Floor Statements

Mr. President, like citizens in Ohio, Vermonters like to work hard. They get up each day and face the day, and they don't fear hard work. They are glad to do that to protect their families and to improve their communities. But, you know, they work hard, but they don't like paying for wasteful things, and right now, President Trump is demanding--demanding--$1 billion to build an East Wing, which, by the way, is an East Wing that he destroyed. He tore it down. Now he has promised Americans that he will rebuild it and that it will be through private contributions, but he is asking--demanding, really--the U.S. Congress to spend $1 billion to rebuild what he destroyed. Vermonters don't like that at all.

It has been said that a budget does reflect our shared values, not the personal preferences of any one individual, including the President of the United States.

So let's just talk about some of the other ways $1 billion could be spent that would have a significant benefit to Vermonters who are working hard, who

are paying their bills, and who care about their community.

With $1 billion, we could extend the ACA premium tax credits--that you and I worked on, by the way--to make healthcare more affordable for 30,000 Vermonters.

With $1 billion, we could provide really important title I funding, which helps rural and underserved schools in Vermont, for 23 years.

With $1 billion, we could provide $153,000 in relief for every single one of our 6,537 farms, which are all struggling.

With $1 billion, we could provide a $12,000 small business loan-- small businesses being really essential to Vermont--to all 82,000 Vermont small businesses.

With $1 billion, we could restore the SNAP Program for every Vermonter who has been kicked off nutrition assistance because of the Trump tax bill. Mr. President, 4,547 Vermonters have lost what we call 3Squares. Terrible.

With $1 billion, we could fund the Women, Infants, and Children benefits for Vermonters for 147 years.

With $1 billion, we could provide childcare for every child under 5 in Vermont for a year and a half.

With $1 billion, we could fund the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, in Vermont for 50 years. This vital program provides home heating and cooling aid for more than 26,000 Vermonters.

With $1 billion, we could help provide $50,000 loans to 20,000 Vermonters who have been impacted by flooding or other natural disasters in the past 3 years.

With $1 billion, we could support FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund, which is operating in immediate-needs-funding status, meaning everything is precarious.

As I mentioned, if you want to show me your values, show me your budget. This reconciliation budget bill, which adds billions of dollars to an already bloated ICE budget and CBP budget with absolutely no reforms and no oversight and gives hundreds of millions of dollars-- potentially $1 billion--to President Trump's ballroom, is a statement of values. This $1 billion won't help communities or families from Barre, VT, to Biloxi, MS.

You know, I want to give just a straightforward, rhetoric-free reading of just a few headlines we saw this week alone. This is the world we are in, and it reflects how the administration is spending its time and resources.

The Washington Post: ``Millions expected to lose Affordable Care Act coverage as costs spike.''

Associated Press: ``Under Congressional Scrutiny, Blanche Defends Nearly $1.8 [Billion] Fund to Pay Trump Allies.''

The Washington Post: ``EPA wants to repeal limits on `forever chemicals' in drinking water.''

The Associated Press: ``Trump distorts recent revisions of scientific projections of global warming.''

The Washington Post: ``Health worker shortage will worsen with federal loan limit.''

NOTUS: ``Trump's Latest White House Makeover Includes a Helipad.''

The New York Times: ``Deported Despite DACA: Dreamers Face Uncertainty Under Trump.''

The President of the United States has been clear: He is choosing a go-it-alone approach on his ballroom, he wants to fund ICE and CBP on a partisan basis with none of the reforms so many Americans are demanding, and he is going to totally bypass regular order and any hope of a bipartisan budget.

It is really a waste of taxpayer dollars. The folks that you represent and I represent, who are willing to work hard, who are willing to pay their fair share, really wonder: Why are we spending $1 billion on a ballroom?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague the senior Senator from Connecticut, and I too want to join him in commenting on the Callais decision. And I want to put the decision also in a context of what the Supreme Court has been doing consistently since at least Bush v. Gore, and that is, on the one hand, they have been stripping the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate--the legislative body--of their legislative powers. On the other hand, they have been extending unprecedented extension of powers to the executive. It is a threat to democracy. The Supreme Court is doing real damage to everyday people in all of our country by upsetting the constitutional order of the separation of powers in coequal branches of government.

Let me talk a little bit about the Callais decision. You know, I was inspired to get involved in politics, in public service, by the civil rights movement in the sixties. In 1967, I dropped out of college. I hitchhiked to Chicago, and I began working against housing discrimination against African-American citizens on the West Side of Chicago. And it was amazing to me two things: one, how much of the discrimination they suffered was legal. A veteran who served in World War II, if he was Black, could not get a mortgage. Banks were allowed to redline districts where it meant nobody who lived in them--and they were Black neighborhoods--could even get a mortgage. It was legal.

But what I was also astonished by and aspired by, as I am to this day, was the generosity, the resilience, and the determination of people who were on the receiving end of what, in effect, was Jim Crow discrimination to forge ahead, to help each other, and to make changes.

The civil rights struggle in that decade culminated with the legal protections delivered by the Voting Rights Act.

The Supreme Court's recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais literally turns the clock back on that hard-won progress. Already--already--in an instant, States from Louisiana to South Carolina to Tennessee have called for redistricting ahead of the midterm elections in 6 months. And hundreds of thousands--if not millions--of voters are being impacted by this decision.

In addition, in my view, being wrong on the merits and incredibly damaging, the Supreme Court's decision is the latest example of what the Court is doing that is, in fact, eroding our democracy. A trail of decisions has led us to this remarkable moment. Look at what has happened over just the last decade and a half.

In 2010, Citizens United, the Supreme Court opened the door to unlimited gargantuan sums of money in our elections. Money is speech. And, of course, what has happened is that, literally, billionaires dominate funding for elections. And it is not about what the country needs; it is about what they want.

In 2013, in Shelby County v. Holder, the Court removes the Federal oversight of potentially discriminatory State voting restrictions that threatened the access to the ballot itself. Since that decision, States have added nearly 100 restrictive voting right laws.

In 2018, Rucho v. Common Cause, the Court refused to act on partisan--wildly partisan--gerrymandering.

And by the way, both parties have engaged in that. So I am condemning that radical gerrymandering, regardless of which party uses it for their own advantage.

But now, across the country, in light of this recent decision, we are literally seeing a race to the bottom where Members of Congress--pardon me--where members of State legislatures, with the assent of many Members of Congress, are choosing their voters by this radical gerrymandering on a partisan basis where the goal is to get your side elected and to do that by picking your voters. And then we are seeing the spectacle of redistricting every 2 years instead of every 10 years. It is stripping away the right of the voters to be the ones picking their leaders, as opposed to the leaders picking their voters.

And, of course, in 2024, Trump v. United States, that decision defied our 250 years of history which said that no person, including the President of the United States, was above the law.

Every single one of these decisions by the Court has made our democracy less democratic. And now this Court's decision in Callais can be added to that really damaging list.

The Court has gutted section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as passed by Congress, making it exceedingly difficult for plaintiffs to prove discrimination. They have to prove ``intent''--impossible burden with 535 Members and every one may have a different intent. They have to disregard, now, the actual impact of the map that is put together by partisan State legislators.

The Court decision has also given the green light for States to reduce the electoral role that minorities have played in our democracy, unraveling one of the last opportunities for minorities to elect people of their choice.

Let me go through a few of the States. In Louisiana, a third of the population is African American. Joe Biden won 40 percent of the vote there. Yet after Callais, Louisiana has proposed a map that won't even come close to one-third representation for African Americans--and by the way, that might be a Republican or a Democrat; it is the voters' choice. There will only be one Black Representative out of six House Members.

The Supreme Court knows exactly what it is doing. By blessing partisan

gerrymandering while gutting the Voting Rights Act, the Roberts Court has completed the mission of the Jim Crow laws in the South: removing the ability of elected representatives to be Representative of and responsive to those they represent.

Equally concerning, partisan gerrymandering all but guarantees that the politicians will choose who wins elections--not the people of their State and their district. They are picking their voters. This is a race to the bottom that is detrimental to the country and should be rejected by both parties.

It is very concerning to me as well how the legislative branch, by its passivity, has allowed this to happen. Under the Constitution, the Congress--as I mentioned, the branch most responsive to the will of the people--is supposed to be the counterweight against the other branches of government. But as Congress has stood on the sidelines, the executive branch, aided by the Supreme Court, has unleashed the unrestrained power in our campaign financing system of billionaires to play an oversized role--a decisive role--to select their own political elite.

But the outcome of Callais is not just about the degradation of our democracy. The Supreme Court reached its judgment based on its own individual assessment of the protections that were codified by the judgment of Congress that recognized and protected against racial discrimination in voting. Congress said those protections continue to be necessary. The Supreme Court casually blew that off and said: No, they are not necessary. Now the Supreme Court has overruled Congress on a question of policy which was within the purview of this institution to make.

Congress has reauthorized the Voting Rights Act five times in recognition of the need to prevent voting discrimination in this country. And despite such clear instruction, the Court has still taken it upon itself to encroach upon Congress' prerogative by requiring victims of racially discriminatory gerrymandering to prove that States had a discriminatory motive--an impossible task to prove, even when the impact is absolutely clear.

Justice Kagan, dissenting from the Callais decision, put it plainly:

[The Voting Rights Act] was born of the literal blood of

Union soldiers and civil rights marchers. It ushered in awe-

inspiring change, bringing this Nation closer to fulfilling

the ideals of democracy and racial equality. And it has been

repeatedly, and overwhelmingly, reauthorized by the people's

representatives in Congress. Only they have the right to say

it is no longer needed-not the Members of this Court.

It is incumbent on us that we, as Congress, reassert our authority to make judgments about what is best in terms of access to the ballot.

My view, by the way, is that this race to the bottom is going to be a killer for our democracy, and I believe both parties should renounce radical partisan gerrymandering, and I believe both parties should support eliminating these every 2-year redistrictings that all have, as their stated goal, advantaging one party over the other.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, multiple press articles and reports by human rights organizations, as well as United Nations human rights investigators, have documented widespread acts of horrific sexual violence against prisoners in the Middle East over many years. These articles and these reports describe--often in graphic, gruesome detail--a consistent pattern of sexual abuse corroborated by multiple sources and in some cases with shocking photographs and videos posted on social media by the perpetrators themselves.

These allegations amount to gross violations of human rights, including torture, and if committed by members of foreign military and police forces that receive training or equipment from the United States, they are sanctionable under U.S. law--the Leahy Law.

In Egypt, allegations of acts of systemic sexual violence against prisoners are not new. The allegations have been the subject of reports, including by U.S. and Egyptian human rights organizations and the Department of State, for many years.

We also know that Hamas militants who invaded Israel on October 7, 2023, committed absolutely brutal acts of sexual violence, including gang rape, against Israelis during the attack and against Israeli hostages.

On May 12, a team of Israeli researchers released a report which concluded that sexual violence by Hamas militants against women and men was ``systematic, widespread and integral'' to the attack. Many of us have condemned those barbaric crimes and called for justice for the Israeli victims.

I personally still have vivid memories of hearing personally of the horrors of these attacks from Israeli victims who bravely came and spoke to Members of the U.S. Senate.

There is also extensive evidence, both before and after October 7, of a pattern of sexual violence against Palestinian prisoners by Israeli security forces. Allegations of such abuses in Israeli prisons are not new, but they have sharply increased since October 7.

So have reports of widespread abuses and killings of Palestinian civilians by Israeli soldiers and acts of violence, including sexual assault and murder by Israeli settlers which reportedly continue to this day.

I will not repeat the gruesome details of the attacks reportedly committed against Palestinian prisoners by Israeli soldiers, but I do urge my colleagues, as uncomfortable as it may be, to read the articles by Nicholas Kristof in the May 11 New York Times entitled ``The Horror of Sexual Assault in Israeli Prisons,'' and ``The Silence That Meets the Rape of Palestinians.''

The heinous acts that were described to him by former prisoners and witnesses, if proven in a court of law, would warrant decades-long prison sentences. Despite overwhelming evidence,

Egyptian authorities and Hamas officials have denied that forces under their command have sexually assaulted prisoners.

Likewise, Israeli authorities, including Prime Minister Netanyahu, while rightly condemning Hamas's acts of sexual violence, dismissed out of hand the reports of similar acts by Israeli soldiers as fabrications.

The fact is that these are not isolated reports, nor are victims of sexual violence prone to voluntarily invite the public scrutiny and profound embarrassment that comes with describing being subjected to these types of humiliating mistreatment.

Every year, Egypt and Israel receive more military aid paid for by American taxpayers than any other countries, and that is by far. Yet neither of their governments, nor our own, have shown the slightest concern about addressing longstanding allegations of the widespread use of sexual violence against prisoners in their custody.

That is unacceptable. It must change. American taxpayer funds are directly supporting foreign military units that have been credibly implicated in rape and other abhorrent acts of sexual violence.

The United States has long embraced in its foreign policy the protection of human rights. It is at the heart of the Leahy Law passed by this U.S. Senate. That law directs the Secretary of State to investigate credible reports of human rights abuses.

In light of the credible reports of gross human rights abuses, I call upon the Secretary of State to act, to investigate, and to abide by the provisions of the Leahy Law.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to S.J. Res. 134, which would restore the CFPB's rule to ensure that consumers are granted critical protections when they are using ``buy now, pay later'' loans.

Mr. President, there is now widespread and growing use of ``buy now, pay later.'' The reason families are doing that is to buy things like school clothing, not some incidental that is a discretionary expense.

The reason ``buy now, pay later'' is so much increasing in demand is because people are really broke. They are struggling with the high gas prices, they are struggling with record inflation, and at the end of the month, there are more bills than there is money.

The people using ``buy now, pay later'' are in every single State of the Union--in West Virginia, in Vermont--and they are good people that we care about and are concerned that the economy is not working for them, and they are struggling with very severe shortages of income.

These products can be risky. You know, most of us wouldn't recommend ``buy now, pay later.'' It is much better if you have the money to pay cash and you don't get in a risky situation. But the fact is, this is a necessary tool for some families.

Why in the world would we all not want to take the necessary action to protect those vulnerable families from abusive practices? That is what the CFPB did with its rule. I am absolutely mystified--absolutely mystified--that the administration would rescind that because, as I mentioned and as we all know, this is a protection that helps people that each and every one of us represents.

I know there is every bit as much concern on the Republican side of the aisle as there is on the Democratic side of the aisle to protect people from getting ripped off, particularly vulnerable people who work full time but can't pay their bills.

So the Trump CFPB withdrew this rule, and it obviously sends a clear signal to ``buy now, pay later'' that they can get away with what they want.

Vote with us to rescind this rule.

I yield the floor.

Vote on Motion to Proceed

Mr. President, I move to proceed to S.J. Res. 135.

Mr. President, the CFPB promulgated a rule to protect whistleblowers.

Whistleblowers have historically revealed information about abusive practices and rip-offs in organizations where they had the ability to see what happened and to stand up to protect the rule of law and to stop rip-offs.

The biggest proponent of whistleblower protection in this Chamber is our President pro tempore Senator Grassley, and I have such admiration for him in his steadfast commitment to whistleblowers.

The corporations that don't like whistleblowers are now forcing them to sign nondisclosure agreements that are overly broad, and it means that a whistleblower has no protections because they are being threatened with lawsuits, and they are being threatened that they are going to be accused of breaking the law or that they are engaged in corporate misconduct if they essentially blow the whistle on bad practices that are hurting the people we represent.

I don't know why the Trump administration rescinded that rule. Whistleblowers, as Senator Grassley has eloquently stated over and over again, protect us, protect the taxpayers, and protect us from abuse of practices.

I believe, as Senator Grassley believes, it is absolutely critical for Congress to act to protect whistleblowers.

I yield the floor.

Vote on Motion to Proceed

Mr. President, World Press Freedom Day, observed annually on May 3, is not only a celebration of the world's intrepid journalists, but a reminder that journalists and the free press at large are under attack. In 2025, a record number of journalists and media workers were killed, a somber milestone.

International humanitarian law provides clear protection for journalists and civilians, including protection from direct attack and the indiscriminate use of force. International law requires that those engaged in conflict take precautions to verify that targets are lawful, avoid attacks in areas where civilians are present, and facilitate the rapid provision of medical care to the wounded.

Two-thirds of the journalists who died last year were killed by Israeli security forces. As of April 23, 2026, at least 258 journalists had been killed by Israeli security forces since Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. Since then, journalists have been killed by Israel's retaliatory actions in Gaza, Yemen, Lebanon, and Iran.

Israel's pattern of targeted killings is not new or unique to Palestinian and Lebanese journalists. Shireen Abu Akleh was a Palestinian American correspondent for Al-Jazeera. She was fatally shot in the head on May 11, 2022, while covering an Israeli Army operation in the West Bank. Multiple investigations concluded that she was killed by a member of the Israeli Defense Forces. Shortly after, the State Department called for an immediate and thorough investigation in addition to full accountability. To date, there has been no such evidence of an investigation and no accountability.

Throughout the war in Gaza, Palestinian journalists have been killed with impunity--207 Palestinian journalists killed, to date. The world witnessed the shocking strikes at Nasser Hospital on August 28, 2025, which claimed the lives of 22 people, including five journalists, and drew global condemnation. The attack was three successive strikes--a tank shell hit the hospital, killing a Reuters cameraman and others. Nine minutes later, as health workers and journalists came to the aid of the injured, Israeli forces fired two more times.

Israeli forces have been accused of war crimes for utilizing double- tap strikes, which target first responders and journalists. On October 13, 2023, Dylan Collins, an AFP video journalist from Vermont, was fired on by Israeli soldiers in a deadly double-tap attack, despite wearing clear press insignia. The attack killed Reuters journalists Issam Abdallah and wounded several others in the group. Despite repeated efforts by myself and my Senate and House colleagues, there has been no credible investigation or accountability for Dylan or his colleagues.

Just last week, Lebanese journalist Amal Khalil was killed by an Israeli strike. She, too, was clearly identifiable as a member of the press. She died after 7 hours of being trapped under rubble. Ambulances attempting to deliver medical care were also fired upon. Her case reflects a pattern and practice of the use of force that disregards the rights and lives of journalists protected under international law.

These are only a select few of the tragic stories of journalists killed for

simply doing their jobs. While the number of journalists killed in Gaza over the past 2 and a half years is overwhelming, journalists have been threatened, imprisoned, tortured, and killed in many countries, including in our own hemisphere.

Press freedom is fragile abroad, and fragile here at home. President Trump's rhetoric and attacks on the press must be condemned. Journalists in the United States have been threatened, attacked, and targeted by their own government for doing their jobs: reporting the truth.

We take pride in the First Amendment, and the United States has long been seen as a global defender of freedom of expression. But the situation is becoming worse, not better. The very concept of independence of the media is being challenged. Journalists are regularly subjected to ridicule and denied access to the White House and the Defense Department for merely asking hard questions.

Being a journalist is more dangerous today than at any time in history. In recognition of World Press Freedom Day, Congress should pause to remember the lives of journalists killed while reporting and recommit to defending press freedom in our own country and around the world.

Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of the resolution offered by Senator Kaine and others to prohibit the unauthorized use of American Armed Forces in hostilities against Cuba.

Now, some may think this isn't a necessary concern, but to quote the President of the United States, our Commander in Chief:

Cuba is next.

This is urgent, and it requires immediate attention by the U.S. Senate.

Cuba is a bankrupt country. It is the size of Tennessee. It has neither the capacity nor the intention to threaten the United States. And even before the Trump administration cut off oil from Venezuela and started illegally blockading oil shipments to Cuba from other countries, Cuba's economy was barely functioning.

Today, electricity is unavailable for most hours of the day across the entire island. Think of what that means for everyday life. It doesn't take much imagination. Just think about what it is like in our own communities when there is a power outage for a period of time.

In Cuba, where it is sustained, it is catastrophic. Havana's streets are filled with smoldering garbage. The country is facing economic collapse, literally, and the United States is complicit in that economic collapse.

So by causing Cuba's economy to fall apart and leaving millions of Cubans without enough food or access to medical care, the White House hopes to create a national security ``emergency'' to justify regime change, including, if necessary, the use of military force.

And we have seen that script play out before with the Trump administration.

President Trump has said as much. He has repeatedly threatened to use force against Cuba. Without any legal justification, he said:

[I]t may be a friendly takeover, it may not be a friendly

takeover. Wouldn't really matter because they're really are

down to . . . fumes. They have no energy, they have no money.

The reason Cuba is ``down to [the] fumes'' is due to its own government, its failed policies. And because of the U.S. oil blockade, both, together, have led to this catastrophic situation.

But no American President, under any circumstances, ``friendly'' or ``unfriendly,'' should threaten to take over another sovereign nation. It is Congress's responsibility to reject such a flagrant ``might makes right'' abuse of Executive power.

There is plenty of blame to go around for how we got to this point. Cuba's leaders, whose priority is holding onto power, do systematically violate the rights of the Cuban people, and they align themselves--the Cuban leaders--with, ideologically, some of the world's worst regimes.

Cuba's centralized economy has practically ruined the country, despite its tropical climate and abundance of rich farmland.

For our part--we control our part--the United States has tried to overthrow the Cuban Government by armed invasion, by assassination, by financing Cuban dissidents, and imposing a web of punitive sanctions with extraterritorial reach.

So after 65 years of an embargo that has not achieved any of its goals but has exacerbated and tested the daily suffering of the Cuban people who are not our adversary, the United States and Cuba need to find a way to peacefully coexist.

A few weeks ago, I outlined what I thought such an agreement would look like. I won't repeat that here, but at the very least, the President should, No. 1, remove Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, which has no legal or factual basis and which no other country agrees with.

And the President should pressure Congress to repeal the failed U.S. embargo so Cuba's economic reconstruction can begin.

And Cuba's leaders--and they have enormous responsibility here-- should abandon central planning of the economy. It has been an absolute disaster for the Cuban people. And the Cuban Government must release all political dissidents and accept the right of the Cuban people to express themselves freely and without fear of prosecution.

Political and economic change in Cuba is long overdue. Neither is sufficient by itself. The Cuban people--90 percent of whom were born after the 1959 revolution--they want leaders who accept the need for fundamental changes in how to govern with greater participation of the people, greater transparency, and greater freedom and real accountability.

Rather than threats of a ``takeover,'' the United States should negotiate a solution with Cuba that puts U.S. national interests and the needs and aspirations of the Cuban people first, not the interests of the Cuban Government or American billionaires.

I urge my colleagues to support Senator Kaine's resolution. The American people do not want to wake up in the morning to learn that we are at war with Cuba, and I urge the Trump administration and Cuba's leaders to take the steps I have outlined to finally put an end to the decades of hostility between us.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, known as LIHEAP, is a lifesaving program with a long history of bipartisan support from its very first days. LIHEAP was started in the administration of Ronald Reagan, and the program helps people in need heat their homes in the winter and cool their homes in the summer.

You know, it is a beautiful day here in DC, but across the country, in many places, it is still very cold and still very hot. LIHEAP was established, as I mentioned, in 1981, by President Ronald Reagan, and it provides funding to States to help low-income households with their energy costs. The program originally just covered heating, but in 1984, it was expanded to cooling, as it should be, because people in the Presiding Officer's State, people in Arizona, Nevada, and many other States are threatened by extreme heat, just as those in cold-weather States, like Vermont, are threatened by extreme cold.

This program has been reauthorized many times since its inception, and I am so pleased that it has always been bipartisan, because the folks we represent, whether it is in cold- or warm-weather States, know that people need the security that they are not going to freeze to death or that they are not going to die of heatstroke. And that happens; that is real.

And the Americans that rely on LIHEAP to heat their homes in the winter and cool their homes in the summer are very scared. They need help, and their neighbors and friends need help and assurance that this program will continue.

President Trump, in his budget, has proposed to zero out the budget for LIHEAP--literally, to end what Ronald Reagan began.

And when we are talking about those who do get some help with their heating bills, we are talking about folks who are barely able to pay their bills at the end of the month and often can't. And, again, this is in the Presiding Officer's State and in my State.

For a family of four, the eligibility limit is $61,000. For a single mother and a child, it is $40,000. For a single person just trying to get by, it is $29,000.

So Vermonters who are struggling to pay their bills themselves but are thinking about neighbors across the country are concerned about this. I had a constituent from Essex, VT, urging me to protect LIHEAP because ``I know it gets awfully cold in North Dakota and . . . Minnesota.''

People in all our States understand how their neighbors and, in many cases, they themselves need this. This is not a luxury. It can be a matter of life and death for hundreds of thousands of Americans, from Montpelier to Fairbanks, AK.

You know, this year, Burlington, VT, had its coldest weather in 17 years, with more than 20 straight days of below freezing temperatures. In Fairbanks, Alaskans endured more than 89 days below zero, many days below 30 to 40 degrees below zero.

And LIHEAP also provides cooling assistance to families in warm weather climates, like Phoenix, AZ, where more than 100 days a year saw temperatures of 100 degrees.

You know, I have gone on some fuel deliveries with the fuel dealers who have a program to provide assistance, and what I know is, Vermonters, when they see that fuel truck show up, are terrified because that is a big, big monthly bill. And without the assistance that we have been providing to people around the country to help them with this, they literally are facing freezing or heatstroke.

That is also at a time when our heating bills are going up, and our cooling bills. In December, household energy bills were up by more than 13 percent. The war in Iran has absolutely exacerbated that problem. Gas prices are up more than 30 percent, over $4 a gallon. They are approaching $5 a gallon. More and more commentators believe that the Strait of Hormuz will be closed for much longer, indefinitely. We don't know when. And that is also going to continue the pressure on the price of home heating fuel.

You know, I do have a real contention with the administration when President Trump, on the one hand, is zeroing out the home heating assistance program, and cooling assistance as well, but on the other hand, is pursuing policies that are driving up energy costs, as we saw and are seeing with the war in Iran, which has closed the Strait of Hormuz and is crippling the economy but is leading directly to higher home heating fuel costs.

And that is in contrast with some of the comments that I can only characterize as cruel and totally ``out of it'' by some of his advisers. Kevin Hassett made a very telling remark to CNBC. Here is what he said:

While it's very frustrating to go to the pump and see what

the price of gasoline looks like . . . the benefit for oil

producers is significant.

Seriously? What about your constituents and mine, who are paying the price that is of benefit to the oil producers and then find out that the home heating and cooling assistance help that they had last year is going to be zeroed out this year. That is absolutely outrageous.

The only people benefitting from this energy crisis are people in Big Oil. They are making an estimated $30 million windfall every hour.

The price goes up. It is painful for consumers and for businesses and for farmers, but it is a windfall for the oil companies.

So shouldn't this Congress stand up and provide some help to maintain some sense of security for the people we represent?

But by proposing a 100-percent cut to Federal LIHEAP funding, President Trump has made it clear what his priority is. It is accelerating the profits for the oil industry at the expense of people who have absolutely no control over what the price is at the pump, what the price is when that home heating gas or oil is being delivered to their homes.

All of us are here and believing that we are fighting for the families that we represent in our States, and I am fighting for Vermont families. Last week, Senator Reed and I filed an amendment to the Republican budget resolution that would protect LIHEAP from this zeroing out in the Trump budget.

The amendment was not adopted. But I will keep fighting, and I hope many of my colleagues will join me to protect LIHEAP so that there can be some reassurance to the people who are going to be hammered and threatened by the zeroing out of this program.

You know, in the past, Congress has, on a bipartisan basis, rejected the administration's attempts to zero out the LIHEAP budget and illegally fire the staff that oversees the disbursement of LIHEAP funding to the States. That is why we included report language in the fiscal year 2026 bill to require that funds that are allocated to States be distributed on a timely basis. And that is true in Alabama, and it is true in Vermont.

And I urge my colleagues to join those of us who want to make certain this fuel assistance is available to families, regardless of whom they voted for, regardless of policy orientation, and regardless of politics.

This is not a red State or blue State issue. Americans everywhere are paying for the reckless economic policies in this illegal war, and this war is imposing substantial and daily and punitive costs on struggling Americans, struggling farmers, and struggling businesses.

But all of us are in need of maintaining this program, and we can if we come together to do it.

You know, Texas receives about $181 million in LIHEAP funding, and it helps 65,000 households; in Nebraska, $32 million, 53,000 households.

So by attempting to zero out LIHEAP funding, the Trump administration has said it loud and clear. It is plain before our eyes. They are willing to throw Americans out in the cold or in the heat and are quite content with a $30 million-an-hour windfall for the oil companies.

My hope is that we in Congress, whatever our differences are, can work together to save and preserve the LIHEAP program, which is a lifeline for so many people you represent and I represent.

I yield the floor.

(Mr. LANKFORD assumed the Chair.)

Mr. President, on March 6 of this year, the Pentagon released a video of what it claimed was the destruction of a drug traffickers' training camp near the village of San Martin in the jungle of rural Ecuador. As reported by the New York Times, ``The video was meant to show that the U.S. military, which for months had bombed boats it says are carrying drugs from South America, was `now bombing Narco Terrorists on land,' '' according to a post by Defense Secretary Hegseth.

A thorough, credible investigation of this operation has yet to be carried out. However, based on detailed inquiries by American journalists and Ecuadorian human rights organizations who visited the site and collected testimonies and audiovisual evidence, the official narrative turns out to bear little, if any, resemblance to the facts as they are currently known.

Rather than a drug training camp, the Ecuadorian military, relying on U.S. military intelligence, appears to have bombed a cattle and dairy farm, targeting impoverished workers and terrorizing neighboring villagers.

According to workers at the farm, Ecuadorian soldiers arrived by helicopter on March 3. After reportedly arresting the workers at gunpoint, interrogating and subjecting them to beatings, suffocation, electric shocks, threats of mutilation, water immersion, and mock executions at an undisclosed military facility before releasing them, they returned to the site, poured gasoline on several structures, and burned them to the ground. Villagers said helicopters returned 3 days later, apparently dropping explosives on what remained of the farm, which the soldiers recorded on the video that the Pentagon released.

In addition to releasing the video, the Pentagon claimed credit for carrying out ``target action'' against the supposed traffickers at the request of the Ecuadorian authorities, although no U.S. troops were directly involved in the operation. Ecuadorian officials said the operation relied on U.S. ``intelligence and support'' to identify the farm, which they claimed was a camp for as many as 50 members of irregular armed groups.

According to the owner of the farm, he bought it 6 years ago and had a herd of more than 50 cows used for milk and meat. He said the destroyed structures were two wooden shelters, sheds for equipment, a chicken coop, and a place to make cheese. He said, ``It's a lie that 50 people trained here. Where are they going to train? Out in the open? There's no logic.'' He went on, ``Everywhere you look there are animals: the cows I milk, the calves, the horses.''

According to an Ecuadorian human rights lawyer, ``There isn't a single public official who has come to verify what happened.''

This violent operation occurred in a remote, dangerous area along the border between Ecuador and Colombia where armed groups are engaged in illicit mining and cocaine trafficking. But the version of events recounted by the villagers and the farm workers is totally at odds with the version promoted by the Ecuadorian military and the U.S. Department of Defense. It has been more than a month and half since the incident, and the Ecuadorian Government has yet to present any credible evidence to dispute the farm workers' harrowing account. Instead, they have continued to repeat their assertions and vilify the work of human rights organizations. The farm workers and the villagers have also reported acts of harassment and intimidation by the Ecuadorian military against them since the New York Times story came out. This is the same military that is accused of committing at least 43 cases of enforced disappearances in 2024, according to Amnesty International.

There is no evidence that, prior to issuing a press release characterizing the attack as a counter ``narco-terrorist'' operation, anyone at the Pentagon had visited the site or spoken with any of the Ecuadorian inhabitants. Perhaps the Ecuadorian Government is reluctant to conduct a credible, thorough investigation, fearing the possibility of having to refute the version of its own soldiers and the U.S. Secretary of Defense. But its responsibility is first and foremost to its own citizens, to the truth, and to the law. If the facts described by the owner of the farm are borne out, the operation violated multiple laws, including arbitrary detention, denial of due process, torture, and the destruction of property. And if this was, in fact, an attack based on faulty intelligence that never should have happened, the owner of the farm and the workers who were abused must be compensated and those responsible brought to justice.

Mr. President, we are now 46 days into President Trump's war on Iran and Lebanon. This war is wrong. This war is hurting the United States, our citizens, and our security. This war is destabilizing the Middle East and spreading to Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Jordan, and, of course, not to mention Lebanon.

This war has imperiled our economy, imposing unsustainable burdens on the American family. The average American family will pay $2,000 more for gas each year if prices stay this high. The average Vermont household will pay another thousand dollars to heat their home this year. Farms across rural

America are going to pay tens of thousands of dollars extra for fertilizer because of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

The war is imperiling our world economy. The IMF has concluded that the growth in the economy around the world could drop by 2 percent, risking a global recession. Food prices are increasing around the world. In Sudan, the price for wheat is up 70 percent because of the war, and that is in a country on the brink of absolute starvation.

How did this happen? How did it happen? We got here because the President disregarded his own promises of staying out of Middle East wars. He disregarded the American people by not leveling with them about what his plan was and what his intentions were. He disregarded Congress entirely, and he has totally disregarded our allies. So is it any surprise that we find ourselves right now with President Trump stuck dealing with this situation that he created pretty much by himself?

Instead of consulting with our allies or even his own administration, the President relied on Prime Minister Netanyahu, inviting him to the Situation Room--never been done before.

Netanyahu assured him: No problem. You bomb, we bomb--the regime will collapse. You bomb, we bomb--the Strait of Hormuz will stay open.

President Trump accepted that advice and rejected the advice of his own Cabinet officials, who called that for what it was. The Netanyahu advice was farcical. We have seen what happened. Oil has gone from $70 a barrel to a high of more than $120 a barrel. Fertilizer prices have jumped from $400 a ton to $700 a ton. Helium prices, which none of us really thought much about, have gone up 100 percent, and that has created an enormous supply chain crisis for the semiconductor industry upon which all of us are dependent.

President Trump is now in the remarkable position of closing the Strait of Hormuz himself, supposedly for the stated purpose of opening it. For those of us who were here in the Vietnam years, that is very reminiscent of the administration position that we had to destroy a village in order to save it.

It has just become indisputably clear that the President and Secretary of War Hegseth really had no plan other than, as President Trump put it, to bomb Iran into the stone age. And that is what is happening. The bombing has been among the most intense bombing campaigns in the history of air warfare. The United States has carried out more than 13,000 airstrikes. Israel has carried out more than 10,000 strikes, dropping over 18,000 bombs. In the first 100 hours, the United States and Israel hit more targets in Iran than in the first 6 months of the bombing campaign against ISIS.

These strikes have taken a devastating toll on civilians and clearly civilian targets. Just talk about in Iran. U.S.-Israeli strikes have hit 60 hospitals; 44 schools, including that girls school that was horrifying to all of us; the major B1 highway bridge, used by civilians, killing 13 civilians; major pharmaceutical plants that were producing anti-cancer drugs and had associated with them 200,000 jobs; desalination plants; sports stadiums; Tehran's synagogue.

While the President says the Iranian people are not our adversary, thousands of civilians have been killed in these strikes. On average, 10 children a day have been killed in U.S.-Israeli airstrikes. Nearly 40 percent of the attacks have taken place in the heart of Tehran, a dense urban area, and 95 percent of those killed by bombs are civilians.

This kind of bombing tells us that President Trump has made the Iranian people--the very people he promised to save--the adversary, the enemy, much more so than the ayatollahs.

It is time to end this war of choice, this war that was chosen by a very intemperate decision by our President, this war that is making Americans less secure, and this war that is and will continue to impose extraordinary economic pain on our citizens.

It is very clear that President Trump and his negotiators--Mr. Witkoff and Mr. Kushner--have a fundamental misunderstanding of the regime they are dealing with.

In the course of this war, President Trump has changed the narrative. Three months ago, we were focused on the violence of the Iranian regime toward its own people. Today, with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the economic pain that the ayatollahs have been able to inflict on the world, the narrative is about the ayatollahs standing up to the United States and Israel.

Trump's bombing has damaged Iran, and it has hurt the Iranian people, but it has also given everyone and the ayatollahs leverage over our economy and the world economy. The threats that the President makes to the ayatollahs don't particularly move them, and it is something he doesn't understand. This is not a real estate deal. What the ayatollahs have shown--and this is horrifying--is that they are prepared to destroy their own country if that is what it takes for them to stay in power. So these threats the President makes fall on deaf ears.

As a first step in ending this war, I urge my colleagues to support Senator Sanders' joint resolutions of disapproval, which we will be taking up later today. Those resolutions would stop the United States from sending bombs--thousands of bombs--and armored bulldozers to Israel.

These weapons are paid for by the American taxpayers. We will be sending bombs to Israel at a time when we are in a cease-fire, which I hope will continue. These bulldozers are being used, literally-- literally--to bulldoze entire villages in Lebanon on behalf of Israel's intentions.

And I want to note that if this vote is successful on the JRDs, it would simply force a debate. It wouldn't stop anything. It would require those of us in the U.S. Senate, those of us who by virtue of our election have the article I authority to declare war--it would require us to say yes or no on where we stand. It would require us to accept our responsibility under the Constitution to do our job on the most profound question that affects the people of this country, and that is when, whether, and why to commit this country to war.

I hope my colleagues will vote in favor of these JRDs, and I am disappointed that we rejected Senator Duckworth's resolution. We need this cease-fire to continue. We need the bombing to stop and stay stopped.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am going to speak about two topics--the SAVE Act and the war in Iraq. I would like to start with the SAVE Act.

We are debating the SAVE Act, the SAVE America Act. In my view, that

will actually undermine our elections and sow distrust in the elections. But I want to present letters and calls I have received from Vermonters, including our town clerks and their experience and their judgment about what this will do.

We are very proud in Vermont that we have a very high voter participation rate and no fraud, and that is a point of pride that is shared among Republicans, among Independents, and among Democrats.

These are the words of a town clerk in Vermont:

I have serious concerns regarding the SAVE Act,

specifically the barrier it creates for voters and the

unnecessary administrative and infrastructure burden it will

place on election officials.

If the SAVE Act is enacted, it will put a disproportionate

burden on women, low-income families, and anyone who has

changed their name since birth. Requiring the documentation

to prove a name change can be difficult. It can be expensive.

Many women do not have just one name change, and they may

have several due to multiple marriages or divorces, each

requiring additional documentation to create a paper trail.

Even if the government were to provide a free ID, the

underlying documents needed to obtain that ID are rarely

free.

Consider the practical reality. What if a voter loses their

documentation in a house fire or a flood?

By the way, we had three floods 3 years in a row on July 14.

They lack the time or resources to replace these documents

in time to cast their vote.

By the way, that matters to Vermonters of all political persuasions.

Furthermore, if a voter is struggling to put food on their

table and does not have a copy of their birth certificate,

they should not be forced to choose between feeding their

children and exercising their right to vote.

Would voters be forced to use provisional ballots, and if

so, how much more time would my office--

This is the clerk's office--

need to spend processing those after the polls close?

Recently, I had an 85-year-old woman come into my office,

deeply distressed. She doesn't have a driver's license, a

passport, or any other documents that are required under the

SAVE America Act. Yet she has voted in every election her

entire life. She is terrified that her right to vote will be

stripped away.

In a small community like ours, we know our neighbors.

Requiring her to produce a birth certificate she hasn't seen

in decades ignores the reality of local governance.

And as an election official, I also have significant

concerns regarding the logistical challenges this creates.

How are we to verify the authenticity of various out-of-state

documents? What system will I be provided--

This is the clerk--

to ensure these documents are legitimate?

Federal databases are not always updated in real time. If

the act requires verification against the federal database,

any lag in the system would wrongly flag eligible citizens as

ineligible.

Managing the nuances of local, primary, and federal

elections is already a complex task, even for the most

seasoned officials. This act represents yet another unfunded

mandate.

Our taxpayers are demanding lower taxes, and how can we

implement this massive administrative shift without raising

taxes or diverting funds for other essential services?

Elections are the heartbeat of our community, and as an

election official, my priority is ensuring that every

eligible neighbor can cast their vote without undue hardship.

The SAVE America Act threatens to turn a straightforward

civic duty into a costly, bureaucratic nightmare for our town

and its residents. We must ensure that our laws protect the

right to vote for all citizens, regardless of their age, sex,

income, or life circumstances, rather than creating an

unfunded mandate that our taxpayers cannot afford.

Another former town clerk wrote:

I am thoroughly horrified by the onerous requirements for

registering to vote. As a former town clerk, I have always

believed that a well-functioning democracy should do

everything in its power to encourage people to vote, not

throw up roadblocks that effectively block millions of people

from doing so.

Though no one wants noncitizens to be allowed to vote in

federal elections, multiple studies have demonstrated that

this is an extremely rare event.

From a cost-benefit standpoint, the SAVE America Act makes

no sense. I believe the risk of harm to millions of current

and future voters vastly outweighs the risk of noncitizen

voting, which is a relatively minimal issue.

Mr. President, that is what is called Vermont common sense.

If Congress and the public believe that showing a valid ID

at the polling place is something that should be implemented

across the country, this should be proposed in new

legislation that will be delayed until at least 2028 so that

everyone is given the opportunity to obtain a federal

identification card, which can be used for the purposes of

voting.

It is ironic that the Republicans, who have historically been opposed to a national ID card, are now the ones screaming the loudest for documentation.

There is absolutely no reason that the bill should specify

that a valid driver's license or a REAL ID card should not

qualify as sufficient documentation to establish one's

eligibility to vote. I believe this is simply a callous

attempt to disenfranchise millions of people of color and

those of lower socioeconomic status, as well as women who

have chosen to change their names upon marriage.

Another clerk writes:

As a former town clerk who managed many Federal elections

over the course of my career, I always felt comfortable with

the Vermont registration form that asked a number of

questions of people who are required to sign an affidavit as

to the accuracy of their residency and citizen status. The

penalties for perjury are severe, and there is little to no

incentive for a noncitizen to risk their status in the United

States by illegally attempting to vote.

Many voter registrations take place through the Department

of Motor Vehicles, and the creation of the so-called motor

voter system has vastly improved the ability of officials to

ensure that voter lists are accurate and up to date.

Additionally, the Vermont election management system is an

online registration system that requires either a Social

Security number that can be cross-checked or a valid Vermont

driver's license number. Both of these systems are fully

functional in Vermont and offer convenience for residents as

well as enhanced accuracy in the maintenance of voter lists

in the conduct of elections.

The clerk continues:

I would venture to suggest that the SAVE Act, in its

current form, would render those systems obsolete and create

a huge problem for town clerks, members of the board of civil

authority, and voters by disallowing driver's licenses and

REAL ID cards as an acceptable form of identification. Both

of these systems would be rendered unusable. Voters in my

State, they have called, they have emailed, and they have

written to me with their concerns.

Another Vermonter, a Vermonter from Stowe:

I am writing to voice my concern over the protection of my

voting rights and the voting rights of millions of other

married women.

I recently needed to renew my passport. I, fortunately,

have my original birth certificate, but found out I no longer

had an original copy of my marriage license. It took me

significant time, effort, and money to obtain the original,

and then to have the passport expedited in order to get it on

time for my trip. We are talking months. I was fortunate that

I had my birth certificate and, as I would imagine, that many

people do not.

In her view, this bill is outrageous.

One Vermonter in Hinesburg said:

I am hearing rumblings that the Senate will be taking

action on the SAVE Act that, unfortunately, passed in the

House.

In this person's view, this is a voter suppression bill.

Personally, I have already purchased copies of my birth

certificate and my marriage license, even though I have a

passport, because I wanted to be damned sure I can vote. But,

obviously, there are many people who won't be able to access

their needed proof of eligibility. If this bill goes through,

they will therefore be denied one of their basic rights as

Americans.

``I am pretty sure you are going to vote no on this,'' she says to me. ``I just wanted to let you know that I am against it too.''

By the way, she is right. I want this Vermonter to know they are right.

Another voter in Winooski:

Please vote no to the SAVE Act. It's a solution in search

of a problem because voting by undocumented people does not

happen in any significant degree in this country.

It will disenfranchise millions of voters. It is

essentially a poll tax on anyone who has changed their name

at any point in their life, which means many women, amongst

others, will be unable to vote.

We have watched SCOTUS erode the Voting Rights Act of 1965

by degrees.

The SAVE Act will be a death blow--

in the opinion of this writer--

to the work of so many to enable people to vote, that some

even sacrifice their life for. And it is further endangered

by the lies about this act.

I am listening to my constituents. We all need to listen to our constituents and our local leaders. We cannot advance a bill that will disenfranchise voters. We cannot block access to the ballot box. We cannot limit voices, nor can we stop, nor should we stop, nor should we impede people from voting. I cannot and will not support the SAVE Act.

Mr. President, I want to speak on the topic of the war in Iran.

As I am standing here, 3,000 soldiers from the 82nd Airborne are on their way to Iran. These are elite paratroopers who are trained to jump into enemy-held territory. They will join 5,000 marines who are being sent from Japan and California.

How did we get here?

On February 28, President Trump launched this war--something he is now calling an ``excursion''--with a massive display of U.S. military power and dominance. It was stunning. In the opening days, more than 8,000 targets were struck in Iran. More than 120 Iranian vessels were damaged or destroyed, nearly eliminating Iran's ability to launch drones and missiles. Iran's military and civilian leadership was decapitated, and that includes the then-Ayatollah, who was the leader, now replaced by his son. It was an incredible demonstration of military power and execution of military might, just like Midnight Hammer was in June.

Things are different today. We face something completely unpredictable, and we have had no discussion or debate about it. We face what has happened in Iraq and what has happened in Afghanistan, and that is that a country with limited power has asymmetric power. It is confronting us with the limits of what can be accomplished with military power.

Iran has closed the Strait of Hormuz, and to the shock of most Americans, there appears to have been very little, if any, planning on the part of the folks who pushed us into the war about what would happen when the strait was closed. The Iranians really don't need massive military power to keep the strait closed. A drone strike or a mine that hits a vessel that is going through, whether escorted or not, means that Iran has a vote: They can attack.

It also means international shippers have a vote: Do they want to risk their cargo and their crew when that is an active military combat zone?

They have answered that: No. There are hundreds of oil-carrying cargo vessels on both sides of the strait that won't proceed through.

The President has to make a major decision. We have to make a major decision. His decision appears to be that he will escalate this war. He will put his faith that there is a military solution to resolving an outcome. That is despite the experience we have had in which we have consistently been shown the limitations of what can be accomplished with our extraordinary military.

By all indications, the President has chosen a path of escalation: the marines I mentioned, the paratroopers I mentioned, the massing of our military assets in the region, the attacks I outlined, and the $200 billion request that is coming our way. That is an extraordinary request of the American taxpayer. It is $60 billion more than President Bush requested in his supplemental to fund the opening months of the Iraq invasion in 2003.

Escalation at this point--and that is the decision that is upon us-- is going to be irresistible. That is in the context of the President's getting intelligence assessments from our intelligence community, as well as from the Israeli intelligence community, that the hope for the collapse of the Iranian regime will not occur. It is intact. They have lost many of their leaders, and they have replaced all of those leaders whom they have lost.

So do we expect that this paratrooper expedition and this marine expedition can change that? That is a question that this body must debate.

One of the weaknesses of our position right now is that the President did bypass Congress in making his decision to go on this ``expedition.'' The President also bypassed the American people by not addressing them and outlining with clarity the goals that he seeks to accomplish, the means by which he hopes to accomplish them, and the expectation of the sacrifices that American citizens will have to make in order to achieve his goals.

In a democracy, this is not just something that is done because it is nice to do. In a democracy, having public backing for a war is not optional; it is a strategic necessity for success. There has been no effort to engage the public, and, indeed, public opinion of the wisdom of this shows that barely 40 percent of Americans support this war and that more than 60 percent think our military action in Iran has been excessive.

This reservation that we are seeing on the part of the American people about this war is understandable. There has been no explanation of the goals and the expectation about an outcome. There has been no candor about what this war will cost. And $200 billion as a supplemental is a downpayment on more to come; $200 billion is literally a $1,400 tax on every single American household.

The average American family is also going to pay an extra $2,000 at the pump with the increase in gas prices. Families in Vermont are going to pay $1,000 more to heat their homes.

Our small farmers in Vermont and in the Presiding Officer's State are going to pay about 35 percent more for fertilizer just as planting season begins.

We owe candor to the American people when it comes to what is going to be required for this war.

The other essential obligation we have in making a decision about going to war is to the men and women we will ask to go to war because of our decision or because of our indecision.

When I was first in Congress, I attended the funeral of a young Vermont marine. He died at the age of 21 in the siege of Fallujah. He died on Thanksgiving day. We all honor him as a hero, just like the other Vermonters who fell in post-9/11 wars.

In Vermont, at that point, we had the highest casualty rate on a per- capita population basis of any State in the Nation.

We are so proud of the commitment of service that our young Vermonters give to our country.

They step up because they believe in us. They believe that, in a democracy, they serve us by volunteering, and they subjected themselves to the authority of the Commander in Chief, a civilian. And they will show up, and they will serve at the call of the Commander in Chief.

We, in Congress, have a role to play, and it is to weigh in on the decisions of where and when we will send young men and women into harm's way. They do their job; we are not doing our job.

We have had no hearings. We have had no debate. We have had no discussion. It is just happening. We are sleepwalking passively into a war that could be yet another war in the Middle East.

Yes, it is true: The Iranian regime is dangerous. Saddam's regime was dangerous. The Taliban was dangerous. In the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, we did escalate, and we stayed. You couldn't get out because we didn't make a decision. We were there and justified staying because we were there in the first place.

We are at that moment with what is occurring in Iran. And, yes, it is an evil regime. Yes, we want them not to have a nuclear weapon. But is diplomacy to be abandoned? Is unilateral action to be chosen? Is that to be done where we have literally no debate and no discussion?

It is the wrong decision, and we face very soon a question of whether we will support a $200 billion expenditure for that war. The President calls it an excursion, but we all know better. We must make a decision, and I have made a decision. I will not support $200 billion for a military ``excursion'' in Iran.

The burden of war is borne by those who fight it, the young men and the young women who put themselves in harm's way because we sent them there. They are the ones who suffer the loss of life, devastation in their families, lifelong injuries, PTSD. But the true burden of war is borne by those who fight, not by those who decide. Is it not our responsibility--our minimal responsibility--to decide? We are not doing that. We are passively backing into a war with no debate, no discussion, no profound appreciation of what we are asking the young men and women of this country to subject themselves to. We owe them more than that.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, it is time to end the war that the President started with Iran on February 28--3 weeks ago.

The war must stop now, not a week from now after U.S. taxpayers spend another $14 billion, another 1,000 innocent civilians are lost, another 500,000 are displaced from their homes, and more economic punishment here at home; not a month from now after U.S. taxpayers spend another $60 billion, another 4,000 innocent civilians are lost, another 2 million are displaced from their homes, and even more dire economic consequences here at home; and certainly not 3 months from now after U.S. taxpayers spend another $200 billion, another 12,000 innocent civilians are lost and the creation of a global refugee crisis affecting millions, and the possibility of a global economic recession. The time to end the war is now--right now.

Today, we are heading in the opposite direction. The war is escalating. Netanyahu bombed the South Pars gasfield. Iran retaliated by bombing Qatar's natural gas hub, the Ras Laffan Industrial City. Oil prices are surging to nearly $120 a barrel.

The President must act and act now. End this war. The President can end the war that he started, and if he won't, Congress must.

President Trump's stated goal was to destroy Iran's nuclear capability, and in his own words, that program was ``totally obliterated.'' President Trump's stated goal was to degrade Iran's missile programs. In his own words, we have ``already destroyed 100 percent of Iran's military capability.'' By President Trump's own account, his objectives have largely been realized.

We are now at a very dangerous inflection point: Do we end the war now or do we escalate? Do we escalate to achieve Netanyahu's goal--not ours--of regime change? Do we escalate with no end in sight--an escalation that will put American boots on the ground? an escalation American taxpayers will fund with a $200 billion downpayment on yet another forever war in the Middle East? We must decide. And make no mistake, indecision, not to decide, is escalation, and escalation will lead to failure.

President Trump is dragging us toward escalation, and Congress must not allow it.

America has been down this road before. In Iraq, Saddam presided over an evil regime. He was deposed quickly. In Afghanistan, the Taliban were an evil regime. They were deposed quickly, but what came after was devastating--trillions of dollars of taxpayer money wasted and thousands of American soldiers killed and injured. The Iraq war cost nearly $2 trillion. In the Iraq war, we lost more than 4,500 American servicemembers. The Afghanistan war cost over $2 trillion, and in Afghanistan, we lost nearly 2,500 American servicemembers.

Unless this escalation is stopped, President Trump's Iran war could cost even more. And for what? A regime change war in Iran could be worse--worse than Iraq or even Afghanistan. Regime change is impossible without boots on the ground. Those boots are the boots of brave American men and women who will follow the President's order to deploy should he give it. And regime change is impossible to sustain without a permanent occupying force.

Iran--make no mistake--is a proud country with proud people, and they may welcome the riddance of the ayatollahs but will fiercely reject American and Israeli occupiers. Iran is also huge. It stretches as far as the distance from Houston, TX, to New York, and it has as many people as California, Texas, and Florida combined.

Iraq and Afghanistan taught us something that we must not forget, and that is the limits of military power. In the early phases of both of those wars, as in Iran now, the extraordinary skills and capabilities of our military won impressive victories, but what followed those early victories in Iraq and Afghanistan is already upon us in Iran, and that is the asymmetric response--the one where the United States, with all its military might, is at a disadvantage.

Iran's drone attacks have closed the Strait of Hormuz--something that the Secretary of Energy dismissed as being something that couldn't happen. Nearly one-third of the global oil, fertilizer,

and helium supplies that we need--that the world needs--flow through the Strait of Hormuz.

You know, in 1973, we had a big oil disruption that involved only 7 percent of oil supplies, but it created a global economic shock that reverberated for 10 years. This one could even be worse. Iran can keep the Strait closed as long as they have access to just enough drones or enough small boats loaded with explosives that keep international shippers, who are fearful of losing cargo and crew, from risking passage.

The costs to American families and businesses from the closing of the Strait from this asymmetric warfare are staggering. Across the country, gas prices at the pump are up at least a dollar. The average American family will pay an additional $2,000 this year in gas. As a country, we are paying an additional $2 billion every day--$2 billion--for the war premium that we have to pay at the pump.

In Vermont and across the country, our farmers are paying up to 35 to 40 percent more for fertilizer. More than a third of global fertilizer supplies have to come through the strait. Just ahead of spring planting season, farms are facing additional tens of thousands of dollars to do business.

Vermont families are also paying a war premium to heat their homes. Heating oil prices are surging from around a little over $3 a gallon to over $4.70 a gallon. An average family is going to be facing a $1,000 additional expense to maintain heat in their homes.

As the Presiding Officer knows, the Pentagon's costs are absolutely staggering. The war is costing at least $2 billion a day. The Pentagon has told Congress that the first 6 days cost $11.3 billion, not including many other undisclosed things. The Pentagon, we are told, is going to be requesting a $200 billion supplemental. That, by the way, is triple the cost of all U.S. weapons that were sent to Ukraine. We are spending $15 million apiece for THAAD interceptors to shoot down Iranian missiles. We are spending $4 million apiece for Patriot interceptors that are shooting down Shahed drones that cost $20,000.

More than 1,300 civilians have already been killed, including over 100 girls by a U.S. strike that went wrong. More than 1,000 have been killed in Lebanon, where Israel, under Netanyahu, is inflicting a relentless attack. That includes more than 100 children.

We have had losses, too, in the United States of brave servicemembers who responded to the call of duty, and I want to acknowledge their service and their loss: MAJ Jeffrey O'Brien, CPT Cody Khork, CW3 Robert Marzan, SFC Noah Tietjens, SFC Nicole Amor, SGT Declan Coady, SGT Benjamin Pennington, Maj. John Klinner, Capt. Ariana Savino, Capt. Seth Koval, Capt. Curtis Angst, TSgt Ashley Pruitt, and TSgt Tyler Simmons.

I also want to pay respects and acknowledge the exemplary service of the Vermont Air National Guard's 158th Fighter Wing. Their critical skills were requested by name and unit. Their unique mission means they are often the first ones in. Vermonters are very proud of the Green Mountain Boys, and we pray for their safe return home.

One of the great accomplishments of this American democracy for the past 250 years--a legacy the Presiding Officer and I are both proud of--is that the strong military we have serves under elected civilian leadership. Citizens volunteer to serve, accepting that they will be deployed at the will of the Commander in Chief and that they will bravely face all the perils required to defend our freedom.

The citizens who serve in the military have accepted their responsibility. The U.S. Senate should do the same--accept our responsibility. Under the Constitution, it is the elected leadership, including the U.S. Senate, that has the responsibility to carefully consider when and whether to commit our citizens to the obligations of war.

Our country is now very deep into this war--the biggest in a generation. Yet the U.S. Senate has not held a single hearing, has not had a single debate, and has not demanded a full account from the Executive as to the war in Iran.

Now we understand the administration is preparing a $200 billion supplemental funding request for a war that has not even been explained, much less authorized. I will oppose this funding. I will oppose sleepwalking into a forever war. I will oppose funding a war wherein the President has presented no stated objectives or a coherent plan to achieve them. I will oppose funding a war wherein the President has proposed no way to pay for it other than to pile up more debt for our children and grandchildren.

The question before us: Does the United States end this war or do we escalate it?

I oppose a war and funding a war that will make our country less safe and our citizens economically more vulnerable.

This is at the heart of our sworn obligation to uphold the Constitution and fight for the interest of our constituents, of all Americans. This war makes us less safe, less prosperous. This war must end.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to speak about the SAVE Act. The SAVE Act, the SAVE America Act, is part of President Trump's and the Republicans' agenda to disenfranchise voters.

You know, I heard my colleague from Oklahoma talk about the Voting Rights Act, and that was really an effort on the part of this Congress to respect and ensure that people who are being denied the vote had the right to vote, and it did take Federal action to make that citizens' right a reality.

The SAVE Act is really an effort to interfere with the right of people to vote, and it is based on an assertion that is flatout false about widespread voter fraud. And, of course, that goes back to January 6, after the election defeat in 2020, when President Trump then said that that election was rigged and that it was false; the outcome was not correct.

There was litigation. Sixty-three courts ruled that the President had lost to President Biden.

The President is now relying on conspiracy theorists like Kurt Olsen, one of the lawyers that pushed Trump's ``Stop the Steal'' efforts in court to

now lead the effort, seizing election materials related to the 2020 elections.

And those claims have been debunked, even by many Republican elected officials. A lot of our local Republican elected officials care deeply about protecting the right of citizens to vote.

Last month, President Trump said that the Republicans should ``take over'' the election administration in 15 States. Any attempt by a President, including this President, to take over elections is flatout unconstitutional, as article I, section 4, of the elections clause of the U.S. Constitution gives States the duty to administer elections and Congress the ability to legislate laws around election administration.

The executive branch itself has literally no role in direct election administration.

And this system works. It has worked well for 250 years because the States are best positioned to identify and create policies that meet the needs and accommodations of their own communities.

There is public reporting that officials in President Trump's White House have been coordinating with far-right activists and operatives like Jerome Corsi to declare a baseless national emergency. We have heard that term used quite a bit in this administration. But to declare a ``national emergency'' surrounding the 2026 election--that term has been used. It has been invoked to justify the imposition of tariffs unilaterally by the President with respect to the IEEPA tariffs. The Supreme Court held that that position was unconstitutional. We haven't had the Court weigh in on a ``national emergency'' that may be declared around voting, but it is worth very much taking seriously.

The Trump administration has defunded election security infrastructure while at the same time making false claims that our elections are insecure.

The administration has gutted the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Act, known as CISA, which Congress created in 2018 to oversee programs responsible for securing our elections, like the cyber threat intelligence.

The administration is also trying to seize voters' personal data in violation of Federal privacy laws, despite research proving that noncitizen voting is very, very rare.

This is a concerted effort on the part of the President whose ire over losing the 2020 election resulted in January 6 and has also been a sustained campaign on the part of the President to insist that that election was bogus.

The SAVE America Act, in any form, as it is drafted, would block millions of U.S. citizens from voting. And we can have reasonable ID requirements like allowing U.S. citizens to register with a driver's license or a military ID. Several States have them.

Vermont does not have that, except at the initial point of registering, and we have such good, high-level participation by voters and basically zero election fraud.

But voter registration should permit all eligible citizens, and only eligible citizens, to register and vote in Federal elections. That is already Federal law. That is not what this SAVE America legislation does.

Your driver's license wouldn't work. That wouldn't be a valid ID. Your REAL ID wouldn't work. It gets us on a plane, gets us through security, but it wouldn't work to get you in to vote.

Your military ID--you know, we just had a tribute to our soldiers. But our soldiers with that ID would not be allowed to use that to be able to register to vote.

If your passport has your maiden name on it, as millions of American women's passports do, that won't work because it doesn't correspond to their married name.

The list of acceptable identification under the SAVE Act to register to vote, such as passports or birth certificates, is stricter than many of the 36 States which do require some identification to vote. And therein lies the problem because the more onerous you make this, the more difficult it is--a person who doesn't have a passport, doesn't have a driver's license, has to do something just for the purpose of voting--the fewer people who are going to be able to do that.

So here are some facts that we should not ignore. About 146 million Americans don't have a passport. In 2024, 153 million Americans voted. And, by the way, passports are pretty expensive. A new passport is at least $165 for the passport application and the facility acceptance fee or even more if you want it expedited.

And approximately 69 million women have a birth certificate with their maiden name and not the name matching their identification, meaning their birth certificates would be insufficient identification for voter registration under this bill. How can we do that to millions of American women?

Eleven percent of registered voters don't have access to their birth certificate; 52 percent of registered voters do not have an unexpired passport with their current legal name; and 9 percent of all eligible voters do not have or do not have easy access to documentary proof of citizenship.

These details really matter. You know, it is not just the top-line name ``voter ID.'' It is what is in this legislation that limits what can be a legitimate voter ID for the purposes of voting.

And even if voters were to provide documentary proof of citizenship, verifying the authenticity of those documents is an inherently complex task, one that election officials in motor vehicle departments often don't have the resources or the training to perform.

The SAVE America Act would disenfranchise Americans of all ages and races. But younger voters, rural voters, poorer voters would suffer disproportionately. Rural voters--and by the way, 60 percent of whom identify as Republican--would face some of the largest hurdles to showing up in person at their election office to register to vote. Many rural voters rely heavily on remote voter registration methods that would be effectively blocked by the SAVE America Act, such as registering to vote online or mailing in an application, and also these voters rely greatly on mail-in voting.

This has been an incredible convenience for voters, and reliable. This would become much more difficult under this legislation, with the need to scan and print out copies of their voter ID.

By the way, when it comes to seniors, nearly half of all seniors don't have a passport.

The SAVE America Act would make it harder for Americans to register and vote in 2026. If the SAVE America Act were signed into law, it would go into effect immediately--overnight--changing the requirements for voter registration for all Americans from the day before the act was signed to the day after. This would effectively block voter registration methods nearly all Americans use and add new restrictions on voting at the polls and by mail in virtually every State. It would be a mess.

The bill not only requires proof of citizenship but also proof of residence in order to register. This could block even more voters from voting. Roughly 9 percent of the U.S. population has moved to a new home within their own State in the past year, but many will not update their driver's license until they expire--more people who aren't going to be able to vote who are entitled to vote. Right now, we have protections 90 days out from an election that prevent voters from being removed from the rolls. This bill would end those protections.

The SAVE America Act would eliminate mail registration, and it would disrupt online registration. In 2022, more than 7 million Americans registered to vote by mail and almost 11 million Americans registered to vote online without any problem to election integrity. These bills would also require online registration systems to be overhauled to fit the bill's requirements. The bill would also prohibit universal mail voting, requiring all mail voters to submit an application in order to receive a mail ballot--a lot of bureaucracy here being created. This would end the longstanding principal method of voting in eight States and in Washington, DC--and, by the way, in my State of Vermont.

The bill would require voters registering to vote by mail to submit documentary proof of citizenship, which States do not currently require. And, by the way, that is without incident.

Mail-in voting supports rural communities that local election administrators can't reach well. This is why

several of my Republican colleagues' States--Nebraska, Idaho, North Dakota--make mail-in voting possible for certain voters. Arkansas and Louisiana allow digital IDs as valid voter identification.

The Trump administration has been on a furious effort to silence citizens and deny them our most fundamental constitutional right: the right to vote. The ``show your papers'' requirement is an attack on the freedom to vote.

Congress should stand firm to protect the right of all of our citizens to vote and reject the SAVE America Act.

I yield the floor.

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