A resolution condemning the suggestion by President Donald J. Trump that criticism of him is "illegal," reaffirming the fundamental importance of free speech, and declaring that criticism of the President is not only lawful but essential to democracy in the United States.

Mr. President, I will be speaking here for a few minutes about the upcoming War Powers Resolution vote.

First, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Wall Street Journal editorial about the War Powers Act, if I may.

I have been asked a lot about this. In a prior life, I used to be a Judge Advocate in the Air Force for about 33 years-- prosecutor, defense attorney, and a military judge for a very short period of time. I enjoyed it very much, so this part of the law has been part of my life.

The body is going to have a big vote today, and I think it is a consequential vote.

Simply put, here is my understanding of the Constitution and how Congress and the President and the courts interact when it comes to making war.

No President has the ability to put America in a state of war. That is reserved for the Congress. It says in the Constitution only Congress can declare war.

When you look at the history of the country, we have declared war-- Congress has--five times in the last 250 years. So declaring war is an unusual thing by the Congress: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II. So I would suggest that declaring war is something America doesn't do a lot, and there is probably good reason. When you declare war, it affects insurance contracts. It is a legal state that has a lot of consequence to it. We have done that five times as a nation.

I wonder how many times a Commander in Chief has used military force to defend a nation without a declaration of war--hundreds, if not thousands, of times in the last 250 years.

The norm in this country is that military conflicts are not carried on under a declaration of war. Military conflicts, which there have been a lot of--Korea, Vietnam, on, and on, and on--are engaged in by a Commander in Chief who feels a need to use military force depending on what the threat is.

The question before the body is, Can the Congress stop a military conflict declared by the Commander in Chief because we don't agree with their decision, and without our approval it must end? The answer, unequivocally, to me is no.

Under the Constitution, the authority to be Commander in Chief resides exclusively with the President. The power to declare war is exclusive to the Congress.

Now, what could the Congress do constitutionally if they disagree with a military action that is not a declaration of war? We could cut off funding. The Constitution reserves the right of the Congress, beginning in the House, to appropriate money. So if there is a military engagement out there--you just pick the topic--and as a Member of Congress, you think America should not be in this conflict, constitutionally, you could terminate funding. And that would be a constitutional check and balance on the President's ability to use military force.

The second thing you could do, as a Member of Congress, if you thought the President was doing something wrong by using the military, is you could do an Article of Impeachment, somehow create a high crime or misdemeanor; that the use of force in this circumstance is a high crime or misdemeanor and impeach the President.

Those are two things that Congress can do to check and balance a President.

But one thing we can't do, in my opinion, is to substitute our judgment for that of the Commander in Chief about a military operation because if that is the case, then you don't have a single Commander in Chief; you have 535 Commanders in Chief.

There has never been in the history of the country a termination of military activity based on the idea of Congress did not approve. There have been a lot of military operations authorized by Congress. There have been a lot of military operations not authorized by Congress. The question of the War Powers Act is what we are talking about.

In 1973--the frustration with the Vietnam war--Congress passed a statute that required the Commander in Chief to notify Congress about engaging in hostilities within a specific period of time, to make reports to Congress at the end of a defined period. I think it is 60 days. I can't remember. If Congress hasn't approved those hostilities, then they must be terminated.

I think the War Powers Act is an obvious constitutional infringement on the ability of the Commander in Chief to conduct military operations because the War Powers Act, at its heart, takes away the ability of the Commander in Chief to decide military matters, and it resides with us.

If you can terminate a Commander in Chief's decision through the War Powers Act, then that constitutional authority has been taken by us, the Congress. And that would be a disaster for this country.

I would argue that the War Powers Act is, on its face, unconstitutional. Reagan and a bunch of other Presidents have said the same thing.

The day that we terminate a military operation based on the idea that we haven't authorized it, then we become the Commander in Chief, we the Congress. That power has been taken from the designated Commander in Chief and usurped by us. That would be a disaster for our country. It would create paralysis at a time of need.

Presidents have informed us of military actions under the War Powers Act, arguing the act is unconstitutional. I would continue to do that if I were a Commander in Chief. I would inform the Congress. I would brief the Congress about what I am going to do or not do using our military--just, I think it is good public policy.

But the vote we are going to take this afternoon is basically we are going to vote, as the U.S. Senate, to terminate actions taken by President Trump regarding drug cartels. I think the day we do that, then we are saying to the world that, really, the Commander in Chief is the Congress, not the President. And if you don't like what President Trump is doing with drug boats and other activity in the Caribbean or anywhere else, you could pass a law saying no funds can be used for the purposes of these operations.

I have been told by my colleagues: Well, that is hard.

Well, it is meant to be hard. The President can veto any law we pass, and the only way we can override that veto is to get two-thirds of the body. It is meant to be hard. It requires us to find consensus.

To my colleagues, please do not be confused about this. Never in the history of our country has a Congress terminated a military action because they did not give permission to the Commander in Chief. Never in the history of the country has the Supreme Court ruled that the Congress has the power to terminate hostilities simply because they disagree with the President--because the day that becomes the norm, then you have taken the power of the Commander in Chief away from the President, and you have conferred it upon us.

This is a big vote. This is a consequential vote. What I am saying, I think, makes eminent sense. By making the Commander in Chief a single person--the President--sitting atop the military, you create a structure and order. If to get military action up and running and sustained you had to have a vote of 535 people, it would be chaos.

If you don't like what the President is doing, then, again, the remedy is to use your constitutional tools as a Member of Congress, which is funding, not replacing your judgment for that of the Commander in Chief. I have said that about Obama, Clinton, everybody. That is just my view.

In 1989, President Bush, 41, used military force to take down Manuel Noriega, the leader of Panama. And he was indicted and put in an American prison for being a drug lord, a drug kingpin. That was done without authorization of Congress. I think President Bush, 41, was right to take Noriega down. We can't tolerate nation states in our backyard becoming narcoterrorist centers.

That takes us to Venezuela. President Trump has decided that these drug boats being operated by narcoterrorists, emanating from Venezuela, are a national security threat to our Nation. I think he is right in his assessment.

All of these boats coming to our shores, heading for our shores, have drugs, and drugs are killing more Americans than any terrorist group out there.

Fentanyl comes from China through Mexico. But cocaine production was up 85 percent over the last 4 years, and cocaine has destroyed a lot of lives in our country. So these drug boats are being interdicted by the military because President Trump believes that narcoterrorism is a national security threat to our country, and he is using the military in that endeavor, not law enforcement. I think he is right.

Some people say have the Coast Guard stop the boat. Well, the Coast Guard is military, and it is civilian. I like the idea that our Commander in Chief is telling narcoterrorist organizations: You are not only a foreign terrorist organization, but when you engage in threats to our country--a boat headed to America full of drugs--we are going to take you out. That is going to stop the flow of drugs.

We secured the border, but we now need to go to the networks that produce the products and distribute the products that eventually come to our shores and kill Americans.

As to Venezuela, I would argue it is a narcoterrorist state. It is not a sovereign country in the sense of international law; that the leader of Venezuela, Maduro, is an indicted drug dealer with a $50 million bounty from the United States; that the recent election was stolen by Maduro. He is not a legitimate President under the laws of Venezuela, and he is not recognized as being legitimate by a multitude of international bodies.

I would say that Venezuela, in the hands of Maduro, is an existential threat to the people of the United States; that it is a narcoterrorist state, run by a drug kingpin that is used as the base of operations to send deadly drugs into our country, and it needs to stop. And whatever power that President Trump would like to use to stop that, I think he has the authority under the Constitution. And if we don't like it as a Congress, we can defund the military operations; we can't replace our judgment for his.

Finally, Maduro and Hezbollah have a long connection. The Presiding Officer of the Senate is a great Senator who understands national security. He was Ambassador to Japan and has been a great addition to this body.

Hezbollah connections to Venezuela go way back. Hezbollah is a Mideast terrorist organization, Shiite, connected to Iran, that has a lot of American blood on its hands--241 marines killed at the end of a runway in Beirut in the 1980s by Hezbollah. They are running out of money because President Trump has really isolated Iran as their benefactor. So now they are upping their game by associating with Maduro.

Maduro now has a business relationship with Hezbollah at a level we haven't seen before. Funding this terrorist organization from narcoterrorist activity in Venezuela threatens America's interests in the Middle East. This is not a hypothetical connection; it is a real connection. So I am hoping that the body will understand that what President Trump is doing is not only lawful but necessary.

We have a drug caliphate in our backyard. We have Mexico; we have Colombia; we have Venezuela; and we have Cuba. These are all nations-- some of them allied with us--that have enormous drug problems, and they have lost their sovereignty in Mexico over parts of the country. But I am focused on Venezuela.

Venezuela truly is not a legitimate government under Maduro. He stole the election. He is an indicted drug dealer. It is not legitimate. It is a threat to the United States.

So I am glad to see that President Trump has put narcoterrorist drug organizations and countries that support them on notice that we will fight back to protect our people. As these drug boats flow toward us, I think President Trump sees it as a killing machine. If a boat full of al-Qaida guys were coming to the United States, what is the right answer? Blow them up before they get here. If you have a drug boat full of drugs, run by narcoterrorists associated with Mideast terrorists, blow them up before they get here. But we have to do more than blow up the boat; we have to go to the problem on the land: Who loads the boats? Who makes the money off the boats?

So I don't know where this is going in Venezuela, but I know this: President Trump has said that Maduro's days are numbered. They should be.

What I like a lot about President Trump: He is a man of peace until he is not. He is seeking peace all over the planet. He stopped eight conflicts. He will be the first one to tell you that. I like the idea of a President wanting to make peace, not war, but he is a man not to be trifled with.

I think he decided early on that narcoterrorism emanating from our backyard is not going to be tolerated any longer.

There is a new game in town. You do this at your own risk.

I just want to let him know and the country know that not only do I think he has the legal authority; I think he is doing the right thing.

You are saving a lot of lives by stopping this boat traffic from getting to our shores, and if you need to take down the organization that funds the boats and supplies the boats, that is a direct threat to the United States, associated with Mideast terrorist organizations, tell us what you are up to, but do what you have to to protect America.

So at 5 o'clock, we are going to take a very consequential vote. I would urge my colleagues: Whether you like President Trump or not, whether you agree with him about politics, this is bigger than you, and it is bigger than him.

I did the same thing for Obama. When he went into Pakistan to kill bin Laden, I didn't think for 1 minute Congress had to authorize that action. He was taking out a mastermind of terrorism. That made us safer. It was in a

sovereign country called Pakistan that was no longer reliable when it came to policing bin Laden. I supported that operation because he had the legal authority, and it was the right thing to do. I supported President Bush 41. I supported Reagan when he went into Grenada to take down building Cuban influence, where Cubans were beginning to have a footprint in Grenada that was adverse to our national security interests when Cuba was aligned with Russia and other bad actors. So we have had a policy of policing our backyard.

But on this vote--Senator Kaine is a good friend--we just see things differently. He is saying that in America, there is really not a single Commander in Chief. He is saying that in America, you can't conduct hostile actions unless the Congress as a body approves it.

What he is saying is what the Constitution rejects. If they wanted us, as the Framers of the Constitution, to give approval to continue hostilities, they would have done so. They resided in us the power to declare war, and that is the power reserved to us, but that doesn't mean the President can't use military force when necessary to protect our Nation without a declaration of war. And the reason I know that is true: We have only declared war five times in 250 years, and we have had hundreds of military operations--some authorized and some not.

So to my colleagues today: Please understand this constitutional check and balance. It has served our country well for 250 years. We live in polarized times. Don't let your emotions drive you into doing something that would weaken our Nation. I can't think of anything more critical to weakening our Nation than to have Congress be the Commander in Chief; us; 535 people who have a hard time deciding when to go to lunch.

So I am hoping that this resolution--well-intended--will be voted down not because I like President Trump but because I believe the constitutional structure that was created a long time ago has served us well as a nation, and if we vote to change that structure, we will do great damage to our Nation and our national security.

So I would urge a ``no'' vote this afternoon.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to request unanimous consent on my bill to extend the Affordable Care Act's premium tax credits. Those tax credits have made it possible for over 24 million Americans in my State of Vermont and in the Presiding Officer's State of Tennessee and across this entire country to have access to affordable healthcare.

Around 30,000 Vermonters receive these healthcare tax credits that then help them pay, from their own hard-earned money, for private insurance. But in Vermont, and this is true everywhere--everywhere-- annual premiums have doubled and, in some cases, way more.

I heard this directly this weekend from a farmer in the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont, which is right on the border with Canada, an incredibly hard-working, rural part of our State. It is a place, frankly, in Vermont, that is Trump country. His premium rose $1,600 a month. And what he said to me is this: Peter, if I have to pay that premium, I am going to go without healthcare.

That story is being repeated by citizens that you care about, that the chairman from Idaho cares about, and that I certainly care about.

I heard directly from Allison Mindel in Vermont. She has a 17-year- old son. He spent 174 days in a hospital fighting myeloid leukemia. He is cancer-free. That is really good news, and it is a reflection of the extraordinary care that he got at a local community hospital, where there was a quick diagnosis, and at the University of Vermont Medical Center, where he got expert care.

But that family, who was the beneficiary of having access to affordable healthcare--their premium is going to go up by $40,000. Mr. President, $40,000 is what they are going to have to pay, and they don't have that money. And they know how absolutely critical it is that they have insurance because their beloved son is alive and healthy today because they did have access to healthcare.

As you know, open enrollment began on November 1, and what is going to happen is that as folks see this notice of the sky-high premiums, they are going to opt out of insurance altogether. And they are not going to opt out because they don't want to pay it; they are going to opt out because they can't pay it.

And I have in mind a woman who she and her husband have two kids. They have a small business where they make meals, and they are a take- out.

And she said: You know, as a mother, I feel totally irresponsible if I don't have healthcare for my kids. But if I can't pay it, what do I do?

And the point here--I see the chairman of the Finance Committee. It is so good to see you, Senator. You care. I care about folks who need the healthcare that they have now. I think we all share that. But they won't have it unless we do something to extend these tax credits.

You know this is not a red-State, blue-State deal. It is not a Republican or Democratic deal. We have got some examples in other States.

A farmer and his family of four in Tennessee making $120,000 a year-- by the way, that probably includes some off-farm income, with one from the couple working off the farm, as is so often the case. Those premiums will go up $1,900 a month. That is $33,000 a year. How does a family with an income of $120,000 add $33,000 in expenses?

The small businessowner and baker, in Alabama, making $85,000 a year, will see premiums increase by $750 a month. That is about $15,000.

A mechanic, a single person in North Carolina who makes $65,000, who loses access to the tax credits--actually loses access to the tax credits entirely--and to afford any healthcare, they will have to pay $14,000 a year.

You know, the majority leader is saying that we can get what we want or we can get to an outcome if we just trust him and vote to negotiate later.

I want to say something directly to you and to all of my colleagues: I trust the majority leader. I trust John Thune. But here is a fact: It is beyond his control if we don't get an enforceable agreement because we have to get buy-in from the House of Representatives. And to the everlasting disgrace of the House of Representatives, they are not here today, and they haven't been here for over 6 weeks.

Many over there have made it clear that they want nothing to do with extending the tax credits. So, yes, I trust my Republican colleagues; I trust our Senate majority leader. But if we don't have a House that is even here, how are we going to get it?

Thank you very much.

One of the questions is, Why don't we just open up and deal with this later? And there is an answer to that. This is not about one party trying to jam the other. It is about, as the ranking member of the Finance Committee said, a deadline. Folks have to make a decision about signing up during open enrollment that began on November 1, and they are looking at these very much higher bills, and they have to figure out whether they can afford to pay them.

For many families, they won't be able to afford it. The decision is made when they get a notice that the premium is going up $30,000. That will

have spill-on effects. First of all, it will be incredibly insecure. It just will be painful for these families that are thinking they don't have health coverage for their family. And we all relate to that.

But then, they are going to get sick, and they are going to go to a community hospital, and they are going to get coverage. And the hospitals are going to try to figure out how to get paid. And the way they will do that is by seeking rate increases and then having the cost shift further escalate the expense to our employers who really deeply care about providing coverage to the folks that work for them.

I know in Oregon, in Idaho, in Ohio, your employers care about their employees, and they want them to have coverage. But if they can't afford it, you get back to the same old thing: You know what? I will try to deal with the premium increase.

The employer says: But we are not going to be able to give you that raise you need to pay the utility bills.

My heartbreak on this is that I know we all care about the well-being of the families that we represent, and there is an urgency to the moment because the open enrollment now, in November, is here, and families have to make decisions.

This body is literally the only institution in the United States of America that has the ability, that has the authority, that has the power to provide a remedy to the families we all care about.

So that is my plea to my Republican colleagues.

You know, President Trump--I don't want to, in this case, turn this into a political deal--but he is the President, and he has got enormous authority, and he has got enormous influence on the Republicans in the House and in the Senate. It would be so good if he would come and sit down and figure out how to address this problem.

And the simplest way to do it is to extend the tax credits. And then, all of us acknowledge that we have to address the cost of healthcare-- we have to.

And I, as a person who is always focused on access, the biggest threat to continued access to care for folks in Vermont is the rise in expense. At a certain point, you just can't afford it.

So you know, I know in talking to many of my Republican colleagues, they are focused on cost--totally fair. But the answer to dealing with the cost of healthcare is not to take away insurance.

People still get sick. So we have got an urgent moment here where people are just getting this horrible feeling when they open up that mail and that family who has had healthcare in 2025--and, oftentimes, it will be a couple, and they are caring about their kids, and they are caring about each other. They want that sense of confidence and purpose that comes from being a parent who loves their kids. It comes from being an employer who feels good that they are able to meet the healthcare insurance needs of their workers.

They care about it. But they get a bill where they are going to perceive it as a fail if they can't continue to provide that coverage in 2026 that folks had in 2025. Parents are going to feel that.

We can change that. We can change that. And as somebody who is deeply concerned about extending those credits so people can have healthcare-- I pledge to you--I am so glad we have got the chair and we have got the ranking member of the Finance Committee. And I can just say, on my behalf, that anything that is reasonable to do to deal with this cost that is so detrimental to the well-being of the country, that healthcare is just too expensive, I will be there.

But I do believe that the one thing we cannot do, in good conscience, is allow these premium tax credits to expire, when what that means is that the folks we care about, who have no control themselves over what the cost of healthcare is, they are just on the receiving end; that we have got to extend those, and that can bring us time to start addressing some of the concerns that my colleagues have about the cost of healthcare.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 3102 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the Welch substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I want to address some of the points the chair of the Finance Committee made.

First of all, I happen to be in agreement with you that we have a broken healthcare system. No. 2, I am absolutely willing to engage with you and with anyone in this Chamber to address the rising costs, and we have made some bipartisan progress.

I support the international crises mechanism that President Trump is talking about to try to bring down prescription drug costs. We had a PBM and physician payment bill that was in legislation last year that got blown up when Elon Musk intervened.

We should be doing what you are saying, and I can just speak for myself. When it comes to talking about how we bring down the cost of healthcare, I think that is absolutely essential for the well-being of the economy and the well-being of the American people.

Also, I want to acknowledge that on COVID, it was temporary. You are right about that. Of course, that was because we had an emergency where healthcare demand went way up and employment went way down. So it is a fair point, and I owe you an answer on why it is I am standing here today asking to extend something that was temporary.

Here is the reason: We did fail to bring down the cost of healthcare. So what has happened since COVID left is there has been very significant inflation, including really high inflation in healthcare costs, and people in this country are not able to pay their bills, and it is really becoming a problem for the people you and I both represent.

So the cost of healthcare has gone way up. In fact, if we don't extend that premium support--even though, yes, it is temporary--it will expire. It is going to mean that those premium increases I cited where some folks are going to need to pay $32,000 more--they have a real problem. They are not going to be able to do it.

So you make a meritorious point, but the point I make is that those individuals and those families who are dealing with the reality that they are getting, say, a $32,000 increase have no capacity to do the things that only we have the capacity to do. They are on the receiving end. They have no control over it. So it is not like somebody in the family has been irresponsible last year where they are smoking and getting sick. They are just going about their lives, doing their work, and in the mail, they get a notice that they have to pay $32,000 more.

So, you know, the question for us is, Do we want to give them at least a year where they have some stability and then we take up the challenge? Because I think all of us here know that the cost of healthcare is totally, completely unsustainable. It is brutal.

But the reality is, however we got here, the families in every single State of this Nation are going to be faced with premium increases they can't afford.

So I just want to convey to you, Senator, my respect for your points, but that is my best response to them.

At the end of the day, the casualties of our failures as an institution to deal with healthcare costs can't become an insurmountable burden for the families we represent.

Yes. Yes.

Well, it is.

I want to be fair to my colleague because I think he wants to work with us. We obviously have different points of view, but we have to sit down, and we have to stay at it, and we have to have hearings, and we have to do the work we are blessed to be able to do.

I will, yes.

I thank you. I thank my colleagues.

I would love to get the government open, and I would love to be able to let folks know that the healthcare they had in 2025 they would be able to have in 2026.

I would like the President to do what Presidents do and that is get the parties together in a room and negotiate an outcome that works for all of us.

Whatever we do in this--this is where I want to agree with both my chairman and ranking member--we have real work to do on the cost side of healthcare. We really all have to take that on. But the approach to dealing with the high cost of healthcare can't be taking people's healthcare away; it has to be making the healthcare they have more affordable.

So I thank the gentleman. I thank my colleague Senator Wyden, our ranking member.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we had a great hearing in the Indian Affairs Committee yesterday, and I wanted to come to the floor and talk a little bit about it. Before I do, I want to thank Chairman Murkowski, Vice Chair Schatz, and especially Senator Markwayne Mullin, who came to the hearing to hear the 130-year-old saga of what I consider is injustice, racism, and all kinds of bad things that the Lumbee people have experienced.

Back in January, I introduced the Lumbee Fairness Act, which is to right what I consider to be more than a century of wrong. The issue has come before the Senate many times, but every time, it has failed. It is like the Lumbee have been promised so many times by so many politicians and so many election cycles, and yet, at the end of the day, they are left without a resolution to a problem that started over 130 years ago when they were first recognized by the State of North Carolina.

You know, these days, it is rare to see Republicans and Democrats come together in doing anything, but when it comes to Lumbee recognition, the support has become overwhelming, and it is bipartisan. We are talking about support from current President Trump, former President Joe Biden, Vice President JD Vance, Vice President Harris-- former Vice President--Gov. Josh Stein, the North Carolina General Assembly, and nearly every Member of our congressional delegation.

Here in the Senate, nearly two dozen Members from both parties have cosponsored the Lumbee Fairness Act, including Senator Schatz, the vice chair of the committee, and Senator Mullin, who sit together on the committee.

What is interesting about Senator Mullin is that Markwayne Mullin is an enrolled member of the Cherokee Nation. The major opponent to the Lumbee Fairness Act being passed are the Cherokee.

Let that sink in. A policymaker in this room, a Member of the U.S. Senate, is an enrolled member of a Tribe that is opposing Lumbee recognition.

Why are they doing it? Well, over the past, they would say that the Lumbee were fake Indians or that they weren't real; that their story was, you know, fabricated. They have gone to conventions, and they have done all kinds of things to try to mislead people about this issue. But the fact of the matter is, I am not going to let them off the hook this time.

But before I want to talk about the Lumbee, I do want to talk to the Cherokee people.

I moved to North Carolina in 1998. I got involved in politics in 2006. I ran for the legislature, and I became the speaker of the house in 2011--the second Republican speaker since the Civil War.

For years, politicians have been promising the Eastern Band of Cherokee that they would renegotiate their compact and treat them more respectfully, and for years, those promises were not fulfilled.

I became speaker, and the only bill in the 4 years, the two terms that I was speaker of the house that I ever allowed to go to the house floor without a majority of the support of my Republican colleagues was to right the injustice that was done to the Eastern Band of Cherokee by allowing them to modernize and negotiate a new compact, which was transformational for the enrolled members of the Eastern Band of Cherokee.

So to the Eastern Band of Cherokee--not the leaders who are opposing this now, people that I consider to be a part of the casino cartels that are objecting to this because of money--to the Cherokee people, know that I care as much about you today as I did when I took the step to oppose a majority of my Republican colleagues to right that wrong-- and we did.

Now I have another Tribe in my State, and I want to right that wrong, and the Cherokee are standing in the way. But it is not just the Cherokee; it is the Choctaw; it is the Chickasaw; it is other Tribes. But, folks, I am not letting off of this.

The Lumbee's history is long and well documented. They were recognized by the State of North Carolina in 1885 and began seeking Federal recognition just 3 years later. That was 137 years ago.

During the 20th century, the Lumbee were among the dozens of victims of the termination era--a very dark period in our Nation's history where, on this floor, racist policies, Jim Crow policies, were acted out every single day, and the Lumbee became a victim.

In 1956, Congress passed the Lumbee Act that acknowledged the Tribe but cruelly denied them the benefits and recognition that every other Tribe receives, putting them in a no-man's land. The Federal Government has since worked to correct the grave injustices of the termination era for nearly every other Tribe except for the Lumbee.

Time and again, the Lumbee have proven their case. Their records are filled with testimony, studies, and reports that all lead to one conclusion: The Lumbee are a Tribe fully deserving of Federal recognition.

The House has acknowledged that repeatedly, passing the Lumbee recognition bill with broad bipartisan support in every Congress since the 116th. This year, it was unanimously voted and included in the National Defense Authorization Act that we are about to begin conferencing on.

In 2022, I promised to identify and expose the small but persistent opposition to this bill, and I am not going to go into the details here--I did in a speech I did yesterday--but let me just tell you what I found. It is pretty simple. It is a small handful of well-funded Tribes hiring high-priced DC lobbyists to spin half-truths and stir fear, motivated by profit, not principle. At the center of that opposition is the Eastern Band of Cherokee leadership.

Again, let me make the distinction between the elected leaders of the Eastern Band of Cherokee and a Tribe that I am fully dedicated to, and I have demonstrated that through the actions I made when I was the speaker of the house in North Carolina.

But at the center of the opposition is also a lobbyist whose name--I will have you refer to my testimony yesterday. But it is just rooted in financial self-interest, folks. That is their right, but let's not pretend it is anything more. We got them. We have found them passing out leaflets at Native American conventions talking about fake Indians, undermining the case for the Lumbee. It is disgraceful. But we are tracking them, and everywhere we go, almost invariably, I can find somebody that can give me information where they are trying to spread lies and confusion.

The Eastern Band--in reality, it is not just about the Lumbee. The Eastern Band of Cherokee have opposed nearly every recognition effort in their geographic vicinity that might affect their financial interests. They tried to do it with the Catawba, and we succeeded there.

Now they are running the same playbook on the Lumbee. They are spending millions of dollars on lobbyists and pay-for-play reports. They will pay whoever they have to to conjure some sort of report that builds their case. It is like: I have this thesis. Now give me a report to support it because it is going to keep the Lumbee in this limbo they have been in for 137 years.

It is disappointing to see the kind of money wasted on tearing down other Tribes instead of lifting up their people.

To the leadership of the Eastern Band of Cherokee, spend those millions of dollars on education, on improving the situation in the boundary, helping your people like I have.

So yesterday in the hearing, the principal chief of the Eastern Band of Cherokee said: Let it just happen in the Department of the Interior. Let it run its course.

Well, that is political speak for ``Let the administration do it, take 10 or 20 years, and then we will have a lawsuit that will take another generation to settle.'' We know their playbook. I have studied this. I know what they are doing, and we are going to match them at every step along the way.

Since 1978, they have said: Don't recognize them by an act of Congress; let it go through the process.

But here is the reality: Congressional recognition has become the norm since 1978. Twice as many Tribes have been recognized by Congress as through the administrative process. Congress has recognized Tribes by legislation many times, including the Little Shell Tribe of the Chippewa Indians in the 2020 NDAA and six Virginia Tribes in the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act. I supported both of those bills because it was the right thing to do.

Mr. President, in closing, I hope that the Eastern Band of Cherokee leadership knows that I care about the people of the Eastern Band of Cherokee as much as I care about the Lumbee. I went to great lengths to have the Eastern Band experience the benefits that came from the work I did as speaker of the house. I will go to great lengths in my remaining time in the Senate to help them in the future as soon as they do the right thing and allow the Lumbee people, after 137 years, to get the Federal recognition they deserve.

Mr. President, next July, we will celebrate the 250th anniversary of the founding of this great country.

As we approach this monumental commemoration, it is worth reflecting from time to time on the enduring principles that have made our Nation unique in the world. Perhaps the most foundational of these ideas are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence itself, that all of us are created equal and we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.

The notion that we are all of equal dignity and must be treated equally under the law was somewhat of a revolutionary idea, but it does provide the basic foundation for our constitutional Republic. All other rights and freedoms that we hold dear flow from that idea.

Americans defend the right to free speech because we believe in the equal dignity of every human being and their right to speak as they wish.

So our Constitution prohibits government from infringing upon we the people's ability to speak our mind, and as a country, we welcome open dialogue and debate about even the most controversial issues.

It almost goes without saying, but sometimes I think we need to remind people that free speech is essential to our democratic Republic, to the whole idea of self-government. If people cannot have open conversations and even arguments, then it becomes impossible for us to be informed about the most important issues and to be able to make decisions as we the voters--we the people--decide at our elections or in petitioning our government, another right guaranteed by the Constitution.

But as I indicated earlier, not every country or culture shares these commitments. In fact, many are riddled with ideologies that run directly counter to these ideals that have sustained our democratic Republic for nearly 250 years. In the 20th century, totalitarian ideologies like communism and Nazism began to emerge. These radical schools of thought run counter to American ideals of liberty and equality, placing the state--not the person but the state--at the center of society, while sidelining the individual, the family, and, most especially, religion. Totalitarian belief systems defy American principles of freedom of speech and association, the protection of private property, and the rule of law.

Unfortunately, we have seen a resurgence of another vile ideology in recent times: anti-Semitism, the world's oldest form of hate. A recent report from the FBI showed a nearly 6-percent increase of religiously motivated incidents against Jewish Americans between 2023 and 2024. In 2024, the same report found that 70 percent of religiously motivated hate crimes targeted Jews, who make up only 2 percent of our population. Let me repeat that. This report found that 70 percent of religiously motivated hate crimes were directed at Jews--70 percent-- even though Jews only make up 2 percent of our population. And 41 percent of young American Jews between the age of 18 and 29 said they had experienced anti-Semitism at least once in the last year.

As we can all recall with horror, 2 years ago, on October 7, Hamas terrorists conducted the deadliest terrorist attack against Israel in history, the worst cause of death since the Holocaust for Jews, resulting in the murder of 1,200 people, the brutal raping of women and young girls, and hundreds of hostages taken at the same time.

Unimaginably, in the wake of this horrible tragedy and the ensuing war in Gaza, many elite educational institutions in the United States shockingly responded with a flurry of anti-Semitism. We saw faculty at some of the most prestigious universities in America openly celebrating this devastating attack while some students blatantly threatened to slit the throats of Jewish students on campus.

The president of Harvard, we may recall, was forced to resign as a result of her lack of moral clarity on this issue. There should be no confusion between good and evil, and this was clearly motivated by evil and hate. When pressed in committee hearings on anti-Semitism on whether Harvard policies prohibited students from calling for the genocide of Jews, she said, ``It can be, depending on the context''-- shameful.

Republicans in the House and the Senate rallied to the defense of American Jews facing this rising tide of hatred from the radical fringes of the left, while, unfortunately, too many of our colleagues across the aisle left them out to dry. For example, in 2024, in May, we introduced a resolution led by Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina condemning anti-Semitism on American college campuses. Yet this was blocked by Senators on the other side of the aisle for some reason. Some Democratic House Members even visited these protests to show solidarity with the very people spreading hateful rhetoric, such as ``Zionists don't deserve to live.''

Vice President Kamala Harris even chose not to preside over the joint address to Congress of the Prime Minister of Israel, instead preferring to keep a previously scheduled commitment to address a sorority gathering in Indianapolis, in an obvious snub of the Prime Minister and Israel.

There are increasing signs that the Democratic Party has lacked conviction to stand up to the most vile elements of their base. Some have even openly embraced anti-Semitism. The newly elected mayor of New York City refused to condemn terrorism in an interview on national television, saying he doesn't ``really have opinions about the future of Hamas in Israel.''

I find it too curious that, just 2 years ago, he said, ``When the boot of the NYPD is on your neck, it has been laced by the IDF,'' the Israel Defense Forces. This is the newly elected mayor of New York City. And when asked how he would have handled the protests on Columbia's campus, he said: ``I would have not sent the police to Columbia.''

Despite his refusal to use police to quell these campus riots, Mamdani has expressed on multiple occasions a willingness to direct the police to arrest Prime Minister Netanyahu if he were to ever visit New York City.

The left has openly embraced this radical candidate, and now he has been elected as mayor of America's largest city.

But while the Democratic Party has, unfortunately, embraced anti- Semitism in too many instances, Republicans under President Trump have continued to make clear what we stand for and have not shied away from making clear what we stand against. President Trump's leadership in the fight against anti-Semitism has been undeniable. In his first term, he signed a landmark Executive order giving new authorities to the Department of Education to investigate anti-Semitism complaints on college campuses and university campuses. When he was returned to office in 2025, one of his first actions was to sign another Executive order to address anti-Semitism that reaffirmed and built on the successes of his 2019 order.

In February, President Trump's Department of Justice formed a new task force to combat anti-Semitism, particularly at our Nation's schools. So President Trump has made clear that anti-Semitism has simply no place in America--on the right or on the left. Unfortunately, his predecessor wasn't so clear. But President Trump, unlike his predecessor, has had no hesitation directly confronting the anti- Semitism working still in our higher education system.

President Biden has been gone from the Oval Office for months now, but, unfortunately, there are still forces capitulating to the radicals who embrace this vile ideology. I am thankful that, by and large, Republicans have not done the same. Even when storied institutions like the Heritage Foundation have sent mixed messages about their commitment to individual liberty and freedom of speech and opposition to this vile form of hatred directed at Jews, prominent voices in the Republican Party have courageously condemned those who ascribe to anti-Semitism, including some who claim to be conservatives.

Standing up for the truth and condemning evil does not amount to canceling people. Freedom of speech and

freedom of association both allow institutions and individuals to condemn evil when they see it. I believe that all Americans should continue to stand with Jewish Americans against the rising tide of anti-Semitism.

As we approach the 250th anniversary of this great country of ours, I hope all of us will recommit ourselves to upholding the dignity of every individual in this country and around the world.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this is an interesting conversation, but Democrats have had 37 days to stop the most important issue that this Senate should be focused on right now, and that is the shutdown, but they would rather spend their time playing politics and attacking the President instead of doing what is best for the American public.

Democrats have caused the longest government shutdown in our Nation's history for one reason: They hate our President. They hate him. They don't care that their actions are stopping our troops, Capitol Police, Federal law enforcement, and air traffic controllers from getting their paychecks. They don't care that they are causing chaos and delays at our airports or that 42 million people--42 million people--rely on SNAP benefits and can't put food on the table.

Now, I think about growing up. I was blessed. I had a wonderful mom. But we lived in public housing. I didn't know my dad. She really struggled to put food on the table.

In my State of Florida and all across the country, we have people worried about putting food on the table right now. Little kids are worried about getting dinner tonight, and it is because the Democrats have decided to shut down our government.

So I represent the people of Florida and Americans across this country who are sick and tired of these political games. What we ought to be doing is feeding our families, paying the people who are working their tails off, and opening our government. Therefore, I object.

And I am shocked that my colleague doesn't want to worry about the 42 million people that are not getting SNAP benefits, the Capitol Police that are protecting us that aren't getting paid. These people have mortgages; they ought to get paid.

So, Mr. President, I rise today with my bipartisan and commonsense No Budget, No Pay Act. It is a simple proposal that says that if Members of Congress can't complete one of our basic jobs of funding the government, we shouldn't get paid. This shouldn't even be necessary. We should just do our jobs. But as we sit here, over a month into the Democrat shutdown, it is clear we need something to hold Congress accountable.

Every year, we are tasked with putting together a budget with the expectation that it is on time and it fits the needs of the American people.

The American people elected us to come together, look at what we are collecting in revenues, and put together and pass 12 appropriations bills and use those dollars effectively.

I was Governor of Florida. Every year, we passed a budget, we balanced a budget, and we did it on time. The last time Congress passed all 12 appropriations bills on time was--what is your guess? Three decades ago. Congress has failed, time and time again, to do its most basic job.

I came to fix this. I ran on a plan to make Washington work better for families, which included my No Budget, No Pay Act, and I have been fighting to get this passed since I got here in 2019 and have been met with resistance from many of my colleagues since I got up here.

But, unfortunately, Democrats have thrived in the dysfunction and have fought endlessly to keep the status quo. They pass massive spending bill after massive spending bill, which has caused massive inflation in this country. They raised taxes and expanded the government. We now have--how much debt do you think we have now? Thirty-eight trillion dollars. We are running a $2 trillion-a-year deficit.

Now they are using the same dysfunction to shut down our government. They are prioritizing a liberal wish list over the needs of the American people. And they are more than happy, it seems, to deprive Federal workers, TSA, FAA, and law enforcement of their paychecks, while Members of Congress still get their own paychecks.

Democrats are happy to stop 40 million people from getting their SNAP benefits. I just can't imagine little kids worrying about where their meal is going to come from tonight.

These Democrats voting to shut down the government are still getting paid. We should not get paid if we don't do our job.

This is the problem with Washington. Any working American will tell you: If you don't do your job, you don't get paid except here.

Members of Congress consistently fail one of our basic duties of funding the government on time and still get a paycheck even when others don't.

Senate Democrats have now voted against funding the government 14 times in the last 5 weeks. They have voted, time and time again, to continue the longest shutdown in our Nation's history and stop people from getting paid. But they are still getting paid. Democrats shouldn't be shutting down the government, risking others' paychecks without being in the same boat.

I ask every one of my colleagues to support passage of my No Budget, No Pay Act to tell every Member: Do your job. Fund the government or do what other people end up doing--forgo your taxpayer-funded salary.

I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 88 and Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

I want to commend my colleague for deferring his paycheck. I think it is the right thing to do. If he is willing to defer his paycheck, why wouldn't he allow my bill to pass so all of us should defer our paychecks until the government gets open again?

The right thing to do is open the government and figure out how do we improve our healthcare system. Our healthcare system is out of control. The costs are out of control. ObamaCare has completely failed us.

Remember when ObamaCare was passed? President Obama said: You won't lose your doctor--the biggest lie of the year. Gosh, you are not going to lose your plan. You completely lost your plan. You are going to save $2,500 a family. No, your costs have skyrocketed. Copayments are up, deductibles are up, and premiums have skyrocketed.

What we have to do is we need to sit down in a bipartisan manner and say: How do we actually fix the cost of healthcare? You don't do it by shutting down the government and making sure our military doesn't get paid, TSA doesn't get paid, FAA doesn't get paid, Capitol Police don't get paid, all our Federal workers don't get paid, and we prevent 42 million people from getting food stamp benefits.

If we want to fix healthcare, which we should do in a bipartisan manner, we should sit down once we open the Federal Government.

So I am disappointed that my colleague--I commend him for deferring his paycheck. That is the right thing to do. But we should do that for every Member of Congress until we open our government.