Jeff Merkley

Mr. President, Americans are worried that the money in their pockets will not cover the increasing costs of gas and groceries and housing or healthcare. Meanwhile, the President of the United States, Donald Trump, is worried that the money in Americans' pockets doesn't currently have his face or his signature on it.

You know, in 2020, Congress passed a law to produce new coins to celebrate America's 250th anniversary. In that law, we wrote that the coins should be emblematic of our 250th anniversary--the U.S. semiquincentennial celebration of 250 years of the vision of a democratic Republic--of a government by and for the people; of our values as a free people, with the rights of free speech and free assembly and free expression. Well, certainly, this we know--that the symbol of putting a sitting President or leader on a coin is not a symbol of a democratic Republic; it is a symbol of an authoritarian strongman.

If we turn the clock back to the year 44 BC, Julius Caesar was Emperor and he decided to have a coin with his face on it. He was the first to do so. It was a radical departure from Roman tradition, and it alarmed the Senate. It was viewed widely as a blatant display of personal power--of personal authoritarian power. And if you missed the point, on the backside of this coin, it had the words ``dictator perpetuo''--``dictator in perpetuity'' or ``dictator forever.'' That is what it represents to put your face on a coin.

Then, at the time our Nation was founded--and, again, we are celebrating the 250th anniversary of that vision--King George III put his face on a coin, on the silver sixpence, and it was viewed, as it was with Julius Caesar and the Emperors who followed him, as an expression of authoritarian personal power.

Does our Constitution provide for an authoritarian structure of government, where power flows down from the King to the people? I think not. It flows up from the people through elections.

That is why putting your face on a coin just is absolutely wrong and why it violates the very premise of the law that created the permission to have this 250th anniversary coin. The design that Trump has come up with--that of a fake gold coin with his face on it--violates the law that we passed. It is widely out of sync with the values of our Nation. It is widely out of sync with our history and our best traditions. So these coins should never be made, and, if made, they should never be distributed.

It is part of a long list of this authoritarian, would-be strongman, dictator President, who is trying to stamp his name onto every public place available.

He is renaming the Kennedy Center for himself; renaming the U.S. Institute of Peace for himself; hanging ``Dear Leader''-sized, North Korean-style banners on the sides of the buildings here in Washington, DC; putting his face onto passports; putting his face onto the national park passes; naming a class of warships after himself; insisting that it be his signature, not the Treasury Secretary's signature on the currency; planning to build a massive triumphal arch to himself--and let's not forget: tearing down the ``People's House''--the East Wing of the White House--to build his gold-plated, billion-dollar ballroom boondoggle.

I say to my colleagues, whether they sit to the left of the aisle or to the right of the aisle, didn't we take the same oath to the same Constitution? Didn't we pledge ourselves to sustaining a democratic Republic, not a strongman state?

So I urge you: Join together--Ds and Rs together--to defend our Constitution; to defend the vision of a government by and for the people.

If we want to turn to the opinion of George Washington 250 years ago, what was his opinion? He was strongly opposed to having his portrait put on coins. Why? Because he considered it a King-like act, completely out of sync with the vision of the Nation we were founding.

Washington's example has endured. It has endured for 250 years until now. Well, my colleagues may say that there was one exception--one exception in 1926--when there was a coin of George Washington, and behind him, there was the outline of a face of President Calvin Coolidge, but it wasn't Calvin Coolidge on the coin. It wasn't his portrait; he wasn't alone; and you would have to be really knowledgeable to know that that outline hanging in the background happened to be of Calvin Coolidge.

Well, this is quite different. This is a full-on, Caesar-style, King George III-style, self-ego amplification that just doesn't fit with the United States of America. So Congress should immediately pass the Change Corruption Act, which I have introduced with Senator Cortez Masto, so as to ban all coins from featuring the image or signature of the sitting U.S. President or living former Presidents--aimed at the principle involved, not aimed simply at President Trump.

You know, families need foundations to thrive, foundations like healthcare, housing, education, and good-paying jobs. What they don't need is to have President Trump's face on fake gold Trump bucks. Instead of putting his face on our money, like a King, let's ask our President to focus on putting money back in the pockets of working Americans. Let's honor 250 years of government by and for the people. Let's prohibit this Caesar-esque-, King George III-, Louis XIV-style of displaying authoritarianism. Let's pass the Change Corruption Act.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill, the Change Corruption Act, which is at the desk; that the bill be considered read three times and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I so enjoy working with my colleague from Wyoming. But I did notice that her speech had nothing to do with my point that sitting Presidents don't belong on coins because it is an authoritarian symbol.

And I also noticed that her description of the bill passed last year involved changing the name of it. Trump called it the Big Beautiful Bill. And it became widely ridiculed because it cut nutrition, and it cut healthcare to fund tax breaks for the very richest Americans.

It had nothing to do with working Americans. In fact, when you take the impact of the healthcare cuts and the nutrition cuts, the little, smallest crumbs on the table that were sprinkled to the less affluent Americans don't make up for the cuts to healthcare and nutrition. So they come out the losers. It was a ``families lose and megamillionaires win'' bill, and I am happy to debate that all day long.

I realize they renamed it because it was such a horrific attack on ordinary people and, quite frankly, an embarrassment.

So I do support my colleague's vision of fighting for families. But to fight for families, we don't need legislation that is ``families lose and billionaires win.'' We need legislation that is ``families thrive and the affluent, they pay their fair share.'' Their marginal tax as a percent of their income is a tiny fraction of what the working American pays.

You know, in any sane system, the richest Americans would pay a higher

percent of their income in taxes, not a lower percent.

But these are disagreements that I am sure we will continue to debate. And I know my colleague is not planning to run for reelection and won't be here next year. I am going to miss that a great deal. But we still have time and several other things that we are working on together, and maybe that is a topic we will switch to in our next conversation.

Thank you.

Thank you. The Senator appreciates your pronunciation of my home State, which people across America have a hard time often figuring out.

Mr. President, I am here tonight joining my colleague from Wisconsin on a very serious topic: that our Nation is at war; that our servicemembers are dying; that for every one who dies, so many are injured--a war that is absolutely hurting us in every possible way.

Operation Epic Fury has become ``Operation Epic Failure.''

On February 28, President Trump and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu launched this unconstitutional war against Iran.

President Trump was asked how long would this last. He said: 4 or 5 weeks. He talked about how our overwhelming military power would produce Iranian leaders who would plead--who would plead--for an unconditional surrender.

Mr. President, 16 weeks later, the war was still going on, but then there was agreement to a 14-point outline of a cease-fire agreement. But because it was just an outline, because the countries hadn't worked out their different understandings of the points, just as President Trump completely blotched the war, he completely blotched the negotiation; so it was back to war.

President Trump announced new strikes on Iran, and we are now in the 21st week of that 4- to 5-week war. Time and time again, leaders think they can launch a war and make a series of assumptions that prove to be wrong, and here we are again.

We were wrong with the assumption you could occupy Afghanistan and build something resembling a modern democratic nation.

We were wrong in spending our resources to attack Iraq, which was a counterbalance to Iran and undid this balance in a way that created Iranian influence through an arc that extended clear across to Lebanon.

You know, our Constitution clearly assigns the question of war to Congress. So to my Republican colleagues: Why aren't you insisting that Congress make this decision rather than the President?

Madison summarized: The Constitution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. [The Constitution] has accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislative [branch].

That is us. That is us. It is not the President. And the reasoning was that an Executive can too easily make assumptions that something will be quick and easy, but you are committing the lives of our citizens--you are committing the treasure of the Nation--and that should require careful consideration. One person alone, our Founders said, should not be able to take a Republic to war. That is what Kings do. That is what authoritarian strongmen do. But we are not--need I remind you--a strongman authoritarian state--at least we are not by our Constitution. We are a democratic Republic, so let's start acting like it and let's start honoring the structure of our Constitution.

That structure assigns the power of the purse to Congress. So every single Senator should be down here protesting when the President cancels a program that has been authorized and funded. Every single Senator should be down here protesting when the President creates a slush fund to do projects that are not authorized and not funded--that is our responsibility. Unfortunately, this Chamber has failed, for the most part, to defend its role and to defend the Constitution.

We did have a concurrent resolution under the War Powers Act that directed the President to remove United States forces from hostilities with Iran, but the majority has acted like we didn't actually pass it, and the President has acted like it wasn't passed. And the majority has failed to protest to the President that he is not respecting the fact that it was passed.

If you can't stand behind the acts of this Chamber, if you can't stand behind the Constitution, then how far off track are we as a nation?

We just got through with a conversation about the fact that this Congress asked for a coin to be minted that reflected the values of our Nation upon our 250 years since our Declaration of Independence, but instead Trump did what dictators do, just as Caesar broke Roman tradition to put his face on a coin and to declare dictator forever, ``dictator in perpetuity,'' just as King George III put his face on a coin to reflect that power came from him down to the people rather than flowing up from the people--that is a mega difference between an authoritarian state and a democratic republic.

The consequences of Trump's war of choice and the consequences of the Republican leadership's failure to exert their constitutional responsibility to end President Trump's war of choice is that 18 servicemembers are dead and hundreds and hundreds of Americans are badly injured.

Thousands of Iranian civilians are dead--including a whole lot of children, many of whom died from a strike by America, by President Trump's team, on a girl's elementary school.

The war strengthened Iran's hardliners--that is what happens when you assassinate the religious leaders and the political leaders--people rally to their country.

It weakened Iran's reformers who wanted to see a different path for their nation.

It enriched Russia. In fact, President Trump proceeded to say that we would no longer enforce the restriction on the Russian sale of oil so they could sell at the world price. Billions and billions of dollars flowed into Russia because of this war--billions and billions of dollars that could be used in the war against Ukraine. That is a war started by a dictatorship against a democratic republic that we should be standing with.

We should be standing with the people of Ukraine, not enriching Russia to buy more weapons to attack them.

The taxpayers, they are certainly losers--$40 billion of national treasure was the estimate given to us yesterday from the Secretary of Defense. And by all estimates, that doesn't include repairing all of the facilities damaged throughout the Middle East that the United States is involved in.

Before the war, the Strait of Hormuz was open. Now it is closed. That certainly doesn't benefit us or the world.

It has driven up the cost of gas; it has driven up the inflation rate. So Americans, in addition to $40 billion of their collective treasure, are paying out of their pocket so much more at the pump. The price in Oregon has been over $5 a gallon.

Farmers, they have lost too. They were already hit hard by the tariffs, but now they are hit by the high diesel prices to operate their machinery and by the high cost of fertilizer, all of which could be envisioned if there had been a debate here over whether we should go to war with Iran.

We would have heard from the experts who would say: You understand the Strait of Hormuz is a very narrow channel, and Iran has cruise missiles that can proceed to hit ships in the strait, so they have cards to play. We would have debated that if we had had that debate and carried out our constitutional responsibility.

We would have observed that that would have a horrific impact on American families. We would have observed that it would have a terrible impact on American farmers. But we didn't observe that because we didn't hold the debate.

But, say you: Did we not hold oversight hearings at least? Not a single one--another failure of our constitutional responsibility. This group of Senators, through the committees, not a single oversight hearing of the war.

President Trump promised to lower prices and end wars, but he has raised prices, and he has started a war.

Trump posted on Truth Social:

From this point forward, any time the Islamic Republic of

Iran shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz . . . the

United States will bomb and destroy ONE BRIDGE OR POWER

PLANT, including those located next to, or in, the Capital

City of Tehran.

From the beginning, President Trump thought the power to bomb was his ace up his sleeve. Is President Trump a strategic analyst of wars? No. He just had this instinct--his gut--saying: We have more bombs than they do, so they will fold.

But he was wrong. And through this campaign, he just keeps repeating the same thing: If they don't do what we want, we will bomb them even more.

We will bomb them even more--the echo time and time and time again.

In the beginning, Trump said this war was one we entered because Binyamin Netanyahu was going to bomb Iran anyway, and there would be retaliation so we might as well join the war with him. That was the justification for the United States going to war?

Eventually, he got around to saying: This is about the nuclear materials and making sure that they don't make a nuclear bomb. Our Director of National Intelligence had been very clear that Iran had never made a decision to build a bomb.

And the basic measures to prevent them from having a bomb--getting rid of their highly enriched uranium and moving it out of their country under international supervision; having the IAEA--the International Atomic Energy Agency--monitor everything they do; dismantle their plutonium nuclear reactor--all those measures were already done by an international agreement supported by five major powers--Britain and France and China and Russia and the United States--all together, insisting that these measures were necessary to make sure Iran never got a bomb.

So they did all those things. They dismantled their nuclear reactor-- their plutonium nuclear reactors called a rock reactor--and they proceeded to ship their highly enriched uranium out, and they let in all of the inspectors, and they followed all the rules of the centrifuges.

And who tore up that agreement and created a pathway for Iran to potentially covertly pursue a bomb? That man is President Trump.

So President Trump destroys the international agreement that prevents pursuit of a nuclear weapon and then proceeds to start a war to achieve the same result. And then he discovers the war doesn't work, so he has a 14-point plan.

Well, that plan kind of was jaw-dropping, particularly to my Republican colleagues. It called for America to organize an international Marshall Plan for Iran with some $300-plus million of help. It called for immediate access for Iran to some $24 billion of funds--after they had spent a decade complaining about Iran getting access to $1.5 billion, under the previous agreement, of its own money. What is $1.5 billion compared to the hundreds of billions of dollars that Trump was providing to Iran in the 14-point agreement?

Now we are hearing reports that homes have been hit, schools have been hit, hospitals have been hit. We are taking out bridges. The President is bragging about doing that. There was a report that two desalination plants have been hit in Iran. We don't have confirmation of it. I asked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff yesterday if indeed we had targeted or hit desalination plants. He said he didn't know but that he would get back to us. So I am looking forward to getting that information.

And why is that important? Because targeting a desalination plant is widely considered to be a war crime. So I hope those reports are wrong.

Why is it a war crime? Because destroying access to drinkable water-- and one of these plants was reported to serve some 10,000 people in 20 villages--is considered unacceptable under international law. That is why it is a war crime--because it is not a strategic military objective, unless forcing people to have no access to water is a war strategy, which it is not.

I hope that report is wrong. I hope it is not the case that we targeted desalination plants. Iran is reported to have targeted a desalination plant as well.

So the war is potentially devolving here as we are hitting more and more

things that affect civilian life as well as having killed thousands of civilians directly. The laws of war prohibit attacks on objects indispensable to civilian survival, including water and food.

So where are we? Trump now claims the main mission of this war is to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But Iran's highly enriched uranium--that it only has because he tore up the agreement that prevented them from having that--is buried deep underground, so there is no easy way to extract it. If there is no easy way to extract it, how is this war supposed to solve that?

So the administration now believes negotiations are essential to be able to withdraw because there is no military answer. Maybe if we had had a debate here in Congress, we would have discussed the fact that there was no military strategy that would result in the extraction of that highly enriched uranium, that it would have to be done by agreement. So we are in the fifth month of Trump trying to bomb his way to an answer, the fifth month of that strategy failing.

Negotiators and facilitators of negotiators have proceeded to suggest a 10-day cease-fire to enable return to try to work out some of the details from that previous 14-point outline to solve this war. I support that effort because the path we are on is hurting America in every possible way and hurting a whole lot of civilians overseas.

So let's embrace and exercise our constitutional responsibility and pass Senator Van Hollen's War Powers Resolution to end this reckless war of choice. If the President ignores it after we have passed it, then let's collectively insist on defending the role of the Senate and the House under our Constitution to be the place where the decisions are made about going to war. It is time that we honor our responsibility.

I know there are a lot of Members who don't want to have to have that debate because they are afraid they will get it wrong--they will make a vote for war and it will be a disaster or they will vote against war and their constituents will disagree. But shirking the responsibility is unacceptable. So strap your big-boy pants on and do the work we were elected under our Constitution to do.

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.