Jeff Merkley
Senator for Oregon · Democratic · United States
“Mr. President, I am pleased to welcome Senator Armstrong from Oklahoma in his delivering his maiden speech. It is an important part of this institution, and I hope all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who weren't able to hear him in person will have a chance to listen to it and to get to know him during his stay here.”
“(b) Elements.--The cooperative framework shall include-- (1) support regional allies in the acquisition of Blue UAS components or systems from Taiwan in lieu of PRC-sourced components; and (2) fast-track Blue UAS certification for components co- developed or co-produced by Taiwan and regional allies. [[Page S2962]] SEC. 1286.”
“(b) Elements.--The cooperative framework shall include-- (1) support regional allies in the acquisition of Blue UAS components or systems from Taiwan in lieu of PRC-sourced components; and (2) fast-track Blue UAS certification for components co- developed or co-produced by Taiwan and regional allies. [[Page S2962]] SEC. 1286.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 103 (Thursday, June 18, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 103 (Thursday, June 18, 2026)] [Senate] [Pages S2961-S2962] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] SA 5865. Mr. MERKLEY (for himself and Mr.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 103 (Thursday, June 18, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 103 (Thursday, June 18, 2026)] [Senate] [Pages S2961-S2962] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] SA 5865. Mr. MERKLEY (for himself and Mr.”
“(b) Reporting.--Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter for three years, the Working Group shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees an unclassified report on its activities, including findings, recommendations, timelines, resource needs, and potential funding mechanisms,…”
The complete record
Every one of 97 lines we hold for Jeff Merkley, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 2.
“Mr. President, I am pleased to welcome Senator Armstrong from Oklahoma in his delivering his maiden speech. It is an important part of this institution, and I hope all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who weren't able to hear him in person will have a chance to listen to it and to get to know him during his stay here. Welcome to the Senate.”
“(2) A fast-track certification procedure for Taiwanese manufacturers, including reciprocal testing arrangements or recognition of equivalent Taiwan cybersecurity standards where appropriate. SEC. 1287. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION. Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed-- (1) to alter United States policy towards Taiwan as codified in the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 (Public Law 96- 8); (2) to alter the United States commitment to the One China Policy, including commitments made in the Three United States-China Communiques and the Six Assurances to Taiwan; or (3) to alter the United States Government's position with respect to the international status of Taiwan. ______”
“(b) Elements.--The cooperative framework shall include-- (1) support regional allies in the acquisition of Blue UAS components or systems from Taiwan in lieu of PRC-sourced components; and (2) fast-track Blue UAS certification for components co- developed or co-produced by Taiwan and regional allies. [[Page S2962]] SEC. 1286. FAST-TRACK CERTIFICATION. (a) In General.--The Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, shall develop a fast-track process for Blue UAS companies in Taiwan to obtain Blue UAS certification. (b) Elements.--The fast-track certification process shall include the following procedures: (1) Expedited export control reviews and licensing for Taiwan drone and drone component manufacturers, including streamlined technical reviews for components with no PRC- connected subcomponents.”
“(b) Reporting.--Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter for three years, the Working Group shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees an unclassified report on its activities, including findings, recommendations, timelines, resource needs, and potential funding mechanisms, with a classified appendix as necessary. SEC. 1285. COOPERATIVE FRAMEWORK WITH ALLIES. (a) In General.--The Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, shall establish a cooperative framework, drawing on the Partnership for Indo-Pacific Industrial Resilience (PIPIR), among the United States, Taiwan, and regional allies and global partners to promote secure, PRC-independent UAS supply chains and enhance interoperability.”
“(a) Establishment.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, shall establish a Blue UAS working group, leveraging existing workstreams and expanding scope as needed, inclusive of government, industry, and academic experts, to-- (1) assess Taiwan's domestic drone production capacity, including research and development, legal and regulatory frameworks, testing, certification, and production capacities for dual-use drones; (2) evaluate opportunities for public-private partnerships between the United States and Taiwan for co-development and co-production of UAS systems and components, including pilot programs; (3) identify barriers to the inclusion of Taiwan- manufactured components and systems manufactured in Blue UAS programs; (4) identify regulatory, export-control, and certification barriers that impede Taiwan's participation in Blue UAS programs; (5) provide recommendations to expand and improve incorporation of Taiwanese suppliers into Blue UAS programs; (6) identify specific UAS components or systems that could be integrated into Blue UAS programs within 12 to 24 months; (7) analyze opportunities and impediments to include Taiwan in the Defense Autonomous Warfare Group and similar initiatives; (8) assess opportunities for collaboration with the Army Organic Industrial Base, including its arsenals, depots, and ammunition plants, to support the testing, evaluation, production, maintenance, and sustainment of Blue UAS components and systems, including those co-developed or co- produced with Taiwan; and (9) institute lessons learned from the war in Ukraine, in consultation with the United States European Command (EUCOM) and Ukrainian officials.”
“(7) The United States should support UAS supply chain development in Taiwan to strengthen Taiwan's asymmetric defense posture and expand United States access to secure, PRC-independent UAS components and systems. (8) The Army Organic Industrial Base, including its arsenals, depots, and ammunition plants, is undergoing modernization to support emerging technologies and may provide opportunities to support the testing and sustainment of unmanned aerial systems and related components in coordination with allies and partners. SEC. 1284. BLUE UAS WORKING GROUP.”
“(4) As set forth in the Taiwan Enhanced Resilience Act (subtitle A of title XII of Public Law 117-263), it is the sense of Congress that the United States should support Taiwan's acquisition and employment of capabilities that advance asymmetric strategies. (5) The vast majority of commercially available UAS contain PRC-sourced components, creating significant cybersecurity, supply chain, and operational risks for both Taiwan and the United States. (6) Taiwan is well-positioned to develop and produce UAS components and systems but faces challenges in competing with PRC commercial companies, accessing capital, and meeting United States certification and cybersecurity requirements.”
“Congress makes the following findings: (1) Taiwan is a longstanding and vital democratic partner whose security is central to United States strategic interests and regional stability in the Indo-Pacific region. (2) The People's Republic of China (PRC) is increasingly employing gray-zone tactics, including routine use of unmanned aerial systems and other low-cost platforms, to pressure Taiwan and undermine its security. (3) As set forth in the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 (Public Law 96-8), it is United States policy to maintain its capacity to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion against Taiwan and provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive nature.”
“This subtitle may be cited as the ``Blue Skies for Taiwan Act of 2026''. SEC. 1282. DEFINITIONS. In this subtitle: (1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term ``appropriate congressional committees'' means-- (A) the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on the Budget, and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and (B) the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on the Budget, and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives. (2) Blue uas.--The term ``Blue UAS'' refers to UAS components and systems that comply with Defense Contract Management Agency's Blue UAS program and its associated list. SEC. 1283. FINDINGS.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 103 (Thursday, June 18, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 103 (Thursday, June 18, 2026)] [Senate] [Pages S2961-S2962] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] SA 5865. Mr. MERKLEY (for himself and Mr. Cruz) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 4784, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2027 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: At the end of title XII, insert the following: Subtitle F--Blue Skies for Taiwan Act of 2026 SEC. 1281. SHORT TITLE.”
“(2) A fast-track certification procedure for Taiwanese manufacturers, including reciprocal testing arrangements or recognition of equivalent Taiwan cybersecurity standards where appropriate. SEC. 1287. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION. Nothing in this subtitle shall be construed-- (1) to alter United States policy towards Taiwan as codified in the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 (Public Law 96- 8); (2) to alter the United States commitment to the One China Policy, including commitments made in the Three United States-China Communiques and the Six Assurances to Taiwan; or (3) to alter the United States Government's position with respect to the international status of Taiwan. ______”
“(b) Elements.--The cooperative framework shall include-- (1) support regional allies in the acquisition of Blue UAS components or systems from Taiwan in lieu of PRC-sourced components; and (2) fast-track Blue UAS certification for components co- developed or co-produced by Taiwan and regional allies. [[Page S2962]] SEC. 1286. FAST-TRACK CERTIFICATION. (a) In General.--The Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, shall develop a fast-track process for Blue UAS companies in Taiwan to obtain Blue UAS certification. (b) Elements.--The fast-track certification process shall include the following procedures: (1) Expedited export control reviews and licensing for Taiwan drone and drone component manufacturers, including streamlined technical reviews for components with no PRC- connected subcomponents.”
“(b) Reporting.--Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter for three years, the Working Group shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees an unclassified report on its activities, including findings, recommendations, timelines, resource needs, and potential funding mechanisms, with a classified appendix as necessary. SEC. 1285. COOPERATIVE FRAMEWORK WITH ALLIES. (a) In General.--The Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, shall establish a cooperative framework, drawing on the Partnership for Indo-Pacific Industrial Resilience (PIPIR), among the United States, Taiwan, and regional allies and global partners to promote secure, PRC-independent UAS supply chains and enhance interoperability.”
“(a) Establishment.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, shall establish a Blue UAS working group, leveraging existing workstreams and expanding scope as needed, inclusive of government, industry, and academic experts, to-- (1) assess Taiwan's domestic drone production capacity, including research and development, legal and regulatory frameworks, testing, certification, and production capacities for dual-use drones; (2) evaluate opportunities for public-private partnerships between the United States and Taiwan for co-development and co-production of UAS systems and components, including pilot programs; (3) identify barriers to the inclusion of Taiwan- manufactured components and systems manufactured in Blue UAS programs; (4) identify regulatory, export-control, and certification barriers that impede Taiwan's participation in Blue UAS programs; (5) provide recommendations to expand and improve incorporation of Taiwanese suppliers into Blue UAS programs; (6) identify specific UAS components or systems that could be integrated into Blue UAS programs within 12 to 24 months; (7) analyze opportunities and impediments to include Taiwan in the Defense Autonomous Warfare Group and similar initiatives; (8) assess opportunities for collaboration with the Army Organic Industrial Base, including its arsenals, depots, and ammunition plants, to support the testing, evaluation, production, maintenance, and sustainment of Blue UAS components and systems, including those co-developed or co- produced with Taiwan; and (9) institute lessons learned from the war in Ukraine, in consultation with the United States European Command (EUCOM) and Ukrainian officials.”
“(7) The United States should support UAS supply chain development in Taiwan to strengthen Taiwan's asymmetric defense posture and expand United States access to secure, PRC-independent UAS components and systems. (8) The Army Organic Industrial Base, including its arsenals, depots, and ammunition plants, is undergoing modernization to support emerging technologies and may provide opportunities to support the testing and sustainment of unmanned aerial systems and related components in coordination with allies and partners. SEC. 1284. BLUE UAS WORKING GROUP.”
“(4) As set forth in the Taiwan Enhanced Resilience Act (subtitle A of title XII of Public Law 117-263), it is the sense of Congress that the United States should support Taiwan's acquisition and employment of capabilities that advance asymmetric strategies. (5) The vast majority of commercially available UAS contain PRC-sourced components, creating significant cybersecurity, supply chain, and operational risks for both Taiwan and the United States. (6) Taiwan is well-positioned to develop and produce UAS components and systems but faces challenges in competing with PRC commercial companies, accessing capital, and meeting United States certification and cybersecurity requirements.”
“Congress makes the following findings: (1) Taiwan is a longstanding and vital democratic partner whose security is central to United States strategic interests and regional stability in the Indo-Pacific region. (2) The People's Republic of China (PRC) is increasingly employing gray-zone tactics, including routine use of unmanned aerial systems and other low-cost platforms, to pressure Taiwan and undermine its security. (3) As set forth in the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 (Public Law 96-8), it is United States policy to maintain its capacity to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion against Taiwan and provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive nature.”
“This subtitle may be cited as the ``Blue Skies for Taiwan Act of 2026''. SEC. 1282. DEFINITIONS. In this subtitle: (1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term ``appropriate congressional committees'' means-- (A) the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on the Budget, and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and (B) the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on the Budget, and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives. (2) Blue uas.--The term ``Blue UAS'' refers to UAS components and systems that comply with Defense Contract Management Agency's Blue UAS program and its associated list. SEC. 1283. FINDINGS.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 103 (Thursday, June 18, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 103 (Thursday, June 18, 2026)] [Senate] [Pages S2961-S2962] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] SA 5865. Mr. MERKLEY (for himself and Mr. Cruz) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 4784, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2027 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: At the end of title XII, insert the following: Subtitle F--Blue Skies for Taiwan Act of 2026 SEC. 1281. SHORT TITLE.”
“So let's be clear. Our journey toward the vision of citizen empowerment in voting has been imperfect. It has been long. It has been slow. It has seen setbacks like after the collapse of reconstruction. But we have worked steadily toward that vision, that ideal that every citizen should have that full opportunity to participate in the direction of their Nation. So should the SAVE Act ever be brought to this floor, which itself would be a massive corruption of our responsibility as U.S. Senators, I am voting hell no, and everyone else should as well. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.”
“The Secretary of State of Georgia, in 2022, led a massive examination of the history of voting in Georgia, and the Secretary of State says he could not find a single noncitizen that had cast a ballot in Georgia in 25 years. So don't tell me that your so-called reform is about integrity at the ballot place. We know what it is about. It is about manipulating the vote on election day to stop people from voting, and we are not going to let that happen. In another case, the Brennan Center examined, in 2016, the behavior of 23 million voters, and they found it was roughly equal to the risk of being struck by lightning that a noncitizen would vote. And we know that in some cases where those have happened--I mean, it is so rare--it has happened because the bureaucracy screwed up and sent them a ballot when they weren't supposed to.”
“And Republicans want to stop women across the country from voting once again because their name doesn't match their birth certificate. That is pretty extraordinary. More than half of Americans today who don't have a passport--my mother would have been in that category. She wouldn't have been able to register to vote. Let's not go backward into the realm of voter suppression. Let's go forward into full voter empowerment. If you believe in this Constitution, then honor it; don't put it in the wood chipper. Folks today are able to register in a variety of ways. Some say: Well, isn't this opening the possibility that noncitizens are voting? The answer is no. That is not happening.”
“We stopped it, and blue and red States have adopted those reforms. But the SAVE Act is about going the other direction. What a name--the SAVE Act--as if it is saving something important as opposed to destroying the opportunity to vote. So we will absolutely not let our colleagues across the aisle take us backwards to voter suppression. Under the SAVE Act rules, my mother would likely not have been able to vote. The most common documents to prove citizenship are a birth certificate or a passport. And when my mother married my father, she changed her last name from Collins to Merkley. My mother never had a passport. She couldn't have used a passport. Her name was different than that on her birth certificate. Betty Lou Collins became Betty Lou Merkley.”
“But we are going to stop that bill. My own State has pioneered the ability to vote by mail, and that provision has spread across the country to States like Utah, a red State. Blue States, red States are saying this makes sense because it ends the corruption on election day where officials stop people from voting by relocating the voting booths to a new location, by putting equipment in there that malfunctions, by understaffing it, by putting out false information about where the voting will be held. Vote-by-mail ended all of that corruption on election day, utilized so often to stop people from voting who lived in the inner city, who lived in poorer communities, who lived in communities of color--a modern-day version of the suppression that followed the collapse of reconstruction.”
“There was kind of an evil deal that was worked out all over the election of Rutherford Hayes. And that ended reconstruction; and, quickly, a series of measures were passed by States to suppress the opportunity of Black Americans to vote in the South. These included poll taxes; they included literacy tests; they included civics exams--rigged so that only White Americans could pass. But we remedied that situation. We took it on. It took a long time, unfortunately. In the 1960s, Members of this Chamber and Members of the Chamber down the hall said we are ready to end that discrimination that we knew all along was wrong, those barriers erected for citizens to vote. But now we have one party, the Republican Party, which was founded on the vision of ending slavery, that wants to suppress the vote of Americans once again. That is incredible.”
“And they have this bill that is all about voter suppression. Well, we have gone through some serious voter suppression. Some of it was written into our original Constitution. Despite the lofty goals, we didn't allow people of color to vote; we didn't allow women to vote; we didn't allow Native Americans to vote; we didn't allow the enslaved to vote. But we have worked toward that lofty vision that we knew was right. We remedied slavery, ending it in 1865 with the 13th Amendment. We passed the 15th Amendment to ensure the right to vote shall not be denied by race or color or previous servitude. And [[Page S2699]] then, some 50 years later--it took 50 additional years before the right to vote was guaranteed to women in the United States of America. After the Civil War, reconstruction collapsed in about 1877.”
“Mr. President, our Constitution starts out with the three words ``We the People,'' and they are written in supersize font to tell you that that is what the core of our democracy is all about-- or, as Lincoln so well summarized, government of, by, and for the people. There are several things essential to make this happen: the freedom of speech, for one; the freedom of assembly, for another. But perhaps nothing encapsulates the opportunity of a citizen to participate in the direction of their own country more than the ballot box, more than the right and opportunity to vote. Yet that sacred opportunity at the heart of our Constitution is under assault because there seems to be one party that has decided it is about suppressing citizens' rights rather than empowering and honoring citizens' opportunity to participate in our government.”
“Let it be a celebration of our determination and our effectiveness in confronting and turning back Trump's authoritarian assault, a celebration of the reenergization of our constitutional framework and the vision of government by the people, not by the powerful. We are participants in a 250-year relay of democracy, where the responsibility to govern ourselves has been handed from one generation to the next. We inherited it from our parents and our grandparents. Let's pass it on to your children and our grandchildren. When Ben Franklin was leaving the Constitutional Convention, he was asked: What type of government do we have? He responded: A republic, if you can keep it. Let's keep it. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.”
“The law firms need to channel Perkins Coie, not Paul, Weiss, which capitulated. And to the American people across the country who are angry and disturbed by what is happening, who want to stop this authoritarian takeover, I have three suggestions: Get off the couch. You can't help change the world curled up in a fetal position on your couch. Second, fiercely hold your elected representatives accountable with your phone calls, with your mail, with your demonstrations outside their office. Hold your representatives accountable. That is what you get to do in a free nation. And, third, join affinity groups. Being angry and frustrated alone is depressing. Being angry and organized with others is energizing and effective. Next year, the United States of America will celebrate its 250th anniversary.”
“The first hundred days of Trump's administration has made clear that his quest for authoritarian power is a threat to the framework of our Constitution, to the separation of powers, to the checks and balances that must be fiercely resisted, fiercely resisted by Congress. And I call my colleagues across the aisle: Remember your oath is to the Constitution. You did not take an oath to the President of the United States, not to one individual. That is what people do when they kneel to a King, and we are not a kingdom. We are a Republic, fiercely resisted by the courts, fiercely resisted by the people through [[Page S2653]] mass action. The press needs to channel AP, not CBS. The universities need to channel Harvard, which is resisting, not Columbia that bent the knee.”
“We saw this happen just yesterday and today. Amazon was going to put up honest impacts on its website saying how much Trump's tariffs would add to the cost of products so people could see why they were being charged so much for things that were much cheaper a little while ago, but Trump in this relationship with the oligarchs called up Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon, and said: That is bad for me. Don't do it. Here is what is going on. Trump is doing what is good for the oligarchs, 2 trillion in tax breaks for the richest Americans, and then he is asking them to do his bidding, and that includes not being honest with the American people about the impact of his tariffs.”
“And it will explode the national debt, adding 7 trillion of additional debt over 10 years and 52 trillion of additional debt over 30 years. Families lose; millionaires win. And America's future is deeply damaged, perhaps drowned in an ocean of red ink created by this bill. You know, it was stunning at the inauguration, the one that happened just down this hallway in the Rotunda, to see President Trump with a lineup of billionaires standing behind him. Some countries would call this oligarchs--oligarchs standing behind him. Will Congress really pass a bill that takes away 2 trillion from families to give 2 trillion in tax breaks to the very richest Americans to buy the support of oligarchs? Is that what we are headed to--a strongman state in which Congress acquiesces in buying the support of the oligarchs?”
“A third question specific to the operation of Congress: Over the next several months, the national policy debates are likely to be dominated by Republican pursuit of a reconciliation bill, a fancy term for a bill that has a special fast-track, simple majority, no filibuster path through the Senate. This bill is designed to cut $2 trillion from programs families use to thrive--healthcare, housing, education, good- paying jobs--gifts $2 trillion in tax breaks to the richest Americans. So families lose and billionaires, they win. That is the philosophy of this bill. It also abandons the use of nonpartisan calculations of how much a specific policy will cost and instead decides to engage in smoke and mirrors so the American public won't realize what is being done.”
“Others on the Democratic side of the aisle here in the Senate argued differently, believing that the risk to our Nation was much greater if we let Trump's authoritarian ambitions go unopposed and that history teaches us that the best time to confront an authoritarian is right away, before he amasses even more power. Both of these arguments had some merit. We will face this decision again soon when the existing continuing resolution runs out on September 30. That will be a critical moment for Congress to confront the President and not hand him more power. We should be preparing for that moment now.”
“Second, what is the most effective way for Congress to confront Trump's authoritarian exercise of power? In the second week of March, just a month ago, with the authority for government spending set to run out on March 15, the Senate Democrats had the ability to reject the spending bill written by the House Republicans that created a massive slush fund for Trump to use as he pleases to reward or punish specific States or specific congressional districts. Some on the Democratic side of the aisle here in the Senate argued Democrats should not block this bill because it posed a potential shutdown, and that shutdown had political and policy risks, given that Trump might love the opportunity to operate a shoestring government with the President deciding what constitutes essential services.”
“Just think about the difference in types of natural disasters that strike different parts of our country. Some States endure hurricanes, others grapple with earthquakes. The Pacific Northwest, where I come from, battles wildfires. Different parts of the country have different needs. Different parts of the country have desires to have those needs met, resulting in compromises in these spending bills. But if Trump is allowed to impound the funds for programs for the priorities of his political opponents of either party, then that destroys the foundation for these compromises since no Senator can be assured that the deal they are striking--you get what you need, but you agree to help me get what I need for my part of the country--no one can be assured that that compromise will be honored.”
“Might he--given how he is stretching other laws, misapplying them in situations for which they were never intended--deliberately adjourn Congress to advance his goal of the strongman state? And let's ponder a few questions that are specific to our Congress. Will Trump's impoundments and rescissions destroy the congressional process for drafting bipartisan spending bills? For fiscal year 2025, the year that started last October 1, the Senate Appropriations Committee passed 11 of the 12 spending bills out of committee in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion. In fact, most of them were passed unanimously out of committee. That was possible because compromises were struck. Compromises were the priorities of both parties, compromises for priorities of different regions of the Nation with different concerns.”
“It raises the question: What other ancient law is the President and Russell Vought going to dust off and use in a way that was never intended? Whatever emergency power law--and there are 25, several dozen laws that provide emergency power--is the President going to dust off and say this gives me some additional ability? How might those laws be used in ways to reinforce the strongman state and erode our Nation? And might the President invoke the power in article II, section 3, a power that is in the Constitution that says that the President can adjourn Congress? Of course, it was never intended to undermine the ability of laws to be crafted here or Congress to serve as a check on Executive power. It has never been used, in fact, by a President ever, but what is this President going to do with that power?”
“It has never been used by any other President to set tariffs. There is no precedent for it, and there is no language in the law that serves it. Or let's see him reaching further back into history, using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. That act was passed when our early Members of Congress were afraid that France would invade the United States, and they wanted to be able to deport French citizens who might help the French invasion, should it occur. But Trump is using that as the legal basis for deporting Venezuelans, saying: There is an invasion of Venezuelans. Well, clearly there is no invasion by the Venezuelan Government. This act was used, shamefully, in World War II, in particular, to lock up Japanese-Americans in concentration camps, and it is being used shamefully and inappropriately now.”
“A third issue is the stretching of laws that really don't even begin to convey the power that Trump has claimed. We are all aware of the tariffs that he is setting and tearing down day after day. Tariffs are up. Tariffs are down. Tariffs over here. Exceptions over there. Oh, iPhones? Too important. Let's create an exception. Oh, cars are too expensive. Let's create an exception. Who knows? It is certainly not a foundation for companies to invest in America because it is chaos. He is using the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act as a legal basis to set tariffs. But read the act. It says nothing about powers of tariffs, nothing that gives the President the ability to raise and lower tariffs on one fiat after another. It provides power for sanctions and seizures, not tariffs.”
“You take this immunity from being accountable under the law and you pair it with pardon power, and you now have an entire executive branch that considers itself immune from the law, which helps explain some of the items I went over before--how there are deliberate and willful violations of law by this administration. Quite a challenge for the future of our democracy has been created by the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court will have a chance to redeem itself. It never really considered how the combination of the new power they found in invisible ink that a President is above the law combined with pardon [[Page S2652]] power has completely destroyed the foundation of law in our Nation--an executive that considers itself not accountable.”
“It is carved into the stone above the pillars of the Supreme Court, which, if you go out the doors I am pointing out to my right and you continue down the hallway, there is another set of doors, another set of stairs, and you can see the Supreme Court straight across from here, and you can read ``equal justice under law.'' That is the principle. But I will tell you what--that Supreme Court last year decided no equal justice under the law. In fact, the President has complete immunity from committing a crime as long as he calls it a government act. It is invisible ink in here somewhere, but I will tell you, the Founders are rolling over in their graves at this betrayal of the Constitution by this majority in the Supreme Court. Think about what they have done.”
“Last summer, less than a year ago, at the beginning of July 2024, the Supreme Court found some invisible ink in the Constitution. Grab your Constitution. Take a read of it. Where does it say in here that the President is above the law? Our Founders were terrified that a President would try to become a King. They had just escaped one King; they didn't want another. Instead, they had a theory of the world: Equal justice under law-- equal. For the powerful and the nonpowerful, for the rich and the nonrich, equal justice under law.”
“First, Trump nominated a man, Pete Hegseth, to be Secretary of Defense who is fabulously unqualified for the position. He fired several highly capable, top-tier military leaders, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, CQ Brown, and the Chief of Naval Operations, ADM Lisa Franchetti. These firings make plain that Trump doesn't value these professionals' management--nonpartisan management of our Armed Forces. Is Trump seeking to fill these top tiers of our military with loyalists? If that is what he is up to--replacing these highly professional, impartial managers of our military enterprise with loyalists--what additional authoritarian risks does this pose for our Republic? Second, what has the Supreme Court unleashed through its Trump v. United States decision?”
“Others, like Harvard and Princeton, are fighting back. A sincere compliment to Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber, who published an op-ed in The Atlantic when the first attack occurred on Columbia University. He called on presidents to ``speak up and litigate forcefully to protect their rights.'' He said: This won't be the last university that is attacked. Not soon after, his own university was attacked. He noted that this attack on universities is ``the greatest threat to American universities since the Red Scare of the 1950s.'' Looking back on these 100 days and these five strategies to convert a robust Republic, our robust Republic, with its checks and balances, into a strongman state, it raises a number of questions--questions that I hope folks will ponder.”
“But some of the law firms actually believe in an America where a President cannot exercise this sort of extortion. Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale have fought back. They are challenging Trump's authority to do this. Impressively, more than 500 other firms have stood with them, signing briefs denouncing Trump's extortion. Trump and his team have also pressed to reshape policies at universities by launching investigations of their practices and freezing millions or billions in their Federal grants--$510 million in Federal grants frozen at Brown University; $175 million in grants frozen at the University of Pennsylvania; $210 million frozen at Princeton; $2.2 billion in Federal grants frozen at Harvard University. Some universities, like Columbia University, have capitulated.”
“Skadden, Arps and Paul, Weiss have capitulated, agreeing, among other concessions, to end diversity policies and contribute millions of dollars of pro bono work to conservative clients. It is extortion. That is what this administration is involved in. They are using the power of the Presidency to take away the ability of law firms to operate in order to extort them to contribute free services to causes the President favors. Well, these law firms--Skadden, Arps and Paul, Weiss--are not alone. As of a month ago, nine firms had surrendered, nine firms had bent the knee, agreeing to provide $1 billion in pro bono legal work for causes preferred by this administration. Again, it is extortion, and it is misuse of the President's power.”
“They are about power, authoritarian power, about creating a strongman state. If we want to preserve freedom, we damn well better defend due process vigorously. The fifth authoritarian strategy by Trump is to target other power centers in our communities, including law firms and universities. Trump has attacked a host of major law firms, in some cases hamstringing the firms by suspending their national security clearances and therefore making them unable to represent their clients in key cases. He has done this to punish their past association with individuals or cases that threatened his power or to sway them from using their skills, their legal skills, in new efforts that might threaten that power. The attacks that Trump has launched on law firms have generated some results.”
“I would hope that every single Member of this Chamber would share the view that when they hear someone speaking with whom they disagree, they would still stand and defend that person's right to say it. Note that there was no due process for students Rubio disfavored, just as there was no due process for the Venezuelan immigrants Trump sent to El Salvador. ``Due process''--those two words. What does it mean? And maybe it sounds like legal mumbo-jumbo. Due process is the guardian of our freedom. It means you cannot be grabbed by the government at their will, tossed into a van, and thrown into a prison because they cannot do so, they cannot take away our liberty or our rights without a fair, public process. That defends our freedom. It is about freedom, but this administration isn't about freedom.”
“I have said it about Democratic Presidents, that I disagree with them. I have said it about Republican Presidents, that I disagree with them. So has virtually every single Member of this Chamber. That is freedom of speech. And we don't expect or believe that compromises the United States; we think it makes it stronger to have an actual debate of ideas, opinions expressed and hopefully considered. It is an extraordinary law that came from another era where free speech was under attack. It is an extraordinary power to have vested in one person--the Secretary of State--that power to punish free speech. It is a chilling attempt to silence free speech that presents viewpoints out of favor with this administration, and it is wrong. It is wrong under our Constitution.”