Floor Statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So that is my plea to my Republican colleagues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. Yes.

Well, it is.

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

I will, yes.

I thank you. I thank my colleagues.

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I strongly support this resolution.

I do want to say thank you to Senator Kaine.

Senator Kaine, I think I speak for you and I think I speak for every Member of the Senate: Senator from Illinois, you are wonderful.

It is so amazing what she did.

As an enlisted person in combat, the injuries you suffered, the devotion that you have to your fellow servicemembers, the indomitable spirit you have of solidarity with them, and then the credibility you bring to this discussion about the importance of the role of the legislature to make the decisions about whether you and your fellow citizens, the folks who made the decision to step forward and serve our country--whether we, as elected representatives, have the responsibility to make the decision whether they have to go into harm's way--you have inspired us every day.

If you are ordered to go, you go; you report for duty. The Commander in Chief makes the decision. But if it is about a decision to go to war, we, the U.S. Congress, have the obligation to make that decision. And nobody has more credibility in making that case than you do.

And both of you have already stated the factual predicate here that we are engaged in hostilities. We have 10 percent of our Navy out there. The President is saying that he is going to do land strikes and then changing his mind on it. But, you know what, he is also asserting what there is--that we all share as a real concern--and that is, any kind of drugs coming into this country, we are all appalled by it and want to do everything that we can to stop it.

But what is at stake here is the Constitution and the constitutional provision that the people who are elected and directly accountable--the House of Representatives and the Members of the U.S. Senate--who have to make that decision where we know, when it is made to go to war, there will be people like Senator Duckworth, who say: I am ready. I am ready.

We have that responsibility. It can't be the arbitrary action of any single individual, including the President of the United States. So what is at stake here is preserving the accountability that has so weakened as the Congress itself has delegated so many of our responsibilities to the Chief Executive. It is a terrible development in our democracy where the checks and balances that were essential to the well-being of our country, with the tug-of-war that goes on in every generation about what is the right policy; the tug-of-war that goes on in every generation with competing efforts to get more power in either the judiciary, the executive, or the Congress; the checks and balances system that we have where a check we have, as U.S. Senators, is the right to make that decision whether the citizens of this country--the citizens that we serve--are going to be put in harm's way.

So we couldn't have a better advocate than a person who herself made that decision to stand up for America, to defend our country, put herself in harm's way, who inspires us every day with her incredibly positive attitude despite these incredible injuries that none of us-- none of us can imagine what it is like.

You are so special.

It is amazing to be her colleague, isn't it? It really is.

But what you are speaking about is so profoundly moving to me because you understand better than any of us ever can how significant a decision it is to go to war. You experienced it. You have seen, as you call them, your ``buddies'' who have experienced it. You have paid a price yourself. You have seen the price that others have paid. You have seen the nobility and the patriotism of those folks who do serve us in the services, and you take really seriously the obligation that we have to make that profound decision on--yes or no--should we go into war.

So I want to thank you, and Senator Kaine, I want to thank you, because there is no more important thing for this Congress to do than to reassert its responsibility--to accept our responsibility for the powers that were delegated to the U.S. Congress, particularly about whether we do or don't go to war.

I so appreciate this resolution. I believe it is one of the most important acts that we can assert: to reestablish that we will defend the constitutional obligation--obligation--to bear the burden of making these very, very difficult decisions about whether this country goes to war.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on September 3, 2025, I spoke about the upcoming November 30 general elections in Honduras for President, Members of Congress, and Members of the Central American Parliament. Significant fraud has been a problem in many of Honduras' past elections, most notably prior to, and during, the 2013 and 2017 elections of former President Juan Orlando Hernando who today sits in a U.S. prison. So it is important that this election, like the election of Hernandez' successor in 2021, is widely accepted as free, fair, and transparent and that the results are honored in and outside of Honduras.

At that time, I expressed concern about a report that on July 16, Counselor Ana Paola Hall had resigned from the National Electoral Council due to political pressure and threats against her and her family. I also expressed concern that the government of President Castro had reportedly failed to

implement the system for transmitting election results, which is designed to ensure transparent and timely reporting.

Since then, I have been informed that Ms. Paola did not resign and that Honduras's electoral authority--the National Electoral Council or CNE--is now implementing an updated system for transmitting election results. This is positive news, and it should reinforce public confidence in the CNE's commitment to the integrity of the elections. It is my understanding that this new electoral transmission system is considered to be more effective and secure than the systems in place during previous elections, and it should help counter efforts--already reportedly underway--to undermine the fairness of the electoral process through legal and judicial maneuvers or to manufacture an excuse by some to challenge the results of the election if their candidate loses.

On September 3, I also spoke about President Castro's failure to achieve her pledge to establish an international commission to combat corruption and impunity, and the lack of progress in bringing to justice those responsible for the murder of environmentalist Juan Lopez and others who have lost their lives defending the land and water that indigenous communities depend on. There is no doubt that part of the responsibility for the failure to establish the commission falls on the Honduran Congress, which is dominated by the National Party of former President Hernandez, whose government functioned as a criminal enterprise. But President Castro insisted this was a priority, including during her campaign, and it is disappointing that she and her government did not do more to build public support to overcome opposition in the Congress. Honduras' justice system has so far been largely incapable of bringing to justice those responsible for significant crimes of corruption and for ordering the killings of environmental defenders, other social activists, and journalists-- including indigenous environmental leader Berta Caceres and members of cooperatives in the Aguan Valley, where land rights defenders continue to be targeted with violence. It is critically important that Honduras' next President reaffirms the government's commitment to such a commission and strives to make it a reality.

It is in the interest of the United States that on November 30th the people of Honduras can freely cast their votes in a fair election for the candidates of their choice. It is not the role of the United States to pick winners and losers. I hope the elections usher in a new government of leaders who are committed to strengthening the institutions of democracy, upholding the rule of law, and improving the lives and protecting the rights of the Honduran people.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate execute the order of October 7 in relationship to S.J. Res. 77.

Mr. President, I want to speak on two topics, one after the other, healthcare and then tariffs.

Healthcare

Mr. President, open enrollment will begin across the country on Saturday. Many have already received notice of new sky-high premiums, including, by the way, notices that went out to my fellow Vermonters. Many across the country will log on to the Marketplace on Saturday. It is a scary day for them because they will be checking to see what it will cost them next year to purchase the same healthcare that they have this year. Twenty-four million Americans are going to be doing that this Saturday.

Folks across the country are going to get some bad news; that without the tax credits that are in place now and are set to expire by the end of the year, their healthcare premiums are going to double, triple, and, in some cases, quadruple and even worse.

What Vermonters are finding--our website went up on October 15--is truly a shocking increase in premiums, and it is not affordable. By the way, these are folks, some of whom voted for Trump, some of whom didn't, but all of whom deeply care about their families and their small businesses and their farmers. I will give you an example.

A family of four making $130,000 a year--a very good income in Vermont--would have paid $1,200 a month in 2025. Next year, they are going to have to pay $3,035. That is a $22,000 increase. A family of four making about $64,000 a year is going to pay 920 percent more for healthcare premiums. Obviously, that is going to mean they have to decide whether they are going to go without or somehow, some way, try to find a way to pay that, which they really won't be able to do.

Let me give some starters to make it very concrete about Vermonters. A woman named Sarah is going to see her premium go from $217 a month to $1,200 a month. This is a person who is 63, self-employed, and might have to go without healthcare for the first time in her life.

Cara, also self-employed, has had the same income for 20 years, really scraping by. She pays about $100 a month for healthcare through the Marketplace. Her premium goes up to $1,200.

Erica is paying $1,166 for her family. The deductible for her family of three is $15,000. This is barely insurance. Erica and her family make this premium work somehow, but I am sure it is not easy. Without the tax credits, her monthly premium goes to $2,650.

Maria and her husband run a small food business in Vermont. He spends half the year fishing in Alaska. They pay just under $240 a month, but they are looking at $1,740 per month unless the Senate acts. That is for bronze plan, which you know is the lowest level plan. They will be paying about $21,000 per year with a deductible of $7,700 per person.

The examples I gave of Vermonters are going to be true in Indiana; they are going to be true in Louisiana; they are going to be true all across the country. We have been having this debate about a shutdown, but what we haven't been having is a negotiation about how to protect families from a rate shot that they can't afford that means they are really going to lose healthcare.

I do urge us and I urge the President to act aggressively to resolve this. It will help folks. Whether they are in a red State or a blue State, whether they identify as a Republican or Democrat or Independent, it just doesn't matter. We have a healthcare system that is too, too expensive--beyond reach--and it is crippling to our small businesses, our farmers, and our families.

Tariffs

Mr. President, I want to address another topic, and that is the topic of tariffs. They are doing incredible harm to our economy in Vermont. In my view, they are doing long-term damage to our economy here in the United States.

I want to commend my colleagues Senator Paul, Senator Kaine, and others, Senator Shaheen, Ranking Member Wyden, and Leader Schumer for sponsoring the bipartisan legislation we voted on yesterday suspending the emergency authority on which the President was acting to impose a tariff on Brazil, a country, by the way, with whom we have a trade surplus.

We are 9 months into this trade war with tariffs at the forefront. It is a war with Canada. It sort of started with them. That is a big deal for Vermont. We are a border State. But it is a big deal for all of our States because Vermont is 1 of 34 States whose major trading partner is Canada.

For Vermont, Canada has been our largest export market and the largest source of imports. Trade with Canada accounted for 35 percent of our State exports and 67 percent of Vermont's imports and 56 percent of its total trade.

We have small businesses now that are really struggling to keep their lights on. We have farmers across the country but also farmers in Vermont who are incredibly worried about whether they are going to be able to make it into the next harvest. We had a drought. We had early floods. And now we have these tariffs that are increasing the input costs. I know, Mr. President, as a Senator from Indiana, you are very sensitive to the challenges that our agriculture economy and our farmers face.

Things were bumping along, and then President Trump just recently announced an additional 10-percent tariff on Canada, which already had a 35-percent effective rate. We don't even know what that applies to. Is that 10 percent on top of 35 percent or on specific products? Of course, all of that was done because the President was irritated about an ad that was run, apparently, by the Province of Ontario that was quoting a speech that President Reagan made some years ago about how destructive tariffs are. Maybe that does irritate the President. But the constant changing of what a tariff is from day to day creates havoc for our businesses that are trying to plan and control their expenses and deal with all the other uncertainties that they face.

These tariffs are hurting our farmers. Just think about this. Fertilizers--those costs are up 16 percent and in some cases, 39 percent. The effective rate on tractors and other farming machinery is 16 percent and 13 percent, respectively.

We have also had, as a result of the tariffs that are seen by our trading partner in Canada that was the participant in the U.S.-Mexico- Canada Trade Agreement--negotiated, by the way, by President Trump, an agreement he bragged about as being really effective and the best trade agreement--that is getting ripped up in many ways. And then when you add to it the insults that were hurled at Canada--the ``51st State,'' the ``Governor of Canada''--it has had a catastrophic impact on the tourism Vermont has depended on from our Canadian neighbors with whom we have enormous respect.

That is not just true for Vermont. New Hampshire, Maine, Montana are seeing an incredible drop in tourism that is related to this tariff battle and the rhetoric associated with it.

Also, in Vermont, just as in Indiana, our small businesses are really a big deal. I have been hearing from them. I am hearing from bed and breakfasts, hotels, brewers, distillers--any industry. I will give a few stories, a few quotes.

Simon Perkins at Orvis in Manchester:

The reality is that, in a rapidly changing tariff

environment, one that's forced on companies too quickly, it's

really hard for a business to respond quick enough to make it

work.

Orvis, which was founded in 1856, announced the closure of 31 stores and five outlet locations by 2026. Orvis had to lay off 50 employees, citing tariffs.

Another business, Peter Case of Burrows Sports in Brattleboro:

We love what we do and it's under attack! For 90 years,

Burrows Sports has proudly served Brattleboro, growing with

our community through good times and hard ones. Today's

economic pressures, rising costs, and shrinking margins are

testing small local businesses like never before.

Jim Hall from Vermont Country Store:

This is the lull before the storm. . . . Do they realize

this is a tax on Christmas?

These tariffs are a tax. They are paid for by our businesses. They disrupt our businesses. They are passed on to consumers, and there is nothing but a downside, especially when you add the fact that these tariffs are a tax. They are imposed and implemented in a totally arbitrary way, wherein a person who is running a business has to contend with all the uncertainties of a

volatile marketplace and has to deal with the constant uncertainties that are the result of an ever-changing tariff policy.

I urge all of us in the Senate to reassert our own authority under article I, which gives to the Congress the power to tax, the power to impose tariffs or not, and to not have us continue to relinquish the authority and responsibility to the Executive that we have as the U.S. Senate.

This is our responsibility, and part of the reason is that we are close to people who are affected by these policies. It is a shirking of our responsibility for the U.S. Senate to essentially cede that authority to a President, particularly when we are seeing in every single State the harmful impacts on folks in our States--on the businesses in our States, on the farmers and ranchers in our States-- who are working hard to try to pull things together and keep their businesses going, our economy going, and contributing to the well-being of our country.

I call on the President to reconsider what these tariffs are doing.

I call on our U.S. Senate to reassert its authority and be the decider of what the tariff policy shall be in this country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on September 11, 2025, the spokeswoman for the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, confirmed to the New York Times that $9.7 million worth of contraceptives being stored in a warehouse in Belgium had been destroyed at the direction of the Trump administration. These contraceptives were intended for people in poor countries with high rates of morbidity and mortality for pregnant women, infants, and children.

Just 1 day later, the spokeswoman rescinded her previous statement, claiming that there had been a ``miscommunication'' and that the contraceptives in question had not yet been incinerated. This was confirmed by Belgian officials who visited the warehouse where the materials were being stored.

Although Belgium prohibits the destruction of reusable medical devices, aid workers worry that the Trump administration will run down the clock until these contraceptives expire. Most of the products expire in 2028 or 2029, with some expiring as early as April 2027. Destination countries often have rules for importing medical supplies based on remaining shelf life. The administration may exploit these rules to stop their distribution.

Destroying these contraceptives would have cost American taxpayers an estimated $167,000, on top of the $9.7 million already spent to purchase them. At the time of this incident, three African countries had reportedly already run out of contraceptives completely, and 13 more were on the verge of running out due to President Trump's and Elon Musk's reckless destruction of USAID and cuts to foreign aid.

Seeking to destroy safe, lifesaving contraceptives is emblematic of the Trump administration's approach to foreign aid. Destroying these birth control products would exacerbate an already dire problem and would lead to more unwanted and high-risk pregnancies, unsafe abortions, and higher maternal mortality rates. The administration's other drastic cuts to foreign aid have already reduced or eliminated food aid for many families, forcing parents to remove their young daughters from school and into child marriage, increasing sexual violence and the risk of pregnancy-related deaths.

This administration's ideologically driven disregard for global public health worldwide is appalling. Contraceptives are legal and widely used in America. They prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions. They enable women to choose when to have a child and grow their families, by doing so increasing the chances their children will survive beyond the age of 2.

I urge the White House to put the lives of women and children above politics by allowing these contraceptives, purchased with funds agreed to by a large majority of congressional Republicans and Democrats, to be made available to those who need them most. Women and girls in dozens of the poorest countries are depending on these commodities to take control of their lives. Destroying them is antithetical to America's long-held values and reputation of safeguarding public health around the world.

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

Mr. President, the President of the United States says that the United States is at war. In the past 7 weeks, President Trump has ordered U.S. forces to take military action to destroy 10 boats in international waters. That has resulted in the death of more than 40 possible drug couriers.

President Trump has also told Congress he is determined that the United States is at war with what he calls ``narcoterrorists.'' He has also said that he is taking steps to escalate military action against Venezuela and Colombia. And, of course, he is sending U.S. warships, fighter planes, and special forces to their coasts. And he is also openly tossing around threats of airstrikes against targets in the sea and on land.

The questions before us, as the U.S. Senate, are clear, and they are urgent: Are the President's actions steering the American people into yet another undeclared war, and would it be legal for the President to expand this war to the sovereign territories of countries in South America, as he is now threatening to do?

The clear answer is no, that this President--no President--has the legal authority, without congressional authorization, to take America into military conflict.

There have been no credible legal experts who have defended the President's actions, with one exception, and, of course, that is the Attorney General, who has provided an opinion to the President--we are told, but we have not seen--that what he is doing is legal.

That is without precedent. It is without precedent for the top legal official in this country to give an opinion that it is legal to go to war without congressional authorization. But it is

clearly the legal advice the President wanted and won't even share with the Members of the U.S. Senate.

The President, of course, seems to be basing the legality of these actions on the declaration that drug traffickers are terrorists. We all hate what the drug traffickers do, but it is also based on that legal opinion, the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, that we are told gives legal cover for the President to do what is clearly beyond the authority of the Chief Executive. We know nothing about that opinion in this body, and all who have called for it to be released are doing the right thing.

We know that under the U.S. Constitution, the President does not have authority to start a war without congressional authorization. It is an article I responsibility of the Congress of the United States, and there is a reason for that, that is so very important.

If we are going to ask--with the authority of Congress and the Executive--men and women to go to war on behalf of defending our country, that profoundly important decision that is being made by Congress but is putting in harm's way the men and women who serve in the military, there should be a debate, and there should be a vote; there should be responsibility, and there should be accountability.

And simply determination by the President that he is attacking a group of what he calls terrorists--``narco-terrorists''--does not, by itself, make it legal under the Constitution.

You know, some people may say: What is the big deal? These are bad folks. Drugs are terrible.

We all agree with that, but it is not up to the President to determine whether we go to war. It is up to Congress: Should we be going to war with Venezuela?

All of us are on board, Republicans and Democrats, with the fight against narcotics, illegal drugs, fentanyl, in particular, which mostly enter the United States through Mexico and on the Pacific Ocean, and are wreaking havoc on our communities.

It has happened in Vermont as well as West Virginia, Idaho, Florida, Montana, and every other State. Our sons and daughters, mothers and fathers are struggling with addiction and dying from overdose.

So yes, this is a very serious problem, and we should be doing far more to deal with treating addiction in our own country, bolstering our local police forces, our mental health resources, and working with source countries to stop the production and transshipment of these dangerous drugs.

This has not been a partisan issue. In fact, it was an issue where, when I served in the House, there was a Republican and Democratic collective action to provide treatment that is providing real-world help in realtime to folks in your State and in mine.

But laws matter, and the Constitution matters. If the President does want to start a war, if he wants to put America's troops in harm's way, he needs to seek authorization from Congress.

As my colleagues and I know too well, the United States has a very unfortunate history of wars--forever wars--started by Presidents who misrepresented the facts; from the USS Maine incident used to justify the war against Spain to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution incident to justify the Vietnam war--60,000 young Americans killed--to President Bush's stretching of the facts about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction to launch a disastrous forever war.

In each of these cases, majorities of our predecessors on this very Senate floor abdicated their responsibility to question the President's intentions and justifications for war.

That is why I hope that each of my colleagues--each of us here--will join me in questioning the President's legal basis to carry out these killings and to potentially launch attacks against one or more South American countries. We should demand that Congress assert its constitutional obligation to determine where and why the United States goes to war.

You know, as I mentioned, we all hate the scourge of drugs. But why are we spending billions of dollars in this effort in Venezuela while at the same time taking funding away for treatment programs here at home that actually have been proven effective to help the most vulnerable Americans that are actually struggling with addiction to fentanyl and other drugs?

The Department of Justice has also diverted thousands of Drug Enforcement Administration funds and other law enforcement personnel from their critical missions to carry out the President's immigration agenda. Yet the Department has inexplicably shut down the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force, which has been effective in dismantling thousands of criminal organizations, and, unilaterally, the administration has terminated hundreds of grants that do provide critical funding to State and local law enforcement, folks on the ground in the community helping folks who are struggling with addiction and helping law enforcement get to the sellers of those terrible drugs.

In fact, the administration's fiscal year 2026 budget would slash the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program by more than a third from $298 million to $196 million. And under the direction of Attorney General Bondi, Federal drug prosecutions--I have no idea how this happened--but Federal drug prosecutions have dropped to the lowest level in decades, a fact I find shocking.

So when the President claims his new war is about protecting America from drugs, it is a fair question: Why are we doing so little? Why are we taking money away from treatment? Why are we taking money away from high intensity drug enforcement? Why are we not prosecuting more, instead prosecuting so much less?

It is up to the Senate to do its job. We have seen from history that our failure to assert our constitutional responsibility to decide whether to send our military to war has resulted in grievous suffering for the American people and a weakening of our national security.

In asserting our responsibility, at the bare minimum, this U.S. Senate should demand--should demand--to see Attorney General Bondi's legal analysis that the President has used to justify his use of the U.S. military to engage in these attacks.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, every single one of us--every Member of the U.S. Senate, my fellow Vermonters, all Americans, people around the world--are absolutely thrilled by the cease-fire in Gaza.

After 2 years of relentless bombing, after 2 years of horror for the hostages and their families, the bombing has largely stopped, and the hostages are home. This is extraordinary. I salute everyone involved in getting us to this day, including President Trump.

But let's be clear, there is more work to be done. The only way this cease-fire will succeed is if it is the beginning of a relentless, tireless process that aims to get us to the two-state solution--two states for two peoples; a safe and democratic Jewish state of Israel alongside a sovereign state for the Palestinians that are indigenous to the land where they now live as envisioned in the President's 20-point plan and has been U.S. policy for over 50 years.

So the question before us is, Will all who are involved, particularly the U.S. Government, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and the Palestinian Authority, U.S. partners in the Gulf, and our European allies--will everyone do every single thing possible to make that success of a lasting peace through a two-state solution a likelihood?

Let me be candid. I am extremely alarmed at what we are already seeing since the cease-fire. On the Israeli side, Mr. Netanyahu is continuing to dial-up or down the delivery of urgently needed food or medicine depending on what his political desires of the moment are. After 2 years of already having kept food out, largely for starving kids, that has to be provided with the 600 trucks a day unabated, continuously, and regularly. At the same time, Hamas is score-settling, is committing public executions, and intimidating the Palestinians who yearn for peace and a return to some degree of normalcy.

The impediments to peace are deep, and they are clear. So we need to ask ourselves: What do we need to do to make sure that the violence and the destruction does not resume? In Gaza, one thing is absolutely essential. Mr. Netanyahu must stop blocking the medicine and the food for starving kids and Palestinians. We cannot condone Israeli military and the instructions of the Netanyahu government from illegally blocking international food aid from getting through Rafah. Yet we see a continuation of children facing severe malnutrition and hunger. We also see kids who are sick and had the promise of getting healthcare, cancer treatment, women who need maternity facilities or basic medicines and treatments still not having access to them.

The Netanyahu government cannot be allowed to, once again, turn on and off the supply of food and medicine and use it as a military tool. Withholding fruit and vegetables and other food from a million hungry kids is not a military response; it is a collected punishment.

Next, Mr. Netanyahu must finally--finally, once and for all--stop the bombing in Gaza. The IDF's own data shows that more than five out of six people killed by IDF bombs supplied by the U.S. over the past 2 years were civilian casualties. Those government bombings that have been renewed in Gaza this week, killing nearly a hundred and injuring even more after two soldiers were killed in Rafah, has to stop.

These types of response bombings that were so frequent before the cease-fire--disproportionate and illegal, by and large--are no more legal and as disproportionate when they are occurring after the cease- fire and jeopardize the stability and survivability of the cease-fire.

So we should be calling on the Netanyahu government to reopen the medical evacuation corridor so that those Palestinian kids in Gaza with traumatic war wounds--bullets in their bodies and missing limbs--can be evacuated to Palestinian church hospitals in Jerusalem.

The violence and settler attacks on the West Bank also represent an ominous threat to the cease-fire and a threat to fulfilling a true vision of peace. Gaza and the West Bank are part of what will be a separate Palestinian State. That violence occurring at the hands of settlers has to be stopped by the Netanyahu government.

Just this week in the West Bank, we saw violent attacks by mass club- wielding settlers on Palestinian villagers and harvesters. They even attacked the very same village that our Ambassador, Mike Huckabee, had visited and promised to protect only a few months before.

This photograph, taken only a few days ago, is the result of an illegal Israeli settler beating a 55-year-old woman who was harvesting olives on her family's ancestral lands, beating her with that club without mercy, without restraint. Her name is Afaf Abu Alia. She is a mother, and she is a victim of violence. This just happened days ago.

By the way, October marks the start of the olive harvest season across the West Bank. Since the start of the harvest, where folks have to go from their homes to the fields, illegal Israeli settlers have reportedly staged 158 assaults against Palestinian farmers, and they destroyed nearly 800 trees. These trees, as you know, are nurtured over generations, just like the ones on the Mount of Olives. Many Palestinian families depend on them as their only source of income.

The violence, by the way, also impacts Americans. If Mr. Netanyahu is serious about working with the President in supporting the cease-fire that he did agree to, he will take action to hold accountable those responsible for the Americans killed by Israeli forces and illegal settlers; Americans like Saif Musallet, a Florida teenager who was on vacation visiting family when he was attacked, and he was killed by illegal settlers.

Mr. Netanyahu must also finally help the United States investigate the killing of the American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, who was shot by an Israeli sniper from a couple of hundred yards away, nowhere near any Israeli troops.

The Palestinian State envisioned by the cease-fire requires that Mr. Netanyahu also end the constant expansion of settlements into the West Bank. The Israeli Government must stop demolishing Palestinian homes, sometimes using bulldozers paid for by American taxpayers. Yet the Netanyahu government is going full steam ahead. This is an immense impediment to peace.

And to be certain, Hamas, too, must lay down its arms. It must refrain from violence. That is an incredible threat to the cease-fire. Ultimately, Hamas has got to go. Hamas violence is that threat to peace. It is a threat to the Palestinians living in Gaza who yearn for peace and yearn for an opportunity to rebuild where they live and have their kids be back in school and to be safe.

The cease-fire acknowledges that there must be a force that has sufficient authority to quell Hamas violence. This is the peacekeeping force that was in the 20-point Presidential plan. If we are going to be successful, we have to redouble our efforts to stand that force up and make certain that all the signatories to that peace plan do their part to make certain that can happen.

President Trump's leadership to help achieve a cease-fire--that leadership must be redoubled to achieve a durable peace and a lasting peace for the Israelis and the Palestinians. To have this stop on the day the agreement was signed without then redoubling efforts to face the difficult challenges that await resolution after the cease-fire will result in failure. So I call on the President and I urge all of us to do every single thing we can to stay focused on the implementation of the peace plan and not turn away as though this is yesterday's problem because if we don't do that, it will be tomorrow's problem once again.

I urge all of us to accept the burden of leadership that is absolutely required for the well-being of the entire region but for the promise of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state and for the promise of the Palestinian people living alongside in peace with Israeli neighbors.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Connecticut, and I support his effort to put constraints and definition on the Insurrection Act.

Here is what is going on. Essentially, this President, from day one, has been overreaching the use of Executive authority and declarations of emergencies. And it is everything from tariffs, where article I gives the Congress authority to pass those or to invoke those, not the President, and now to the use of the Guard as a private police force. And it basically serves the will of the President and for political purposes.

It is extraordinary, in our country, to have the National Guard deployed. It is even more extraordinary to have the military deployed. There are certain circumstances where that can be done, but not at the whim of an Executive who does it for political reasons.

You know, the bottom line here is that the law enforcement responsibilities that are incredibly important for local policing are managed locally, and where you have a President sitting back in the Executive Office, deciding he wants to go to Portland, he wants to go to Los Angeles, he wants to go to Chicago, he wants to go to Baltimore; and then where there is a review by the courts, and they categorically reject what he is presenting as a factual basis to allow him to act; and when there is a rejection, his main adviser, Stephen Miller, calls the judge's ruling legal insurrection.

What you are seeing is an act of political will for a political purpose, not for a public safety purpose--an abuse of this claim of emergency authority of the President.

You know, a couple of things: Trump's decision to federalize the California National Guard was ostensibly to quell a rebellion and ensure that Federal immigration law was enforced. The judge there reviewed the evidence--not the political statements of the President and the White House--and found that there was no rebellion, nor was civilian law enforcement unable to respond to the protests and enforce the law. And the judge rejected what he called a ``top-down, systemic effort . . . to use military troops to execute various sectors of federal law.''

That is the job of local law enforcement and local Federal authorities in law enforcement, and to suggest that the concern the Senator has about giving some definition to the Insurrection Act has anything to do with our views on crime, which we are all in favor of reducing--and you, as an attorney general, the senior Senator from Connecticut, did an incredible job on that. Criminals did not like you at all.

So what we have is a situation where, if we are going to level with the American people, you have got a President who is using the authority of his office, his power, to basically make political decisions and then target blue States and do it for his own personal, political reasons, as opposed to public safety reasons.

You know, in Portland, the judge who reviewed that case concluded that the President had violated the 10th Amendment, which protects States' rights.

By the way, that is not nullification. That is rights that States have, which does not include nullifying any valid Federal law.

And the judge concluded with this:

This country has a longstanding and foundational tradition

of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form

of military intrusion into civil affairs. This historical

tradition boils down to a very simple proposition: This is a

nation of constitutional law, not martial law.

Now, you know we saw that video that the White House put out with the

President wearing a crown and ``King Trump''; and he is flying a military jet, and he is dumping stuff on the American people who are protesting. The bottom line is there is some reality to that displaying what the attitude of this President is: The King is the law. That is what the President, fundamentally, is saying.

The Constitution is the law, and that is what we are saying.

Make no mistake, there is no limit to what this President will do. He starts in L.A. and goes to Portland. He wants to go to Baltimore. And then, for the purpose of putting down what he claims is lawless behavior, but upon review of local judges who have the evidence, they find that it is nothing out of the ordinary that the local jurisdiction and law enforcement forces can't handle.

What is next? Will we see the military deployed to cities where the President does not like the outcome of the vote in the next election? That is a fair question. That is a fair question.

So the importance of the Senator's bill is that this Congress act to set definitions on what so-called emergencies are and not leave it up to an Executive who has demonstrated repeatedly that he will overreach--that he will overreach.

He has, and he will.

So I join in the effort to present this legislation on the floor and allow us to debate it and to pass it.

With that, I yield to the Senator from Connecticut.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

How are you managing to do this? You have been up all night and your staff too. It is really, really quite extraordinary.

Will the Senator yield for another question? I will ask another one.

All right.

I will make it a longish one, but I want to join my colleagues in expressing our gratitude for this incredible physical effort that reflects not just your intellectual engagement but your compassion and the care you have for Oregonians, whom you have been serving so well for so long. It has really been, just for me, a wonderful opportunity to be a new Member of the Senate, along with Senator Schiff, who I know feels the same way to be working with somebody like the Senator from Oregon, who is just honest and true and totally grounded in his commitment to the people whom he serves and the Constitution that all of us serve. It is just a gratifying experience for us to be your colleagues.

You know, one thing that I wanted to talk about was tariffs and who has the authority to impose tariffs and what the implications are, because what I am seeing is that our farm economy is really being devastated by tariffs.

Let's talk about Midwest farmers. They are proud folks, like the dairy farmers in Vermont, and they used to have markets. The thing they loved to have is purchasing power that they earned by tilling the land and having family farm operations that would be passed on from generation to generation. They really didn't want a lot of government involvement or interference. They wanted to be able to grow their crops. And what I am seeing is that the Trump administration's embrace of tariffs has resulted in the total collapse of the markets that used to be available to our Midwest farmers, including the China market.

You know, last year, our farmers sold about 30, 40 percent of their soybean crops to China. They haven't sold a bushel, OK? They haven't sold a bushel. There is now talk, by Trump, of taking revenue from the tariffs to pay farmers a subsidy. I get it--the farmers need it--but wouldn't it make more sense to let farmers sell the crops that they grow rather than have a tariff that prohibits them from selling to markets they have had?

Then the second thing I noticed--and I really am interested in this because rural America is the heart of America, you know, with the wonderful community values folks have--family values--

hard work, service. We have got a billionaire who is the Secretary of the Treasury. In my understanding--I don't know how. I guess, if you are a billionaire, you own lots of things in lots of different places, but he, apparently, owns lots of farmland in the West. But his major, new initiative is to take $40 billion of our money to bail out the Argentine peso.

So maybe you can explain to me how that is going to help our Midwest farmers--a stronger, bailed-out peso from Secretary Bessent--and how the Bessent policy on tariffs is going to give any kind of lifeline to those family farms that have been so much a part of our heritage, who do so much for the well-being of our country, and whose prosperity is so essential to the well-being of our whole country.

Farmers like to feed people. They like to work hard. They don't want a bailout, and they don't want a handout. We have got the tariff policies that are wrecking the markets, and then we have got a bailout that is going to Argentina that is going to further erode the ability of our farmers to sell their product because, oh, by the way, the Argentinian farmers are now going into the markets we are helping them create that have been opened up as a result of denying access to those markets for our Midwest farmers.

So perhaps you could explain to me how this makes sense.

I think I know the answer.

Will the Senator yield again?

So here is my question:

Is this really a bailout for the financiers on Wall Street who bought this debt at 20 cents on the dollar but may get paid $1 on the dollar or is this just flat-out enrichment? They didn't lose. They are winning as other people suffer. So is this really a bailout or just a flat-out ``Hey, fellas. Here is $40 billion. I love you, Donald Trump''?

Well, I appreciate that.

I yield to the Senator.

Mr. President, unfortunately, I was not present to once again vote on the Republican continuing resolution proposal, rollcall vote no. 576. Had I been present, I would have voted no. We are now 3 weeks into this shutdown. It is time for Republicans to come to the table and negotiate in good faith to reopen the government and ensure millions of Americans can continue to access truly affordable healthcare. The Republican spending proposal misses the mark. Let's work together to fix it.

Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank my colleague from Rhode Island, and I join him in his advocacy for healthcare.

We are going into day 15 of the shutdown. No one likes shutdowns. And people ask me, Peter, why are you shut down? And my answer to them is that I don't like shutdowns, but things are worth fighting for. Some things we must fight for. And one of the things that are most essential to the well-being of the people we represent, whether it is a Republican State or a Democratic State, is access to affordable healthcare.

We have a date that is looming--November 1--where people are going to be getting, across this country, notifications about how much of an increase they will have to pay if they are getting tax support, tax credits, for them to buy their own insurance in the private marketplace. That is the urgency of the moment and why we must resolve this now. We must resolve this now.

On November 1, everyone will be getting the notice, but in many States, including Vermont, those notices are going out now, in October, and I want to show you what is going to happen to a Vermont family.

Keep in mind, this is a family of four where you have two parents that earn $130,000. They purchase healthcare through the private marketplace. Right now, that Vermont family pays $1,195, about $1,200 a month for their healthcare premium. That doesn't include copays and deductibles.

That is a big expense for that family, who has utility bills, who has rent or a mortgage, who is facing the inflation we see in the cost of food, groceries. They have kids in school, and always, some unexpected expense comes up when you have kids in school--a broken wrist, braces, a school trip.

That premium of $1,195 is going to increase to $3,035--$3,035--in 2026. That family can't afford it. Where does the money come from to pay for that healthcare?

You know, the poignancy of this was exemplified when a Vermonter was with me to talk about this. She has a family of four, two kids, and she asked herself: If there is this huge spike in premiums, as a mother, where I am responsible for the well-being of my two children, and it would be ``irresponsible''--her word--not to have healthcare for my kids, what do I do if I get a $2,000-a-month increase and I simply don't have the money to pay for it?

That is not a decision we should be imposing on the people in Missouri or the people in Vermont.

All of us who have the authority of being in the U.S. Senate and representing the people who sent us here should not allow that rate premium shock to crush that family.

By the way, this is not just this family in Vermont; this is families all across our country.

You know, if these tax premiums, these tax credits expire--and that is what they do--then we are going to see nearly 5 million people across this country, in the Presiding Officer's State and mine, lose their coverage. Twenty-four million Americans will face higher costs.

By the way, that includes about 17 million people in States that voted for President Trump. Families in red

States are going to see significant premium increases.

But, you know, this is not about red State-blue State for me; this is about American families, American small businesses, and whether they can have access to affordable healthcare. These tax credits are across the board for people who are eligible and qualify for them, who are working, who are struggling to pay their bills, and there is no way they are going to be able to afford these rate shocks.

I will give you another example. Alex from Essex, VT, works in a small, independent physical therapy practice. He makes $65,000 a year. With the tax credits, his premium costs $5,500 bucks a year--about 8.5 percent of his annual income. Without the tax credit, Alex's plan is going to increase by $15,500 next year to $24,000 a year--two grand a month. It is not possible.

So we have this real-world situation.

You know, the question is, Why are you in a shutdown? It is because we are fighting for healthcare. The question is, Why can't we do that after we vote for a continuing resolution? It is because that date of November 1 is going to be the date where everybody across this country gets the shocking news about how much their healthcare premiums have gone up.

So, you know, the question I have is, Why don't we, all of us, Republicans and Democrats, who care deeply about the people we represent, really come to their rescue by acting and acting now? There is absolutely no excuse for us to delay. This is the urgency of now.

I stand before the Presiding Officer knowing that right now in my State of Vermont, from Bennington to Derby Line, from Brattleboro to Swanton, people are going to their mailboxes and fainting as they get the news of these rate shocks.

It is not right, but most importantly for us, it is not necessary because we, the U.S. Senate, have the power to act and to be fair to the folks that are working hard in all of our States and are entitled to have some confidence that the healthcare they have this year, they will continue to be able to afford next year.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I strongly support this resolution and commend my colleagues from California and Virginia for their leadership. In the space of just 4 weeks, the Department of Defense has destroyed four small boats in the Caribbean Sea, in each instance killing everyone on board. Without producing any evidence, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and President Trump have justified these assassinations of civilians on the grounds that the occupants were ``narco-terrorists'' and ``enemy combatants.''

There is not a single Member of Congress who does not abhor the crime of drug trafficking and the horrific toll that illegal drugs, as well as prescription opioids, are taking in this country. Every State is affected. The insatiable demand for cocaine, fentanyl, and other dangerous drugs has ravaged whole communities and caused the addiction and deaths of millions of Americans. There is no question that we are not doing enough to deal with this problem, either here at home or in the source countries. Yet the President's fiscal year 2026 budget would cut hundreds of millions of dollars for drug treatment programs, despite Americans' unmet demand for treatment, and for grants to support State and local law enforcement. It is a glaring disconnect between rhetoric and action. If Congress approves these cuts, we will be complicit with the White House in making this problem worse.

Rather than increasing resources for treatment, local law enforcement, and drug courts, which have long been proven to be the best antidotes against drug addiction and the violent crime associated with it, this administration has labeled drug traffickers as ``foreign terrorist organizations'' and deployed U.S. warships and other military assets to combat them.

There is no question that drug traffickers, criminal gangs, and other criminal enterprises engage in horrific and violent acts. Murder is murder, whether committed by a human trafficker, a drug trafficker, or a member of al Qaeda. But there are fundamental differences in their motivation, which legally distinguishes a drug trafficker from a terrorist. It is common knowledge that a drug trafficker's purpose is financial enrichment, while the definition of a ``terrorist'' is a person who uses violence or the threat of violence to instill widespread fear to achieve a political or ideological goal.''

Meanwhile, other governments are using the label ``terrorist'' to defame and criminalize social activists, political opponents, and journalists who engage in peaceful dissent. This is common practice in Iran, Russia, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, where dissidents are imprisoned and even executed for being so-called ``terrorists.''

Neither the White House, nor the Department of Defense, nor the Department of Justice have publicly provided legal justification for these summary executions of alleged drug traffickers in international waters. They have produced no evidence that the unidentified

people in those boats were in fact trafficking drugs and no evidence that they met the definition of ``terrorist.'' Extrajudicial killing is a crime in this country and a violation of international law. Simply calling someone a terrorist does not change that.

Our collective interest is in stopping drug trafficking, drug addiction, and the violence associated with it. But above all, we are a nation of laws, and the administration is flagrantly violating the law in ways that threaten all Americans. If the President can label anyone a terrorist regardless of the well-established legal definition, without saying who they are or producing any evidence, and then conducting a military strike on them, where do we draw the line? Is a drug trafficker in Miami or St. Louis a terrorist? Is a bank robber a terrorist? Are kidnappers terrorists? Is the administration going to start calling Americans who protest the arrests of migrants who are legally in this country terrorists?

When asked for an explanation, administration officials routinely ignore the question, insisting that narco-terrorists are legitimate targets. But that is not what the law says. And as Attorney General Bondi often says, no one is above the law. That includes the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice.

Drug traffickers should be arrested, convicted, and punished. Terrorists should be brought to justice. But no American President, Secretary of Defense, or Attorney General has the legal authority to condone or carry out extrajudicial killings when we are not at war, which only Congress can declare, and the country is not facing an imminent attack.

Vote on Motion

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Jane Goodall, whose pioneering scientific research on the behavior of chimpanzees and decades of tirelessly circling the globe to build support for the protection of endangered wildlife and the global environment are unmatched in human history. Jane died on October 1, at the age of 91. I am one of the innumerable people

who had enormous admiration for her and who hoped that somehow she might live forever.

Jane Goodall recognized early in her life that protecting nature is first and foremost about educating and motivating human beings, on whom the survival of all other species depends. That became her life's mission, and she also never stopped advocating for the ethical treatment of animals, as embodied in the Captive Primate Safety Act, of which I am a cosponsor.

Her passing touches the hearts of countless millions of people of every generation on every continent. She was an extraordinary role model for young people of all nationalities and inspired many to seek careers in scientific discovery. Despite the increasing destruction of the Earth's environment caused by humans' ever-increasing demand for natural resources, she never lost hope in our collective ability to save the planet. We owe her immense gratitude for devoting her life to ensuring that we don't lose hope either.

Mr. President, first of all, I want to express my sadness at the loss of lives in Michigan, and I want to thank my colleagues Senator Peters and Senator Slotkin.

You speak for every single one of us, and our hearts are broken. Regrettably, our hearts are broken too many times with this endless violence. But thank you so much. And you spoke for every single Member of the Senate, Republican and Democrat, and I think you spoke for America.

Thank you, my colleagues.

Madam President, I support Senator Merkley's resolution calling on the President of the United States to recognize an independent and sovereign State of Palestine, alongside a secure State of Israel. This is a long-held position of the United States, of both Republican and Democratic administrations, which must not be abandoned.

The choice before us is clear: either we embrace the two-state solution or continue to support today's relentless military occupation. This horrible death and destruction in Gaza must stop. That is why the time for two states can be delayed no longer.

Calling for this does not create a state, but rather reinforces the commitment of the two-state solution.

I am deeply committed to a safe, secure, democratic Israel. But this outcome is only possible if there is also an independent, demilitarized, and sovereign Palestinian state.

While the Senate cannot diplomatically recognize an independent Palestine, my colleagues make a reasoned plea in this resolution for President Trump to listen to the American people, to listen to our allies, and to listen to our partners around the world. This step is critical for the peace and security of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples.

This resolution reinforces the fact that Israel's neighbors want peace. Saudi Arabia has led the entirety of the Arab League in reaffirming that it seeks full normalization and peace with Israel--if and when Israel is willing to recognize that Palestinians deserve what all people deserve: the right to self-determination, sovereignty, freedom, and dignity.

Saudi Arabia and France have also led a multinational initiative this year underlining that the entire Middle East is willing to build a regional security framework that assures the safety of the people of Israel, but Israel must take unequivocal steps toward a Palestinian state.

I urge my colleagues to join us on this timely resolution, which aligns with the objective of nearly 80 years of U.S. policy: two independent states and lasting peace in the Middle East.