard about this. I see the Schumer-Heinrich ``Vote no on the Sullivan CRA'' down there, but I want to make a plea to my Democrat colleagues. You should vote yes on this S.J. Res--you had one courageous one yesterday, Senator Fetterman--and here is why: A vote yes on this resolution is a vote to unleash American energy.
As I talked about yesterday, the best way to undermine Vladimir Putin and his corrupt regime in Russia is to produce more American energy in the place with the highest standards in the world. That happens to be my State. That happens to be the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska, which is all about what this CRA is about.
Second, this is really important. My colleagues over there love to say: Hey, we are the party of the working families, of working Americans. No, you are not. A vote yes on this resolution is a pro- union, pro-worker vote. The laborers, operating engineers--they all want a yes on this. They all produce oil up here.
This is a chance. My colleagues, for too long on the other side of the aisle, kowtow to the far-left environmental groups at the expense of working Americans. That is why you are no longer the party of working Americans. This is a chance. Maybe you won't kowtow to the far left.
A ``yes'' vote on this S. Res. will also vindicate the rule of law.
What am I talking about? This is the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska. The Congress of the United States--us--in a law said that we are going to develop this part of my State for oil and gas production. And Joe Biden came in with a regulation saying: Nope, we are going to shut that down, violating the rule of law.
If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle really want to promote the rule of law, they should vote yes.
And, finally, as I mentioned yesterday, this is a vote for the interests of the Native people of my State. As I said yesterday--here is a letter I submitted for the Record. The Tribe in this area, the borough, which is all run by Alaska Natives, elected officials; the Alaska Native Corporation, all the leaders in this part of my State-- which is what this resolution is all about--all of them, all the indigenous people, the leaders of this part of my State want this resolution.
They didn't want the Biden lockup. They came down to Washington, DC, eight different times to just request a meeting with the Secretary of the Interior, saying: Don't lock up our lands. This will hurt our future. This will hurt our life expectancy. This will hurt our jobs.
And the Secretary of the Interior never even met with them, neither did the President--eight times.
So this is a strong vote for the interests of the indigenous people of my State.
I will conclude with this: My Democratic friends often bristle when accused of selling out the interest of working Americans--the men and women who build stuff, the unions that build stuff, the building trades, the men and women who drill for oil and gas and mines and rare earths and critical minerals. Well, here is an opportunity for them to say: No, we are going to stand with the people who build this great Nation.
My friends on the other side of the aisle often talk about: Hey, we are going to support indigenous people, people of color. Well, here is an opportunity to do it.
But what I fear, what has happened way too much in this body, these interests--working Americans, building trades, the unions, the Native people of my State--they always get sold out to what? The far left, coastal elites, the radical neocolonialists. That is why Heinrich and Schumer are down there saying: Vote no on the Sullivan resolution.
But I know some of my colleagues know that a ``yes'' vote is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do for our energy dominance. It is the right thing to do for our foreign policy. It is the right thing to do for working Americans who have fled the Democratic Party over issues like this. And it is the right thing to do for the indigenous people of my State.
I hope I get a couple more Democrat Senators who cross the aisle. Don't listen to your leader. Don't listen to Senator Heinrich, for God's sake, on this issue. Vote yes on this important resolution for America and for working families and the Native people of Alaska.
I yield the floor.
Terminating the National Emergency Declared to Impose Global Tariffs
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Committee on Finance is discharged from and the Senate will proceed to the consideration of S.J. Res. 88, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all time has expired.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Schmitt), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:
The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 88) was passed, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. President, I have a brief question for this body before I proceed to my motion: What is it that keeps our Nation secure? It is millions of Armed Forces, Active-Duty Reserves, National Guard, civilians supporting them, the Department of Defense, the Coast Guard, the intelligence Agencies; they are keeping us safe now, like all Federal employees, not knowing when they will get another paycheck.
Our military is less than 1 percent of our Nation. That is how many people sign on the dotted line up to and including their lives to keep us safe. They put their lives on the line to secure liberty and security, and I am grateful to the thousands serving today at Dover Air Force Base, the Delaware National Guard, and throughout our Armed Forces.
They and their families deserve the same devotion to them that they are providing to us.
I come from a military family. My father, brother, sister-in-law, uncles all served in the Army, and my father long said he first really understood what it means to be an American when he was responsible for others and others' lives when deployed.
Taking care of them is our sacred obligation. So while we keep fighting for better healthcare, more affordable healthcare for all Americans, my bill will pay our Armed Forces now.
It will pay Active-Duty, Reserves, National Guard, Coast Guard, civilians at the Pentagon, and intelligence Agencies, and give those who keep us safe, often at great sacrifice, a small piece of security in return.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3079 introduced earlier today; 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 objection?
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. President, government shutdowns have real consequences. I have said that countless times during my time here. Incredibly, it seems to have taken Democrats a month to remember that the proverbial stove is, in fact, already hot. And yet, they aren't ready to turn it off, just turn it down a notch; just low enough that they can take the political heat.
My friend from Delaware is right: Our military deserves a lot better than a government shutdown that jeopardizes their paychecks and the services military families count on. During Democrats' shutdown, the President has had to scrape together unobligated balances within the Defense budget in order to uphold the Nation's promise to servicemembers through another pay period.
I certainly hope he won't have to divert resources from urgent modernization again to make payroll in another 2 weeks, but that ball, of course, is in the Democrats' court. I hope they realize the surest way--the surest way--to help servicemembers and civilian DOD employees is to simply turn government funding back on and pass full-year appropriations.
I know my counterpart on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, of all people, understands this. He knows what would really help our Armed Forces because he and I worked closely together on a full-year bill for Defense that would pay servicemembers and invest more in the capabilities they need to keep America safe.
I am grateful for Senator Coons' collaboration on the bipartisan bill that earned overwhelming support in committee and would add $22 billion above the President's defense request. This, by the way, is the bill that almost every Democrat voted against considering 2 weeks ago.
I know the ranking member cares about the promises we made to the all-volunteer force and the challenges we expect them to make. I know he is concerned about the erosion of Congress's authority to set and fund national security priorities. So am I. And if we cannot appropriate, we will render ourselves completely irrelevant.
The way to provide real certainty and to deliver serious full-year appropriations is to just open the government back up and pass our bill. It is really that simple.
Therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. President, I want to convey my thanks, my gratitude to the chair of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, my colleague and friend from Kentucky. We and our staffs have had a genuinely constructive and positive process in appropriations this year.
Frankly, overall, the Senate Appropriations Committee has worked well. We have passed out of committee a significant number of major bills by big bipartisan margins--26 to 3 in the case of our bill and the Labor, Health and Human Services bill. But there is a stark contrast between the real progress we are making on appropriations and the lack of progress on addressing the core issue of can Americans afford their healthcare.
Of course, I want to move ahead and appropriate, as my colleague from Kentucky has indicated. Of course, we need to do our job and appropriate, for this body to carry out and to continue its core article I responsibility. But part of what has got us to this moment is a vote earlier this year on the Big Beautiful Bill in July to destroy healthcare for millions of Americans.
We need to find a path forward toward ensuring that millions of Americans do not lose insurance through the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid, something that will raise insurance costs for everyone and that will increase ER wait times in my State and in every other.
This Saturday, 20 million Americans will see how much their premiums go up. And if the calls that come into my colleagues are anything like the calls I am getting, there will be then an accelerated motion toward resolving this issue and moving forward with appropriations.
I will close by just citing one conversation I had yesterday.
I spoke with a small business owner from Delaware. Her name is Jan. She is a stage IV cancer survivor. She is a small business owner.
She told me yesterday that, without the Affordable Care Act, she would have died 10 years ago because insurance would have dropped her. And if her rates double, she will need to close her business of 30 years.
This is one of many stories of entrepreneurs and families, of veterans, of servicemembers, of constituents that have reached out to me.
There is an urgency about reopening the government--yes, I agree--and an urgency about finding a path forward on healthcare. We should be negotiating both now.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. President, this week, the U.S. Senate voted to terminate national emergency declarations that enabled President Trump's tariffs on Brazil and Canada.
Next week, November 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a majority of trade cases challenging President Trump's authority to impose global tariffs under the Emergency Powers Act.
The law is clear that the President does not have authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sweeping tariffs on imports on more than 80 countries around the world. I am pleased that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce endorsed the Trade Review Act, legislation proposed by myself and Senator Grassley. The Cantwell- Grassley legislation focuses on the fact that it is this body's job and responsibility to do trade acts.
The Chamber of Commerce clearly states in their letter that they are representing millions of businesses around the United States of all sizes to try to press upon us the importance of why Congress needs to reinstate its role.
The U.S. Chamber writes to the Members of the U.S. Senate:
Meaning the U.S. Chamber.
This is signed by Neil Bradley, Executive Vice President, Chief of Policy, Head of Strategic Advocacy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Mr. President, I hope that as we continue to talk about trade, that Congress will take the steps necessary to end tariffs on U.S. small businesses and American families.
Now, Mr. President, I also want to rise to talk about the serious healthcare crisis and the affordability crisis that is affecting our Nation. In just 2 days, on Saturday, November 1, millions of Americans are going to go online to sign up for their 2026 Affordable Care Act health insurance plan.
As we know, keeping healthcare affordable is a key priority, and I see that the premiums that are being talked about are going to increase by hundreds or thousands of dollars every month for the same coverage they just had this year. That is, next year is going to go up thousands of dollars.
Some people are going to say, ``I can't go without health insurance. I have to find a way to cover this extra cost by cutting back on food and prescription drugs or working longer shifts.'' But for about 5 million Americans, including 80,000 in my State, they will probably be forced to say, ``I just can't afford health insurance anymore.'' They are going to hope they don't get sick. They are going to hope that they don't have an emergency, but we know that that is uncomfortable.
Last week, my office released a case study detailing what this decision would look like for a married couple in Washington State making $120,000 a year. Across all 39 counties in my State, couples in this situation would have to decide what to do in the face of an average premium increase of a whopping $1,049 per month. That is, their costs will go up $12,000 per year.
Here is just one example in King County, my State's largest county. This couple would go from paying $425 a month to $1,386 a month. This problem isn't unique to Washington. There are other parts of the United States that are seeing the same thing.
Hopefully, all of this data is being released to individuals, and hopefully, our colleagues are paying attention to this because it is showing what premium increases look like, but a couple in the State of Alabama--I am sorry, a single woman in Alabama making $65,000 a year could see her premium increase 43 percent from the 2025 levels. It would mean she would pay an additional increase from going from $314 a month to $452 a month.
Another example, for a family of four in Texas, for parents making $70,000 a year but don't just get insurance through their jobs, their insurance would cost $505 in 2025, but without the extended premium tax credit, likely to face $1,551 cost per month in 2026.
So these costs are adding up on American families. Together, these costs continue to hold individual households and their budgets in an undesirable position. We are already hearing stories about people squeezing in medical procedures before the end of 2025.
To make matters worse, for families with massive increases in premiums and with the rise in inflation we have seen since January of this year, households are trying to decide whether they take care of healthcare or groceries or electricity.
And the sad truth is that we could have worked this out. We could have done this in the bill passed earlier this year. Congress could be working right now, even, on working down the cost of insurance premiums for 24 million Americans. But instead, people are refusing to come to the table to discuss this issue.
The Senate needs to be the place we used to be: that is, getting legislation done. We need to work together collectively to have votes and to discuss how to solve these problems in good faith
So I urge my colleagues to continue to work with us. The ACA tax credits expiring at the end of this year and this enrollment that we are going to see on November 1, that everybody is going to see how much these costs are going up--I am asking my colleagues, let's roll up our sleeves. Let's work to lower these costs.
I know that in the Affordable Care Act, there are States like New York, Oregon, and Minnesota who have the basic health plan. The basic health plan provision, modeled on something our State had first done, lowered the costs for a lot of working families across the United States. Programs like this should be considered, as well as solutions that would help us lower costs for the future.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of Joshua Dunlap to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Josh is an attorney of extraordinary intelligence, extensive experience, and demonstrated integrity. He is highly respected in the legal community throughout the State of Maine, and I urge my colleagues to support his nomination to the First Circuit.
Josh grew up in Vassalboro, ME, and now lives in Scarborough with his wife Sydney and their three children.
He graduated first in his class from Notre Dame Law School, where he received the law school's highest honor, awarded to the student with the most distinguished academic record.
He then clerked for Judge Paul Kelly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
In 2009, Josh joined the very well respected law firm Pierce Atwood in Portland, ME. During his 16 years at the firm, he has specialized in complex civil litigation matters and currently serves as cochair of the firm's appellate team.
Josh is admitted to practice in multiple U.S. courts of appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court. He has also assisted special masters in three original jurisdiction proceedings before the Supreme Court.
Finally, Josh also chairs the Maine Appellate Rules Committee, to which he was appointed by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.
This impressive experience, coupled with his intelligence and integrity, makes Josh exceptionally well qualified to serve on the First Circuit. His substantial appellate litigation experience will also bring a practitioner's perspective to the court.
The nonpartisan American Bar Association unanimously rated Josh as ``well qualified'' to serve on the First Circuit. I would note that that is the highest possible rating for a judicial nominee. It reflects the ABA's assessment of his integrity, experience, and temperament.
There were several compelling letters of support submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee in favor of Josh's nomination, and I would like to highlight a couple of them.
A diverse group of faculty and alumni from his law school who taught Josh or studied alongside him praised him for his ``respect for differing views'' and ``deep appreciation for the rule of law.''
A letter signed by a group of leading Maine attorneys who describe themselves as representing a broad spectrum of political views and legal philosophies wrote that Josh has all the qualities the very finest judges exhibit: He is hard-working, courteous, and judicial in temperament, very smart, and of sterling character, with a commitment to fairness and the rule of law.
At his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Josh testified that Mainers are famously independent and that he suspects that characterizes him as well. That is exactly what we want in a judge.
Maine is proud of our history of supplying superb, well-qualified, independent-minded jurists to the Federal bench. I know that Josh will continue in that fine tradition. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of his nomination, for he truly deserves bipartisan support.
Mr. President, seeing that there are no other speakers, I would ask unanimous consent that the already scheduled vote begin immediately.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
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 nomination of Joshua D. Dunlap, of Maine, to be United States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Schmitt) and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are 47.
