Peter Welch

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam President, it is with great pride today that I celebrate Katherine Boise, an American patriot whose tireless dedication to the health and welfare of Vermont's children and families is immeasurable. As a Post-Permanency Service Provider at Lund Adoption Agency for over 14 years, Katherine has transformed countless lives of Americans in our country's most vulnerable communities for the better. Katherine's experience as a child in foster care shaped her life journey and unique career path at Lund. Her decision to turn her own experience into a way to support families through their own journeys in the foster care system is selfless beyond words. She has been relentless in her pursuit to spotlight just how important post- permanency services are to the long-term success of adoption and forever families. Katherine has lifted the voices and stories of those she has helped to community partners, legislators, and welfare professionals to raise awareness about what can be improved in foster care and secure funding for Lund's Post-Permanency Program. Her compassion, integrity, and strength-based philosophy is vital to making certain that the Lund Post-Permanency Program has the resources it needs to help children and families who need it most. Vermonters praise Katherine for her dedication and commitment to ensuring everyone can share their truth and thrive. Her extraordinary commitment to empowering everyone to build a meaningful, prosperous life, and at the recommendation of those who have witnessed her dedication, should make all of us reflect on how we can follow her example and better serve our communities. Vermonters like Katherine Boise exemplify the best parts of what it means to be an American and a patriot and why our State is so special. Her choice to pursue a career that benefits something greater than herself proves why she is a perfect nominee for the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute's Angels in Adoption honor.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. It is time to end this war. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, this war in Iran absolutely, immediately must end, and it will only end if the person who started it with the unilateral decision to go to war decides to end the war. We in the Senate have voted numerous times to end this war. We can't do it unless we get votes from the other side of the aisle, but it is absolutely disgraceful that the United States is in this war. It was a decision of two men, not of two legislative bodies and not of two votes of the American people, but of two men--Donald Trump and Binyamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu was in the Situation Room, making his case that we should go to war with Iran. Any of the advisers to the President said it was a bogus claim that it would be done overnight, which is essentially what the assertion was. So our President made a decision--and it was a unilateral decision by him, a unilateral decision--that we go to war. He told the American people it would be over in a couple of days, just like in Venezuela, and that the people of Iran would rise up and take out the Ayatollah. Many Iranians did rise up, and they got slaughtered. The President bragged about the military might--and we do have a strong military--but his strategic thinking was totally flawed and foolish. He thought bombing could resolve something that it couldn't. So, yes, we bombed. Yes, the leadership in Iran was wiped out. But then Iran did what military advisers knew it would do, but the President could not listen. They used an asymmetric response--drones-- to close the Strait of Hormuz. The impact here has been going on for over 6 months, and the only way we can assess what has happened is to come to the conclusion that the President's policy was a complete failure. It is not working. The President continues to promote a nonpolicy and to assert we are putting the squeeze on Iran. Mr. President, you are putting the squeeze on farmers in Iowa. You are putting the squeeze on the tourist industry in Vermont. You are putting the squeeze on manufacturers in Wisconsin. You are putting the squeeze on the American people. You know, for a farmer in the Midwest who wants to fill up his combine with diesel, it is 1,500 extra dollars a day. And for what? For what? For the ego of a man who capitulated to the pressures of Binyamin Netanyahu--and that is what he did--and who does not have the leadership ability or the character to assess what has happened in these past 6 months and acknowledge that it is time for a change? This is a day-to-day catastrophe, and the man who started this must end it. But we, as U.S. Senators, with the responsibility and the trust given to us by the people who elected us, have a say, and it is time for us to say: End this war. End this war now. Arrogance is not a substitute for good judgment. Arrogance is not an expression of toughness and resolve.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam President, 50 years ago yesterday, on September 21, 1976, Chile's former ambassador to the United States Orlando Letelier and his colleague Ronni Karpen Moffitt were murdered by a car bomb placed by agents of the Chilean secret police. Every year on the anniversary of that horrendous crime, people gather to pay tribute to Ambassador Letelier and Ronni Moffitt at Sheridan Circle, just 3 miles from the Capitol Building, where a small monument marks the spot where their lives were violently cut short. That monument is inscribed with the words ``Justice--Peace--Dignity''-- ideals they embraced in their professional and personal lives. For years, justice eluded Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt and much has been written about the decades-long effort to identify the perpetrators and bring them to justice. I want to acknowledge and credit the Institute for Policy Studies where Letelier and Moffitt both worked, along with Peter Kornbluh and the National Security Archive for their unending efforts to obtain the declassification of documents that record that long arc of justice, and to keep the memory of Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt and the ideals they stood for in the public consciousness for the past 50 years. Eventually, the FBI identified two DINA operatives, American-born Michael Townley and Maj. Armando Fernandez Larios, as leading suspects. The U.S. then sought the extradition of DINA's top two officers, Manuel Contreras and his deputy Pedro Espinoza, which Chile's dictator General Pinochet blocked. A CIA review of its own intelligence on the car bombing concluded that there was ``convincing evidence that President Pinochet personally ordered his intelligence chief to carry out the murder'' and that Pinochet ``decided to stonewall on the case to hide his involvement and, ultimately, to protect his hold on the presidency.'' When Chile returned to democracy in 1990, the George H.W. Bush administration agreed to drop sanctions against the Pinochet government for protecting the DINA officers if the new government prosecuted Contreras and Espinoza. They were both found guilty of conspiring to assassinate Letelier and given short prison sentences of 7 and 6 years respectively. But Pinochet, still the head of the Chilean Army, remained immune from prosecution, as did all the other torturers and executioners from his cruel dictatorship. It was not until Pinochet was arrested in London in October 1998 under the European Anti-Terrorism Convention that his immunity was lifted. Although the British released him after more than a year of house arrest, just days after his return to Santiago a courageous judge, Juan Guzman, filed papers in court to strip Pinochet of his immunity from prosecution. At the time he died in 2006 at the age of 91, he faced indictments and investigations for corruption and human rights atrocities. In 2012, a Chilean court finally ordered that Ronni Moffitt's case be officially investigated. Fourteen years later, on June 15, 2026, Chile's magistrate for human rights, Judge Paola Plaza, ruled that three former DINA officials were guilty of killing Moffitt. Brig. Gen. Pedro Espinoza, DINA's former deputy director for operations, was sentenced to 15 years. Gen. Raul Iturriaga, a high-ranking officer in DINA's ``Exterior'' department, was also sentenced to 15 years, as was retired Brig. Gen. Jose Zara Holger, also a director in DINA's international operations division. Fifty years after the assassination, the Moffitt ruling is part of the final chapter in the effort to hold General Pinochet and his DINA accomplices accountable for an act of international terrorism in Washington, DC. This past July, The New York Times reported on ICE's detention--and then release--of one of those accomplices, Armando Fernandez Larios, who defected to the U.S. in 1987 and served just 5 months in prison for his role in the assassination plot. Last October, in its quest to find immigrants with real criminal backgrounds, ICE detained Fernandez Larios and the Department of Homeland Security rightly labeled him ``the worst of the worst'' for his past crimes of homicide. But while hundreds of migrants who have no criminal history are summarily arrested and deported from this country every day, Fernandez Larios was quietly freed from the Krome Detention Center in Miami on March 19--a glaring example of the Trump administration's double standard in the administration of justice. Fernandez Larios should be deported for his part in the assassination of Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt and the egregious human rights crimes he committed before coming to this country. The United States must not be a haven for foreigners who violate human rights or commit acts of terrorism. The Fernandez Larios case and the recent ruling in the case of Ronni Moffitt have refocused attention on the September 21 bombing a half- century ago. I join those who honor the memory of Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt and reaffirm that no matter how long it takes for the wheels of justice to turn, no one is above the law, especially those who abuse their positions of power to commit heinous crimes.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam President, in the midst of all the chaos and cruelty inflicted by the White House on the American people and around the world, I suspect not many Americans are aware that we are also carrying out an illegal blockade against Cuba, a country the size of Tennessee that poses no threat to the United States, but whose government we have tried to depose by one means or another for more than 60 years. There is plenty to not like about the Cuban Government, which has defended a failed economic model and repressive political system for decades. The Cuban people deserve freedom and opportunity. But that does not justify the United States imposing a naval and financial blockade against an impoverished country that has neither attacked us nor threatened to attack us. The consequences for the Cuban people have been devastating. Today, they are suffering from daily electrical blackouts that have made everyday life a virtual nightmare. Schools, hospitals, public transportation, food production, trash collection, and many other life necessities have been brought to a practical standstill. Ironically, even our own embassy has been impacted to the point that they are unable, or unwilling, to provide the necessary support for Members of Congress who have a legitimate interest in observing firsthand the consequences of the policy of collective punishment against the Cuban people being carried out by our government. According to an article in the New York Times on September 17, 2026: ``Thousands of containers filled with food, medicine and other goods bound for Cuba have been stranded throughout the Caribbean since two shipping giants stopped deliveries to avoid tough U.S. sanctions, according to diplomats, Cuban officials, merchants and others involved in the imports. ``The containers stranded in various ports include humanitarian aid, from solar panels to medication to colostomy bags. Dozens of containers of aid purchased by different United Nations agencies are among them. U.S. sanctions have also hobbled shipments by air, and forced the World Health Organization to scrap planned deliveries of cancer drugs.'' Secretary of State Rubio claims that ``if Cuba is a humanitarian disaster, it is because their regime is a disaster, because the economic model they follow doesn't work.'' That heartless statement ignores the fact that no such humanitarian crisis existed before the Trump administration launched what amounts to a unilateral policy of economic warfare against Cuba. This is unconscionable, it is immoral, and it is a clear violation of international law. If any country were to engage in such aggression against the United States, we would condemn it as an act of war. During the past year, Cuba's authorities have announced wide-ranging and long overdue economic reforms. While they are aspirational goals, they represent the kind of transformational reforms the United States has been calling for as long as I can remember. But has it made any difference to the Trump administration? To the contrary. The administration has only increased sanctions on Cuba, making it even harder to implement structural changes to the economy. It is apparent that nothing will satisfy the White House short of regime change--or regime collapse, with the consequent risk of social upheaval and mass migration. President Trump confirmed as much in his speech at the U.N. General Assembly earlier today, when he said that Cuba ``will fall.'' Earlier this year, I spelled out steps that I and many others believe both governments can and should take to address the legitimate concerns of the other. Among other things, on the U.S. side, those steps include ending the failed economic embargo and removing Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, which has no factual or legal basis. On the Cuban side, it includes economic reforms to increase foreign investment and unshackle the private sector, and releasing prisoners whose only offense is criticizing Cuba's repressive one-party system. Back then, neither government showed interest in taking the initiative, and conditions for the Cuban people, and for Americans whose own government has prevented them from freely traveling to Cuba, have only gotten worse. But the Cuban Government has finally recognized that its antiquated centralized economic system needs to change, and they are trying to move in that direction. They have also released some political prisoners, including celebrated artist Luis Manuel Otero Alcantara, although he was forced into exile in the U.S. Others, including Maykel ``Osorbo'' Castillo Perez, must be released. The Trump administration, which routinely insists that its policy is to support the Cuban people, should match its rhetoric with action. It should support economic reforms that have the potential to significantly improve life on the island. Ending the illegal blockade would be an obvious and necessary step. No legitimate U.S. interest is served by compounding the misery of the Cuban people by preventing other countries and companies from sending lifesaving fuel and supplies to Cuba.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, the Third Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Cluster Munitions is underway in Laos, a country where millions of U.S. cluster munitions from the Vietnam war continue to maim and kill civilians. Large areas of provinces bordering Vietnam remain contaminated with these deadly explosives. The U.S. is helping clear these munitions, but more resources are needed. Cluster munitions continue to be used today in other armed conflicts. A provision in U.S. law authored by my predecessor Senator Leahy prohibits the sale or transfer of cluster munitions with a failure rate of more than 1 percent. That was an important step, but further action is necessary. Cluster munitions are delivered by artillery or aircraft, disbursed by hundreds or thousands over wide areas. If they detonate on impact as designed, they threaten the lives and livelihoods of anyone-- combatant or noncombatant--within a large radius. Cluster munitions that fail to detonate pose an unacceptable risk to innocent people for years or decades, just like landmines. I commend the states parties to the Convention and the nongovernmental organizations around the world, like Legacies of War in the United States, which have worked to rid the world of these indiscriminate weapons. The U.S. and the other major powers should join both the Convention on Cluster Munitions and the Anti-personnel Mine Ban Convention and work to end the production, stockpiling, transfer, and use of these weapons that have no place in the arsenal of civilized nations.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam President, I rise today to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the Vermont Country Store opening its doors in Weston, VT. Eight decades after its founding, the Vermont Country Store remains a staple of Vermont's business community and is known to folks across the country for its selection of high-quality products and old-fashioned charm. Throughout the store's history, its owners, the Orton family-- who pride themselves as the ``Purveyors of the Practical and Hard-to- Find''--have maintained the store's traditions while continuously adapting the store to the changing economy. The Vermont Country Store started as an aspiration of Vrest Orton's in the early 1900s. Vrest grew up in Calais, VT, where, as a child, he helped run his father's country store. Vrest hatched the idea for the Vermont Country Store decades later while working at the Pentagon during World War II. Vrest wanted to bring old-fashioned, high-quality products--like those sold in his father's store--to customers far and wide at a time when country stores like his father's were dying around the country as the United States grew and consumption patterns changed. Vrest and his wife Mildred started the Vermont Country Store as a catalog mailing business, headquartered in their kitchen. Vrest and Mildred were savvy entrepreneurs. Because catalog mailing businesses were innovative at the time, customers were skeptical of sending cash through the mail, so the Ortons included a ``Customer's Bill of Rights'' in each catalog to make people feel confident about doing business with the Vermont Country Store. The couple mailed their first catalog in 1946 to about 1,000 customers. It was 12 pages long, and its products were drawn in black and white, captioned by Vrest himself. The Ortons' first catalog was so successful that they were able to open the doors to Vermont Country Store's first retail location in Weston, VT, a year later in 1947, where it remains to this day. The store was cluttered but curated, and customers appreciated its rustic character. In 1984, the Weston store, along with the entire Weston Village Historic District, was rightfully included in the National Register of Historic Places. By 1967, the Vermont Country Store had grown so much that the Ortons were able to open a second location in nearby Rockingham, allowing them to expand their merchandise, storage, and customer service offerings. Like the Weston store, the new location maintained its hallmark old- fashioned appeal, featuring a restored covered bridge and a gristmill. Vrest's and Mildred's son Lyman took over running the Vermont Country Store in 1972, at a time when business in America was changing by the minute. Lyman worked to carry on his parents' legacy and improved customer service by expanding phone-ordering capabilities and further expanding the store's offerings. He made exclusive agreements with merchandisers, cementing Vermont Country Store's reputation for having niche and high-quality products. Now, Lyman's sons Cabot, Eliot, and Gardner, help him run the Vermont Country Store. Together, they have adapted to the digital age while retaining much of the old-fashioned appeal that has made Vermont Country Store so special and successful. Despite having a website, most of the store's business is still driven by catalog sales, which today is 100 pages long and features professionally shot and color-printed photos of handmade fudge, wool rugs, and seersucker pajamas. The Vermont Country Store is now celebrating its 80th anniversary under a third generation of Ortons and is thriving. I wish the Orton family nothing but continued success and extend my deep gratitude for what they have done to bring little pieces of Vermont to every corner of the country and the world.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I listened to the presentation by my colleague from Maryland and agree with everything he said. And the heart of the question is whether the person who has been nominated to serve as Attorney General will serve the people of the United States or will he serve the President to whom he has indicated blind, complete, servile loyalty? And the recitation of facts about what Mr. Blanche has done in this incredibly important job as Acting Attorney General has made clear what his client is, who that client is. There is no place at the top of the Justice Department for a person who pledges personal loyalty to anyone other than the American people. But, you know, the reality here is, the President won't appoint anybody to the Attorney General's position who won't act as his personal attorney. And there is a sadness that I have about this whole story that is before us. It is the story of a person who when he was a young man, a young attorney, Todd Blanche was extraordinarily talented, was very idealistic, was a prosecutor's prosecutor, and who did abide by and uphold the rule of law. He became a new person in service of a President that I believe is corrupt. Two billion dollars of income to the President of the United States in his first year raises more than a mild question. And this person now to be Attorney General, in his Acting Attorney General role, essentially provided tax immunity to the President and to all of his children, family, and affiliates. It is totally outrageous. When you say it, you can't even believe the words are coming out of your mouth. It is absolutely unprecedented. It has nothing to do with the way public business should be conducted. But Mr. Blanche, who has considerable talents, has used those talents to enable and to facilitate and to cover up and to revise and accommodate the corrupt goals of a President who, I believe, is corrupt. And, by the way, as I mentioned earlier, that is whom the President wants. He wants someone who is going to do his work for him unquestioned, no matter what. But, you know, there is another question that belongs right here in the U.S. Senate. Is there no line that the U.S. Senate will not allow this President to cross? The Senate confirmed Bondi; it confirmed Hegseth; it confirmed Patel; it confirmed Noem; and we are about to confirm Blanche. The President is abusing his authority, in my view, in every day and in every way. And that is shame on him, but the U.S. Senate is failing to use its authority, its power on any day or in any way. Shame on the U.S. Senate. Should not the U.S. Senate use its advice and consent authority to demand competence and integrity? Did the Senate do that with Bondi, with Noem, with Hegseth, with Patel, and now with Blanche? Should not the U.S. Senate use its taxing authority to stop tariffs that the vast majority of this body believes is hurting the American people and is not the right of the Executive to impose? Should not the U.S. Senate use its constitutional power of the purse to stop the invasion by President Trump into the power of the purse? And should not the U.S. Senate use its constitutional authority over the awesome power to declare war and stop this illegal war in Iran that, in fact, President Trump is losing? The President is abusing his authority. We are failing to use ours. We can stop capitulating today by rejecting this nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, we are faced today with two urgent and compelling foreign policy priorities: ending the war in Iran and winning the war in Ukraine. The war in Iran is increasing the world price of oil, enriching Putin's Russian wanton war machine. On February 27, just before the start of the U.S.-Iran war, oil was at $70 a barrel. Last week, it was up to $100 a barrel. And if the Strait of Hormuz is closed again, experts warn prices could surge up to $125 a barrel, driving up fuel, fertilizer, and food costs. And with every $10 increase in global oil prices, Putin's war machine receives a windfall of more than $1.5 billion a month--$1.5 billion a month--in extra revenue. If oil reaches $125 a barrel, as many experts predict, Putin's windfall would be $9 billion a month or $108 billion a year. It is a very compelling reason why, to win the war in Ukraine, we must end the war in Iran. It is also a reason why taking up the Graham- Blumenthal Russia sanctions bill is urgent. From the first day of Putin's savage attack on Ukraine, no one has been a more stalwart defender of Ukrainian victory than our departed colleague Senator Lindsey Graham. He and Senator Blumenthal had a compelling insight: You hurt Russia by going after the buyers of Russian oil. And the way to go after the buyers was by imposing a tariff on the major buyers of Russian oil, making it too costly for those buyers to continue purchasing it. It would starve the Russian beast of the revenue fueling its cruel aggression. The language in that original bill by Senators Blumenthal and Graham was specific and limited. Buyers of Russian oil would be targeted and tariffed. It was a limited and specific delegation of congressional tariff authority that could be used for the limited and sole purpose of cutting off oil revenue to Russia--all for the purpose of assisting U.S. efforts to help defend Ukrainian freedom and repel Russian aggression. That is why the original Graham-Blumenthal bill had 84 bipartisan cosponsors, myself enthusiastically among them. But we are now on the threshold and are now considering a new version of the Graham-Blumenthal bill, one that Senator Graham and, we understand, the White House have signed off on. But we have to remind ourselves, in any delegation of congressional tariff authority to the Executive, the statutory language must be specific, and it must be limited to the purpose of squeezing Russia and its oil revenues. To achieve Senator Graham's goal--starving Russia of its oil revenues-- care must be taken in the drafting to guarantee that outcome and that outcome only and not language that would facilitate other outcomes. In broad terms, the revised Graham-Blumenthal bill does two things. No. 1, it imposes tariffs at the discretion of the Executive of up to 100 percent on the top five purchasers of Russian oil and gas. No. 2, it allows the Executive to impose 100 percent tariffs on the top five countries ``facilitating'' the evasion of sanctions on Russian oil. (Ms. LUMMIS assumed the Chair.) Madam President, my concern is with this second provision. There is a fatal absence of specificity as to what countries could be considered ``facilitators'' or what conduct or the extent of that conduct that could constitute being a ``facilitator.'' In the bill text, the new tariffs would apply to ``countries in which . . . foreign persons are knowingly engaging in transactions, activities, or services that circumvent, or assist any third party to circumvent, any sanction related to oil that originated in the Russian Federation.'' This language is very general. In effect, this would be a blanket delegation of congressional tariff authority to the Executive. In the name of targeting a ``facilitator,'' the Executive could target and tariff any country for any reason under the methodology of this language. Congress cannot and Congress must not give this type of blanket delegation of tariff authority to this Executive--or, for that matter, to any Chief Executive. We are all very much indebted to Senator Graham and Senator Blumenthal for their relentless pursuit of a Russian sanctions bill and to the many others who have fought to keep Ukraine at the center of the Senate's agenda. Colleagues like Senator Shaheen, Senator Wicker, Senator McConnell, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Risch, and Senator Murkowski, among others, have all been critical to protecting freedom in Ukraine and America's national security interests in Europe. But in all my own personal conversations with Senator Graham and, I suspect, in all the discussions my colleagues had with Senator Graham, he was always focused on specific and binding language that would enable and it would require the Executive to impose tariffs on buyers of Russian oil, not on undefined ``facilitators.'' Senator Blumenthal, who spoke to Senator Graham just before he died, has informed us that Lindsey was over the moon about this bill. But the Presiding Officer and I both know Senator Graham was really unique among us. Despite the open-ended language about ``facilitators,'' Senator Graham had a unique relationship with President Trump, and if any among us could have persuaded President Trump to carry out Congress' narrow and limited intent, it was Senator Graham. But without Senator Graham, our language must specify our intent and do so with absolute clarity: Go after the buyers. That was Senator Graham's goal, and we must have language that makes achieving that goal real. That is why, when we take up the Graham-Blumenthal bill, I will offer an amendment to strike the overly vague delegation of tariff authorities to also target ``facilitators'' of sanctions evasions. As currently written, the ``facilitator'' provision enables the Executive, with full congressional authorization, to impose any tariffs on any country, for any reason, so long as the Executive labels the tariffed country a ``facilitator.'' If we delete the ``facilitator'' provision, as I propose, we do achieve Senator Graham's goal without his bill being used for any other purposes. In doing so, the bill will retain the original tariff authority that only targets buyers of Russian oil. Senator Graham and many of us, myself included, agreed about maximizing the imperative of sanctions and tariff tools to hurt Putin and stop his aggression against Ukrainian civilians, and I hope we can honor Senator Graham by quickly coming together to pass a bipartisan bill that will specifically and effectively target the companies and countries that are buying the oil that Putin is using to pay for the missiles and the bombs that are raining down on the innocent people of Ukraine. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, on July 28, 2026, I missed rollcall vote No. 210, on the cloture motion on the nomination of Mr. Walter Clayton to serve as Director of National Intelligence. Had I been present, I would have voted nay.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, in December 2022, I traveled to Guatemala as part of a congressional delegation led by Senator Tim Kaine. Four months earlier, to the shock and dismay of powerful rightwing forces in Guatemala's Congress and business community, Bernardo Arevalo, an anti- corruption activist, had been overwhelmingly elected President in an election widely recognized as free and fair. Guatemala is one of Central America's most corrupt countries, so it was not surprising that his election triggered a frantic attempt by his opponents, led in part by then-Attorney General Consuelo Porras, who had been sanctioned by the United States, to invalidate the election on fabricated grounds of fraud and prevent Arevalo's inauguration. The purpose of our trip was to demonstrate our strong support for the choice of the Guatemalan people, in particular Guatemala's historically marginalized indigenous population, and for the integrity of the democratic process. To the country's credit, Arevalo was inaugurated on January 15, 2024, and for the first time in decades, Guatemala has a President who is not beholden to the corrupt forces that have exploited political power for their own enrichment and used Guatemala's armed forces and police to harass, threaten, arbitrarily arrest, and even murder their opponents. But having failed to prevent Arevalo from taking office, those forces have carried out a relentless campaign, aided by counterparts and lobbyists in Washington with close ties to the Trump administration, to sabotage his efforts to reform the justice system and end the culture of corruption, violence, and impunity that has plagued Guatemala for generations. Career U.S. foreign service officers who stood up for the rule of law and democracy in Guatemala, were summarily replaced by U.S. Embassy appointees who reportedly urged members of Guatemala's Congress to support a rightwing candidate tainted by corruption for a seat on the constitutional court, or risk losing their U.S. visas. Unlike President Trump and officials in his administration, I do not believe it is our role--using threats, inducements, or other means--to try to influence the outcome of election of foreign candidates for office, whether Presidents, legislators, or judges. We oppose such interference in our own sovereignty, and it is hypocritical and unwise to engage in such conduct ourselves. I mention this because President Arevalo has another year and a half in his 4-year term. If political and economic forces in Guatemala, backed by nefarious associates of the Trump administration, continue to try to deny the will of the Guatemalan people and thwart Arevalo's anti-corruption mandate by using their influence to undermine the institutions of democracy for the benefit of themselves and their cronies, they will pay a price when the balance of power shifts in Washington. People here know the history of U.S. political and economic intervention in Guatemala dating back to 1954, and they have long memories when it comes to corruption and the manipulation of judicial and law enforcement institutions in that country. The appropriate role of the United States in Guatemala, as in the rest of Latin America, is to support the people there by improving their lives through free and fair elections, equitable economic opportunities, and access to justice that conforms to international protections of due process. Too often, U.S. policy in Guatemala has strayed from those goals, motivated instead by greed and corrupt interests in our own country, and promoting the militarization of internal security. That is a recipe for a return to authoritarianism, ethnic and social division, and armed conflict. Guatemalans who choose that path should be forewarned that it will ultimately be their own, and the country's, undoing. No President, even in the best of circumstances, can transform a country like Guatemala in 4 years, but President Arevalo deserves our strong support. At a time when the trend in Latin America is to elect leaders who equate law and order with subverting judicial independence, militarizing the police, and running roughshod over due process of law, President Arevalo has restored integrity to the office and defended the institutions of democracy. In the long run, that has the best chance of producing the transparency, accountability, stability, and prosperity the Guatemalan people need.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the Senator from Maryland, for leading this discussion on what is an absolutely critical decision that this U.S. Senate is going to have to make. One of the most important things we do is pass the National Defense Authorization Act. That is the moment where, through the committee process and the floor debate, America lays out a pathway to secure the defense of this country against all threats. It is an extraordinarily important piece of legislation that sets the course for a year. This National Defense Authorization Act fails to address the critical question that is before this country right now, and that is the war in Iran. It fails to address the changing nature of warfare by spending a half a trillion dollars more on weapons systems that are the weapons systems of yesterday. Third--and this is a point my colleague has been making, and I am going to talk about it very immediately--it outsources to another country those decisions on intelligence sharing and weapons production that should only be made by our country. Fourth, it commits the taxpayers of this country to the obligation of another half a trillion dollars with absolutely no outline of how we are going to pay for it, and this on top of a deficit that is the highest we have ever had in this country. So let me talk about these one by one. First of all, it is absolutely catastrophic what is going on, in the Middle East, to our economy. We are in a war that was decided by the President of the United States unilaterally to enter into that war. It was done with the expectation that B-1 bombers would be able to blast their way into victory. And it was done without an appreciation or awareness that, once the extraordinary power of the U.S. military was applied with weapons that are only ours to deploy, the asymmetric response by the Iranians allowed them to close the Strait of Hormuz, which to this day is not open to the passage of ships. That is having an incredible impact on our economy, on our farmers, on our manufacturers, and on grocery prices. And there is no end in sight. And the fact that we are going to have a debate about authorizing a $1.5 trillion defense budget without having any discussion about what is driving the cost or what is the major defense threat right now--and that is this ongoing war in Iran--is not acceptable. We have the obligation to debate that, and many of my colleagues have indicated already by their vote that they oppose the authorization of warfare in Iran. This NDAA bill comes before us as though that is not even going on. That is wrong. We have an obligation to debate that, and we have an obligation to vote on it. But, second, there are provisions in this bill that do outsource fundamental responsibilities and obligations of our military and our national security organizations and our President to make decisions on the basis of what is in our national interest and what is required for national security. My colleague mentioned them. There are provisions in this bill that create a legal obligation for the United States to do information and intelligence sharing with another government and to enter into joint production agreements with another government. When it comes to sharing intelligence, I want our generals, I want our national security officials, I want our President--our Chief Executive and Commander in Chief--to have unfettered discretion to make those decisions about with whom we share information, what information we share, and under what circumstances to be our decision and our decision alone. And, of course, our military and our national security organizations work very hard to have cooperative relationships with neighboring countries or with fellow countries that are aligned with us on interests, and that can include Israel, as it has at times. But we have never, ever had an obligation to relinquish the exclusive right of decision making that has to fundamentally be made in the best interest of what is in the national security interest of the people of this country. We cannot relinquish that right and that responsibility. So this provision that ``the President, acting through the Director of National Intelligence and, as necessary, the Secretary of Defense, shall''--shall--``subject to applicable law and the protection of intelligence sources and methods, expand and enhance intelligence sharing with the Government of Israel''--my concern here is less the Government of Israel. It is about the national security interests in this country and the unfettered right of our military, national security, and President to make decisions on behalf of the American people and exclusively for what is in the best interest of the national security of this country. That provision has no place in this national defense authorization. A third point I want to make is that what we have seen with the extraordinary conflicts in Ukraine, in Iran, and Lebanon is that the old weapons systems that are so expensive don't win the victories. The drone warfare in Ukraine has allowed them, through their ingenuity, to turn the tide on Russia. The B-1 bombers--the exquisite weapons systems that cost so much money--are not winning the conflict in Iran for the United States. And we are seeing these situations where there will be a $35,000 drone that is taken out by a $1 million missile, and all of us know that is not a sustainable situation. Our Pentagon knows that. But in the rush to make the adjustment--and I know that the people in the Pentagon are trying to make that adjustment. You don't make that adjustment by suddenly coming up with a half a trillion dollars where you don't have a plan, you don't have a strategy, and you end up throwing money at a problem without a plan on how to solve the problem. So I have gone through three things here: one, an NDAA that acts as though the war in Iran is not a war that is having an impact on the American people; No. 2, outsourcing absolutely critical decisions about intelligence sharing and weapon-production sharing that have to be the sole prerogative of the United States, our military, our national security community, and our President; and then, third, the failure to have a coherent plan about the extraordinary adjustments that have to be made in the design of weapons systems of the future. And the fourth point I want to make--and I know this is a topic of great concern to you: How are we going to pay for this? We are adding half a trillion dollars to the deficit, and there is literally-- literally--no discussion about how we are going to pay for it. You know, we have a debate in this body about how to spend money, what the priorities should be. And I will acknowledge that I am on the side of spending more money on domestic efforts. I do think we should help our farmers more. I do believe we should put more into education. I do believe we should put more into scientific research. But when I say we should do that, I am also willing to pay for it. And I do believe we have to have a strong military, but we have to pay for that too. And what we have seen in this Congress is that the folks who want to put more money in the military, they may be willing to pay for it by cutting scientific research, by cutting education, by cutting nutrition benefits for the thousands--millions--of Americans who are struggling to feed their kids and can't do it without the SNAP program. There is a lot of good work that has been done by our committee on a bipartisan basis with many of the provisions--policy provisions--in this NDAA, but we cannot act on the NDAA in a responsible way if, No. 1, we don't address the war; No. 2, we don't absolutely insist on defense and intelligence and production decisions being the sole prerogative of this country and not delegate authority to any other country to interfere with what we believe is in our national security interest. Third, we need a coherent plan to have a production system that focuses on weapons of the future and not legacy weapons of the past that are revered by the defense-industrial complex but are not effective on the battlefield. And, fourth, we have to come to a reckoning that, whether it comes to national defense or even domestic programs, they don't pay for themselves, and we have got to step up and accept that responsibility. For far too long, we have been ignoring it. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, whatever one thinks of the Cuban Government--and I am one who believes its repressive policies and mismanagement of the economy have caused immense hardship for the Cuban people--the depth of misery and desperation people in Cuba are currently experiencing is largely due to the oil blockade, for which the United States is responsible. More than 84 percent of Cuba's total energy supply relies on oil and petroleum products. Cuba's economy is entirely dependent on imported fuel to power its electrical grid, agriculture, and transportation needs, the country typically requiring around 100,000 barrels per day to function normally. Since January 30, the United States has imposed an illegal blockade on oil shipments to Cuba, so the island is entirely dependent on domestic production which consists of heavy, high-sulfur crude that cannot be easily refined. When asked about the humanitarian crisis on the island, where electricity is unavailable most hours of the day and night and hospitals, schools, and factories have all but ceased to function, the Trump administration routinely blames the Cuban authorities. Any objective observer knows that is a convenient oversimplification. Imagine if there was no electricity in this country for lack of access to oil, due to the hostile acts of another government. We would rightly condemn it as an act of war. Cuba is a bankrupt country the size of Virginia that poses no threat to the United States. And today, Cuba's economy has all but collapsed. According to the United Nations, the impact of the oil blockade has been devastating for Cuba's health system. More than 100,000 surgeries have been delayed, including 12,000 pediatric procedures, due to acute shortages of medicines and medical supplies. Survival rates for children with cancer have fallen from 85 percent to 65 percent. That amounts to thousands of children who would otherwise be alive today. More than 2.5 million people are experiencing water shortages--more than one-fifth of the total Cuban population. The national water system is functioning with only 37 percent of the fuel required, and 84 percent of water pumping runs on electricity. Food prices have increased by 18 percent. Energy shortages are disrupting agricultural production, food processing, refrigeration, and distribution. Hunger and malnutrition are widespread. The lack of electricity and water, combined with food shortages, is causing psychological distress and exhaustion, especially among children, the elderly, and caregivers. The streets are overflowing with rotting garbage. The hurricane season is beginning, and rising temperatures are creating conditions for a surge in vector-borne and waterborne diseases when the health system is already stretched to its limits. The bottom line is this: All basic services, from potable water and sanitation to food production and healthcare, are being severely impacted by the lack of fuel and electricity caused by the U.S. oil blockade. The energy crisis is also limiting the ability of the UN and other humanitarian agencies to deliver aid already committed, with dozens of containers of food and medical supplies reportedly still sitting in ports due to the lack of fuel. The UN's Plan of Action to respond to the crisis is only 21 percent funded. The U.S. has offered $100 million through private mechanisms like the Catholic Church, but it has not yet been delivered. We would all like to see a better government in Cuba, one that cares more about the Cuban people than in holding onto power and enriching themselves. I would say the same about other corrupt, undemocratic governments, including some we treat as partners. But the American people have always opposed using food and medicine as a weapon. That has been a bedrock principle that Republican and Democratic administrations, and the Congress, have reaffirmed over decades. By cutting off the oil, we are imposing collective punishment on Cuba's most vulnerable people. Children and the elderly are dying needlessly. I urge Secretary of State Rubio to consider the human cost of the administration's oil blockade. It is illegal. It is immoral. It is preventable. And it is beneath this country.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I strongly support the resolution offered by my colleagues Senator Cortez Masto and Senator Kaine. This resolution requires a report from the State Department on the human rights practices of the Government of Honduras during the very corrupt Presidency of Juan Orlando Hernandez and a report on steps the United States has taken to promote human rights and to bring drug traffickers and criminals in Honduras to justice. During former President Hernandez's time in office, the United States--our taxpayers--provided hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to Honduras, including to the Honduran security forces. So the information requested in this resolution is directly relevant to Congress' oversight responsibilities. We have an obligation to make certain that taxpayer dollars are served in the purpose of the United States and our citizens. There is no reason why the State Department should not do this oversight. According to U.S. Federal prosecutors, Mr. Hernandez--the former two- term President of Honduras--was at the center of one of the largest and most violent drug trafficking conspiracies in the entire world. Mr. Hernandez used the Honduran military and he used the Honduran police to arrest, to imprison, to torture, and in some cases to murder his political opponents and independent journalists who challenged and exposed the rampant corruption and abuses of his government. In March 2024, a U.S. Federal jury in Manhattan found Mr. Hernandez guilty of three charges: conspiring to import tons of cocaine into the United States, using and carrying machine guns and destructive devices to advance that trafficking conspiracy, and conspiring to use such weapons. He was sentenced to 45 years' imprisonment and was fined $8 million. Mr. Hernandez claimed that he was the victim of ``political persecution,'' but there has been absolutely no credible evidence to support that fraudulent claim. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. Far from being treated unfairly, Mr. Hernandez was afforded every right of due process and a fair trial available to criminal defendants under our system of justice. Astonishingly and to my dismay, on December 1, 2025, Mr. Hernandez received a full and complete pardon from President Trump. Mr. Hernandez is free because of President Trump's pardon, but he does remain a convicted felon. The resolution we are voting on today calls for a full accounting of the Hernandez administration's violations of human rights and connections--direct connections--with drug traffickers, the corruption of government officials, and the involvement in torture, murder, and other crimes of violence. It also requires an assessment of the likelihood that U.S. aid to the Honduran security forces was used to support activities related to drug trafficking and related crimes. None of us want our foreign aid to be used for drug running. This is information the State Department has access to and that Congress and the American people, as well as the people of Honduras, have every right to know. Again, there is absolutely nothing partisan or controversial about this resolution. All of us--all of us--are against corruption. All of us demand accountability of foreign aid that is financed by taxpayers. All of us want to bring to justice those who commit crimes that involve drugs that cause so much damage to the men and women and the young people in all of our States. I commend the Senators from Nevada and Virginia for offering the resolution, and I urge its adoption. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, 103 days ago, President Trump started a war, a war with Iran. He started it. It was a unilateral decision he made based on the Venezuela model, where he would be in and out. It would be over quickly, as he said. It hasn't worked out that way. This war is illegal and unconstitutional. And, in my view, it is a shameful moment in the history of this U.S. Senate where, even though this war is into its fourth month, this body--which is invested with the authority under article I to declare war--has not even had a vote on whether this war is authorized. But I also want to point out what the problems are that the American people are experiencing as a result of this war. First of all, none of the President's goals have been met. He was going to decapitate the regime, and it was going to be regime change. Failed. He was going to end the missile program. Failed. And he was going to get rid of the nuclear material. Failed. What did happen is that the Strait of Hormuz has been closed, and that fact is creating immense economic hardship on people across this country and really around the world. Americans who were already struggling to make ends meet--ironically struggling at a time when our economy, in some ways, has never been stronger--they say the cost of living is getting worse and worse. And, of course, that is, No. 1, due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. It has put immense pressure on our farming and food production system, leading to long-term price increases. And what we are hearing is that it is going to be a 4.2 percent inflation, when a year ago it was 2.4 inflation. So folks showing up to the grocery store, they are going to be paying 19 percent more for ground beef, 50 percent more for tomatoes compared to last year. Rising diesel and fertilizer costs could spell disaster for many farms. We are seeing more and more farm foreclosures. This is a real pressure in Vermont, but it is a pressure that is already all around our country. And, as you know, Mr. President, higher oil prices also translate directly into higher energy costs and burdens, and it is especially true for rural households. Rural America uses about 14 percent more energy and spend a higher share of their income on home energy costs than those in urban areas. So that really affects all of us who serve rural constituencies, and that definitely is true in Vermont. Also, plastic products that are made of oil have spiked 40 percent, and that price change has--or will very soon--be passed on to our consumers. So this is really costing everyday people a lot more. And even before the start of the war, rural households were already spending nearly $600 more per year on gas than folks in urban areas. They have to drive to get to wherever it is they are going: to work, their child's school, to a hockey practice, everything. You have got to get on the road. And let's not forget about what is happening with air travel. It is a real crisis. United Airlines is predicting that airlines could increase ticket prices by as much as 20 percent in response to the current oil market dynamics. It is putting a real squeeze on jet fuel. President Trump brushes these concerns off. You know, what he says inexplicably is: Once you explain that this is all about Iran having a nuclear weapon, people are willing to pay a little bit more. And he also asserted that gas prices are going to drop at the pump ``very quickly.'' Well, that is simply not true. And also this plan about this military engagement that he is involved with, along with Prime Minister Netanyahu, is not having the intended goal of getting rid of the nuclear stockpile and material that Iran has. Last year, the average household in Chittenden County--I want to get back to the cost--home to Burlington, which is our State's largest city, paid around $1,800 in gas. As a direct result of this war and the closure of the Strait, that is going to go up to 2,300 bucks a year. That is $500 more. And many commuters in our State and others have changed their daily routines. They have got to change the way they live their lives because they have got to scrimp and save so they can afford the gas. And oftentimes they are staying home rather than going out. Dennis, a retired doctor in Vermont, even said: We're definitely driving less now. You know, we shouldn't impose these kind of decisions on Americans for a pointless and destructive war. It is not doing us any good and causing us a lot of pain. But President Trump has repeatedly shown that he has no qualms about doing this. He says: I don't think about Americans' financial situation. I believe him. He doesn't think about it. Because any of us who are thinking about it know that Americans' financial situation has deteriorated as a result of this war. You know, I think the President and all of us who serve here, our No. 1 priority should be finding ways to make American lives better and more affordable. That is not what the President says is his goal. So while the President isn't thinking about this affordability challenge, let me tell you who is, and it is Vermonters. It is people in your State, Mr. President. Herbie in South Burlington said: Honestly, gas prices are ridiculous. It's just way too much to fill up. We're barely saving anything, maybe 50 bucks a month. With prices of gas and food and everything else going up, we've eaten through our savings. Creating enormous economic insecurity. David, a Vermonter who works in the construction industry, said: It's painful to the pocketbook. Sarah, a substitute teacher in Burlington said about the increase in gas prices: It's definitely going to be a new budget item, in a different category. Ryan Bellavance the president of Bellavance Trucking, a revered small business in our State, operates a fleet of nearly 100 trucks based out of Barre said: It's gonna to be fine until the people stop buying, you know? And then everything comes to a halt. That is down the road and not that far down the road. You know, this war, this march to war in the Middle East, has also pushed affordable air travel out of reach. The closure of the strait means that airlines are facing up to $24 billion in additional fuel expenses this year, a cost which will be directly passed on to consumers. For airlines to break even, an increase of $1 a gallon on jet fuel is the equivalent of a $50-per-roundtrip-ticket increase for flying passengers. And we are not talking about the future. In April, every single major U.S. airline raised checked baggage fees. Spirit Airlines--which many Americans relied on for more affordable travel--met its demise. But we need more than predictions. The American people deserve transparency about how the skyrocketing jet fuel prices will impact their wallets in the coming weeks and months. I partnered with my colleagues from Illinois Senator Duckworth and Connecticut Senator Blumenthal in writing a letter to Airlines for America--whose members include major carriers like Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, FedEx, JetBlue, Southwest, United, and UPS--seeking information about the measures that airlines plan to take in response to these higher jet fuel costs and how rising prices will hurt our broader air travel industry. And by the way, one of the threats to our air travel industry is service that goes to rural airports. The essential service that is so vital to the well-being of the economies of rural parts of Vermont and rural parts of America. But what is really close to my heart is what has happened to America's farm country. Vermont's farmers and producers, who are already contending with incredible economic challenges as a result of the trade war and the tariffs, are now struggling to figure out how they are going to pay, literally, the highest diesel prices since 2022. And to make matters worse, we are now in planting season. That means that farmers now have to spend at least $350 more per day just for a full run of one of their tractors. They use a lot of fuel and it is diesel fuel and diesel is expensive. And by the way, diesel prices already make up more than 60 percent of the fuel costs for farm operations. Lindsey Brand of the Northeastern Organic Farming Association of Vermont said it best: Diesel fuel powers some farm equipment and the trucks to transport food. We've heard from some farms that distribute regionally that trucking costs have doubled since the Strait closed. The war has also surged the price of fertilizer--including urea, which is what most farmers use for their crops--to 27 percent higher than it was before the war. No matter which way you look at it, the war in Iran has been a disaster on all fronts. It has nowhere near come close to achieving its goals, and there are no negotiations going on. Essentially, there is a dance. It is about trying to do face-saving for Trump. But also, economically, it has had an immediate and wicked impact on families that are already struggling to afford essentials as a result of the affordability crisis. You add this to the trade war, to the tariffs, to the loss of markets, and it is a grim situation. We can change it. We have got to end the war. And we have got a dilemma here. The President actually does want a negotiated outcome, but his partner in this war, President Netanyahu, wants to intensify the war. We should end this war through diplomacy. The goals we seek will not be accomplished through military means. They must be achieved through diplomacy. We have to come to grips with the reality that this war continues to escalate the incredible pressure that our families, our farmers, our industries, our small businesses are facing. We have got to bring it to an end. We have got to get inflation down. We have got to make America more affordable. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank my colleague from Kansas for making beautiful remarks about a beautiful person. Thank you, Senator.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, my predecessor Senator Patrick Leahy is known for many groundbreaking pieces of legislation over the course of his 48 years in the Senate. But he was also responsible for many initiatives that are not so well known, and I want to speak briefly about one of them. From 1989 until his retirement in 2023, Senator Leahy served as either chairman or ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs which among other things funds U.S. assistance around the world. During those years, he built a record of strong support for programs to protect tropical forests and endangered species, which are under siege from illegal logging, mining, industrial scale agriculture, urban encroachment, and wildlife poaching and trafficking. One of those programs established by Senator Leahy was to protect our closest ancestors, the four species of great apes: orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos. Each of these species faces the threat of extinction in the wild due to habitat loss and poaching. Some are killed for meat; others are captured and sold as pets. On the islands of Borneo and Sumatra, the only places where orangutans live, the rainforests are being cut down at a furious pace to make way for vast palm oil plantations. Habitat loss and poaching are similarly threatening the survival of the other three species of great apes in Africa. By the end of President Trump's first term, funding to protect great apes had reached $45 million annually. The funds were administered by USAID and used by nongovernment organizations in Indonesia, Rwanda, Tanzania, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo for anti-poaching initiatives and strengthening law enforcement in local biological reserves and along international borders; promoting sustainable land use and forest management to safeguard areas critical to great apes; and working with local villagers to develop sustainable livelihoods and reduce reliance on poaching or destructive agricultural practices. USAID also partnered with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through its Great Apes Conservation Fund, which provided grants for field projects in Africa and Indonesia. In addition, the State Department's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs has supported programs to strengthen the capacity of local law enforcement in Africa and Asia to combat wildlife trafficking and the money laundering, corruption, and violent crime associated with it. While these efforts have helped stem the precipitous decline in the numbers of great apes, their survival in the wild remains far from assured. Transnational criminal organizations, catering to a rapacious Asian market for wildlife parts, are reaping huge profits from the illegal wildlife trade. These organizations are often also involved in trafficking drugs, weapons, and human beings. The ever-increasing demand for timber, minerals, and food in Asia, Africa, and Latin America is destroying wildlife habitat at an alarming rate. Rainforests are being transformed into polluted wastelands from mining, massive farms of oil palm and soybeans, and grazing land for cattle. Great apes, which like many species need large areas to forage for food, are being squeezed from all directions. Despite the administration's disastrous decision to shut down USAID and destroy the careers of thousands of talented and dedicated USAID employees, Congress has continued to provide funding to protect endangered species, including great apes. But the amount of funding has been sharply reduced, and it remains to be seen whether the State Department will manage the funds in the manner intended by Congress. Orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos are the only existing examples of our earliest apelike ancestors who first began walking upright nearly 4 million years ago. Despite having existed for millions of years and sharing 97 percent of our DNA, great apes today are entirely dependent on us for survival. I have urged the Appropriations Committee to increase funding for great ape conservation while there is still time to protect them from extinction. I also urge the State Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to recognize what is at stake and to resume and significantly expand their efforts to protect great ape habitat and combat poaching and trafficking. And finally, I urge the leaders of Indonesia and the central African countries that are home to great apes to recognize their unique responsibility to ensure the survival of these animals by protecting their forest habitat; greatly strengthening enforcement of anti- trafficking laws; supporting programs to rescue, rehabilitate, and return to the wild great apes that have been trafficked; and educating their people about the need to protect great apes and the forests they depend on.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, when the Senate considers the reconciliation bill, S. 2, it is my intention to make the following motions to the bill: A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, Forestry to provide relief is for farmers affected by increased costs of fertilizer, fuel, and other input costs as a result of the Iran War. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, Forestry to promote research into reducing reliance on foreign-produced agricultural inputs. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, Forestry to reduce inflated farm input costs to support United States agricultural production. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, Forestry to make strong investments in rural communities, including improvements to water and wastewater infrastructure, energy efficiency, business development, and high-speed internet infrastructure. A motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs to ensure that $31.75 billion is available to FEMA to implement climate and resiliency programs A motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs to ensure that $31.75 billion is available to FEMA to accelerate the delivery of disaster response and mitigation assistance to rural communities. A motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs to ensure that $31.75 billion is available to FEMA to increase the capacity of rural communities to better respond to natural disasters. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 1 day, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that-- provide funding for rural communities detrimentally impacted by a significant reduction in international tourism during the 2025 and 2026 calendar years. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 1 day, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that-- require CBP to prioritize providing tariff refunds to small businesses first. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 1 day, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that--to provide relief for tariff- related cost increases to household staples, such as food and paperware. A motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Judiciary with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 1 day, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that--prohibit the use of intrusive electronic and facial recognition surveillance tools by federal immigration agencies. A motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 1 day, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in session, with changes that--prohibit the use of generative Artificial Intelligence tools by immigration agents to write incident reports related to their interactions with civilians. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to prevent the Secretary of Energy from using emergency authorities to order uneconomical fossil fuel power plants to continue operating at ratepayer expense, which may include uneconomical coal-fired power plants scheduled for retirement. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to prevent utilities from allocating to residential consumers the costs primarily incurred to serve large load interconnection. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to prohibit the Secretary of Energy from approving liquified natural gas exports that have been determined to increase energy prices in the U.S. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance to lower the price of energy by extending the Investment and Production Tax Credits for solar and wind projects through 2032. A motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Judiciary with instructions to limit the use of FBI Director luxury travel. A motion to commit the bill to the committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs with instructions to ensure that DHS is complying with all IG investigations. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions to reallocate funds appropriated under this bill to support community health centers.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, ever since the capture of Nicolas Maduro, the Trump administration has been ratcheting up pressure on Cuba in the hope that Cuba's leaders will either capitulate or the Cuban people will rise up and overthrow them. Three months ago President Trump said: Cuba is going to fall pretty soon . . . They want to make a deal so badly . . . and we'll see how that works out. Like so many of the President's apocalyptic predictions, there is no sign the administration wants to negotiate a deal, and Cuba has not fallen. Instead, the United States oil blockade, which if the tables were turned every one of us would denounce as an illegal act of war, has absolutely paralyzed Cuba's economy. It has plunged the Cuban people into darkness and to misery. Then on May 20, the Department of Justice announced that it had indicted former Cuban President Raul Castro who is 95. Another U.S. aircraft carrier group has been sent to the Caribbean. The writing on the wall is unmistakable. President Trump is tiptoeing up to leading us into another reckless war, this time with Cuba. Cuba is a bankrupt country. It is smaller than Virginia. It has neither the capacity nor intention to threaten the United States. And even before the Trump administration cut off the oil, Cuba's economy was barely functioning. Today, electricity is unavailable for most hours of the day and night across the entire island. So this means that hospitals, schools, factories, food production have ground to a halt. Havana's streets are overflowing with garbage. The country is facing economic collapse literally, and the United States is complicit in that. In fact, that is the point of the U.S. actions. By causing Cuba's economy to collapse and leaving millions of innocent Cubans without enough food or access to medical care, the White House hopes to create a ``national security emergency.'' It seeks to justify regime change, including, if necessary, using military force. President Trump has repeatedly threatened to use force against Cuba. Without any legal justification he has said: [I]t may be a friendly takeover, it may not be a friendly takeover. Wouldn't really matter because they are really down to . . . fumes. They have no energy, they have no money. You know, the reason Cuba is ``down to fumes'' is due to its own government's repressive failed policies and because of the United States oil blockade. But no American President under any circumstances, friendly or unfriendly, should threaten to take over another sovereign nation that poses no imminent or credible threat to our country. And no U.S. Congress should condone such flagrant misuse of military power. You know, there is plenty of blame to go around for how we got to this point. Cuba's leaders whose priority is holding on to power systematically violate the rights of the Cuban people and align themselves ideologically with some of the world's worst regimes. The Cuban military's corrupt grip on the economy has practically ruined the economy, and that is on Cuban leadership. But for our part, the United States has tried to overthrow the Cuban government by armed invasion, by assassination, financing Cuban dissidents, and imposing a web of punitive sanctions with extraterritorial reach. Yet after 65 years, the U.S. embargo has not achieved any of its goals. Instead, it has contributed to the daily suffering of the innocent Cuban people. There is no doubt that political and economic changes in Cuba are long overdue. Neither is sufficient by itself. The Cuban people, 90 percent of whom were born after the 1959 revolution, want leaders who accept the need for fundamental changes in how to govern, with greater participation of the people, greater transparency, greater freedom, and real accountability. But attacking Cuba would be another reckless and illegal use of United States military power. And no matter what hyperbolic or false accusations are used as a pretext for attacking Cuba, Cuba poses no credible threat to the United States. Instead of starting another unnecessary war, the United States and Cuba can and must negotiate a deal that puts United States national interests and the needs and aspirations of the Cuban people first. And, you know, the elements of the deal are pretty obvious. On the United States side, President Trump needs to end restrictions on travel by Americans to Cuba--many Vermonters, when that was allowed, went to Cuba, many Americans did--and should support Cuba's struggling private sector. We should support that. The President should remove Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. That has no credible legal or factual basis, and no other country agrees with us on that designation. And it should also, the administration, call on Congress to repeal the failed embargo so that reconstruction can begin. On the Cuban side, Cuba's leaders' only choice is to make a deal. They are staring, literally, at the barrel of a gun. They need to end the military's control of the economy. They need to take steps for American companies to invest in Cuba and help rebuild the country's broken infrastructure. Cuba's leaders must release all political dissidents and accept the right of the Cuban people to express themselves freely and without fear of persecution. If President Trump and Cuba's leaders take these steps, they could finally put the last vestige of the Cold War in this hemisphere behind us. But that, regrettably, is not where President Trump is leading us. And like Maduro, Cuba's leaders have always cared more about their own privileges and power than the welfare of the Cuban people. Nobody here or in Cuba should be under any illusions. An unauthorized, unjustified, reckless war with Cuba is where we are headed. The United States has one playbook that fits all, and that is its approach to dealing with regimes that it doesn't like: pile on the economic sanctions, threaten to wipe them off the face of the Earth, and when that fails, attack. There is no plan B if things don't go as predicted, no plan for what comes next, and no plan for how to pay for it. A United States invasion of Cuba with warplanes and missiles and Special Forces would pose real risks for the United States, for our troops, and for the Cuban people. It almost certainly would not be a repeat of the swift capture of Maduro. More likely, Cuba's leaders, sworn and determined to defend their failed revolution, would not give up easily. The fighting could go on for weeks or months. And assuming they would all eventually flee or be captured or killed, who would govern Cuba? Who would prevent the country from descending into lawlessness and becoming a haven for transnational criminals? Who would be responsible for public services? There is no Cuban Delcy Rodriguez, nor any organized political opposition. The American people would be saddled with the immense cost of providing security and rebuilding Cuba from the ground up, while millions of Cubans would likely abandon the island to seek refuge in the United States. The American people overwhelmingly do not want a war with Cuba, especially not after the costly, ill-conceived debacle in Iran, which has defied all the administration's rosy predictions. Rather than causing more suffering and more chaos in Cuba and triggering yet another refugee crisis 90 miles from Florida, President Trump could make history through effective--effective--deal making, not by a violent takeover financed by American taxpayers. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I ask time used by Democratic speakers during today's session count towards the bill S. 2.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, on June 10, Vermont and Canada will come together to celebrate the inauguration of a new entryway on the Canadian side of the Haskell Free Library and Opera House, a building that straddles the U.S.-Canada border. For 200 years, Derby Line, Vermont, and Stanstead, Quebec, have functioned as one community. Citizens of the United States and Canada--but born in the same hospital, colleagues in the same factory, and teammates on the same sports teams. They even drink the same water. They also shared the same cultural center, the Haskell Free Library and Opera House. A surveyor's error in 1771 mistakenly mapped the border between Quebec and Vermont roughly \3/4\ mile north of the 45th parallel, and the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842 finalized the physical coordinates, cementing the original surveying error in place, somewhat arbitrarily dividing properties and roads between the U.S. and Canada. For over a century, the Haskell Free Library and Opera House has stood as a symbol of lasting goodwill and mutual friendship. Since 1903, this small but mighty beacon of bi-nationalism has been welcoming people in from both sides of the border with nothing more than a strip of black tape on the floor to demarcate the international border, allowing both Canadian and U.S. citizens to enter the library through the U.S. door in Derby Line, VT. Where else can you see a theater production in which much of the audience is seated in one country, while the performers onstage are in another? While it has been a challenging period of shared history that brought us to this moment, we celebrate the continuation of the library's commitment to continue sharing municipal services and resources such as this one, just as Martha Stewart Haskell had originally envisioned. The municipalities of Stanstead and Derby Line, located in Quebec and Vermont, are committed to community collaboration in all of its forms. June 10 will be a celebration of what we here in the Northeast do best: embrace community, and embrace collaboration--especially between neighbors. Thank you to all of the members of this very special bilateral community who are working together to help make this happen.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, like citizens in Ohio, Vermonters like to work hard. They get up each day and face the day, and they don't fear hard work. They are glad to do that to protect their families and to improve their communities. But, you know, they work hard, but they don't like paying for wasteful things, and right now, President Trump is demanding--demanding--$1 billion to build an East Wing, which, by the way, is an East Wing that he destroyed. He tore it down. Now he has promised Americans that he will rebuild it and that it will be through private contributions, but he is asking--demanding, really--the U.S. Congress to spend $1 billion to rebuild what he destroyed. Vermonters don't like that at all. It has been said that a budget does reflect our shared values, not the personal preferences of any one individual, including the President of the United States. So let's just talk about some of the other ways $1 billion could be spent that would have a significant benefit to Vermonters who are working hard, who are paying their bills, and who care about their community. With $1 billion, we could extend the ACA premium tax credits--that you and I worked on, by the way--to make healthcare more affordable for 30,000 Vermonters. With $1 billion, we could provide really important title I funding, which helps rural and underserved schools in Vermont, for 23 years. With $1 billion, we could provide $153,000 in relief for every single one of our 6,537 farms, which are all struggling. With $1 billion, we could provide a $12,000 small business loan-- small businesses being really essential to Vermont--to all 82,000 Vermont small businesses. With $1 billion, we could restore the SNAP Program for every Vermonter who has been kicked off nutrition assistance because of the Trump tax bill. Mr. President, 4,547 Vermonters have lost what we call 3Squares. Terrible. With $1 billion, we could fund the Women, Infants, and Children benefits for Vermonters for 147 years. With $1 billion, we could provide childcare for every child under 5 in Vermont for a year and a half. With $1 billion, we could fund the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, in Vermont for 50 years. This vital program provides home heating and cooling aid for more than 26,000 Vermonters. With $1 billion, we could help provide $50,000 loans to 20,000 Vermonters who have been impacted by flooding or other natural disasters in the past 3 years. With $1 billion, we could support FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund, which is operating in immediate-needs-funding status, meaning everything is precarious. As I mentioned, if you want to show me your values, show me your budget. This reconciliation budget bill, which adds billions of dollars to an already bloated ICE budget and CBP budget with absolutely no reforms and no oversight and gives hundreds of millions of dollars-- potentially $1 billion--to President Trump's ballroom, is a statement of values. This $1 billion won't help communities or families from Barre, VT, to Biloxi, MS. You know, I want to give just a straightforward, rhetoric-free reading of just a few headlines we saw this week alone. This is the world we are in, and it reflects how the administration is spending its time and resources. The Washington Post: ``Millions expected to lose Affordable Care Act coverage as costs spike.'' Associated Press: ``Under Congressional Scrutiny, Blanche Defends Nearly $1.8 [Billion] Fund to Pay Trump Allies.'' The Washington Post: ``EPA wants to repeal limits on `forever chemicals' in drinking water.'' The Associated Press: ``Trump distorts recent revisions of scientific projections of global warming.'' The Washington Post: ``Health worker shortage will worsen with federal loan limit.'' NOTUS: ``Trump's Latest White House Makeover Includes a Helipad.'' The New York Times: ``Deported Despite DACA: Dreamers Face Uncertainty Under Trump.'' The President of the United States has been clear: He is choosing a go-it-alone approach on his ballroom, he wants to fund ICE and CBP on a partisan basis with none of the reforms so many Americans are demanding, and he is going to totally bypass regular order and any hope of a bipartisan budget. It is really a waste of taxpayer dollars. The folks that you represent and I represent, who are willing to work hard, who are willing to pay their fair share, really wonder: Why are we spending $1 billion on a ballroom? I yield the floor.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague the senior Senator from Connecticut, and I too want to join him in commenting on the Callais decision. And I want to put the decision also in a context of what the Supreme Court has been doing consistently since at least Bush v. Gore, and that is, on the one hand, they have been stripping the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate--the legislative body--of their legislative powers. On the other hand, they have been extending unprecedented extension of powers to the executive. It is a threat to democracy. The Supreme Court is doing real damage to everyday people in all of our country by upsetting the constitutional order of the separation of powers in coequal branches of government. Let me talk a little bit about the Callais decision. You know, I was inspired to get involved in politics, in public service, by the civil rights movement in the sixties. In 1967, I dropped out of college. I hitchhiked to Chicago, and I began working against housing discrimination against African-American citizens on the West Side of Chicago. And it was amazing to me two things: one, how much of the discrimination they suffered was legal. A veteran who served in World War II, if he was Black, could not get a mortgage. Banks were allowed to redline districts where it meant nobody who lived in them--and they were Black neighborhoods--could even get a mortgage. It was legal. But what I was also astonished by and aspired by, as I am to this day, was the generosity, the resilience, and the determination of people who were on the receiving end of what, in effect, was Jim Crow discrimination to forge ahead, to help each other, and to make changes. The civil rights struggle in that decade culminated with the legal protections delivered by the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court's recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais literally turns the clock back on that hard-won progress. Already--already--in an instant, States from Louisiana to South Carolina to Tennessee have called for redistricting ahead of the midterm elections in 6 months. And hundreds of thousands--if not millions--of voters are being impacted by this decision. In addition, in my view, being wrong on the merits and incredibly damaging, the Supreme Court's decision is the latest example of what the Court is doing that is, in fact, eroding our democracy. A trail of decisions has led us to this remarkable moment. Look at what has happened over just the last decade and a half. In 2010, Citizens United, the Supreme Court opened the door to unlimited gargantuan sums of money in our elections. Money is speech. And, of course, what has happened is that, literally, billionaires dominate funding for elections. And it is not about what the country needs; it is about what they want. In 2013, in Shelby County v. Holder, the Court removes the Federal oversight of potentially discriminatory State voting restrictions that threatened the access to the ballot itself. Since that decision, States have added nearly 100 restrictive voting right laws. In 2018, Rucho v. Common Cause, the Court refused to act on partisan--wildly partisan--gerrymandering. And by the way, both parties have engaged in that. So I am condemning that radical gerrymandering, regardless of which party uses it for their own advantage. But now, across the country, in light of this recent decision, we are literally seeing a race to the bottom where Members of Congress--pardon me--where members of State legislatures, with the assent of many Members of Congress, are choosing their voters by this radical gerrymandering on a partisan basis where the goal is to get your side elected and to do that by picking your voters. And then we are seeing the spectacle of redistricting every 2 years instead of every 10 years. It is stripping away the right of the voters to be the ones picking their leaders, as opposed to the leaders picking their voters. And, of course, in 2024, Trump v. United States, that decision defied our 250 years of history which said that no person, including the President of the United States, was above the law. Every single one of these decisions by the Court has made our democracy less democratic. And now this Court's decision in Callais can be added to that really damaging list. The Court has gutted section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as passed by Congress, making it exceedingly difficult for plaintiffs to prove discrimination. They have to prove ``intent''--impossible burden with 535 Members and every one may have a different intent. They have to disregard, now, the actual impact of the map that is put together by partisan State legislators. The Court decision has also given the green light for States to reduce the electoral role that minorities have played in our democracy, unraveling one of the last opportunities for minorities to elect people of their choice. Let me go through a few of the States. In Louisiana, a third of the population is African American. Joe Biden won 40 percent of the vote there. Yet after Callais, Louisiana has proposed a map that won't even come close to one-third representation for African Americans--and by the way, that might be a Republican or a Democrat; it is the voters' choice. There will only be one Black Representative out of six House Members. The Supreme Court knows exactly what it is doing. By blessing partisan gerrymandering while gutting the Voting Rights Act, the Roberts Court has completed the mission of the Jim Crow laws in the South: removing the ability of elected representatives to be Representative of and responsive to those they represent. Equally concerning, partisan gerrymandering all but guarantees that the politicians will choose who wins elections--not the people of their State and their district. They are picking their voters. This is a race to the bottom that is detrimental to the country and should be rejected by both parties. It is very concerning to me as well how the legislative branch, by its passivity, has allowed this to happen. Under the Constitution, the Congress--as I mentioned, the branch most responsive to the will of the people--is supposed to be the counterweight against the other branches of government. But as Congress has stood on the sidelines, the executive branch, aided by the Supreme Court, has unleashed the unrestrained power in our campaign financing system of billionaires to play an oversized role--a decisive role--to select their own political elite. But the outcome of Callais is not just about the degradation of our democracy. The Supreme Court reached its judgment based on its own individual assessment of the protections that were codified by the judgment of Congress that recognized and protected against racial discrimination in voting. Congress said those protections continue to be necessary. The Supreme Court casually blew that off and said: No, they are not necessary. Now the Supreme Court has overruled Congress on a question of policy which was within the purview of this institution to make. Congress has reauthorized the Voting Rights Act five times in recognition of the need to prevent voting discrimination in this country. And despite such clear instruction, the Court has still taken it upon itself to encroach upon Congress' prerogative by requiring victims of racially discriminatory gerrymandering to prove that States had a discriminatory motive--an impossible task to prove, even when the impact is absolutely clear. Justice Kagan, dissenting from the Callais decision, put it plainly: [The Voting Rights Act] was born of the literal blood of Union soldiers and civil rights marchers. It ushered in awe- inspiring change, bringing this Nation closer to fulfilling the ideals of democracy and racial equality. And it has been repeatedly, and overwhelmingly, reauthorized by the people's representatives in Congress. Only they have the right to say it is no longer needed-not the Members of this Court. It is incumbent on us that we, as Congress, reassert our authority to make judgments about what is best in terms of access to the ballot. My view, by the way, is that this race to the bottom is going to be a killer for our democracy, and I believe both parties should renounce radical partisan gerrymandering, and I believe both parties should support eliminating these every 2-year redistrictings that all have, as their stated goal, advantaging one party over the other. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, multiple press articles and reports by human rights organizations, as well as United Nations human rights investigators, have documented widespread acts of horrific sexual violence against prisoners in the Middle East over many years. These articles and these reports describe--often in graphic, gruesome detail--a consistent pattern of sexual abuse corroborated by multiple sources and in some cases with shocking photographs and videos posted on social media by the perpetrators themselves. These allegations amount to gross violations of human rights, including torture, and if committed by members of foreign military and police forces that receive training or equipment from the United States, they are sanctionable under U.S. law--the Leahy Law. In Egypt, allegations of acts of systemic sexual violence against prisoners are not new. The allegations have been the subject of reports, including by U.S. and Egyptian human rights organizations and the Department of State, for many years. We also know that Hamas militants who invaded Israel on October 7, 2023, committed absolutely brutal acts of sexual violence, including gang rape, against Israelis during the attack and against Israeli hostages. On May 12, a team of Israeli researchers released a report which concluded that sexual violence by Hamas militants against women and men was ``systematic, widespread and integral'' to the attack. Many of us have condemned those barbaric crimes and called for justice for the Israeli victims. I personally still have vivid memories of hearing personally of the horrors of these attacks from Israeli victims who bravely came and spoke to Members of the U.S. Senate. There is also extensive evidence, both before and after October 7, of a pattern of sexual violence against Palestinian prisoners by Israeli security forces. Allegations of such abuses in Israeli prisons are not new, but they have sharply increased since October 7. So have reports of widespread abuses and killings of Palestinian civilians by Israeli soldiers and acts of violence, including sexual assault and murder by Israeli settlers which reportedly continue to this day. I will not repeat the gruesome details of the attacks reportedly committed against Palestinian prisoners by Israeli soldiers, but I do urge my colleagues, as uncomfortable as it may be, to read the articles by Nicholas Kristof in the May 11 New York Times entitled ``The Horror of Sexual Assault in Israeli Prisons,'' and ``The Silence That Meets the Rape of Palestinians.'' The heinous acts that were described to him by former prisoners and witnesses, if proven in a court of law, would warrant decades-long prison sentences. Despite overwhelming evidence, Egyptian authorities and Hamas officials have denied that forces under their command have sexually assaulted prisoners. Likewise, Israeli authorities, including Prime Minister Netanyahu, while rightly condemning Hamas's acts of sexual violence, dismissed out of hand the reports of similar acts by Israeli soldiers as fabrications. The fact is that these are not isolated reports, nor are victims of sexual violence prone to voluntarily invite the public scrutiny and profound embarrassment that comes with describing being subjected to these types of humiliating mistreatment. Every year, Egypt and Israel receive more military aid paid for by American taxpayers than any other countries, and that is by far. Yet neither of their governments, nor our own, have shown the slightest concern about addressing longstanding allegations of the widespread use of sexual violence against prisoners in their custody. That is unacceptable. It must change. American taxpayer funds are directly supporting foreign military units that have been credibly implicated in rape and other abhorrent acts of sexual violence. The United States has long embraced in its foreign policy the protection of human rights. It is at the heart of the Leahy Law passed by this U.S. Senate. That law directs the Secretary of State to investigate credible reports of human rights abuses. In light of the credible reports of gross human rights abuses, I call upon the Secretary of State to act, to investigate, and to abide by the provisions of the Leahy Law. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, there is now widespread and growing use of ``buy now, pay later.'' The reason families are doing that is to buy things like school clothing, not some incidental that is a discretionary expense. The reason ``buy now, pay later'' is so much increasing in demand is because people are really broke. They are struggling with the high gas prices, they are struggling with record inflation, and at the end of the month, there are more bills than there is money. The people using ``buy now, pay later'' are in every single State of the Union--in West Virginia, in Vermont--and they are good people that we care about and are concerned that the economy is not working for them, and they are struggling with very severe shortages of income. These products can be risky. You know, most of us wouldn't recommend ``buy now, pay later.'' It is much better if you have the money to pay cash and you don't get in a risky situation. But the fact is, this is a necessary tool for some families. Why in the world would we all not want to take the necessary action to protect those vulnerable families from abusive practices? That is what the CFPB did with its rule. I am absolutely mystified--absolutely mystified--that the administration would rescind that because, as I mentioned and as we all know, this is a protection that helps people that each and every one of us represents. I know there is every bit as much concern on the Republican side of the aisle as there is on the Democratic side of the aisle to protect people from getting ripped off, particularly vulnerable people who work full time but can't pay their bills. So the Trump CFPB withdrew this rule, and it obviously sends a clear signal to ``buy now, pay later'' that they can get away with what they want. Vote with us to rescind this rule. I yield the floor. Vote on Motion to Proceed