[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 166 (Wednesday, October 8, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7030-S7031]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DIRECTING THE REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES FROM HOSTILITIES 
     THAT HAVE NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS--Motion to Discharge

  Mr. SCHIFF. Pursuant to Section 601(b) of the International Security 
Assistance and Arms Export Control Act, and as provided under the order 
of October 7, 2025, I move to discharge the Committee on Foreign 
Relations from further consideration of S.J. Res. 83, to direct the 
removal of the United States Armed Forces from hostilities that have 
not been authorized by Congress, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  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

[[Page S7031]]

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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SCHIFF. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The yeas and nays having been ordered, the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz).
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 555 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Alsobrooks
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt Rochester
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Gallego
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Slotkin
     Smith
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Banks
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Curtis
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fetterman
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Husted
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Justice
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     McCormick
     Moody
     Moran
     Moreno
     Mullin
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Rounds
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sheehy
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Cruz
       
  The motion was rejected.

                          ____________________