Peter Welch

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. 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 Just 1 day later, the spokeswoman rescinded her previous statement, claiming that there had been a ``miscommunication'' and that the contraceptives in question had not yet been incinerated.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. WELCH

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELCH. 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. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. 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. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. 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.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Will the Senator yield for a question?

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

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

Mr. WELCH. All right.

Mr. WELCH. 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.

Mr. WELCH. I think I know the answer.

Mr. WELCH. Will the Senator yield again?

Mr. WELCH. 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''?

Mr. WELCH. Well, I appreciate that. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. 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. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. 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. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. 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. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. 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. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. 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.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. 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.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration and that the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 224; further, that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I thank the gentleman from Idaho, the chair of our Foreign Relations Committee. I join him. I join him enthusiastically in condemning the actions of Hamas--the invasion on October 7 of Israel, the slaughter of 1,200 innocent people, the taking of hostages, and the infliction of suffering that Hamas has inflicted on Palestinians within Gaza. But the situation is much different today than it was a few months ago. Four months ago, I stood here, and I asked for unanimous consent in support of the Senate resolution on the humanitarian disaster in Gaza. The resolution called for an end to the siege, an end to the war, and the return of the hostages. Since then, more than 400 people have died of starvation, including more than 100 children, and that is ongoing and accelerating. Thousands more have died under bombs and bullets at aid sites themselves. At the time, I held up this picture of Jinan Iskafi. She died in her parents' arms, the victim of a military blockade on infant formula. Here joining Jinan are children suffering from famine conditions that exist right now, this month--Amer, Maryam, and Shamm. There is an ongoing famine in Gaza, and the Netanyahu government has made a self-conscious decision to deny people the food and medicine they need to survive. Women waiting for C-sections are trapped in the middle of a bombing campaign. Children are forced to watch their mothers die slowly of cancer, with no access to medicine. The hospitals they need are being destroyed. At the same time, the Netanyahu government has begun a new military operation to take complete control of Gaza City. In Gaza City, hundreds of civilians are living under nonstop bombardment. It is about destroying buildings that are left standing, and it is a bombing campaign that has as part of its objective to force them to leave. The Netanyahu officials in his government acknowledge that they want people to move out. They acknowledge that their campaign is in significant part about displacing people who live in Gaza City and forcing them to move elsewhere. That is at a time when those folks are living in tents; the kids aren't going to school; where they have already moved six or seven times. The decision a family has to make is horrific: Do they move to another place where there is no place to go and they have no guarantee of any kind of safety, or is it better for them and their family to stay where they are and risk that they will be in the path of the bombing campaign?

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the senior Senator from New Hampshire. I really appreciate her very practical presentation about a common concern that we have--Republicans and Democrats--and that is that we do no harm when it comes to the profound insecurity people are feeling about having access to healthcare for themselves, for their partners, for their kids. And we have got real differences in this Chamber. Little introductory remarks about the One Big Beautiful Bill--I do think it is a terrible bill. I do think that we have taken money from healthcare and other areas to fund a tax cut for very wealthy people. I think it is bad for the economy and creates a lot of insecurity. We are also having a big battle about the funding of government, which is the responsibility that we all have. And I want to be candid. I take significant issue with the President when he says: Don't even bother dealing with Democrats. This always is a budget issue that has to involve Democrats and has to involve Republicans. If we don't talk, we don't resolve differences and we are not even in a position to do our job and find common ground. So we are in a pickle. That creates some hard feelings as we try to work through this. And I don't want to dwell on that because we do have different points of view on that. But we have a situation here, as the senior Senator from New Hampshire described, where if these healthcare premium supports expire, every American who has come to depend on access to healthcare through ObamaCare, which is now accepted as an important element in our healthcare system, every person on that is in incredible jeopardy. And I know that every single Member of this Senate is very concerned about access to healthcare for the people they represent. There is no alternative for folks out there that is even being discussed if we don't continue the premium support for people who are getting their healthcare through the Affordable Care Act. So I want to focus on this as the Senator did. I don't want to focus on the partisan differences; I want to focus on the concrete reality that a family is going to face if the Affordable Care credits expire. No. 1, as Senator Shaheen said, this can't wait. The date is going to arrive; the tax credits expire; people depending on that healthcare won't have it. Twenty-four million Americans will face higher costs. Again, I want to emphasize that is not 24 million Democratic families; that is not 24 million Republican families; it is 24 million families. It is in both our States. It is not political. It is about healthcare, which every single citizen, we want them to have it and have it be affordable. Premiums are going to increase, on average, about 75 percent as the Senator said. One in four people who have a chronic condition are going to lose out on coverage; 3.3 million small businessowners will see their premiums increase. I just want to stop on that point for a moment because the Senator, my colleague here, has done so much for small business, and that is because she knows, as I do and I know as you do, Mr. President, small businesses are so vital to the well-being of our community. One of the things I have learned from my visits to small businesses is really pretty inspiring because I see those Vermont small businessowners; their employees are like family to them. The most important thing for them is to make sure their employees are doing well. One of the things that is really important to our employers is that they can provide healthcare, but with the premiums going up like this, it is a wicked decision and discussion between the businessowner and the employees about a raise versus picking up the high cost of a premium increase. That is going to be aggravated if these tax credits expire; 1.6 million of those folks in small businesses would lose coverage. Again, I want to make this concrete now. In Vermont, 27,000 people who rely on the tax credits will lose their health insurance. They just won't be able to afford it. Let me give you a couple of examples of the real world here in Vermont. The annual premium increase for a 60-year-old couple in Vermont that earns $82,000 a year--and that is tough to get by if you have a family on that amount of money--but the premium increase is going to be $23,000. That is a fact. That is a 335-percent increase, but that is like $2,000 a month. So what that says to that family is you are on your own, no healthcare. In Nebraska, 112,000 folks rely on the Affordable Care monthly premium tax credits. The annual premium increase for a Nebraska family, a 60-year-old couple that is earning $82,000, $83,000 a year, $23,000-- pretty much the same as Vermont. In California, there are 1.5 million folks relying on the ACA premium tax credit. That 60-year-old couple making $82,000, it is going to be an additional $17,000. In Connecticut, 112,000 folks are going to lose access to healthcare with these increases. That 60-year-old couple with $82,000 in income, a $28,000 premium increase; 541 percent.

Mr. WELCH. I will.

Mr. WELCH. I am so glad that you brought that up because what drives everyone crazy is the so-called cost shift. A lot of our community hospitals, they get underreimbursed, oftentimes on Medicare or Medicaid. And then the employer-sponsored premiums are the only place the providers can go to cover their legitimate costs. So there is a huge spike in the cost. If you have all these folks without healthcare and they are showing up and getting free care, then somebody has got to pay, and that is going to be the employer-sponsored and private pay. The Senator from New Hampshire was right in pointing out we have got this broken system that we are making worse with this effort. So thank you so much for that, the Senator from New Hampshire. I wanted to go back to these numbers too. In Alaska, 23,000 folks, they can lose their healthcare or they are going to have a premium increase. That family with $82,800 in income, it is $44,000. So that is a 554- percent increase. In Wyoming, 40,000 folks rely on the ACA tax credits. That 60-year- old couple with an $82,000 income, their premium is going up $37,000. That is $3,000 a month. In West Virginia, 49,000 folks losing. That 60-year-old couple, $82,000 income, $39,000 premium increase; $3,000 a month. What we know is that can't happen. It cannot happen. You are literally, through passivity in this U.S. Senate, where we have the option to act or we have the option to hide, the second option is sending a direct premium increase to our families, up to $40,000 in a year for people who make $80,000. So this happens, this is on us. If this happens, it is on us.