Unanimous Consent Request (Executive Calendar)

Senator Merkley asked the Senate to pass, by unanimous consent, a bill barring the placement of a living or sitting president’s face or signature on U.S. coins, saying that putting current presidents on currency is a symbol associated with kings and dictators. Senator Lummis objected to the request and said Democrats should instead focus on letting Americans keep more of their money, citing last year’s Republican tax law and saying that planned White House construction projects use private funds. Merkley replied that Lummis’s remarks did not address his point about coins and argued that the tax law cut food and healthcare aid for ordinary families while benefiting the richest Americans.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

3 statements

Jeff Merkley, OR

Democrat
“I want the Senate to pass my bill right now. It stops the government from putting the face or signature of a living or current president on U.S. coins. Only kings and dictators put their faces on money.”
  • Speech in the House

    Reasoning 100 of 100

    This statement drew 9 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

    See full analysis
Official Congressional Record

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.

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY

Republican
“I object to this request. Democrats should stop attacking the President and focus on helping Americans keep more of their money. The plans for a new arch and a safer ballroom at the White House use private money, keep leaders safe, and make our capital better.”
Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, I have been very proud to work with my colleagues and very much want to continue to work with my colleagues to make our currency work better for all Americans. That is why, a year ago this month, Republicans passed the Working Families Tax Cut Act. It did exactly what my friend from Oregon just asked us for, which is to concentrate on how we can make our currency in our country work better for the American people. That is why we passed no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security benefits--so we can help the very working families who are struggling in this economy. Millions of Americans have taken advantage of the benefits provided them in the Working Families Tax Cut, but not a single Democrat voted for the bill--not one. So, instead of focusing on what is on our Nation’s currency, I would urge my Democratic colleagues to join Republicans and focus on pocketbook issues that impact all Americans. I might add, interestingly, that I, too, was thinking: Wow. Why would we build an arch in Washington, DC, or near Washington, DC? That sounds a little French to me, like the Champs-Elysees. I found out that it has been planned for years. It wasn’t planned by President Trump to self- aggrandize. It has been planned for years, but nobody built it. Then President Trump talks to his friends who are willing to open their pocketbooks to do things that haven’t been done previously but that have been planned for our Nation’s Capital. When we recognize the risk that we now put our Presidents in when we have large events like the National Press Club or, you know, a press dinner at the Hilton hotel here in town, where an attacker with guns was just about to enter a roomful of elected officials and Cabinet Secretaries and the President and the Vice President and their spouses and shoot the place up, the President recognizes we have to have a secure ballroom that we can use to entertain foreign dignitaries; in which to have special events; that has special bulletproof glass that is very expensive on the windows; and that has a foundation structure that will support all that because it is very heavy. The design is so complementary to the White House. The design is very much in keeping with the historic facade of the White House. It is going to be safer for elected officials and visiting dignitaries. It is going to be elegant, and it is going to be befitting of the White House campus that it sits on, in celebration of our 250th anniversary. Come on. Let’s quit attacking the person who holds the Office of President, every day with every bill, and maybe think about what he is doing for the American people, with nontaxpayer money, to make Washington, DC, something we can be totally proud of--safe, clean, and beautiful. And why don’t we, as a Congress, focus on ways to make Americans’ lives better so they can keep more of their own money, so they can self-determine how they spend it, so they can maybe buy a house or help their kids buy a car or help their kids buy an education. You do that by keeping more of their dollars in their own pockets. That is what we did last summer with the Working Families Tax Cut provision, and we can do it again this year. So I would encourage my Democrat colleagues and friends to join us in helping the American people instead of obsessing about who is in the White House right now. So, Mr. President, I object.

Jeff Merkley, OR

Democrat
“Sitting presidents should not be put on coins. That is something dictators do. Also, last year's tax bill hurt regular families by cutting food aid and healthcare to give tax cuts to the richest people. The richest Americans should pay more in taxes, not less.”
  • Speech in the House

    Reasoning 38 of 100

    This statement drew 4 conclusions, but gave no reasons for 2 of them.

    See full analysis
Official Congressional Record

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.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from issue 120

  1. House of Representatives National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027 36 statements
  2. House of Representatives Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2027 38 statements
  3. House of Representatives Stop Insider Trading Act 25 statements
  4. House of Representatives Directing the President Pursuant to Section 5(C) of the War Powers Resolution to Remove United States Armed Forces from Hostilities with Iran 16 statements
  5. House of Representatives America 250 7 statements
  6. House of Representatives Honoring Cassy Dornbusch on Her Retirement 9 statements
  7. House of Representatives Honoring Darlyn Martin 7 statements
  8. Senate Working Families Tax Cut Act (Executive Session) 2 statements
  9. Senate Vote on Flowers Nomination (Executive Calendar) 2 statements
  10. Senate Cloture Motion (Executive Calendar) 2 statements
  11. Senate Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1804 (Executive Calendar) 2 statements
  12. Senate Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 811 (Executive Calendar) 6 statements
  13. Senate Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 1689 (Executive Calendar) 7 statements
  14. Senate Protecting American Taxpayers Act (Executive Calendar) 2 statements
  15. Senate Unanimous Consent Request (Executive Calendar) 3 statements
  16. Senate Executive Reports of Committees 2 statements