Armed Forces Pay Act of 2025

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:

``The U.S. Chamber of Commerce urges Congress to pass

legislation to reclaim its constitutional role in setting

tariffs, including the Trade Review Act. Doing so would

restore appropriate procedural deliberation in the enactment

of taxes on trade, benefitting the millions of Americans

whose livelihoods depend on international commerce and the

certainty that supports investment in our economy.

Members of Congress continue to hear from farmers, workers,

and business owners about the harm inflicted by broad-based

tariffs and the associated economic uncertainty. American

families are facing thousands of dollars in higher prices as

a result of these increased taxes. Small businesses,

manufacturers, and ranchers are struggling with higher costs,

with additional economic pain likely coming in months.

The Chamber--

Meaning the U.S. Chamber.

has long supported legislative proposals to reassert

congressional prerogatives on trade as a means to secure

durable outcomes. The Constitution grants exclusive authority

to Congress ``to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and

excises . . . [and] to regulate commerce with foreign

nations,'' and exercising leadership on this front should be

a priority in the context of today's challenging economic

outlook.

By establishing a more deliberate process for enacting

tariffs, Congress can ensure that [the] appropriate

stakeholder consultation and a methodical assessment of costs

precede any decision to raise [costs] on traded goods. To

date, several proposals have been introduced that address

these concerns, including but not limited to the bipartisan .

. . Trade Review Act as well as resolutions terminating the

national emergency [declaration on] tariffs (S.J. Res. 88

[and] S.J. Res. 77). The Chamber urges members of Congress to

work across the aisle to enact [this] legislation requiring

an up-or-down vote for any new tariffs and those imposed in

the year to date.

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.

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.

Healthcare

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

across the aisle. We should be extending the ACA premiums now and making sure these prices don't rise and continue to work on long-term solutions to make health insurance more affordable for Americans.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Schmitt), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Schmitt) and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).