Floor Statements

Mr. President, I join my colleagues in celebrating a major and long overdue achievement allowing the American people to have the benefit of a government that will stand up to negotiate prices and try its best to make the prescription medications that they need for themselves and the people they love to be affordable.

You know, what is a greater responsibility that a government has to its citizens to help create a healthcare system that is accessible and is affordable? Why is it that in this country, the citizens that we all represent are getting hammered on the cost of medications that if they just go across the border to Canada, they can get at one-tenth, one- fifth of the price?

Why is it? It is because until this day, we have been the only government that has not been willing to use price negotiation to protect consumers from price gouging by Big Pharma, and it is really brutal. I mean, every one of us--I talk to Vermonters, Senator Stabenow was talking about Michiganders, Senator Whitehouse was talking about constituents in Rhode Island--by the way, some of whom are Republicans, some of whom are Democrats, some of whom are Independents, many of whom don't even bother to pay much attention to the political process. But when they have to get access to that medication that is really essential to their well-being, they can't afford it.

We are paying, they are paying--all our citizens--in many cases, 2\1/ 2\ times, on average, what folks across the border in Canada or in Europe are paying for the same medication. And, you know, it is terrific when Big Pharma, through their research, comes up with medications that can extend our life. But if they charge so much that we can't afford it, what does that do?

And time after time, we have seen folks make these horrible decisions about cutting back on their medication at the threat to their own life and safety because they literally can't afford it.

Now, the pharmaceutical industry, let's give them credit: They have created lifesaving drugs. That is a tremendous thing. But they can't use the fact that they are doing something good to jack up prices to make it unaffordable just for self-enrichment.

You know, we, as a government, have done an enormous amount to help pharma with the innovation side, and they are suggesting that this legislation is going to interfere with that capacity. Is it true? No. Think about what we have done--we, the government, taxpayers. No. 1, the intellectual property is protected; so for that period of time, oftentimes well over a decade, they can charge whatever they want to charge and they have the exclusive right to have that drug on the market. And they charge a lot.

No. 2, we have created an employer-sponsored healthcare system where we have employers in all of our States where it is really important to that employer to provide good-quality healthcare to its employees, and they have to pay whatever the premiums are that are, oftentimes, inflated as a result of us having the highest prescription drug prices in the world.

Third, we have a Medicare/Medicaid program, which is a guaranteed purchasing pool to buy the products that they create. So pharma has protection on its profits with an exclusive period; it has a government that stands behind the right of citizens to have access to healthcare through Medicare particularly, Medicaid, and also employer-sponsored healthcare.

And then what you see is the pharmaceutical industry going beyond the patent rights that it has for that market exclusivity and do the things that Senator Klobuchar was talking about where they try to extend the life of the patent well beyond what that limited period was supposed to be.

And then, by the way, Wall Street gets in the game here, because what many of the companies have claimed is research is a corporate buyout. Company A buys company B that has a patent, a popular and necessary drug. They pay billions for it; and then to pay for the purchase price, they inflate the cost of that prescription drug. And they can do it; they get away with it.

So, you know, Senator Hickenlooper asked the question: Why is the outrage not about that we let it go on for so long?

So pharma is going to do fine and keep doing what they are going to be doing. They are going to have the patent exclusivity; they are going to have a government and a Senate with Republicans and Democrats maintaining the Medicare program so that folks who are going to need prescription drugs are going to be able to get them. They are going to do fine.

But, finally, we have price negotiation so that, in effect, if you or I are going to the pharmacy to buy aspirin and we buy a hundred because the per-unit cost is a lot less, we get to pay wholesale--we get to decide about bargaining by what we purchase, a big amount or a little amount. Medicare should be able to do the same thing.

So this is so overdue and so beneficial to everybody that we all represent, regardless of, politically, whose side they are on. This is about a shared need that our society has for access to prescription medication. And, of course, to the Presiding Officer, we all appreciate the focus that you put on insulin. I mean, if there isn't a more shocking example of a rip-off. This drug has been around for decades; there is no new innovation. But what there is, is pricing power. So those companies that had the ability to set the price, to raise the price, and to do it again kept going up and up and up, even though there were not any additional intellectual breakthroughs with the actual core of what insulin is.

You know, we in this country know that working Americans are struggling

to pay their bills. Things are expensive, and it is not just inflation. Things are expensive in many cases because there is real corporate power, and they can set the price they want. Nowhere do they do that with more abusive consistency than in pharmaceutical prescriptions. And we can decide, as a Senate, that we are going to find ways to make things affordable by stopping the rip-off.

Having the capacity for Medicare to negotiate prices is a major breakthrough. It is no small thing. It is the beginning; it is not the end of our efforts. And I thank all of my colleagues for working together to help all of our constituents, regardless of who they voted for, because the thing they all have in common is they want to protect, especially, the people that they love.

And in the arguments from pharma, what I find so alarming is that what they prey upon is the love that people in America have for their families because, if you are a mom or you are a dad and you have got a son or a daughter who needs a prescription drug and you can't afford it, you will take out a second mortgage or you will sell the house or you will get rid of your retirement account. You will do whatever it takes to save the person you care about. And pharma, with their pushback, saying this is going to threaten innovation is preying on those fears that all of us have about what will happen if we don't do everything we can to help the person that we love.

And you know what, it is not about that for pharma. They are doing pretty well. Those salaries are astonishing. Those corporate buybacks are very rich. So I am proud to be with my colleagues here to stand up for the right that our citizens have--affordably, confidently, securely--to be able to have, when they need it, access to the prescription medication that is going to extend their life and save their loved ones.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I would like to address the Senate and describe the situation in Vermont.

On July 10, we had a catastrophic flood that affected parts of the entire State. What I would like to speak about today are a couple of things: one, where Vermont stands in the recovery and, two, to describe specifically damages to our agriculture community and our farming community.

Before I do start, I want to express my gratitude to the Biden administration, to the FEMA folks who visited, to the Secretary of Transportation, who visited, and to the staff at FEMA, who have been working tirelessly to help Vermonters go through the very difficult process.

There are folks who have lost their homes or suffered significant damage to their homes, folks who have lost their businesses. We saw, when I was here originally, a photograph of Montpelier, where the entire downtown district was flooded, and the individuals in the farming community who have seen all of their work and all of their crops destroyed.

Senator Sanders and Congresswoman Balint and I are working as closely as we possibly can with Governor Scott, whose administration is totally dedicated to trying to help Vermonters recover. What did happen in Vermont affected homes, it affected infrastructure, it affected businesses, but it also affected the farming communities.

Earlier this week, Governor Scott and I visited the farm of Paul Mazza in Essex Junction. Paul has been farming for about 40 years, since he was 11 years old. The farmland that we see here along the river--as you can see, it has risen up so that it covers much of the acreage. The acreage included raspberries, blueberries, blackberries-- crops for which neighbors and Vermonters from all around look forward to coming to the Mazza farm and self-harvesting.

As Paul Mazza said to Governor Scott and to me, ``The people of Essex and the people of Vermont need my farm, and my farm needs the people of Vermont.''

A custom in Vermont was for folks, with their families, to go to the Mazza farm and do their own picking.

He has about 40 acres that are dedicated to those extraordinary crops, and they have been destroyed. We walked that farm and saw the devastation. When the flooded waters rose up above the crops and then receded, it left a residue which destroyed them. He also has almost 300 acres of corn, feed corn, and about 250 acres of that were destroyed as well.

What we understand is that about 100,000 acres of forest and cropland have been affected by the flood. About 10,000 of those acres are in direct agricultural activity.

As for the vegetable crops from our small farmers, whose work is only paid for at the end of the season when they harvest and sell those crops, those crops are destroyed. So, with many of our smaller vegetable farmers, who are so important to community life and so important to getting good, nutritious food, those crops have been destroyed.

The question is whether those farmers are going to be able to get back in business, and we are going to need to be able to help them if that is going to happen.

I have a couple of things I would like to say. One is to Vermonters and to Vermont farmers: Report. Report. Report.

In order for us here in Washington to be able to make the case for the aid that we need and you need, we have to document what the damages are. Some folks in Vermont are hesitant to make that report, thinking they might affect their neighbor's ability to get aid. That is not the case. We need to document how much loss has been suffered by every Vermonter.

So, please, especially our farmers but our homeowners and our businesses, report. Call 211, and let us know what the damage is where you live. It could be anything from driveway damage to Paul Mazza's crop damage of a couple hundred acres.

Second, Senator Sanders and I will be asking at some point, when we know what that damage is, for the assistance of our colleagues to help out Vermonters who have been the victims of this natural disaster, this catastrophic flood, that occurred 17 days ago.

Before I finish, I want to express the inspiring response that Vermonters have had.

You know, we are 17 days into this, and immediately after the flood, there was an outpouring of support from volunteers--other Vermonters-- to come to help businesses that were flooded, to help homeowners who were flooded, and even to help our farmers.

People are going back to their lives, but Vermonters still want to help. Some of the stories so inspired me, and I will give one.

In Marshfield, there is an owner of a general store, Michelle Eddleman McCormick. She thought she was running a country store. Well, on the day of the storm, in Marshfield, it was absolutely devastated. She took in three dozen people who stayed in her store, and she sheltered them. I just can't believe the generosity of this person to fellow Vermonters in need--taking three dozen people in, sleeping on the floor, and doing whatever they could to get through the night and the next day. The damage was enormous. Marshfield, where the country store is, lost three bridges, and a fourth was severely damaged.

In the small town of Johnson, a sewer main was taken out when the line attached to the bottom of a bridge was ripped away by a car that was floating down the river. The wastewater treatment facility in Johnson was totally destroyed. It suffered 8 feet of water in the plant itself. Across Vermont, we lost 33 wastewater treatment plants.

In the small town of Cabot--famous for its Cabot/Agri-Mark cheese-- every single road was damaged, and people were stranded within the community because you couldn't get out, and you couldn't get in.

In Cambridge and Jeffersonville, these small towns were completely cut off during the flood. A senior low-income housing project was lost to the flood.

So we are now in that stage where the initial trauma of that flood on July 10 is behind us, but there is very hard work that is required to try to get that business back on its feet or for that homeowner to find shelter, for that farmer--Paul Mazza and his daughter, Katie, and the folks who worked so hard on the Mazza farm--they have to do the day by day, step-by-step recovery because we want folks to be back in their homes; we want folks to be back on their farms; and we want folks to be back in their businesses.

Vermonters are going to do everything they possibly can. The Governor's response and the legislative response is important, and there is public and private activity that is going on to help Vermonters get back on their feet, but we in the Federal Government have to do our part.

Vermonters have always, always been there to help other parts of our country that have suffered natural disasters, which is through no fault of anyone's, but for the folks who are on the receiving end--in this case a flood, in another case a hurricane, in another case a wildfire-- we have to help each other, and Vermonters have always helped others.

My hope--and I am confident on the basis of the very supportive comments that my colleagues have made to Senator Sanders and to me--is that we will get the help that we need for Vermonters. I am inspired by how Vermonters have helped each other, and my hope is that we will help them get back, fully recovered as soon as possible.

I yield the floor.

(Mr. COONS assumed the Chair.)

(Mr. WELCH assumed the Chair.)

Mr. President, on May 24, 2023, Congressman Jim McGovern spoke on the House floor about the distressing situation in Cuba, and I want to associate myself with his remarks. He expressed his deep disappointment and frustration, which I share, with the current policy of the United States toward Cuba that amounts to little more than a continuation of the failed policies of the previous administration.

If the consequences of our policy were benign, perhaps one could ignore what is happening on that tiny island of 11 million people. But, as Congressman McGovern described, it is anything but benign. Our policy is contributing, directly and indirectly, to widespread hardships and hunger in Cuba that caused some 313,000 Cubans to abandon the island last year alone, seeking entry to the United States.

As any objective observer of Cuba knows, since long before the Castro revolution, the Cuban people have suffered continuous deprivations and humiliations. Political oppression and severely limited economic opportunities, punctuated by recurrent natural disasters, have circumscribed their lives. Through it all, they have persevered, propelled by their extraordinary ingenuity, national pride, and innate resilience. However, the mass exodus of Cubans in the past two years illustrates how dire the situation has become.

This is by no means the first time that large numbers of Cubans have risked their lives to seek refuge and a better life in the United States, but none were on the scale of recent years. Several factors have led to the current calamity, including punitive Cold War sanctions reimposed by the previous administration and unfortunately kept in place by the current administration.

The Cuban Government's mismanagement of the economy and its reluctance to fully unleash and energize Cuba's fledgling private sector, the global COVID pandemic and economic downturn, and the cutbacks in oil imports from Venezuela have all played a role in the Cuban people's plight.

However, there also are several deeply flawed U.S. policies which enable Cuban authorities to continue to deflect blame for their own failures onto the United States. They have compounded the misery of average Cubans and damaged our relations with partners in the hemisphere. These policies must change.

First, Cuba must be removed from the state sponsors of terrorism list. We will continue to have profound differences with the Cuban Government over the importance of democracy and protection of human rights. But the designation as a state sponsor of terrorism is based on a determination that a government has ``repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism,'' not on differences of opinion about democracy or association with unsavory governments. Removing Cuba from this list, as President Obama did, will bolster Cuba's growing private sector and enable American commercial investment, trade, and travel to Cuba. Both are critical to the future prosperity of the Cuban people. The Biden administration should expeditiously complete any necessary review to remove Cuba from the terrorism list.

Second, the administration should waive the extraterritorial sanctions under title 3 of the Helms-Burton Act, which drew the ire of our hemispheric allies when it was enacted in 1996 and have been waived by all previous Republican and Democratic administrations, save one. Cubans continue to flee the island out of desperation, and we cannot credibly claim to ``stand with the Cuban people,'' while supporting policies designed to cripple their economy and increase their daily hardships.

Finally, we should continue on the path of improving relations between our two governments, including by sending an ambassador to Havana. U.S. engagement with a foreign country does not ascribe legitimacy to its government. If that were the case, we would recall our Ambassadors and close our Embassies in dozens of countries. Our isolationist policy is helping to expand malign Chinese and Russian influence in Cuba, not prevent it. Engagement creates opportunities to cooperate when it is in our national interest and to actively defend universal rights and freedoms. Notably, engagement provides the United States the ability to more effectively counter the influence of our adversaries who seek to exploit the vacuum created by our absence.

None of us condone the repressive policies and practices of the Cuban Government but there are serious consequences to our policy of unilateral isolation. History has shown that regardless of how difficult life is in Cuba, the Cuban authorities will take whatever measures they deem necessary to crush public dissent to maintain control, as we saw in the wake of the historic street protests of July 11, 2021. Hundreds of brave protesters continue to languish in Cuban jails.

For years, Senator Patrick Leahy worked to replace an anachronistic, failed, punitive policy toward Cuba with one based on common sense and in accordance with our national interests. His efforts played a central role in President Obama's decision to restore diplomatic relations and engagement with Cuba in 2015. That policy was producing unprecedented, positive results for the Cuban people until it was unfortunately reversed. I urge the Biden administration to continue the work Senator Leahy and President Obama began. It is the only policy worthy of the United States.

Mr. President, my colleague the Senator from Arizona speaks and spoke with the authority of a person who committed his life, before he came to the U.S. Senate, to the service of our country in the military. I do not speak with that authority. I speak with the gratitude of a citizen who has benefited from the willingness of folks like the Senator from Arizona to dedicate their professional lives to the defense of our country.

In that respect, as a citizen, I speak for what all Americans have come to expect and rely on, and that is the willingness of young men and young women to sign up for service in the military--among them, the people who make that commitment that this will be their careers. They do it day in and day out, being ready for whatever may come, being willing to respond to the call of the Commander in Chief no matter what that may be, and all of us citizens who have not worn the uniform may take it for granted that we have these folks out there.

What the Senator from Alabama is doing is essentially attacking that willingness to serve by pulling the rug out from under the people who have dedicated their lives, who have served with distinction, and who have earned the promotions for which they have been nominated by the President of the United States.

You can't have an organization that functions when you don't have leaders. You can't have an organization that functions when the people who have committed their lives to the profession and who perform with great distinction and get that nomination for promotion aren't promoted.

It does, as the Senator from Arizona described, erode morale, and it erodes the effectiveness of the institution. The cascading effects will be long term, and it is all on the basis of a willful determination to essentially abuse the men and women of the military and to abuse the military itself for an individual goal that is unrelated to the performance of the military but that has a very detrimental impact on the military.

But do you know there is another element here? We are Senators, so that is a big position, and there is a lot of authority that goes with that job. But can any of us look in a mirror and feel good about the use of that authority when the effect of that power as it is being used right now is just flat-out mean? It is mean to families. It is mean to kids.

You have folks whose lives are committed to the service of the military. They have been promoted. They are making a plan about taking children out of the schools they are in and getting them into new schools. That is incredibly disruptive, and it takes an immense amount of love and concern on the part of the men and women of the military to make certain, as they get promoted and move on in their careers and go from where they are to where their next assignments are, that they take care of those kids. That is incredibly important.

How can a Senator take an action that is going to cause so much trauma for innocent people--including the children of these people--who have earned the distinction of a promotion?

This has got to end. It has got to end. It has got to end because the citizens of this country are entitled to a functioning military, and a single Senator cannot intrude or should not intrude on the promotion process. This has got to end so that we show respect for families and the burden that goes along with moving from where you are to the next duty station.

So I join with my colleagues in calling upon the Senator from Alabama to stand down and let us act on these promotions. Our men and women in the military deserve it, our military needs it, and the citizens of this country are entitled to it.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to address the Senate today as Vermont's new Senator, and I hope to express how I will serve Vermont and our country, and I will outline the challenges we face as a governing body and as a nation.

Most importantly, I will state why I believe that the U.S. Senate can be an institution that renews the strength and vitality of the democracy that all of us--whomever we represent and whatever views we advocate--depend on for our mutual benefit.

But before I begin, I would like to say that my heart, today, is with the people of Vermont. They are grappling with the brutal flooding that hit us last week. And when I came to the floor last week after touring the damage in Vermont, I pledged that, along with Senator Sanders and Congresswoman Balint, we will do everything in our power to get the people of Vermont the resources that they need to build back from this. And I make that pledge again today, and I appreciate the leadership of our senior Senator, Senator Sanders, in advocating for Vermont as we recover from this real crisis.

I also appreciate the offers of help from so many of my colleagues here in the Senate. One of the first Members who approached me was Senator Kennedy from Louisiana, a State that has had to deal with more than its share of natural calamities.

Vermonters, Madam President, have always supported emergency aid when disaster struck others. Senator Sanders and I are very grateful for so many assurances of support now that Vermonters face their own huge recovery challenge.

I recently heard our colleague, Senator Eric Schmitt, from Missouri, give his first speech. He spoke with real respect and reverence for the people of Missouri--hardworking, honest, family- and community- oriented, and very generous. And I felt Senator Schmitt's deep connection to the people who sent him here. In that respect, Senator Schmitt spoke for me. In fact, he spoke for all of us. And Senator Schmitt and I--and all of us--share something else: The citizens that we represent, despite many differences on many issues, share common needs; all the things that families and communities need--affordable housing, safe schools, good healthcare, a secure environment for our kids, and good jobs where you can pay your monthly bills and have a little left at the end of the month. We share that in common.

So the question I have is this: If we share so much respect for the citizens who sent us here in our commitment to their shared aspiration, why can't we make more progress? Why are we so divided?

I believe there are two reasons: First, our democracy is more imperiled at this time than at any time since our Civil War; and, second, working middle-class Americans have been treading water economically for the past 40 years. Top-down economic policies having failed them. So the towns many of us grew up in with diverse economies and vibrant downtowns, farms, and factories that support our communities are vanishing. And many Americans, no matter how hard they work, still struggle to pay their bills.

Our challenge is strengthening our democracy and improving the living standards for everyday Americans. And we must do both, or we won't do either. Democracy depends on trust. It also depends on results.

If conditions stagnate for working Americans and they fall further behind, their trust in democracy will

begin to erode. And we need democracy to ensure that working families have a seat at the table when their aspirations are at stake.

As a young person, I was the beneficiary of the fruits of democracy. I grew up in the 1960s, one of six kids in an Irish-Catholic family in Springfield, MA. It was stable and secure.

When I was asked where I was from, I answered by giving the name of my Catholic parish, Holy Name, not the city of my birth. The sense of community was paramount. Helping a neighbor is what you did, reflectively and always.

When I was a boy, my mother did something that only later did I realize what profound impact it had on me. She taught me what small ``d'' democracy meant in practice. When I was in grammar school, I didn't know what abortion was. I did know my parents were churchgoing Catholics who were against it. It was also illegal in Massachusetts at that time. And a neighbor across the street actually went to jail for performing abortions. My mother made dinner every night for our family of eight. And every week, she sent me across the street with another hot dinner for our neighbors while their parent was away for a while.

When I think about what my mother did, I really hope I can follow her example. Instead of vilifying a neighbor with whom she disagreed on something that was really important to her, she made that family dinner and helped a neighbor and their family through a very difficult time.

Wouldn't democracy be stronger, wouldn't our communities be stronger, if we made dinner or gave a ride to the post office or helped out with childcare for someone who needed a hand, even if we disagreed with them?

Later, I attended Holy Cross College in Worcester, MA, like my father and my three brothers. In those college years, two great issues captured my attention: the word ``Vietnam'' and civil rights. And as I was finishing up my second year at Holy Cross, I learned of a community organizing project in the Lawndale neighborhood of the West Side of Chicago. It was led by a Jesuit seminarian that was affiliated with Martin Luther King, Jr.'s, Southern Christian Leadership Conference. I was really interested. And I hitchhiked 900 miles from Springfield, MA, to Chicago, IL. It really changed my life.

Lawndale was poor, ignored by city hall. We students went door-to- door asking about concerns. And when the lack of sanitation services emerged as an issue, we got together with neighborhood folks and we trucked trash from Lawndale to city hall. If they say you wouldn't pick up the trash in Lawndale, we would bring it to city hall. It caught the mayor's attention.

The next week there was a caravan of Chicago sanitation trucks throughout Lawndale. It worked. But our fight didn't stop at trash pickups. Just before I was to return to Holy Cross for my junior year, we discovered that unscrupulous folks in real estate were brutally exploiting Black families who were moving into Lawndale through a practice what we now know as redline. And they were doing it with the active help of the Federal Housing Authority and with the downtown big banks. I was really shocked at the injustice. And what was most shocking to me then, as an idealistic and eager young person who was accustomed to being treated fairly, was that this immense infliction of suffering on those families was legal. It was legal for banks and the FHA to deny mortgages on the basis of the color of that person's skin.

So I had to make a decision at that point. It was time for me to return to Holy Cross for my junior year. But that would come with a cost: abandoning the neighborhood folks whose hopes we had helped raise that they could get relief from these oppressive contracts. But that felt wrong. Or I could drop out of Holy Cross and continue my community organizing work. That came with a risk then: losing my student deferment and being drafted--as many of my classmates from high school had been--to go to Vietnam, a war that so many of us opposed. But it felt right to stay and continue my work. And I stayed in Chicago.

During that next year, we created a successful neighborhood-led organization called a Contract Buyers League. We exposed the rip-off contracts, demonstrated in front of the big downtown banks, the Federal Housing Authority. We picketed in the serene North Shore neighborhoods of the contract sellers, exposing what they had done in exposure that was long overdue. In short, we really raised hell--or as John Lewis would say, ``good trouble.''

But we succeeded in getting then-Mayor Daley to help us renegotiate these contracts and substitute them with legitimate mortgages that folks should have had in the first place. It made a big difference in the lives of many residents of Lawndale. And it certainly made a difference in my life.

I saw the power of a community coming together. And I saw how democracy was effective when people cooperate when they did work together. And in seeing how much of that injustice was actually illegal is when I made a lifelong commitment to two things: the law--if I became a lawyer I could use the legal system to help people hurt by bad laws; and politics--if I ran for the legislature, I could work to change laws to address injustice and create opportunity and strengthen communities.

In my years of service as a community organizer in Chicago, as a State senator in Vermont, as a Member of the House of Representatives, has taught me that democracy is more--it is more than an ideal we strive for. It is the tool that we use to make meaningful differences in the lives of people we love and in the lives of people we may never meet.

We must preserve our democracy so that hard-working Americans can finally gain economic security--the ability to pay those bills and have a little left over and the ability to build stable communities. And, hopefully, these communities can grow and thrive so that, one day, if their kids decide to stay or they leave and return, they can do so with a decent job and promising opportunities.

And as U.S. Senators, each of us has a unique and urgent opportunity to revitalize our democracy and improve prospects for our constituents.

Let me acknowledge candidly, we have, within this body and within this country, very substantial differences on many ideological issues. But we also have many areas of agreement. You know, the folks in Katie Britt's Alabama, in John Fetterman's Pennsylvania, and the folks in my State of Vermont, they need and deserve the same things: affordable childcare so parents can work; they need affordable homes and apartments; they need the security that when they drop their child off at the bus stop or at school, that child is going to return home safely.

These are the building blocks of a strong community. These are among the issues that the U.S. Senate should debate. You know, it is said that the U.S. Senate is the greatest deliberative body. That is something we know that is very much now in dispute. But we do have the power to make it so. And in doing so, we can help restore democracy. We can debate those issues and others on the Senate floor.

You know, should social media companies enjoy legal immunity for anything their algorithms promote? Should we work for a sustainable budget but talk about spending and revenues? Is it acceptable that we have the most expensive healthcare system in the world that leaves so many people behind? How do we act immediately and effectively to stop climate change from burning up the planet?

The Senate can deliver, and it can and should debate. But deliberation should be in service of making a good decision. It should be in service of achieving an outcome. It should not be a device by which delay is endless and resolution nonexistent.

Every Senator I know is genuinely honored to be serving in this body. Every Senator takes her and his responsibility very seriously. But every Senator I know realizes that the honor of service is hollow unless we get good things done. That is our job.

And as a Senator, I will use the valuable lessons of democracy I have learned: from my parents, the importance of helping a neighbor you may disagree with; from my time in Chicago, the power of democracy in action; and from Vermont, struggling today with the onslaught of the flood, the strength of community that shows us, that even on the toughest of days, the ability to achieve when we work together.

We in this country and in this Senate may face significant challenges. We

have opportunities to succeed if we face those challenges together.

(Applause, Senators rising.)

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I would like to address the Senate.

Today was an inspiring day but also a sad day. Vermont, in the past few days, has suffered a severe flood from a storm that in some places dropped 9 inches of rain. It tumbled down off the mountains into our streams, flooded those streams and rivers, and overflowed into our villages and some of our major cities.

To my right, we are looking at a depiction of downtown Montpelier, the capital of Vermont. Here, we are seeing damage in what is called the Northeast Kingdom to infrastructure. There are scenes like this everywhere.

Senator Sanders, Congresswoman Balint, and the entire Vermont delegation with me toured Vermont with the Governor of Vermont, Phil Scott, and with our FEMA Administrator, Deanne Criswell. It was an inspiring day because we saw firsthand the extraordinary response of our government.

President Biden immediately declared a state of emergency that unleashed the ability of FEMA to provide resources. We saw our Governor and our first responders in Vermont, our National Guard, our medical personnel--our first responders who did so much to rescue people and animals.

We saw Vermont volunteers who were along the Main Street of Mont- pelier when Senator Sanders and Congresswoman Balint and I were there coming out of their homes to help folks whose businesses had been devastated.

We saw the press, the Vermont press, reporting constantly and giving detailed information about every location in Vermont that was underwater, giving an update in a report about how things were coming and where people could help.

By the way, it is just a testament to the vital importance of local journalism. We are grateful as well for the hard work that our news organizations and the reporters did, oftentimes putting themselves in some significant peril. That was very inspiring.

What is sad is that the damage of these storms and this particular storm is just overwhelming. Meeting homeowners in Barre who--one man we spoke to had lived in his home, a very modest home but very beautifully taken care of, where he raised his child and where he tended his garden. He had 4 feet of water in his basement, and that was the good news because the water had been up to his first floor. He was desperately trying to get the water out to try to get the place in a position where it was not going to have mold in his lifelong home, which means so much to him and will be repaired.

We saw a woman who lived in a mobile home. All of us know that when these weather catastrophes occur, it is oftentimes the people with the least who suffer the most. She came out of her mobile home and walked across a steep, mud-drenched field in Barre, VT, toward us and the Governor with a little pail that represented toys of her children, and she really had no place to go. Her mom had suffered flood damage as well, and they were huddling together with her partner and her kids.

What is so hard is--it is easy to understand the challenge that father had and that mother had, and we were there, and it is hopeful for them that we show up, that our Federal FEMA Administrator was there with her team, but what we know is that tomorrow, when the Sun is shining hopefully, because more rain could be forecast, her life has to go on, but it is without the foundation that she built and that father I mentioned built over 30 years.

So that is the hard part. It is really, really hard for folks who have established stability in their lives to see that business that they had committed themselves to and worked so hard to establish or that home they cared for and tended--that home where they provided security to their families. The mystery to them is what is going to happen.

It is why it is so important for us--and I am asking my colleagues for their support--that we do the minimum. The minimum is to at least get those Federal resources from FEMA back to Vermont, which is in a state of emergency and where so many Vermonters have suffered a very significant loss. They are willing to face it. People do that. They know they have got to clean that house up, but they have got to have some help. It is the help they get from their neighbors, but it also has to be the help they get from the government. It has to back folks up when, through no fault of their own, there is a catastrophic weather event and it does so much damage to the lives and livelihoods of so many.

Senator Sanders and Congresswoman Balint and I certainly were very proud of the Vermont response,

from the Governor to the Administrators, to our press that is on the case, but we have got a job here.

I am going to be asking my colleagues for us to do that which only the Federal Government can do, and that is to provide those financial resources to help folks when there has been a weather emergency where they live.

If there is any base-level function of government to try to bring us together as a community, as a United States of America, it is to stand up and help folks, whether it is in Vermont or it is in Louisiana or it is in deep Texas. Wherever it is, when there is an event through no fault of their own where the weather is doing so much damage, I think each of us reveres the opportunity we can have to help our colleague and the folks whom our colleague represents. Vermont needs help now, and Senator Sanders and I will be seeking to obtain that help on behalf of Vermonters.

I want to wind down here a little bit by describing a photograph of a sight I saw, and I took a photograph that we don't have here.

Along the river in Barre, where the mud had come down and the silt had settled way outside of the banks of the river, there were three beautiful bicycles that were in a tangled mess and half-buried. What it represented clearly were the bikes of three young kids, of boys and girls who looked forward at the end of the day, on a beautiful Vermont summer day, to riding those bikes and having some fun. They don't know where those bikes are. They are buried, they are twisted, they are out of their reach, and it is having an effect on their lives.

I know Vermonters are going to respond, and I hope our Federal Government responds. We have got to get bikes for those kids.

One of the things we have to do is to make some contributions to funds that Vermonters made before when we suffered Tropical Storm Irene--when we were trying to get families the help they needed--to be able to have those kids back out on those bicycles in the beautiful Vermont summer that can, after this storm, resume.

What I hope we do here--and I am going to be, as I mentioned, joined fully by Senator Sanders, who led today's delegation--is seek the assistance of our colleagues so that this government can be a friend at the time of need for the Vermonters who in times of others' needs have always been there.

I want to thank many of my colleagues who have approached me, Senator Kennedy foremost among them, who has had a lot of experience with natural disasters in Louisiana. There has been one colleague after another saying: Peter, if there is anything we can do, we want to help. So I take everyone at their word.

I want to end where I began, and that is with my expression of gratitude to the response from Vermonters, from President Biden, from Administrator Criswell, and from my colleagues as well.

Vermont is strong, and we will get through this. But make no mistake--it is asking so much of a family who has lost a home. It is asking so much of kids whose summer expectations are that they are going to be able to ride on those Vermont country roads and enjoy being out with their friends and no longer have the bikes. It is asking a lot of families who are wondering what is going to happen now after mom's business has closed. It is going to ask a lot of Vermonters who are trying to figure out how in the world, even with help here, they are going to navigate the paperwork that is necessary in order to get that assistance.

What we are going to do here, in addition to seeking the assistance that is required, is that Senator Sanders, Congresswoman Balint, and I are coordinating our casework response because there are a lot of concrete challenges that folks face. We want them to absolutely call us, and we are going to work it out between the three of us to make sure that we can help the most Vermonters as quickly as possible get access to things that will be helpful to them to rebuild their futures. We will be strong. We will recover.

I just want to end by acknowledging the sadness I feel for so many families who and businesses that have been so hammered by this storm. This storm, by the way, was dropping so much rain as a result of the change in our climate that this point is undeniable. The warmer temperatures over the ocean create much more moisture in the air, and what was going to be a ``normal'' rainstorm becomes a deluge as 3 inches turn into 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 inches.

We do owe it to the future to act with alacrity, effectiveness, and determination and address the climate factors that are going into creating these mega storms.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Yes.

Mr. President, the most consequential question now before Congress--the one that most impacts the most people we all represent-- is whether the United States of America will do what it has always done: pay its bills in full and on time.

It was Alexander Hamilton who established the precedent that has become an enduring principle: America pays its bills.

But in order to preserve that principle, Congress must raise the debt limit. It is important to remind ourselves that raising the debt ceiling does not allow any additional spending, nor does it include new obligations for our taxpayers. It allows Congress to continue to pay for the spending that has already been approved by this and prior Congresses.

The debt ceiling is an anomaly in the United States. Other countries recognize the obvious. When a legislative body approves spending-- whether it is for the defense of the nation, the healthcare of its citizens, the support for its farmers--it is then that the legislative body incurs the obligation. It is really no different than when a family takes out a mortgage or a car loan. When that bill becomes due each month, you pay the mortgage and you pay the car loan. Otherwise, things end

very badly for that family, as they will for our country if we allow the United States to default on its debt.

The debt limit debate in the past was accompanied by political grandstanding from both parties. The party out of power used it to criticize the economic record of the incumbent party. But grandstanding was always set aside, and the President and the majority party in Congress--Republican or Democratic--accepted the burden of raising the debt ceiling to make sure the country did not default.

This time, the House's default threat is different. It is far more dangerous and far more extreme, even than in 2011.

Let me explain.

A default looms as early as June 1, and congressional leaders met this week with President Biden.

The President and all of the leaders pledged that default was not an option--all except one leader. Speaker McCarthy continues to champion the House bill that will lead us to default unless the Congress and the President capitulate to House Republicans' very extreme budgetary demands. Their budget would cut veteran benefits, furlough thousands of Border Patrol agents even as title 42 expires, and it would repeal key parts of the Inflation Reduction Act and the thousands of jobs--many of which, by the way, are in Republican districts--that it has created.

The Speaker's demands that President Biden relinquish his primary legislative achievement, the IRA, really would be comparable to the Democrats demanding when Donald Trump was President that, as a condition of not defaulting, he repeal what he regarded as his signature legislative accomplishment: his tax cuts--which, by the way, were vehemently opposed by Democrats.

Speaker McCarthy's posture reflects the posture of his conference and the reality within his own caucus. He won't take default off the table because he can't. The most extreme Members of his caucus have extracted numerous concessions to lend their support, and it took 15 votes for him to get elected to the speakership. What we are seeing now is the result: They will default unless they get their way.

Former President Trump, who as President raised the debt ceiling multiple times, is still a leading voice for many of the Republicans in the caucus. Last night on CNN, at a townhall meeting, he encouraged default, adding fuel to the fire and even more peril for our country.

I think we all know, in all candor, that the default threat would be catastrophic, and we are being propelled over the brink.

All responsible people know that a default--No. 1, it would destroy America's reputation and jeopardize the value of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. No. 2, it would really delight our Russian and Chinese adversaries, who would promote our default for what it is-- a sign of internal weakness, economic chaos, and disunity. A default in all likelihood would plunge our fragile economy into a recession, hurting Americans across the entire country regardless of what their political persuasion was. In a very cruel irony, according to Moody's, a default could increase our deficit by as much as $850 billion, not reduce it as default advocates claim.

We can't allow default. We can't allow self-inflicted harm to befall Americans with the Speaker's very reckless gambit.

I thank Majority Leader Schumer, Minority Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Jeffries, and President Biden for taking default off the table.

Speaker McCarthy, before it is too late, do the same.

I am willing, as I believe the vast majority of our colleagues are, to engage in a serious budget discussion to bring down America's debt, but what I am not willing to do--not now, not ever--is abandon America's historic commitment to paying its bills. I am not willing to inflict the damage to our economy and the pain on our people a catastrophic default would impose, nor is President Biden.

While leadership talks continue, all of us must be mindful of the real peril we face, and we must take the precautionary step of reviewing the 14th Amendment and its requirement. Section 4 of the 14th Amendment states:

The validity of the public debt of the United States,

authorized by law . . . shall not be questioned.

The Constitution is saying what we all know: A debt incurred is a debt that must be paid.

Every obligation tied to our debt is a result of a law that this or a previous Congress has passed. To renege on the obligation that law required, whether to our veterans, our seniors, our farmers, or the military, is for Congress to tell the President to break that law and disobey the Constitution.

We cannot do this. We must not do this. We must, as America has always done, pay our bills in full and on time.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to speak about the looming debt crisis, the fact that within 30 days, there is a real and substantial likelihood that America will do something that America has never done; and that is fail to pay its bills in full and on time.

There is a lot of discussion about the debt. It is $31 trillion. There is very little discussion about what that debt is, who owns that debt, and what the implications are to all of us--the people we represent, our State and local governments, our private institutions, and our economy--if, in fact, we do the unthinkable and default on the debt.

Of that $31 trillion debt, $8 trillion is held by governmental entities; that includes the Federal Reserve, two Social Security trust funds, the Medicare insurance trust, and the U.S. military retirement plan. Anything we do to jeopardize the value of those Treasury bills-- where 100 cents is what they are worth on the dollar--compromises the security that Americans depend on from those trust funds.

The $24 trillion in treasuries held by the public includes $3 trillion held by individuals, by households, by for-profit and not-for- profit entities, and by endowments. If we jeopardize that $1 for $1 risk-free asset, it means those individuals who own the Treasury bond as part of their portfolio lose value.

And $2.8 trillion is held by money market mutual funds. Every one of our constituents knows what those are. Most of our constituents have money deposited in a money market account. They absolutely believe that they are going to get $1 out for every $1 they put in. We jeopardize that Treasury bill by defaulting on our debt. They may get 95 cents or 90 cents. That is real havoc and real pain for so many Americans.

And $2 trillion is held by banks. That is the money that they have to guarantee the deposits. If we think we have an issue with the run on the banks of First Republic and SVB, wait until this happens and there is a run on these banks who, because of inaction that this Congress took, has a vast and cataclysmic reduction in the value of their deposits.

And $1.5 trillion is held by various State and local governments-- that is the town you live in; that is the town I live in--where that is set aside to help their citizens. They lose value on those securities. They can do less for water and sewer, for schools, and roads in their own communities.

And $1.1 trillion is held by private pension funds; that is, folks who have saved and put into their pension fund for their retirement. If that asset, the Treasury bond, declines in value because of the default, their retirement is in jeopardy.

And $7 trillion is held by foreign central banks and foreign investors. That helps us because they help us keep our interest rates down, and they do that because the dollar in is a dollar, plus interest, out. That is jeopardized by this reckless plan to default on our debt as a leverage device to get things totally outside of what that debt is.

No. 1, Treasurys are the bedrock of our financial system because they are viewed as a safe asset, and they have been safe ever since the founding of our country.

Equally important, Treasury bills are considered risk-free. You put that dollar in, you buy a Treasury, you are going to get that dollar back absolutely, plus the interest on the coupon.

Third, Treasurys are the device in our willingness to pay, unquestioned, that has made the dollar the reserve currency of the world. I go back to what I said earlier--$7 trillion are owned by foreign banks. They put their money here because they have total and complete confidence that it is safe. If we default on our debt, we lose that status, they lose that assurance, and we in this country start paying higher interest rates.

There is real harm to individuals as well, as the economy goes through a cataclysm of the first-time default in the history of the country.

Analysts who have looked at this say a typical worker near retirement--and I am including folks in Vermont--would see a $20,000 reduction in what they have available for retirement. The average new 30-year mortgage would be increased in cost over the life of its mortgage by $130,000. Think of what you could do with that to help your child with an education. It would become much harder to borrow.

The national debt--the national debt--would increase by $850 billion. So the folks who are advocating default as a way of ``cutting down spending'' are doing the single most destructive thing that they could do that will result in increasing spending. So this notion of defaulting on our debt, we are using that as a tactic to get something completely unrelated to what we all know is the obligation to pay our bills.

A confident country always pays its bills. It is a disaster for the economy and has long-term devastating implications for everyday Americans as well as our reputation and strength as a country.

This is not a custom. It is embedded in our DNA as a country that we pay our bills in full and on time, and it started just after we became an independent country. We were broke.

Alexander Hamilton, as you know, was our first Treasury Secretary. He had to make a decision. We had borrowed a lot of money to prosecute our revolution. Those bonds that represented that borrowed money were worth pennies on the dollar. The question for Alexander Hamilton was, pay pennies on the dollar or pay 100 cents on the dollar. Despite the fact that this was an incredible hardship, Alexander Hamilton and our government then made the decision that those war bonds were going to be repaid in full. The benefit of that to us was that we established, as a country, that we were safe,

we were sound, and we were reliable. And no matter what the circumstances were, if we owed the money, we paid the money that was owed; we paid it in full; and we paid it on time. The benefits to our country and to us as individuals over the generations where we have kept that commitment have been incalculable.

So the notion that we should put that in jeopardy and even threaten not to pay our bills is something that has never, ever happened before in this country and should never happen.

On this question of negotiation, let me ask the question: Why would President Biden--why would any President, Republican or Democrat-- negotiate when the effect of that is to threaten the pension deposits of the people we represent? Why would the President--any President-- negotiate when the outcome of that negotiation threatens your money market deposits? Why would this President--or any President--negotiate when the outcome of that negotiation would weaken our pension funds, where that negotiation--if it comes out the way the proponents of default as a tactic wish--is going to make it really tough on everyday people: our small businesses, our local governments, and our savings for our kids' education?

We pay our bills in full and on time. That is what the United States of America has always done. That is what the United States of America must always do.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 30th anniversary of the U.S. Green Building Council--USGBC--founded in April 1993. This member-led, nonprofit organization has helped schools, businesses, cities, and even countries build and operate better buildings that transform lives. USGBC's LEED certification program, short for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, has grown to become the world's most acclaimed and

widely used green building system, with 105,000 projects in more than 185 countries.

In the United States, over 400,000 housing units and more nonresidential projects have applied this system to achieve LEED certification. In Vermont, we have achieved more than 120 certifications, and at least 91 professionals have LEED credentials. These sustainable projects include K-12 schools and higher education, offices, multifamily housing, retail, manufacturing, and additional building types. More than 5 million square feet of space have received LEED certification.

As Americans contend with rising prices and energy costs, more green buildings mean more dollars back in the pockets of small business and families. That is because research has repeatedly found that energy- efficient, lower-waste green buildings benefit the bottom line. LEED- certified buildings reduce day-to-day costs year-over-year while benefiting our climate. They help building owners lower vacancies. Plus, they improve staff well-being and productivity.

When USGBC started, there was no agreement in the marketplace on what constituted ``green building,'' let alone any kind of accepted, codified mechanism to certify it. Now, 30 years later, USGBC has primed the market to value better-performing buildings that lower costs and waste, mitigate climate impacts, and improve health.

Congratulations to this incredible, member-led organization. Here is to another impactful 30 years.

Mr. President, I rise to voice my support for S. 316, a bill to repeal the authorizations for use of military force against Iraq. Sending America's sons and daughters to fight in foreign lands has serious consequences. Those who volunteer for military service, as well as their families, agree to

carry things with them for their lifetimes--sometimes difficult and painful things--all at the behest of the U.S. government and on behalf of the American people.

I am grateful for and thank those servicemembers who bravely conducted themselves in Iraq with honor, restraint, and in accordance with American values and ideals. With that important preface, let me say clearly: I opposed the Iraq war. I opposed the Iraq war before I was elected to Congress, while I was a Member of the House of Representatives, and I oppose it today.

I believe that by any objective measure, the 2002 U.S. invasion of Iraq was among the greatest foreign policy disasters in my lifetime. Not only did it cause death and immense suffering of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, but it also ignited a series of regional tensions and tertiary conflicts that have carried on for decades.

Both the Gulf War and the 2002 invasion of Iraq required legal authorities. The Iraq authorizations of military force were legally necessary and largely supported at the time. However, very practically, we no longer need an authorization for use of military force against a country we now regard as a partner and to which we provide hundreds of millions of dollars in economic and military aid. This bill recognizes the positive evolution of our relations with the Government of Iraq. We will continue to work with our Iraqi partners to limit our military presence and narrowly define the actions our servicemembers are authorized to take. It is also important to note that this resolution will have no impact whatsoever on current U.S. military operations.

Some opponents of this bill have suggested that repealing the authorizations for use of force will embolden our adversaries or exhibit America's weakness. To the contrary, whether one supported or opposed the invasions of Iraq 31 and 20 years ago, it is important to repeal these antiquated relics of history.

As national security threats arise, they should be properly addressed. The President can request congressional authorization for the use of military force with properly debated justifications, after which, Members of Congress will vote their conscience and America's will. This bill does nothing to restrict presidential powers of this nor future Presidents. America will defend herself--always. However, it is critical that America's use of force be thoughtful and deliberate, informed by accurate intelligence, and used only when necessary to preserve and protect our vital national security interests.

Over the years, I have consistently voted to repeal the Iraq authorizations for use of military force. I commend my colleagues, Senators Kaine and Young, for their tenacity and determination to see these repeals through. I also strongly support a review of the 2001 authorization for use of military force which has been the legal basis for actions far beyond what was ever intended after the attacks of 9/ 11.

For the task at hand, however, I urge all Senators to support S. 316, a bill to repeal the authorizations for use of military force against Iraq.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, first of all, I am largely sympathetic to the intent of this. I think all of us are exhausted by COVID. Fortunately, we are really coming out of it. It has been exhausting, so I am ultimately hopeful that the administration--when this public health emergency is ended, which we expect will be very, very soon, that the vaccine mandate will go with it.

Secondly, I am a big fan of Lynyrd Skynyrd's, so that is a pretty persuasive argument, but I don't regard him as infallible.

Third, Vermont is a tourist State as well. Our skiing is a little tougher for, you know, tougher folks. You have that soft powder out there in Utah. But tourism really matters to us.

So the concerns the Senator from Utah is expressing--I am sympathetic. Let me state the reason for my objection.

This public health emergency is going to end. The administration is actively, day in and day out, in the process of taking the steps that are going to unwind this.

My view is that this is an area where Executive responsibility has to be carried out in an orderly way, not just to address this question of ending the vaccine mandate, but there are other matters that are affected if this public health emergency is abruptly ended that may do harm to Vermont.

Let me just be very specific. The telehealth provisions that were in legislation that allowed us to get access to healthcare should not end when the public health emergency ends. The necessity of trying to make some adjustment for premium assistance for folks who were able to get access to healthcare--it has really made a difference for people in Vermont. I don't want them to just go off the cliff.

So these are all separate and distinct issues. But if we have a process where each legislator picks out an area within the public health emergency that he or she believes should be taken out, you are taking away the capacity for an orderly transition from the public health emergency to the post-COVID non-public health emergency.

So, as sympathetic as I am to the points that the Senator from Utah makes, including about the vaccine at this point, because of my concern about the collateral consequences of stripping the administration, in effect, of the capacity to have that orderly unwinding, I object.

Madam President, I rise today to express my strong support for the Women's Health Protection Act, to restore abortion access to women all across our country.

Now, I first want to address what the Court did in Dobbs, a truly astonishing and tragic decision. What the Court did is, for the first time, take away a constitutional right--in this case, a right that women had enjoyed to make their own decisions about reproductive choice, something that the Court had enshrined in Roe v. Wade.

The whole history of making a more perfect Union in this country has been about expanding that we all are created equal, that we all have rights under the law that will be protected. And the Supreme Court, in the Dobbs decision, reversed that, where the Court played this destructive role of taking away the constitutional right that our women in this country have enjoyed.

The reasoning in that case, referred to by Justice Thomas, suggested that if there wasn't a right that was enumerated very specifically in the Constitution at the time it was written, then that right cannot be protected. It really implies, according to that reasoning, that interracial marriage could be struck down, that contraception should be struck down.

So the decision that the Court made in Dobbs and the reasoning in Dobbs is a real threat to the privacy rights that each and every American enjoys to make decisions about their own autonomy.

We have reacted around the country, with some States stepping up to protect abortion rights and other States enacting significant abortion restrictions. So what has happened with the Court decision in Dobbs is that we have created this immense division. For 50 years, all the women in this country had a right to make their decision and respect the decision that another woman made. That might be to terminate a pregnancy; it might be to take that pregnancy to term. But that was an individual decision that the individual woman had to make herself, in consultation with whomever it is she chose to consult.

It created the opportunity for unity and for acceptance by respecting the individual nature of that decision and the individual right of that person affected to make that decision, not to have a decision made, as Senator Klobuchar mentioned, by politicians.

Now, in Vermont, we voted across the State to constitutionally protect the right of a woman to make her own decision. So we enjoy, in Vermont, on a bipartisan basis--something that was supported by our Republican Governor as well as all our constitutional officers--we have protected the right of a woman to choose.

When I talk to Vermont women, as happy as they are that Vermont stepped up to protect their right to make their decision, they believe, as I do, that any woman's right should not be based on the ZIP Code they live in. It should be universal.

The Women's Health Protection Act makes it the right of every woman in every ZIP Code to make her own personal decision. By the way, that creates unity because it is not telling a person what decision they should make; it is accepting their right to make the decision and respecting the decision they make.

Now, women have been the leaders in this--and rightly so--because the women in this country have been most affected, but men have a very big responsibility to stand up in solidarity with our women, who have a right to protect their own bodily autonomy and to make their decision.

What we have seen with this patchwork of laws is not just confusion but peril and anxiety. It is peril and anxiety for a woman who may run afoul of that State law made by politicians. It has also created enormous uncertainty and anxiety for our providers who have to navigate whether the decision they have to make about providing a service is legal, and whatever decision they make can be challenged by some citizen seeking a bounty to hold that person to account for essentially stepping forward and providing services to a woman that they are entitled to receive.

So the Women's Health Protection Act is absolutely essential--both to protect the individual right of that woman to make her own decision, and it is also essential for us to create unity rather than division on something that is so essential, so personal, and so important.

So, along with my colleagues who are speaking on behalf of this legislation today, I urge all of our colleagues in the Senate to support this bill and protect and preserve the right of women in this country to make the decision that they deem best for them.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, the Senator is working very diligently to achieve a goal that all of us share. The basic question right now is going to be whether to have a 60-day extension that has been agreed to by the House or to have an extension, as the Senator is proposing, until the end of the fiscal year.

The bottom line--and it is the judgment of many--is that sticking with the 60-day extension is beneficial to achieving the goal of having the parties who are now negotiating come to a longer term resolution even beyond the end of the fiscal year. We have got to extend, ultimately, the spectrum authority beyond 60 days or beyond the end of the fiscal year. We really have to extend it for a much greater period of time in order to achieve the goals that are shared between all of us.

Senator Rounds' bill, of course, as I mentioned, would extend things until September 30. We think that is going to take pressure off negotiators, and we have some confidence that if we keep that 60-day status, we are going to get to that long-term goal.

Further, the House has made it clear that they are not going to take up any bill that moves the date to September 30. So that is just the reality we have to deal with. Others may agree with Senator Rounds to push it to September 30, but the best information we have is that the other body has no intention of taking up that bill. If that were the case and we were to pass a bill extending to September 30 but the House doesn't take it up, then the spectrum authority expires, and that is bad for everybody. It sends the wrong signal, obviously, as well, to our allies and our competitors.

We just can't afford to risk a lapse of authority. Given the reality of the time constraints we are under, even if the Senate were to pass Senator Rounds' bill, we would have a situation where it would be rejected by the House--that is our best judgment--and there would be a lapse in authority, which would be very threatening to the well-being of all of us concerned.

So, on that basis, I offer this objection to the unanimous consent request of my colleague from South Dakota.