Floor Statements

Mr. President, first, I want to acknowledge my colleagues

from Minnesota Senator Smith and Senator Klobuchar.

You have conveyed to us the deep pain and anguish that you feel and that every Minnesotan feels about the shocking shootings that occurred in your State. This follows on tragedies that occurred before this. The pain of your community is the pain of this U.S. Senate. My deep appreciation--and I know I express this on behalf of all of my colleagues--to you for putting this in a human, real perspective. Thank you very much.

Second, this is shocking. Two people got shot for no reason-- absolutely no reason. Renee Good was a 37-year-old mom of three kids. She was protesting. That officer walked from the back of her car to the side of her car to the front of her car and shot through the front windshield and then moved to the side and shot two shots in the driver's side window. That is what happened.

Alex Pretti was out with his cell phone camera observing what was going on and was shocked, I am sure, to see that an ICE agent was pushing a woman into a snowbank, and he came over to try to get between them. There was a scuffle. He was in total subjugation by the officers who had him on the ground. He was disarmed--never using, by the way, or even threatening to use the gun that he had legally in his possession. ICE officers--2 of them--shot him 10 times. Ten times. That is what happened.

Why aren't we all just totally shocked? That is not acceptable.

Then that is all done with the authority of the State--with no restraint.

Then the Secretary of Homeland Security, who is responsible for the training and the discipline and the mission, blows this off and says that these two people were domestic terrorists--no accountability, no expression of sadness, no expression of remorse.

How is this acceptable to any one of us here? How is that acceptable?

Yet what we are hearing when we are saying ``Let's look into this. Let's get some reforms in place that allow our citizens to feel safe, for there to be accountability''--we are being told that it is too complicated because we already have a bill and we will have to divide it, and that means procedural hassles; that means, oh, the House will have to come back.

Are we serious? That is called doing your job. It is called accountability. It is called taking responsibility.

I want to pay tribute to the people of Minnesota. We are actually having a discussion about inconveniencing House Members because they have to get on a plane and come back if we act to do something that every American knows we should do: Pass the bipartisan bills where we have five bills done, and take on the burden of responsibility that we have as a U.S. Senate to put reforms in an Agency that needs reform.

Folks in Minnesota--it is 20 degrees below zero--are out in the streets. They are out protesting peacefully. They are out providing coffee and cocoa and some warm soup to each other so they can get through this. Why are they doing it? Do you know what? They care about the right of assembly. They care about the First Amendment. They care about their constitutional rights. But the reason they are doing this is they care about each other. That is who they care about.

In this U.S. Senate, our job is to care about every single American. We have an Agency that is totally out of control, with a leader that is--you know, I would say incompetent, but the cruelty of that remark, to dismiss two innocent people who died as ``domestic terrorists,'' tells me there is not an inkling of acceptance of responsibility that goes with the enormously important job of being Secretary of Homeland Security. So I am not going to vote and give a blank check when we are not even willing to have a discussion about what the reforms are.

I want to say that I know every one of us here is shocked by what happened. This is not a Republican or a Democrat deal. This is about seeing two innocent people shot when they didn't need to be.

You know, one of the things that is so important for us if we have a family and if we live in a community is to act in a way in which the people around us can be confident that we have got their backs; that we won't hurt them or harm them; that we notice what their struggles are and that we will try to help.

You know, all of us here have such admiration for law enforcement and the work they do--it is such an incredibly hard job--but more than anyone else, the people who have contacted me in Vermont to express their shock at what happened in Minnesota have been people in law enforcement. They know the job is hard, but they have accepted the responsibility to be a guardian, to be protective.

We can accept our responsibility, wherein we are the 100 people in this country who are in this Senate, who have the opportunity to provide some reassurance in safety and in confidence to the people that each and every one of us represents.

So, yes, let's do our job.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on January 2, 2026, after a 15-year battle with multiple myeloma, David Mitchell passed away at the age of 75.

After being diagnosed with cancer and experiencing firsthand the exorbitant price of lifesaving medications in the United States, David founded Patients for Affordable Drugs, a national advocacy organization with the goal of lifting up patient voices in the fight to lower prescription drug prices.

David was not motivated by attention; he felt a responsibility to speak up for the millions of Americans struggling to afford their medications. With a lifetime of public health and communications experience and his own personal story to tell, David recognized his unique opportunity to take on a system in need of substantial reform. Under his leadership, Patients for Affordable Drugs became a trusted, bipartisan force for reform, centering patient voices in a debate long dominated by corporate interests. And to this day, Patients for Affordable Drugs is one of the only national patient advocacy organizations that doesn't accept funding from organizations that profit from the prescription drug industry.

In 2022, after nearly a decade of advocacy and coalition building, David's work paid off. The passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, IRA, included provisions that, for the first time ever, empowered Medicare to negotiate drug prices on behalf of patients. David and Patients for Affordable Drugs' fierce advocacy helped bring about this generational policy shift.

Known as ``the face of opposition to the pharmaceutical industry in Washington,'' David was a central voice in Congress. He testified before the House and Senate numerous times, and was a go-to, trusted expert. I worked closely with David in our efforts to lower drug prices. I admired his political acumen, his depth of policy knowledge, and mostly, his deep compassion for others going through the same struggle he was experiencing. It was his ability to connect the realities of everyday Americans with policy changes in Washington that made David such an effective advocate.

While Patients for Affordable Drugs may have been his crowning achievement, David also worked on some of the Nation's most effective public-health campaigns, including efforts to reduce drunk driving, increase seatbelt and child safety seat use, and improve roadway safety. His advocacy has saved countless lives, often quietly and outside the spotlight.

David's special power was knowing how to build lasting advocacy campaigns that led to real solutions. He demonstrated that patients are not passive observers of policy, but essential participants. And when someone told him that high drug prices were necessary, David countered with a simple slogan: ``Drugs don't work if people can't afford them.''

Mr. David Mitchell lived a meaningful life in service to others, and the world is safer, fairer, and more humane because of him. His legacy lives on through his colleagues, family, the laws he helped change, and the many patients' lives he empowered.

Mr. President, last week we learned that President Trump has decided to withdraw the United States from 66 United Nations organizations,

offices, and treaties that have had bipartisan support in Congress for decades. As far as I am aware, neither the White House nor the State Department consulted Congress about this extremist and, frankly, self- defeating decision.

We all want to see the United Nations become more efficient and eliminate unnecessary duplication and waste. This may, indeed, be a time to reassess our participation in some of these organizations, something we should do every 5 to 10 years. The world is constantly changing, and our priorities and funding decisions need to adapt. But for an administration to take such a drastic, unilateral step is unprecedented, short-sighted, and certain to weaken U.S. global leadership and U.S. national security.

Among the organizations and programs the President plans to withdraw from include the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary General on Sexual Violence in Conflict, the United Nations Population Fund, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the UN Register of Conventional Arms, the International Tropical Timber Organization, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

I seriously doubt that President Trump is familiar with the work that any of these organizations do or why the United States during Republican and Democratic administrations has been a leading member and supporter. While I will not recount each of their mandates and activities, I encourage my colleagues to do so. It would become readily apparent that their work is squarely in sync with U.S. national interests.

Of course, if one believes, as the President and some of his closest advisers believe, that climate change is a hoax and that any program or organizations with the words ``climate'' or ``nature'' in its title should be eliminated, then it is not surprising that they would want to withdraw from the IUCN, the IPCC, and the UNFCCC, which play key and complementary roles in monitoring and reporting on the health and environmental impacts of carbon emissions and the destruction of the Earth's biodiversity.

If you believe, as perhaps some in the administration believe, that preventing sexual violence in conflict is not something that requires international cooperation, then there would be no need for the Office of the Special Representative. But Members of Congress and their staff who have met with the extraordinarily knowledgeable and dedicated occupants of that position over the years would strongly disagree.

If you believe that the alarming proliferation of conventional weapons, including small arms like machine guns and shoulder-fired missiles that are susceptible to ending up in the hands of terrorists and narcotics traffickers halfway around the world is not a problem, then it is understandable why some would favor withdrawing from the UN Register of Conventional Arms, which provides transparency on arms transfers and helps to deter the traffic in illicit weapons. But it is as illogical as it is dangerous.

And if you believe that it is wrong to support an organization that provides lifesaving, voluntary family planning information and services in countries where impoverished women and girls lack access to modern contraceptives, then it is hypocritical but not surprising that some, for purely political and ideological reasons, would want to withdraw from the UN Population Fund, even though it is prohibited by its own bylaws from supporting abortion.

The key point I want to make is that applying an ideological litmus test to these organizations and withdrawing from them without any consultation or debate will further isolate the United States. Our adversaries will fill the vacuum. There are many problems that cannot be solved by the United States or any other country alone: global warming, the destruction of tropical forests, acidification of the oceans, rape as a weapon of war, illicit arms sales, and unsustainable population growth in countries that cannot feed their own people today. These daunting challenges require regional and global cooperation and the active involvement of these UN organizations that provide the necessary expertise, data, strategies, and guidance. Their effectiveness is a function of the quality and active participation of their members, and without the United States, their ability to carry out their mandates will suffer.

Congress understands this. In their bipartisan fiscal year 2026 conference agreement for National Security, the Department of State, and Related Programs that was published earlier this week, House and Senate appropriators recommend continued funding for most UN organizations and programs, as in past years.

According to their bylaws, no UN member state, including the United States, can withdraw from some, if not many, of these organizations and treaties by simply declaring an intent to withdraw. There is an interim period of months before a withdrawal takes effect. Withdrawing from treaties may require an act of Congress. It would be a serious mistake for the White House to go down that road, absent a thorough assessment by the relevant executive Agencies and congressional committees of jurisdiction of the pros and cons of doing so. Otherwise, it will be just a matter of time before China or some other country occupies the dominant positions in not only these organizations but the UN Secretariat itself. By then, Donald Trump will be gone, but it will be too late to reverse course, and future generations of Americans will pay the price.

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Colorado, and I want to thank my colleague from Virginia for their leadership on what is the very important question before the U.S. Senate.

In the weeks and months leading up to the capture of Nicolas Maduro, President Trump sent 15,000 U.S. military personnel to the Caribbean and Venezuela, that included Special Forces, Marines, and specialized units from all of our branches of government. He sent 13 warships to the Caribbean, including the USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group, and several amphibious assault ships. More than 100 advanced combat aircraft were deployed, including F-35s from the Vermont National Guard. And we can estimate that thousands of military and intelligence personnel were involved in planning and executing the raid that seized Maduro.

A mobilization of this size costs hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions. This operation is, and apparently always has been, about one thing: seizing control of Venezuela's oil. President Trump and his closest advisers have made that clear. It is about President Trump using the power that he has as President, without restraint, to get the oil that he wants.

This is not my assertion. These are President Trump's words:

We built Venezuela's oil industry with American talent,

drive and skill, and the socialist regime stole it from us .

. .

It was the greatest theft in the history of America. They

took . . . away from us.

We're going to have our very large United States oil

companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend

billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the

oil infrastructure and start making money for the country.

We will be selling large amounts of oil to other

countries.

I think it is a fair question. If that is the President's goal, what is in it for farmers in Vermont? Small business owners in Ohio? For the elementary school teacher in Texas? For a truck mechanic in South Dakota? There is absolutely nothing in it for everyday Americans. And we spent hundreds of millions of dollars on a mission that can only benefit the oil industry who didn't even ask that this be done in the first place.

So what about this operation is ``America First''? It might be ``Trump First'' or it might be ``Chevron First,'' but it is not ``America First.'' And we just saw the revelation that a major donor to President Trump bought at bargain basement prices a Chevron subsidiary and can stand to make literally billions of dollars. Should our foreign policy be about pure profits, as opposed to pure benefit for the American people? About profits that go to big corporations and to the President's friends? That is what is going on here.

There is no limit. Within hours of Maduro's capture, President Trump was threatening Greenland; they have minerals. Colombia, they have resources as well. Cuba and Mexico. Is this the world that will work for us or the world that we want where rather than acting as a defender--actually the leader--in maintaining long-established principles of national sovereignty, we threaten and invade countries to seize their natural resources? That is the way it was before 1945: ``Might makes right.'' That is a dangerous world. And is that the world that the United States wants to leave to future generations?

There are two questions before the Senate. One is a policy debate, the wisdom of this attack on Venezuela. There is no dispute about the evil of Maduro. None. There is enormous respect and appreciation for the professionalism, the bravery of our military that did something that, frankly, seems impossible. But in service of what? This is an extraordinary military victory, but it is in service of a neocon dream. We saw this in Libya. We saw this in Iraq. We saw this in Afghanistan.

President Trump is now saying we are going to ``run the country.'' And President Trump is heralding that Maduro is in jail in Manhattan. We all are. But left behind in Venezuela is every structure that Maduro put in place. His hand-picked Vice President is now the leader. His repressive, brutal, murderous Interior Minister is still in charge. So, yes, Maduro is gone, but everything he built remains behind. What kind of victory is that?

The second question--and I thank Senator Kaine for being the leader on this--is one that every person who serves in the U.S. Senate has to answer: Will we do our job? This is not optional. Article I of the U.S. Constitution says it is up to Congress to authorize the use of military force in going to war. It is our job, and it is our responsibility. And one of the enormous threats to our democracy right now is the capitulation of too many Members of the House and too many Members of the Senate of powers that are vested in this body, under the Constitution, in ceding those authorities to the Chief Executive.

Why is that wrong? It is wrong because there is wisdom in the Constitution's separation of powers that power cannot be concentrated in one branch of government. And it is as a result of one branch of government ceding its authority and its responsibility to the Executive. We have an obligation to protect our constitutional role, and it is not about us. It is about our country. And what is a greater responsibility than the decision to send men and women into combat? That is our job.

And, Senator Kaine, thank you so much for all of your efforts to remind us of our responsibility and to tell us to do our job.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this bipartisan bill is a crucial first step to bring Members of Congress, industry, civil society, and families to the table to discuss the future of the internet. It does not aim to end the conversation.

Social media, and the internet broadly, continue to evolve. We need to keep up. Tech platforms must be appropriately incentivized to address the harmful content that has been allowed to proliferate online and influence our children, our communities, and our country as a whole.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 was passed into law during the early days of the internet, with the intent of incentivizing an environment where platforms could innovate. Section 230 also immunized platforms that engaged in good-faith moderation of content they deem to violate their platform's terms and conditions or community standards.

While section 230 played a central role in the growth of the internet as we know it today, the legislation could not have anticipated the growth and popularity of social media platforms we are now grappling with. For nearly 30 years, social media platforms have enjoyed blanket immunity for the content they host. They have failed to adequately police harmful content on their sites, despite their terms and conditions mandating them to do so.

While most of the conversation surrounding section 230 focuses on Big Tech, it is important to take into consideration small community-based platforms that are also protected by section 230. These platforms do not use algorithmic recommendations, do not contain live feeds, like buttons, and are not in the business of keeping people online. Rather, they serve as a platform for community engagement. I believe these platforms can serve as a model for content moderation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to find ways to continue to provide protection for platforms that promote respectful exchange among users.

I have long advocated for free speech and believe that all communities should have the right to express themselves online. But tech platforms have made billions while ignoring violent and exploitative content and disinformation that lives on their platforms. It is time for Congress to act.

Mr. President, first of all, I want to acknowledge the wonderful comments by my colleague the Senator from Delaware.

There are three reasons why it is very important we have this discussion:

No. 1, we have got to honor the Capitol Police who were on the receiving end of violent conduct by citizens who stormed the Capitol.

No. 2, it is important that we have accountability for who caused this and to be explicit about who caused this and who was the primary motivator.

And 3, it is extremely important for us not to allow history to be rewritten so what happened then will happen again.

So I want to start most directly with what we all share, and that is an incredible appreciation for the Capitol Police. They showed up that day. These are folks who oftentimes have to commute an hour and a half.

The person who was guarding us--I was in the Gallery of the House of Representatives--had an hour and a half commute each day--to and from work. He had two young kids. And the last thing in the world he wanted to do was to have to use his firearm in order to protect us. But it was clear he was going to do his duty.

We saw so many officers who were in the same place, where they were actually being assaulted by American citizens whose democracy was under assault by American citizens.

I want to express today what I think all of us feel and that is a deep appreciation for the men and women who serve on the Capitol Police force, the Metropolitan Police force, and other authorities who came to the assistance.

Second, it is important for us to be explicit about what happened here and who is accountable. We are having a debate about it. There is an effort to rewrite the history of what happened on January 6, but the fact is indisputable that the primary instigator of January 6 was the President of the United States then and who is the President of the United States now, and that is Donald Trump.

Why do I say that?

He is the one who lost the election. He is the one who created the narrative that it was a stolen election, despite the fact that of all of the challenges, they were largely dismissed by the courts. There was never evidence. There was the use of the Presidential power that he had because he did have and does have many American citizens who believe in him.

With the trust that he had with those everyday Americans, when they heard their leader say that the election was stolen, understandably, they believed him. When he said: Come to Washington; it will be wild, they came to Washington.

When he made his speech at the Ellipse and he said: We will march down to the Capitol, they marched down to the Capitol. When the whole place was falling apart here and he was getting urgent calls from the then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy, when he was hearing from others, he was going on to tweet against Mike Pence for not abusing the authority of the Vice President of the United States--by the way, it is not even authority. It is a ceremonial function to certify the election.

It was Donald Trump, who was, in the beginning, the instigator of the lie, the instigator of the call to people around the country who did believe in him to come here and stop the steal and who culminated his efforts with his speech at the Ellipse, telling people to march on the Capitol.

Now, the third reason it is absolutely so important is that history can't just be written, in this case, by the winner. And that is, Donald Trump did win the election. It was a fair-and-square election, despite all those things I just said that are true--not just that I believe are true.

But what happened on that day was shocking to me, and it was shocking to all Americans. Here is why: It is not just--when this happened, I was in the Gallery in the House. I was 30 feet from where the shot was fired. I was standing there witnessing the mob trying to break down the doors that the President enters to give the State of the Union Address and saw the glass and heard the glass shatter.

Even as that was happening, and all of us in the Chamber were bewildered as to what was going to happen, fearful of the violence that was occurring now and how that could escalate, I didn't believe it was happening. I didn't believe it was happening.

I was seeing it. I was hearing it. I was witnessing officers with their guns drawn, but I said to myself: Peter, this is the United States of America. We have a peaceful transfer of power. We win elections. We lose elections, but it is the people of this country who decide who the winner is--not politicians, not a mob attacking the Capitol.

This is a blessing that all of us have been bequeathed by those who came before us, the peaceful transfer of power.

The other aspect of this I couldn't believe was I was witnessing violence--and we have never had violence in the Capitol--in an effort to overturn an election. So two things happened that have never happened: an assault on the Capitol in the effort to overturn the results of an election and thwart the peaceful transfer of power.

That is on Donald Trump. I want to say that explicitly, as uncomfortable as that may be, and whatever policy positions he may have and others and many people may agree with, that attack on the Capitol was inspired, instigated, and accelerated by the explicit actions of the then-President of the United States.

We have to go back to where America began, and that is: We have elections; we do all we can to encourage people to vote; we count the votes; and we accept the outcome as decided by the people of this country.

That is what a democracy has to be about, where the competition is about ideas. It is about aspirational connection to the wonderful Americans that we represent and their confidence that we will serve with the honor, the integrity, and the commitment to their needs, not our preferences, that makes us all so proud to be representatives of the people who sent us here.

So this day is a day of commemoration for those who served us. But it has also got to be a day of accountability and assessment about what happened and how. It can't be whitewashed because the current President has support and was elected. He does. We have accepted that--those of us who didn't vote for him. But that does not whitewash, it doesn't exonerate, it doesn't erase what he did to cause this insurrection. He played the major role in this, and it is forever going to be a stain on that President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to address the situation facing refugees from Afghanistan who were resettled in Vermont and who, like Afghan refugees in other States, the Trump administration is now threatening to deport.

Vermont is home to more than 650 Afghans who risked their lives to support the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. They have been welcomed by our communities. They are growing our workforce and tax base and contributing to our economy. A statewide nonprofit in Vermont, the Vermont Afghan Alliance, which is largely led by Afghans, helps reunite these Afghans with their families and assists other Afghan refugees when they arrive. They are one of several groups in Vermont doing incredible work to resettle Afghans. These individuals risked their lives for our government, and they did everything we asked of them. And now, they have become valued members of our communities.

The U.S. withdrawal in 2021 was chaotic, but the Afghans who fled did so because of a very real fear of persecution. No one can question that. Afghans who had worked with the U.S. military and intelligence community were taken to the airport in Kabul to help secure it before being allowed on a plane. They were told to leave their wives and children behind, assured that their families would come later. They feared for their lives. These individuals

had been subjected to rigorous vetting at the time of employment with the U.S. military or intelligence community, and many were vetted again in a third country by an interagency vetting process before coming to the United States.

Once in the United States, they were vetted again when applying for an immigration benefit. They were vetted yet again when interviewed by a USCIS officer in the U.S., and in adjusting immigration status. So our Afghan allies are some of the most thoroughly vetted members of our immigrant community. In fact, they may be the most extensively vetted foreign population in U.S. history.

The vetting is exhaustive, it has spanned years, conducted by multiple Agencies and administrations. It has included turning over cell phones to the FBI, providing every address resided at since birth, notification of every biometric exam taken in their lifetimes, and detailed information about the occupations and addresses of family and extended family members.

But as extensive as the vetting was and is, we know that no vetting process is 100 percent foolproof. No one can predict with absolute certainty that a person--regardless of nationality--who is cleared today won't commit a crime years later.

The horrific, targeted shooting of two members of the West Virginia National Guard on November 26--by an Afghan refugee who was reportedly trained by the CIA--was a terrible crime for which the person responsible should and will be brought to justice.

President Trump's use of that tragedy to go after a minority community has become a hallmark of this administration's hostile attitude toward immigrants and refugees. Even though it was the Trump administration that vetted the accused most recently prior to granting him asylum, President Trump has called for re-vetting all refugees who arrived under President Biden. This includes people from Afghanistan and 18 other countries, some of whom also reside in Vermont. The President has halted resettlement, paused all asylum applications, and called for the removal of anyone deemed a risk.

The fact that an Afghan has been charged with this heinous crime is tragic, but it is no more reasonable to label the entire Afghan refugee community, as well as those from 18 other countries, a security risk than it would be to label all Vermonters a security risk because of the act of one individual who a year ago shot three Palestinian students walking down a street in Burlington. It is wrong to accuse a whole population, whether on religious, racial, ethnic, or other grounds, for the abhorrent act of one individual.

I want to convey my condolences to the family of the West Virginians who were targeted, one of whom, Sarah Beckstrom, died while serving her country. She was only 20 years old and had a promising life ahead of her.

At the same time, I want to express my appreciation to the Afghans who supported our ill-fated mission in Afghanistan, at great risk to themselves, and who as a result had to abandon their country and their families to seek safety in the United States. Five years later, many of them are still waiting to be reunited with their families. Our communities are better for their presence among us.

Mr. President, I thank my esteemed colleague from Louisiana.

The United States is on the brink of a war, a war of regime change in Venezuela. President Trump has amassed an armada of U.S. warships, fighter planes, and Special Forces off the coast of Venezuela.

Around 15,000 military personnel are in the region, and that includes Special Forces, marines, and specialized units. Reports indicate that 13 warships are operating in the Caribbean right now, and that includes the USS Gerald Ford carrier group and several amphibious assault ships. And more than 100 advanced aircraft have been deployed and are being deployed. That includes F-35s from the Vermont Air National Guard.

The President has also deployed combat rescue units, the types of specialists that can rescue pilots who are down in hostile territory. And the President himself has said that the attack could come very soon.

So the question is, Why are our warships, a carrier group, and support assets in the Caribbean? They are not there for drug interdiction. The reason they are there is obvious, and it is even acknowledged.

President Trump wants Maduro gone. He wants regime change. The President has said himself that Maduro's days ``are numbered.''

His Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, said that the President ``wants to keep on blowing boats up until Maduro cries uncle, and people way smarter than me on that say that he will.''

When Secretary Rubio was asked a few weeks ago if the Venezuelan Government should be concerned about the massive military buildup in the Caribbean he said that ``they don't have a government. There's an illegitimate regime that's basically a narcotrafficking organization that's empowered itself.''

All of us revile Maduro. He is a tyrant. He has tortured and jailed political opponents. His policies have bankrupted his very wealthy country, driving millions of Venezuelans to flee their homes.

Yet we face two questions: First, should the United States go to war for the purpose of changing a regime we despise?

Second, can the President--any President--through his unilateral actions, plunge our country into a war for the purpose of changing regimes and do that without coming to this Congress for approval under the War Powers Act?

We have had experience with wars to change regimes we despise. The Iraq war was sold confidently by its promoters as a simple operation. Our troops would be welcomed as liberators. We remember that, and we know how that ended. True, it only took weeks for America's superior firepower to topple Saddam Hussein's regime.

But that was only the beginning. The war in Iraq unleashed decades of instability, ushering in revolutionary, violent, Islamic insurgencies across the region. And, of course, the war in Afghanistan took only a handful of Special Forces troops and targeted airstrikes to lead to the quick fall of the Taliban regime. But it also dragged our country and many of our allies into our longest war, fighting a 20-year insurgency.

In each case, it was easy to topple the regime, but what followed was tremendously terrible for our soldiers and our taxpayers. Those wars cost the United States and our allies the lives of 10,000 of our brave soldiers. It cost us trillions of dollars, and we are still paying for that.

The Executive has two obligations, and the Congress must demand compliance. First, the administration owes us transparency.

In the buildup of our military presence, the administration has ordered the extrajudicial killings of nearly 100 civilians in international waters. That they were alleged drug dealers or drug couriers does not give the President the authority to direct the military to attack.

The administration has provided absolutely no information to Congress about these attacks, who was killed, or the basis of the attacks; nor has it released the video of the recent attack in which survivors were killed in a second strike; nor has the administration made public the classified legal opinion upon which it relies to justify its actions.

Members of Congress, including me, have had an opportunity to read that opinion, which I found woefully unconvincing. But since it was classified, I can't discuss it. My view, release that opinion to the American people. My view, release that video to the American people.

Second, as the President masses our forces for a war, as he and his associates have explicitly stated, it is one in which their goal would be the elimination of the Maduro regime. The President refuses to come to Congress and seek congressional approval for a military action, as is required under the War Powers Act.

All of us--all of us as elected Members of the U.S. Senate--have vested in us under the Constitution, article I, the responsibility and exclusive authority to declare war. Let us all accept our duty and demand that the Executive be transparent, be accountable, and comply with the provisions of the War Powers Act and come to Congress for our approval of the military action that is clearly underway.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, first of all, what is important for me to acknowledge is that Senator Risch on the Foreign Relations Committee has done excellent work on making certain we don't get taxpayer dollars to the Taliban.

I also want to acknowledge my appreciation for the service of the Senator from Montana and his wife in protecting us against terrorist activity.

Let me explain why I object, because my objection is not for the purpose of keeping money out of the Taliban. That objective I support.

What I don't support is a bill that is written in a way where aid and humanitarian organizations that are spending money they raise to do work we support--and that is to protect women and children who are subject to the vicious conduct of the Taliban--that they will be cut off from being able to do their work.

The reality is, for some of these NGOs, if they have to pay an electric bill, then the bill, as drafted, would mean they are not able to do their work.

So when you have an aid organization that is dedicated to trying to help girls and women from the oppression, who are from the Afghan people, who are the victims of the Taliban authoritarianism, and even paying an electric utility bill, even paying a water bill would mean that organization is shut down and can't do the good work that I believe the majority of us, if not all of us, in the Senate would support--because our concern is the well-being of the people of Afghanistan, and our objection is to the authoritarian and violent rule of the Taliban.

So this bill, as drafted, would interfere with legitimate work that would do good for the people in Afghanistan, especially women and girls, who are the victims of the Taliban. Our government is not sending money to the Taliban. That was discontinued under President Trump.

Our government is not sending money to American NGOs or NGOs in governments that are our allies. So what this bill is doing is trying to ensure that money that is sent to help Afghan women and children and other vulnerable people is not siphoned off to indirectly support the Taliban. That is a worthy objective, but it is overly broad in how it is written.

So it would literally mean that NGOs that are doing work that we support can't be done. And for that reason, I do object.

You know, we have got to keep in mind that the Taliban is our adversary, but there are over 3 million Afghans who have lost access to health services.

There are many Afghans who served with our military and to whom we owe a debt of gratitude. They saved, in many cases, the lives of men and women who served in the military. And among the people who have been the biggest advocates for the Afghan people, as opposed to the Taliban, are many of our brave soldiers who have served in Afghanistan.

So the objection here is based on how the bill is written, how it is overly broad and will have the effect of stopping good work that does good things for oppressed people. That is the reason that I want to assert my objection to this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the ongoing and often forgotten civil war and humanitarian crisis taking place in Burma, which impacts the broader Southeast Asia region. We should all be outraged by the horrific crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Burmese military

against the Rohingya and other Burmese minority groups.

The fallout from the Burmese military's February 2021 coup and jailing of State Counsellor and Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi continues to roil the country. Ethnic minority groups within Burma, which had long been at odds with the Burmese military junta, saw the ousting of Suu Kyi as a prelude to greater repression, and took up arms against the junta, in collaboration with the ``People's Defense Forces'' of the government in exile.

The violent conflict between opposition groups and the Burmese junta has caused immense suffering of Burmese civilians, primarily due to displacement and military bombing campaigns, targeting civilians as retribution for rebel gains on the battlefield.

The Burmese people are no stranger to displacement. A decade ago, Burma's military junta engaged in a violent persecution of the Rohingya minority, forcing 1.5 million people to flee to Bangladesh and Thailand. A recent investigation by the United Nations concluded the 2017 attacks were a ``coordinated and organized operation'' to strip the Rohingya of their land rights within the country. In 2022, the State Department officially determined that these actions constituted a genocide.

Today, refugees from the conflict in Burma, both Rohingya and members of other minority groups, face an even more dire situation. Amnesty International reports that the Arakan Army, one of the ethnic armed organizations controlling parts of Burma, is continuing to displace the Rohingya. Many other Burmese citizens are fleeing bombardment by junta artillery and warplanes. Despite these horrors, many countries are now refusing to accept any Burmese refugees--including, regrettably, the United States, which recently banned all travel to the U.S. by Burmese citizens following an executive order from President Trump.

Rather than slamming the door, the Trump administration should reverse this misguided decision and allow Burmese refugees who have a credible fear of persecution to seek refuge in the United States. The United States should also increase aid to the Burmese people and support for democratic forces within the country, strengthening the opposition's position in potential negotiations with the junta for an end to the conflict. Trump administration aid cuts, including in the aftermath of a devastating earthquake that hit the country earlier this year, contravene the express purposes of the bipartisan BURMA Act. I recently cosigned signed a letter to Secretary Rubio with eight of my Senate colleagues calling for the Trump administration to make Burma a diplomatic priority in the coming months.

Mr. President, 4 years ago, on February 4, 2022, Vladimir Putin initiated his full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The question that Ukraine faced then was this: Could they defend themselves? Could Ukraine hold against a far more powerful enemy?

Most thought the answer to that was no, including our own Central Intelligence Agency that predicted that Kyiv would fall in a matter of weeks.

The questions the United States faced at that time were: Would we choose, the United States of America, to aid a sovereign country that was defending itself from a brutal attack by an aggressor? Would the United States remain steadfast with our European allies in defending a world where borders cannot be changed by force, where nations do not invade and seize territory of their weaker neighbors, and where might does not make right?

Nearly 4 years later, we face the same question today. We faced that question within those 4 years. We have seen the bravery, the resilience, and the effectiveness of the Ukrainian people who are standing up to the Putin aggression. What Ukraine has done is create the largest army in Europe. With approximately 1 million in arms, what the Ukrainians have done is build a remarkably adaptive military fighting machine with innovation that would rival Silicon Valley. Long- range Ukrainian-designed drones and cruise missiles are now striking thousands of miles into Russia against oil facilities and strategic air force bases. Ukrainians have changed naval warfare. With their stealthy naval drones, they have pushed the feared Russian Navy out of Crimea.

Ukraine is now producing close to 100 percent of its own drones. More than 200 new homegrown Ukrainian tech startups are producing millions of drones annually, all while they are being bombarded by Russia.

Also, we have seen in those 4 years that our European allies have stood strong and rallied to help Ukraine. In many cases, the European countries together, on a per capita basis, have contributed more to Ukraine than even the United States. While it is true that the United States has been, by far, the largest single nation contributor, Europe overall, our allies, have contributed more in both military aid and financial aid.

Even our own defense has benefited. We have now two new allies in NATO, Sweden and Finland--also, the contributions of our allies. Denmark gave Ukraine advanced F-16s that are shooting down Russian drones and cruise missiles. Italy gave Ukraine critical air defense missiles and artillery systems. Greece is contributing to regional economic integration by signing an agreement just last month to supply American LNG to Ukraine. These are just a few of the coordinated actions taken by the United States and its allies.

On the other hand, when we see what Russia has done, what Putin has done, we see that Putin's war plan is to directly target civilians, including innocent women and children, and send soldiers into the meat grinder of certain

death where there have been, by many reports, over a million casualties.

Last week, Putin launched over 600 drones against civilians in Kyiv on a single night, and the objective was to kill civilians, especially women and children. Not since the Blitz of London in 1940 has a European capital faced such a ruthless campaign of airborne terror that was directed at civilians.

Next to me here is a photograph of the graves of three children from a single family who were killed by Putin's campaign of terror. These kids were among the more than 600 Ukrainian children who were killed recently by Russian strikes. Three graves. Parents, neighbors--everyone knows that their kids could be next.

On this question of the United States coming to the aid of Ukraine, I want to acknowledge the leadership of many of my Republican colleagues, especially Senator McConnell, who stood firmly and immediately in favor of protecting Ukraine and standing up for American principles; Senator Wicker, our Armed Services Committee chair; and others, a few of whom I mentioned.

It was under Republican leadership and support that the Senate passed the Ukraine Invasion War Crimes Deterrence and Accountability Act into law. And that law states explicitly that it is ``under the direction of President Putin'' that the Russian military has committed war crimes, including targeting of civilians, killing noncombatants, deportation of civilians, and hostage-taking.

Recently, it was reported that the Russians have made some incremental gains in the past few months. But the reality is that the Russian troops are creeping forward at the cost of thousands of Russian casualties. According to some reports, Russia has suffered up to a million casualties in the Ukrainian battlefield.

Putin is completely indifferent to the suffering of his own people and the violence he is inflicting on innocent people in Ukraine. And after the thousands of Iranian drones launched every week by Russia at Ukrainian civilians, they don't really point to military effectiveness. They point to military desperation on the part of Russia.

Ineffective on the battlefield, the Putin war plan is to target civilians and try to wear down Ukraine's morale. But I can tell you, last week, I was on a bipartisan delegation led by Senator Rounds and Senator Shaheen at the Halifax Security Conference, and we heard directly from Ukrainian members of Parliament. They are fighting. It is hard, but they are not giving up. The question before us is not whether Ukraine will persevere; it is whether the U.S. support will persevere.

I believe--I think many of us in this body believe--that we must stand firm against Putin and his lawless aggression. And if he is successful in Ukraine, he will be emboldened to continue his march through Moldova and America's Baltic and Nordic allies on Russia's borders: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, Sweden, and Norway.

Some asked if can we afford to continue to support Ukraine. My view: We can't afford not to. But also, when you look at the economic cost, which is real, it is modest. It is about 0.2 percent of our gross domestic product. Is that such a large amount of money that we can't invest it for the security of our country and our allies in Western Europe, which we fought for in World War II?

The question before this U.S. Senate right now is not whether Ukraine is going to hang in there and fight. They proved again and again that they will hang in and fight. If Ukraine won't falter in that fight, the United States must also persevere.

In addition to us continuing our support, there are three pieces of legislation that we could take up on this floor that would make a significant difference right away: No. 1 is the bill led by Senator Graham and Senator Blumenthal. It has 85 cosponsors, and it would impose sanctions to stop customers like India and China and Brazil from buying Russian oil. And the argument Senator Graham makes that I think is very compelling is, you go after the customers, and you squeeze the finances of the Russian war machine. We have 85 cosponsors. Let's take it up, and let's pass it.

The second bill--the State Sponsor of Terrorism bill designation for Russia--is related to the fact that Russia did something that is absolutely unconscionable: They kidnapped children. Over 20,000 kids have been taken hostage and delivered to other families in the occupied territories and in Russia itself. That is so unimaginable. Let's go at that directly.

Third, let's take up legislation here similar to legislation pending in Europe where Russian assets--about $5 billion in this country, about $300 million in the European Union--are seized and are used for the reconstruction of Ukraine since the aggressor, Russia, is the acting party that did all that damage.

I believe we must renew our commitment to the Ukrainian people. I believe we must stay the course. This year, we are celebrating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, when the United States advanced a foreign policy principle that borders cannot be changed by force. We have seen decades of unprecedented prosperity, and we have seen decades without another World War conflagration.

We have an opportunity today to stand up and protect that legacy for this century by recommitting to the Ukrainian people that we will stand in support of that principle, in support of their freedom, and in support of our security.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, for those of us who have long supported U.S. diplomatic leadership in pursuit of a secure, democratic Israel alongside a demilitarized, independent Palestinian state, the protection of due process and the rule of law has central importance.

Equal access to justice is essential for lasting peace in the Middle East. Today, I voice a concern shared by many of my colleagues: the incarceration, prosecution, and punishment of Palestinian children in the Israeli military justice system.

As a former public defender and member of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, which has jurisdiction over human rights, I have a perspective on the way justice systems should treat children. To put it categorically, civilians, and especially children, should not be prosecuted in military courts. It is analogous to how I feel about child soldiers; children should not be recruited or allowed to serve in the armed forces.

The reasons should be obvious. Civilians are, by definition, noncombatants. Military justice systems lack independence and routinely fall short in providing the fundamental protections of due process and a fair trial that exist in the civilian justice system and which are rooted in international law.

Israel, however, automatically and systematically prosecutes Palestinian civilians in the West Bank in Israeli military courts under Israeli military law. These courts lack impartiality and transparency, as military court judges and military court prosecutors are active or reserve duty officers in the Israeli military and subject to the chain of command.

To make the process even less credible, in the West Bank Israeli military law only applies to the Palestinian population, while Israeli citizens have the benefit of the protections of Israeli civil law and courts. This double standard is glaringly inconsistent with the principle of equal justice that is foundational to a democracy.

According to numerous credible reports, Palestinian children are frequently arrested in their homes by heavily armed Israeli soldiers. They are bound, blindfolded, and often beaten in military vehicles during transport before arriving at an Israeli police station for interrogation, which is often located in an Israeli settlement. They are routinely interrogated alone without the presence of a family member or attorney and often threatened with physical violence if they don't confess.

Nearly half of the approximately 350 Palestinian children currently detained by Israel are in administrative detention. Most have not been formally charged or brought to trial. When they are charged in military courts, they are overwhelmingly accused of throwing rocks. Rarely are they accused of causing injury or significant property damage. Generally, there is no evidence-gathering process by Israeli authorities for children who are charged in the military courts, so the crux of the case is the child's confession or a signature on a document in Hebrew they don't understand. There can also be an affidavit from an arresting soldier or intelligence officer or an incriminating statement made against the child by another child who was also arrested and accused in connection with the same alleged incident.

Only a small percentage of Palestinian children in the military courts are released on bail. Custodial pre-trial--and often pre- charge--detention is the norm. Almost all prosecutions of children in military courts are resolved with plea agreements, which are the fastest way for a Palestinian child to be released from detention. Entering a not guilty plea is rare, and contesting a charge in the military courts means legal proceedings can be long and drawn out. To put it bluntly, punishment, not justice, is the goal of the military courts. The system is stacked unfairly against the child defendant, whose family is not even allowed to be present during court hearings, so irrespective of the facts or the reliability of the confession, pleading guilty in return for the shortest time in jail--which can still mean weeks or months or even years--is the norm.

I think of Mohammed Ibrahim, a Palestinian American who was detained for nearly 10 months after being arrested at the age of 15 in his home at 3 in the morning by heavily armed Israeli soldiers. He described being bound and beaten while being transported and threatened while being interrogated without the presence of a family member or an attorney. U.S. Embassy officials who visited him most recently in November described obvious deterioration in his mental and physical condition.

Mohammed's case fits the pattern, except that he is an American citizen. Putting aside that his confession may have been coerced, even if everything he was accused of--throwing stones that caused no harm-- were true, it is unconscionable that he was abused and detained for months. He was deprived of adequate food and reportedly lost a third of his body weight. Senator Van Hollen, I, and other Members of Congress repeatedly raised concerns about him, and thankfully, on Thanksgiving Day, he was released. It is now the Israeli Government's obligation to hold accountable the soldiers who beat him and the jailers who mistreated him.

Israeli authorities have defended this inherently flawed and discriminatory system as a necessary response to an ongoing state of hostilities. There are at least three problems with that argument:

First, these are children. Children do not belong in military detention or military courts, and the fact that they are caught in the middle of a decades-long conflict doesn't change that. A child does not become an armed combatant deserving of prosecution and punishment in the military justice system because of throwing a stone that causes no injury. Yet that is the reality for Palestinian children in the West Bank.

Second, administrative detention, compounded by physical and psychological abuse and humiliation of Palestinian detainees and the lack of due process that is endemic in the military justice system, have long-lasting impacts on a child. They have difficulty re-entering and continuing school, face increased restriction on freedom of movement, disruptions to family life, behavior and mental health issues, and it fuels resentment and hatred.

And third, Israeli settlers routinely and increasingly engage in provocations, threats, and violence--sometime deadly violence--against Palestinians with impunity. These attacks and gratuitous destruction and theft of Palestinian property are often observed and tolerated by IDF soldiers. This too fuels hatred and more violence.

Absent a legitimate claim of self-defense, violence is wrong no matter who engages in it. But the incarceration, prosecution, and punishment of Palestinian children by Israeli military prosecutors and judges should stop. It is a flagrant violation of international law. It perpetuates an indefensible double standard of tiers of justice based on ethnicity, religion, and nationality. And by fomenting hatred, it makes Israel less secure.

Finally, it should stop because it reflects badly on the United States. The Israel Defense Forces are a major recipient of U.S. aid, and the United States should not explicitly or implicitly condone a flawed system of justice that systematically abuses and violates the rights of Palestinian children.

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague the Senator from Kansas, and I wanted to join him in drinking a glass of whole milk. My only regret is it is not Vermont milk, but I have got to tell you the best milk is made in Vermont.

Thank you very much.

As the Senator was saying, this is a very serious thing in two ways. No. 1, we have to have good nutrition for our kids, and the Senator from Kansas has outlined why milk is so good.

Of course, I remember growing up and going to grammar school, and I looked forward to milk. We had milk breaks, and it made a difference to pay attention in those afternoon classes and to be active in your sports activities right after that.

The second reason is that the dairy farming industry is not so much an industry as it is a way of life, and in Vermont, the hardest working people we have are our dairy farmers. It is a hard, hard job, but it is one where families have done it from generation to generation.

There is enormous pride in being custodians of the landscape and caring for the animals and the herd, and in providing nutritious milk for the community. And there is a lot of pressure on our farmers. This whole milk bill is an acknowledgment of the extraordinary contribution that the dairy farmers in the State of Vermont make to the entire State of Vermont and that the dairy farmers in America make to all of America, including, of course, those wonderful dairy farmers in the great State of Kansas.

Now, on this bill, we have had incredible cooperation from our Senators, who have raised a very important concern: Some people are lactose intolerant. They can't drink milk. And the way the legislation was written--but, actually, because of something that went back to the Truman years--there is some suggestion that is a disability.

I want to thank Senator Alsobrooks, who is here, for bringing this to our attention, along with Senator Warnock, in working with us to try to get through this so that there is no question about this being a ``disability.'' This is about folks who can drink milk having access to milk, and it is about honoring our dairy farmers for the work that they do.

I am really happy to be here with my colleague. I understand Senator Alsobrooks may have some questions, and I will yield to her for that purpose.

Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Alsobrooks, as usual she is right, and there are two points. One is we want to make certain that the parents have the ability, on behalf of their children, to choose an alternative that is best for their kids. So this is not about forcing people to drink milk or depriving parents of the responsibility and power they have to make certain that their kids are healthy. So thank you so much, Senator Alsobrooks, for that.

And then, secondly, the lactose intolerance point the Senator makes is valid, and that is why I am enthusiastically looking forward to working with her, so we make certain there is no stigma associated with a person who is lactose intolerant.

So thank you so much for your cooperation on this, Senator, and you have my commitment to work with you to try to resolve what is an anomaly and shouldn't be there.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am here to speak about the urgent need for the Trump administration to release $4 billion in LIHEAP funding. LIHEAP, as you know, is the low-income plan. It is absolutely critical that that money be distributed to the States so the States can distribute it to the citizens who need it. We are in the cold weather season and getting money out after the cold weather season does not help keep people warm.

LIHEAP funding enjoys broad support, and that is because, in the Presiding Officer's State and in mine, folks in the winter who are on the margins financially, literally, can't get by unless they have access to this funding.

So here we are, the heating season is upon us, and the LIHEAP funding is stuck and not being distributed.

This is an absolute responsibility of the Trump administration, and there is no--no--excuse for withholding the funding. It just means that people who are cold are going to be cold and terrified, and they have no confidence about their ability to stay warm.

It is getting cold in Vermont. You know, most families who use LIHEAP funding, they make about 150 percent of the poverty level, that is about $23,000 a year. You know, the cost of home heating fuel is between 3 and 4 bucks a gallon, right now. That help is essential.

In Vermont, around 26,000 people rely on LIHEAP to afford heat. And by the way, for folks in the warm weather

parts of our country, it helps on air-conditioning, which is vital. And as the Presiding Officer knows, the number of people who are dying of heat exposure has been increasing, alarmingly. So this is the call to the Trump administration: Do your job.

Now, Secretary Kennedy has a legal responsibility to disburse the current LIHEAP funding, and it is illegal for him to withhold those funds as well as really pretty cruel.

The reality is that this summer we in Congress came together, on a bipartisan basis, to increase and to pass the $4 billion in funding for the program. And, again, I emphasize, it is not a red State, blue State deal. It is not a Republican, Democratic deal. It is a person who is in a home, doesn't have money, and is cold. That is what it is about.

So I am calling on President Trump and Secretary Kennedy to stop stalling and to act with alacrity and release the LIHEAP funding for the benefit of the people in the State of Vermont and in every State in this country who depend on it.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, there is a lot of focus on what divides us, but

the real opportunity here is what unites us. We are having a contest here with this shutdown, where our side is very concerned about what happens with these tax credits; your side is very concerned about using a shutdown as a tactic.

I think we both have pretty valid arguments, and one of the reasons I think there is merit in our position is the reality that, once the December 31 deadline arrives, people literally are going to lose healthcare.

So what unites us? Both sides really do want to have all of government paid and be reopened. And both sides, I believe, want to make certain the people we represent continue to have access to healthcare--that the healthcare they had in 2025 they are going to have in 2026.

That won't happen unless we resolve this. And given the time crunch, the only way, as a practical matter, we can do something that helps the people you represent, that helps the people I represent, is to extend what we have for another year.

So it is not an overreach on the part of, say, folks who want a single-payer healthcare system. It is not overreach or diminishing any concerns that folks on the Republican side--and, by the way, on our side--have about the cost of healthcare.

We are in a practical crunch, where, unless this U.S. Senate acts, the people we represent are going to lose healthcare. That is the fact. That is just the fact. It is the way it is, and we talked about how these premium increases are going to spike.

So what do we do in this situation where Leader Thune, who we trust, who we respect, is taking a position that we won't have discussions until we reopen government.

Why do we object to that or are cautious about that? We trust Leader Thune. We trust our Republican colleagues. But what happens after it goes out of the Senate? We have no guarantee whatsoever it will be taken up in the House at all.

So the question that farmer in Vermont would ask me, at the end of any agreement, is: Peter, what does this mean? Will I get my healthcare in 2026?

And unless we have it where it is going to get a vote with some support from our colleagues in the House, the answer is: I don't know, but I hope so.

So we find ourselves with January 1 here, and that farmer, that small business person, not having healthcare. And, again, this is the lament I have. What we are trying to do here--the folks who are going to benefit or not suffer are Republicans who voted for Trump and Democrats who voted for Harris and Independents who didn't like either candidate at all.

So we have an opportunity--and actually, we are the only people in the United States of America who have an opportunity--the only people, it is us, who have been entrusted by the people whom we represent, with their vote, to solve this problem.

And what I think is being proposed has a quality that is rare around here. It is restraint. We are not trying to overreach. We are just saying: Maintain the status quo so that the folks in America who are getting their healthcare with the help of some tax credits will continue to have that healthcare in 2026, as they have in 2025.

So I hope we can come together for this temporary fix. And, by the way, I just want to say, the cost of healthcare is exploding, and we have an obligation if we want to maintain access to healthcare, to address that.

It is not a solution to deal with the healthcare crisis by taking people off of healthcare. They still get sick. So when our leader says that we want this bipartisan committee to address the cost of healthcare, we are sincere about that because the biggest threat to the continued access to healthcare is the exploding cost of healthcare.

I yield to my colleague from Wisconsin.