Floor SpeechBipartisan2026-02-11

DISAPPROVING THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COUNCIL IN APPROVING THE D.C. INCOME AND FRANCHISE TAX CONFORMITY AND REVISION TEMPORARY AMENDMENT ACT OF 2025

ImmigrationForeign PolicyVoting RightsEthics

Context

On 2026-02-11, Senator Edward J. Markey (D-MA) delivered a floor speech titled "DISAPPROVING THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COUNCIL IN APPROVING THE D.C. INCOME AND FRANCHISE TAX CONFORMITY AN" in the Senate. The speech addressed immigration and also covered foreign policy, voting rights. It referenced legislation including S571, S574, S572, among other bills.

Full Text

DISAPPROVING THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COUNCIL IN APPROVING THE D.C. INCOME AND FRANCHISE TAX CONFORMITY AND REVISION TEMPORARY AMENDMENT ACT OF 2025

Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 29 (Wednesday, February 11, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 11, 2026)] [Senate] [Pages S571-S574] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] DISAPPROVING THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COUNCIL IN APPROVING THE D.C. INCOME AND FRANCHISE TAX CONFORMITY AND REVISION TEMPORARY AMENDMENT ACT OF 2025 The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Justice). The clerk will report the joint resolution by title. The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows: A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 142) disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the D.C. Income and Franchise Tax Conformity and Revision Temporary Amendment Act of 2025. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts. Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 605 Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I rise today because, once again, the sitting President of the United States has threatened something antithetical to our democracy, something patently unconstitutional and unlawful, something that should give every single American pause. Donald Trump has now suggested that he might nationalize our elections. Trump has suggested that the Federal executive branch should take over elections, which, under our Constitution, belong to the States. So let me be clear. This is not a policy disagreement. This is not a gray area. This is not a novel constitutional question. This is, flatly, outright, unquestionably, unconstitutional. The Framers could not have been more clear. Article I, section 4 of the Constitution places the times, the places, and the manner of Federal elections in the hands of the States, not in the hands of the President, not the White House, not in an Executive order. There is no clause in the Constitution or law on the books--none--that allows a President to commandeer State election systems--no emergency power, no implied authority, no ``because I just say so.'' The President's role is to faithfully execute the laws, not to rewrite the Constitution when the facts or the voters displease him. Yet here we are. Donald Trump's dangerous threat rests on a familiar and thoroughly discredited premise that American elections are rigged, fraudulent, or illegitimate. That claim has been examined exhaustively and has been rejected everywhere it has been tested. State election officials--Republicans and Democrats alike--certified the results of the 2020 Presidential election. Courts across the country rejected claims of widespread fraud. Federal judges appointed by Presidents of both parties dismissed these cases for a lack of evidence. There was no stolen election. There was no massive fraud. There was no justification, then or now, for the Federal seizure of elections. To suggest otherwise is not really wrong; it is reckless. And it is exclusively intended, ultimately, for the President to take over the elections in November of this year so he can rig the elections so that Democrats cannot win the House and Senate. That is what is at the heart of what the President is trying to do. What is most alarming is not just that Donald Trump spoke those words, but that so many congressional Republicans have refused to say plainly what the Constitution requires. Silence in the face of an unconstitutional power grab is not neutrality. It is acquiescence to the undermining of the U.S. Constitution. Our system of government depends on elected officials who are willing to say no, especially to a President of their own party when the Constitution is at stake. The Founders divided power deliberately. They placed elections close to the people. They rejected centralized control because they understood that democracy cannot survive when the Executive controls the ballot. That principle is not optional. It is structural. It is foundational. It is what the Founding Fathers built into the system to make sure that we did not have a King, that we did not have a Monarch. They built it in this way so that the representative government would be selected at the local level, that the elections would be conducted at the local level--no taxation without representation. They were fighting to create a House and Senate. They were fighting to put checks on King George. They were fighting to make sure that ultimately no latter-day King George--King Donald--could emerge that would then seek to impose his will on the people. And that is why we have a Senate. That is why we have a House of Representatives--no taxation without representation--ensuring that each community, each State, has their own representatives selected in elections conducted by the voters in that State, by the leaders in that State. And if the President were to attempt by order, directive, or coercion to nationalize or commandeer State-run elections, that action would be unconstitutional; it would be illegal; and it would be without effect. It would be a violation of the Constitution. And let me be clear about one final point: Such a brazen attempt would not merely be unlawful; it would also be impeachable. A President who seeks to seize control of elections is attacking the constitutional order itself, and that is precisely the kind of abuse of power for which impeachment exists, not as a partisan weapon but as a constitutional safeguard against the usurpation of the electoral process in our [[Page S572]] country by a would-be King, Donald Trump. That is what they were protecting against. They anticipated, in drafting the Constitution, the emergence of Donald Trump, the emergence of someone who said we should nationalize the elections, the emergence of someone who said that he could invoke the Insurgency act in order to put marines--an army--on the streets of America during election times in order to serve the will of the President so that he would not have the checks and balances of the leaders of the other party being able to control the gavels to be able to subpoena him. So in a moment, I will seek unanimous consent to pass my resolution expressing the sense of the Senate on these indisputable points. President Trump cannot nationalize our Federal elections. Our Constitution prohibits it. Our Constitution was established in order to make sure that a President cannot subvert elections at the State level. And if he tried to, he would be committing an impeachable offense against the Constitution of the United States, and he would have to have been tried then in the House and the Senate on that impeachable offense. This resolution draws a bright line. It affirms what should never need reaffirming, that elections belong to the States, the Constitution belongs to the people, and no President--ever--stands above either. The Senate should speak with one voice on this question tonight. The Constitution demands the Senate speak with one voice tonight. Democracy requires that the Senate speak with one voice tonight, that it is an impeachable offense to nationalize elections which the Constitution requires be conducted at the State level. So with that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 605; that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection? The Senator from Florida. Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Reserving the right to object. Mr. President, I rise today to object to the motion made by my colleague from Massachusetts. We don't need to nationalize our elections. My Republican colleagues and I have been fighting Democrats' attempts to nationalize our elections for years now. The States have the ability to run elections. My State of Florida is actually a leader in election security and timeliness to the point that my last election was called within minutes of polls closing. My colleagues are only bringing this to the floor as an excuse to score political points by attacking President Trump. President Trump and Republicans are working to deliver on our promises to the American people: securing our border, protecting communities and elections, and bringing down the cost of living despite Democrats fighting us on every turn. This is just another example of Democrat distraction, not serious policy, and for that reason I object. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard. The Senator from Florida. Mr. SCOTT of Florida. If my colleague from western Massachusetts wants to defend democracy and protect elections, I offer him an alternative that I, and a majority of Americans, would support. There should be some commonsense, national standards in place to ensure Americans know their elections are free and fair and that their votes are not diluted. That includes requiring voter ID, something 83 percent of Americans support. You need an ID to board an airplane, buy certain medicines, apply for jobs and bank accounts, check into hotels, rent a car, donate blood, and purchase a lottery ticket. Why should voting in our elections have a lower verification standard than purchasing a lottery ticket? Surely, we can also agree that requiring proof of citizenship makes sense. And if a State has a noncitizen on the voter rolls, they should be removed. Now, the minority leader thinks that is racist to make people prove citizenship to vote. Just remember, every Member of this body and all of our friends in the House had to prove their citizenship to take office. Yes, even my colleague from Massachusetts had to prove he was an American citizen to take his seat in the U.S. Senate and represent the good people of his State. So are the requirements for being elected to the U.S. Congress racist? I cannot imagine the Senator from Massachusetts believes that to be true. We are all here to represent U.S. citizens, and we should be certain that it is only U.S. citizens who are able to cast a vote for any of us to be here. The SAVE America Act p

Referenced legislation: HJRES142, SRES605, S1383

View original source →

DISAPPROVING THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COUNCIL IN APPROVING THE D.C. INCOME AND FRANCHISE TAX CONFORMITY AND REVISION TEMPORARY AMENDMENT ACT OF 2025 Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 29 (Wednesday, February 11, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 11, 2026)] [Senate] [Pages S571-S574] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] DISAPPROVING THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COUNCIL IN APPROVING THE D.C. INCOME AND FRANCHISE TAX CONFORMITY AND REVISION TEMPORARY AMENDMENT ACT OF 2025 The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Justice). The clerk will report the joint resolution by title. The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows: A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 142) disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the D.C. Income and Franchise Tax Conformity and Revision Temporary Amendment Act of 2025. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts. Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 605 Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I rise today because, once again, the sitting President of the United States has threatened something antithetical to our democracy, something patently unconstitutional and unlawful, something that should give every single American pause. Donald Trump has now suggested that he might nationalize our elections. Trump has suggested that the Federal executive branch should take over elections, which, under our Constitution, belong to the States. So let me be clear. This is not a policy disagreement. This is not a gray area. This is not a novel constitutional question. This is, flatly, outright, unquestionably, unconstitutional. The Framers could not have been more clear. Article I, section 4 of the Constitution places the times, the places, and the manner of Federal elections in the hands of the States, not in the hands of the President, not the White House, not in an Executive order. There is no clause in the Constitution or law on the books--none--that allows a President to commandeer State election systems--no emergency power, no implied authority, no ``because I just say so.'' The President's role is to faithfully execute the laws, not to rewrite the Constitution when the facts or the voters displease him. Yet here we are. Donald Trump's dangerous threat rests on a familiar and thoroughly discredited premise that American elections are rigged, fraudulent, or illegitimate. That claim has been examined exhaustively and has been rejected everywhere it has been tested. State election officials--Republicans and Democrats alike--certified the results of the 2020 Presidential election. Courts across the country rejected claims of widespread fraud. Federal judges appointed by Presidents of both parties dismissed these cases for a lack of evidence. There was no stolen election. There was no massive fraud. There was no justification, then or now, for the Federal seizure of elections. To suggest otherwise is not really wrong; it is reckless. And it is exclusively intended, ultimately, for the President to take over the elections in November of this year so he can rig the elections so that Democrats cannot win the House and Senate. That is what is at the heart of what the President is trying to do. What is most alarming is not just that Donald Trump spoke those words, but that so many congressional Republicans have refused to say plainly what the Constitution requires. Silence in the face of an unconstitutional power grab is not neutrality. It is acquiescence to the undermining of the U.S. Constitution. Our system of government depends on elected officials who are willing to say no, especially to a President of their own party when the Constitution is at stake. The Founders divided power deliberately. They placed elections close to the people. They rejected centralized control because they understood that democracy cannot survive when the Executive controls the ballot. That principle is not optional. It is structural. It is foundational. It is what the Founding Fathers built into the system to make sure that we did not have a King, that we did not have a Monarch. They built it in this way so that the representative government would be selected at the local level, that the elections would be conducted at the local level--no taxation without representation. They were fighting to create a House and Senate. They were fighting to put checks on King George. They were fighting to make sure that ultimately no latter-day King George--King Donald--could emerge that would then seek to impose his will on the people. And that is why we have a Senate. That is why we have a House of Representatives--no taxation without representation--ensuring that each community, each State, has their own representatives selected in elections conducted by the voters in that State, by the leaders in that State. And if the President were to attempt by order, directive, or coercion to nationalize or commandeer State-run elections, that action would be unconstitutional; it would be illegal; and it would be without effect. It would be a violation of the Constitution. And let me be clear about one final point: Such a brazen attempt would not merely be unlawful; it would also be impeachable. A President who seeks to seize control of elections is attacking the constitutional order itself, and that is precisely the kind of abuse of power for which impeachment exists, not as a partisan weapon but as a constitutional safeguard against the usurpation of the electoral process in our [[Page S572]] country by a would-be King, Donald Trump. That is what they were protecting against. They anticipated, in drafting the Constitution, the emergence of Donald Trump, the emergence of someone who said we should nationalize the elections, the emergence of someone who said that he could invoke the Insurgency act in order to put marines--an army--on the streets of America during election times in order to serve the will of the President so that he would not have the checks and balances of the leaders of the other party being able to control the gavels to be able to subpoena him. So in a moment, I will seek unanimous consent to pass my resolution expressing the sense of the Senate on these indisputable points. President Trump cannot nationalize our Federal elections. Our Constitution prohibits it. Our Constitution was established in order to make sure that a President cannot subvert elections at the State level. And if he tried to, he would be committing an impeachable offense against the Constitution of the United States, and he would have to have been tried then in the House and the Senate on that impeachable offense. This resolution draws a bright line. It affirms what should never need reaffirming, that elections belong to the States, the Constitution belongs to the people, and no President--ever--stands above either. The Senate should speak with one voice on this question tonight. The Constitution demands the Senate speak with one voice tonight. Democracy requires that the Senate speak with one voice tonight, that it is an impeachable offense to nationalize elections which the Constitution requires be conducted at the State level. So with that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 605; that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection? The Senator from Florida. Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Reserving the right to object. Mr. President, I rise today to object to the motion made by my colleague from Massachusetts. We don't need to nationalize our elections. My Republican colleagues and I have been fighting Democrats' attempts to nationalize our elections for years now. The States have the ability to run elections. My State of Florida is actually a leader in election security and timeliness to the point that my last election was called within minutes of polls closing. My colleagues are only bringing this to the floor as an excuse to score political points by attacking President Trump. President Trump and Republicans are working to deliver on our promises to the American people: securing our border, protecting communities and elections, and bringing down the cost of living despite Democrats fighting us on every turn. This is just another example of Democrat distraction, not serious policy, and for that reason I object. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard. The Senator from Florida. Mr. SCOTT of Florida. If my colleague from western Massachusetts wants to defend democracy and protect elections, I offer him an alternative that I, and a majority of Americans, would support. There should be some commonsense, national standards in place to ensure Americans know their elections are free and fair and that their votes are not diluted. That includes requiring voter ID, something 83 percent of Americans support. You need an ID to board an airplane, buy certain medicines, apply for jobs and bank accounts, check into hotels, rent a car, donate blood, and purchase a lottery ticket. Why should voting in our elections have a lower verification standard than purchasing a lottery ticket? Surely, we can also agree that requiring proof of citizenship makes sense. And if a State has a noncitizen on the voter rolls, they should be removed. Now, the minority leader thinks that is racist to make people prove citizenship to vote. Just remember, every Member of this body and all of our friends in the House had to prove their citizenship to take office. Yes, even my colleague from Massachusetts had to prove he was an American citizen to take his seat in the U.S. Senate and represent the good people of his State. So are the requirements for being elected to the U.S. Congress racist? I cannot imagine the Senator from Massachusetts believes that to be true. We are all here to represent U.S. citizens, and we should be certain that it is only U.S. citizens who are able to cast a vote for any of us to be here. The SAVE America Act p Referenced legislation: HJRES142, SRES605, S1383