Peter Welch

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I know of no further debate on the bill.

Mr. WELCH. I ask that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam President, I have ten requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. For the information of the Senate, during Thursday's session, we expect Senator Cruz to make a motion to discharge S.J. Res. 89 from the Foreign Relations Committee. We also expect to vote on confirmation of the Meriweather nomination.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam President, the United States had 75 major disaster declarations since July of 2023. Just last week, a flood tore through southern Florida, and it is only a matter of time before another State is hit. This ``natural disaster'' caucus is growing, and it is growing quickly. It is a caucus none of us want to join nor do we ask to join, but instead are forced into it with a single mission: to help our constituents--our communities that have been through unimaginable suffering and pain--to get the resources that they need. Vermonters know all too well the immense toll a natural disaster takes. It takes it on our communities and our economy. Nearly 1 year ago, Vermont experienced nonstop rain over a period of several days. It led to flash flooding, washouts, and mudslides all across our State. It was brutal. Homes and businesses and farms and public infrastructure were damaged, and many were destroyed. It was an all-hands-on-deck moment, and neighbors helped neighbors dig out. From the municipal level to the Federal Government, we tried to help people get back on their feet. And we did get back on our feet, but the damage--if it was your home, if it was your business, if it was your farm--is still lasting. I have come to the Senate many times since the floodwaters receded to share stories of Vermonters. Their stories are of resiliency through hardship. Vermonters have stories of community and grit and determination. And I am proud, of course, of Vermonters, but I believe that this is the case in communities throughout our Nation. But our recovery, despite that, is far from complete. Madam President, I will say it loud, clear, and directly: Vermont needs more recovery money. What happened to these families and to these businesses was an act of nature--no fault of their own--but they deserve a shot to get back on their feet. And as I revisit communities that were hit hard by flooding--places like Barre, Johnson, Hardwick, Montpelier, Ludlow, and Londonderry--it is clear that work to recover from this flood will last for years. There are home and business buyouts that are stalled, farmers who need help, and resiliency projects that need to get done before the next flood comes--and it will be coming. We need supplemental disaster funding, and we really do need it now. The funds need to be flexible so that our communities in Vermont, in Hawaii, in Texas, in Florida, in California, and in other States can use the funds as needed for their recovery to their unique needs. A flood and a fire require different recovery strategies, and that should be reflected in the funding. That is why the community development block grants for disaster recovery are so critical. They are flexible. They are local-led. These funds give the communities the flexibility needed to rebuild and recover, allowing them to prepare for future disasters and safeguard their communities. Senator Schatz has been a fantastic partner in this, and I am thankful for his leadership as subcommittee chair on the Appropriations Committee. Last week, the Joint Economic Committee's Democratic majority released a new report on the economic cost of flooding. The findings are really stunning: Flooding will cost $180 to $496 billion each year. These costs are probably an undercount. They are only a fraction of what our communities truly endure as we recover from a flood. I encourage my colleagues and everyone listening to read this report. See for yourself how climate change is ravaging our economy. There are obvious ways that flooding costs our economy: structural damages to our homes, farms, businesses, schools, transit systems, and more; infrastructure upgrades needed to protect against future flooding; and the direct and indirect commercial impacts from flooding. But then there are the costs that you might not consider: costs associated with flood-related deaths; decreased tax revenues; increases in insurance premiums; and crop loss, among the many other costs. This should be an alarm bell. It should give pause to every one of my colleagues in the Senate and in the House because every State could be the next victim of the severe weather that is all about us as a result of the change in our climate. Vermonters know it all too well. But there is good news. We can do something to mitigate these costs. Another recent analysis found that every $1--$1--spent on flood resiliency efforts saves up to $318 in flood-related damages. It is a pretty good return on investment. And if you want to talk about cost-saving measures, resiliency funding should absolutely be paired with recovery funding for natural disasters. We need to build back in a more resilient way after natural disasters hit, not build back in the same way for it to be done all over again. I was just in Brattleboro on Friday, where I saw a new FEMA-funded floodplain restoration project. It is terrific. A similar project helped downtown Brattleboro avoid damage during the July floods and will hopefully help the community avoid flooding in the future when the rains come again. We cannot rebuild in the same way and in the same place and hope for the best. The reality is that climate change is here, and it is unpredictable. We need to do more to make our homes, farms, and communities more resilient. Gone are the days, by the way, of so-called climate havens. In 2020, ProPublica and the New York Times Magazine published a report that found that in Vermont, Lamoille County, Orange County, Franklin County, and Essex County were the top four counties in the United States to live in to avoid climate change-related crises. I can tell you--as a Vermonter--no longer. Climate change has come to all of Vermont. I am going to keep working with my friends and colleagues, the senior Senator from Vermont Senator Sanders and Representative Balint in the House, to get Vermont the flood recovery funding we need, but I want to do that in partnership with every other Senator and Representative whose districts need flood recovery funding. Congress, in both Chambers and both parties, need to come together to help all our States impacted through a natural disaster. The next natural disaster, be it a flood, a fire, a tornado, or a hurricane, could happen in your State. And as we often say, there but for the grace of God go I. I urge my colleagues to have grace for their fellow Americans and fellow colleagues who need the help now because you never know when your State could be next. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of this legislation. I thank my colleagues, Senator Murray, Senator Booker, and Senator Duckworth. You know, there are two things. One is good news, and one is bad news. I will start with the bad news. We have a terrible U.S. Supreme Court. It will live in infamy for many reasons but none more than an ignominious decision that took away constitutional rights that American citizens enjoyed. They stripped women of their right to choose. Enormously bad consequences. It has created an incentive for folks who have their views to try to impose them on others, and we saw that in Alabama with their effort to prohibit people from having access to in vitro fertilization. But there is good news. The good news: our American families, couples who want to have a child, who are so excited about taking on that challenge of loving this new person and caring for them through their infancy, through their adolescence, looking forward to when they themselves will be grandparents. That is the good news. In 2022, 91,000 infants, through IVF, came into these families, so those couples have that opportunity to have this place to give the love that is within them that they can now express, having this child. That is really the good news here. So, yeah, I am upset about the Supreme Court, but I am so excited about American families that want to make this decision and have IVF as an option for them to be able to realize their dreams of giving love to this new person in the world. Now, our Republican colleagues are saying that this is a show vote so why pay attention to it. Well, you know what, they are right. They are right. It is a vote to show that we want to make certain, with the power of the U.S. Congress, that the decision a family wants to make about trying to conceive through IVF is protected; that they have the capacity to take advantage of the best medicine that is out there to realize that dream that is a dream about life. And what is wrong with showing the people of the United States that each and every one of us in the U.S. Senate wants to not only show that we respect and honor the decision those citizens are making, but with the power invested in us as U.S. Senators, we are going to use the authority of our vote to guarantee they have that right? I yield the floor.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, my colleagues on the Republican side have made the assertion that this legislation would interfere with the independence of the judiciary. That is a serious assertion, and it deserves to be respected and responded to. The judiciary is an absolutely vital branch of government that is independent. It is independent in the process by which it makes decisions that come before it for its decision. That is where it is independent. As much as I disagree with many of the decisions of the Supreme Court, that Court has the right, without interference from Congress, to make the decisions it makes. There is absolutely nothing in this legislation that interferes with the judicial power that the Court alone exercises in considering cases and making decisions--there is absolutely nothing--and to have our colleagues suggest that this legislation would do that is flat-out wrong. What this legislation responds to is the conduct of individual Justices that is, you know, frankly, pretty shocking. You get a call: Hey, there is a yacht that needs you on board. Hey, don't worry about how to get there; we have a private plane. Hey, don't worry--if you didn't come, that seat would be unoccupied. The Justice actually does it. They get on that plane and go, and they get on that yacht. Hey, by the way, we are having a fishing trip. It is in Alaska. It is really cool. Let's go. There is an empty seat. Why don't you come. It is worth $100,000, but it doesn't have to be reported. You know, when we talk about a code of ethics for the Supreme Court-- and these are some of the examples of why it is needed--my constituents from Vermont say: Peter, what are you talking about--a code of ethics? They can get away with that? They can do that? They can take this free trip? It is really, really shocking. You know, my colleague from Connecticut said it right: The Chief Justice has not only the authority but the responsibility to deal with the problems of behavior on his own Court, and he is not doing it. He is not doing it. Another point that my colleagues make that I am in 100 percent agreement with is that we need a Supreme Court that has the credibility and confidence of this country. We face very difficult decisions that are quite contentious and that divide America, and when those are contested and they go to the Court and the Court renders a decision that all of us have to abide by whether we were on the winning side or the losing side, we absolutely must have a Court that has credibility. The credibility has to be, if it is going to be enhanced by the Court, by following codes of conduct and by giving the American people confidence that they are on the level. They are not doing it. These free trips, these private planes, the private yachts--that is just self-serving and, frankly, gross. Who has the opportunity to take those trips in the jobs they do? By the way, this is an important job they have, but it is a job. You know, you do your job. You get your paycheck. You show up for work. You treat the people you work with decently. But you don't have some expectation because of the particular job you have of getting free special trips just because you are ``important.'' That is not part of the deal here. That is not constitutionally protected. That is not anything to do with the independence of the judiciary. That is just about venal, self-serving conduct by people who happen to have a lifetime appointment. The other point here that is really, truly shocking and astonishing is that we have got over 800 judges--circuit court, appellate court, bankruptcy judges--and they have a code of conduct. They can't do this. There are only nine folks who can do it, and they are on the Supreme Court. They should have the highest standards that apply to them, self- imposed. They have no standards. This is the Supreme Court eroding the confidence the public--all of us, whichever side of the decision we are on--is entitled to have from the people who have that lifetime appointment, and they are squandering it. They are turning a blind eye to the needs of the people they serve. This ethics legislation is unfortunately necessary because the Supreme Court will not do what it has the responsibility to do. The Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court will not face down colleagues on that Court who are just disregarding normal rules of decency. So I say to the Presiding Officer and my colleagues and I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: All of us should be doing everything we can to restore confidence in the judiciary. This is step one. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELCH

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

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam President, last Friday, President Biden announced the elements of a proposed plan for a permanent cease-fire in Gaza. If accepted by both Israel and Hamas, the plan would prevent many more months of death and destruction, it would save countless lives, free the hostages, and offer a way forward to lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. In order for the plan to succeed, the President will need to use the leverage that only he has as President, that leverage with Israel, with Egypt, Qatar, Jordan, and others. I believe it will also require a very decisive change in our own policy. After 8 months of relentless bombing and shelling, the United States should stop--should stop--supporting a war strategy that has not only caused massive death and destruction but has failed to achieve either of Prime Minister Netanyahu's key objectives: total victory over Hamas and release of the remaining hostages. Instead, 8 months into this war, Gaza is in ruins, tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed and many more have been injured, including thousands of women and children. Some 100 hostages remain trapped underground. They are subjected to daily abuse by their captors while bombs explode above them with no idea if they will live to see the light of day. And on May 26, Israeli Defense Forces--using munitions provided by the United States--attacked a camp of displaced Palestinians in Rafah, where the Israeli military had ordered them to relocate to avoid bombing in the north. The attack incinerated 45 people and injured many more. Mr. Netanyahu called it a tragic mistake. In reality, it was the gruesome result of an ill-conceived, scorched-earth campaign that has gone on for far too long. For years, Mr. Netanyahu used Hamas as an asset in his very cynical strategy to ensure the Palestinian Authority could not become an effective partner for peace. He steadily expanded Israeli settlements, roads, and other infrastructure in the West Bank to create conditions on the ground to undermine the viability of a Palestinian State. His policies fueled hatred and violence among Israelis and Palestinians. Yet throughout those years, the United States has supported his government unconditionally. The Israeli and Palestinian people are now paying the price for these failed policies. Today, over a million Palestinians in Gaza are suffering from acute hunger. Children are starving. The wounded are dying from lack of medical care. Children with life-threatening injuries cannot leave Gaza to obtain the surgery that they need in other countries. Hundreds of trucks carrying food, medicines, and other aid have been stalled in Egypt. And the sea pier constructed by our Department of Defense, using hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, is in pieces. Despite intensifying criticism around the world, Mr. Netanyahu has responded to his many critics--including Israeli citizens--with reckless defiance. The time will come when the war ends. President Biden announced a plan to achieve through diplomacy what military force has failed to achieve. But whenever that time comes, Gaza will be uninhabitable. Two million Palestinians will be dependent on international aid for years to come. Rather than bringing security and peace to the Middle East, I fear that the legacies of this war could be the opposite: more hatred, regardless of what is left of Hamas, more acts of violence against Israelis and Americans. Last week, Secretary Blinken said Israel must decide if its military actions are worth the cost in civilian lives. I agree. (Ms. Cortez Masto assumed the Chair.) But the United States, not just Israel, must answer this question, too: Is Israel's use of our planes, our tanks, our bombs, our ammunition worth the cost in civilian lives? Is it worth the risk of creating a new generation of terrorists, victims of bombing and shelling who saw their parents, siblings, and friends die, their homes destroyed? Is it worth the lives of the hostages? I believe the answer is no. The United States must stop providing offensive weapons and munitions to a polarizing foreign leader who treats billions of dollars in military aid from American taxpayers as an entitlement while he ignores the appeals of the American officials to stop bombing, shooting, and denying aid to Palestinian civilians. The United States should stop providing offensive weapons and munitions to a foreign leader who promotes policies that are diametrically against U.S. national interests and, by doing so, sets back progress for Middle East peace and puts American lives at risk. The United States should stop supporting a war strategy that has repeated some of our own worst mistakes in Afghanistan and Iraq. The United States also should defend the Geneva Conventions and the international tribunals, including the International Criminal Court. Some here have denounced the chief prosecutor for bringing charges against Prime Minister Netanyahu. There is no equivalence between Israel and Hamas to be sure. But there are credible allegations of violations of the laws of war in Gaza. Attacking the Court plays into the hands of war criminals like Vladimir Putin and weakens our own credibility and the Court's legitimacy. It undermines the universal principle that no one and no government is above the law, a cardinal principle that the United States should strongly defend. The perpetrators of the October 7 massacre must be brought to justice. Such horrendous crimes must not go unpunished. But destroying Rafah is not going to finish off Hamas. It is not going to save the hostages. It may doom them. President Biden has outlined a credible plan for peace. While Israel and Hamas will ultimately decide when this war ends, we, the United States, can decide when it ends for us. Secretary Blinken asked the right question, which should have been asked months ago. The right answer is no. Israel's bombardment of Gaza is not worth the cost in civilians lives, and we should stop supporting it. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, we have had a dismal history recently with the U.S. Supreme Court. In my view, it has totally failed the American people. In the name of States' rights, the Supreme Court has taken away freedom and caused distress and uncertainty for women and individuals across the country. It is outrageous that, because of this Court and this decision, people have fewer rights today than they did 50 years ago. Of course, I refer to the Dobbs decision, in which the Supreme Court--to its everlasting shame and in its infamy--took away a constitutional right. It should be noted that, in a post-Dobbs world, women are leaning on contraceptive care more, and doctors see more demand. That now is threatened. For anyone who read that Dobbs decision and the Thomas concurrence in that decision, he laid it out where he at least intends to go. There seems to be some confusion among my colleagues across the aisle about what this bill is and how important reproductive healthcare is, and I thank the Presiding Officer for his leadership on this with our colleague from Hawaii. It is very important as everyone needs access both to whatever birth control options make the most sense to them and access to whatever preventive healthcare makes sense to them. Contraceptives can help prevent and treat medical conditions. This is about ensuring that every person in every ZIP Code has access to the birth control that they need if they need it. This is the right of women and every individual to make decisions about their bodies and their futures. Politicians should not be involved. The Court shouldn't even be intimating it is threatening to take that away, and this legislation is needed to guarantee that they won't. After Roe was overturned in June 2022, Vermont voters went to the polls. They took their own liberty into their own hands after not being able to rely on the U.S. Supreme Court to protect it. In article 22 of the Vermont Constitution--a new amendment--it permanently protects reproductive liberties. It says: That an individual's right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one's own life course and shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means. This would stop future anti-choice legislation from advancing in our State of Vermont. We enacted comprehensive legislation in 2019 in Vermont, under a Republican Governor, that would ``recognize as a fundamental right the freedom of reproductive choice'' and ``prohibit public entities from interfering with or restricting the right of an individual to terminate the individual's pregnancy.'' As far back as 1972, the Vermont Supreme Court became the fourth State in the Nation to legalize abortion. Vermont has a long history of protecting reproductive rights and standing up for the rights of women. Also, contraception is supported by the American people. It is widely used by women. People who can get pregnant need it and use it. There are 9 out of 10 voters who ``want it to be legal'' and 3 out of 4 who want to have easier access. There are 78 percent who say ``they see it as basic healthcare for women,'' and 72 percent are ``thankful it allows them to manage several health conditions.'' So it is absolutely essential, in the face of the U.S. Supreme Court and what it did to deprive women of their own right to choose by reversing the Roe v. Wade decision that was so enshrined in our law and part of our society for 50 years, that we in the Senate take all action possible to guarantee that women's rights will be protected. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I was in the Chair and objected in my capacity as the Senator from Vermont to the unanimous consent request of the Senator from Arkansas. I would like now to have an opportunity to explain the basis of that. First, the Senator from Arkansas essentially said that President Biden is appeasing pro-Hamas voters in imposing an arms embargo on Israel and, also in that assertion, suggesting that President Biden is not fully supportive, as he has been throughout his political life, to Israel. Let me start by saying what I believe represents the unanimous points of view of this U.S. Senate, and that is that the attack by Hamas on Israel, the taking of hostages, the sexual assaults, the murder of so many innocent Israelis are condemned by each and every one of us. No one condemns it more than President Biden, who went to Israel on his own to show his solidarity and empathy for what happened to the Israeli people. Second, I believe that every Member of the U.S. Senate supports the Jewish, democratic State of Israel. Third, while the Senator from Arkansas suggested an ``arms embargo,'' the U.S. Congress--without my support, by the way, for reasons I will explain--has sent billions of dollars in aid with the supplemental appropriations bill. The fact that the President is raising questions about how best to secure the long-term status of Israel as a Jewish and democratic State in the context of this conflict in Gaza is in no way a suggestion of lack of support. There is serious debate within Israel about the war plan that is being prosecuted by the Netanyahu government. In fact, a member of the war cabinet has indicated that he will leave the war cabinet if, in fact, the Prime Minister does not come up with a plan for what happens after the cessation of hostilities in Gaza. Is there going to be an occupation by Israel? Is there going to be a joint Arab force that will be peacekeeping? Will there be an effort to constitute a Palestinian Government that has the support of its people? None of these plans envision Hamas having a role, and they can't have a role. But the President is asking responsible questions that are being asked by seriously engaged military, political, and security folks in Israel. So to suggest that the President is raising questions because he is looking over the horizon and saying that adding to the 35,000 casualties in Gaza--half or more women and children--to suggest that the President, when he says Israel should not invade Rafah because of the catastrophic consequences of more humanitarian losses, to suggest that when the President says 2,000-pound bombs that would be dropped on the most densely populated couple of square miles in the world, without massive civilian casualties, is not showing support for Israel, I dispute that. I disagree with that. This effort requires judgment, and the President has been given authority by this Congress to send arms to Israel. He has made a decision that 2,000-pound bombs should not be included in that. And he is not alone. There are many in Israel raising the question about the wisdom of how this war is being prosecuted. We know that in order for there to be peace between Israel and the Palestinians, we must have a two-state solution. That is not just the policy of the Biden administration; it has been the policy of the Obama administration, the Bush administrations, and the Carter administration. Two states for two people where the respective rights of those people for self-governance and the renunciation of violence toward one another has got to be the long-term goal. We have a situation right now where our ally Israel--and the current government Israel--disagrees with that two-state solution approach. And, in fact, the Netanyahu government position is that there should be one state. And what we are seeing right now is the escalation of violence by extreme settlers in the West Bank that is causing more instability. So the President, as our Commander in Chief, must be given some latitude about how best to distribute whatever munitions have been authorized by the U.S. Congress. And in the President's judgment, 2,000-pound bombs to Rafah are the wrong munitions at the very wrong time. All of us have enormous heartbreak for what has happened to those Israelis and their families, to those Palestinians in Gaza who are being used by the vicious Hamas as human shields. But the President is committed, as I am committed--as I believe all of us are committed--to peace and security in the Middle East, and we believe--most of us--that that requires a two-state solution where there is an independent, democratic Palestinian state--self-governing, respectful of Israel's security--and where there is an Israeli state that reciprocates toward the Palestinians in Gaza and in the West Bank. And it is for those reasons, Mr. President, that I stood in opposition and objected to the unanimous consent request of my colleague from Arkansas. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Reserving the right to object, the question here is about the control by Congress over the District of Columbia governance and the right to self-govern. There has been a tendency in this Congress, and there is debate in this Congress, about whether there should be home rule for Washington. I believe there should be. Many of my colleagues don't. And this Congress does have authority. But what is really at stake here is the question of whether a law passed by the city council of the District of Columbia should be allowed to go into effect or overwritten by action here. My view is that the elected representatives have the right and the responsibility to pass laws that go with being a self-governing city council. The question of the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act--that is what we are talking about--was passed by the city council. It is the will of the representatives of the people of this city, through their representatives, to allow this to happen. This initiative has been something that has been taken up by other local governments in other States, where the prerogative is to make their own laws with respect to voting. And I believe that the District of Columbia should have that ability to pass these laws without interference from Congress. Now, this was challenged in court. In March, the U.S. District Court for DC dismissed a constitutional challenge to the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022. Also, as a practical matter, voting has already begun in DC's 2024 primary elections. Senator Marshall's bill would absolutely cause chaos in the ongoing election. So while folks can disagree on the policy, at the end of the day, this is settled local policy matter. I object.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I would like to speak in support of the Biden-Harris administration's finalized furnace efficiency standards and against S.J. Res. 58. The Department of Energy's finalized rule has been a long time coming, and we have not meaningfully updated the standards since the 1990s. Technology has advanced, but our regulations haven't kept up. Now, let me just talk, first of all, about the importance of efficiency in the role that regulations can play in allowing efficiency to benefit consumers and our environment. When we have standards, it means that the manufacturers compete with the production of products that meet those standards. It is not a race to the bottom. It is a level playing field for those in the manufacturing industry that want to sell their products to consumers. Having standards that are reasonable--and these are very reasonable-- then allows these better products to be sold, and the competition is a restraint on the price that is charged. So efficiency has always been something that can help us do the following: No. 1, reduce carbon emissions. The less energy that is used, the less carbon emissions are created. No. 2, it saves money. At the end of the day, you have a more efficient appliance. It is going to use less energy by whatever means that energy has been produced. No. 3, it tends to create jobs. The folks who manufacture these have workers. They have good jobs, and it is really important. In Vermont, we face very high heating bills, and one of the reasons we want and fully support more efficient furnaces is to get those bills down. With a furnace that isn't up to the new standard, a family can face $600 in additional heating bills annually, and that is a lot of money for a lot of Vermonters. The efficiency rule here has the potential to reduce the average household energy cost by $50 a year and $350 over the lifetime. Many of the policies that we have worked on to pass through the Inflation Reduction Act will also help mitigate the costs. When you are doing an upgrade for some of your home appliances under the HOMES Act, you can get a taxpayer rebate, reducing the cost of what this will be. These standards can also be especially helpful for lower income folks who rent their homes and, also, often face very high energy bills, largely because there is not an incentive for the landlord to provide a more efficient furnace. By the way, the standards will make a major impact in our carbon emissions, cutting 332 metric tons over the next 30 years. And that is equivalent to the annual emissions from 34 percent of U.S. households. So, for over a decade, Canada has had very similar furnace efficiency standards and has seen that there have not been significant issues with implementation. We should follow suit and implement the Department of Energy's standards to realize all of the important benefits I just mentioned. I urge my colleagues to vote against S.J. Res. 58 and show strong support for the efficiency policy. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, on November 25, 2023, three Palestinian American students--Hisham Awartani, Kinnan Abdalhamid, and Tahseen Ali Ahmad--were shot by a local resident while they were walking along a quiet street in Burlington, VT. The three friends had gone to Burlington to celebrate Thanksgiving with Hisham's uncle and grandmother, who lives there. Instead, shots rang out, and they fell to the ground bleeding, for no apparent reason other than that they were speaking a mix of Arabic and English and wearing Palestinian kaffiyehs. Hisham was paralyzed from the chest down and now uses a wheelchair. This despicable crime shocked and outraged Vermont. This despicable act of violence is a tragic reminder that even relatively tranquil and tolerant communities like Burlington cannot escape the curse of Islamophobia, racism, and other forms of hate, such as anti-Semitism and homophobia. We all have a responsibility to speak out against hatred, extremism, intolerance, and stereotypes that divide our communities and can lead to violence. The alleged perpetrator of this senseless attack was quickly arrested and is in jail awaiting trial. We can be reasonably confident that justice will be done. But the lives of Hisham, Kinnan and Tahseen have been changed forever. One of the things that is especially insidious about this crime is that if these three young Palestinians had been shot and wounded or killed back home in the West Bank, the chances that anyone would be arrested or appropriately punished is next to zero, nor would they have access to anything remotely resembling the quality of medical care Hisham is receiving in this country. Hisham wrote about his experience and what daily life is like for Palestinians in the West Bank in a moving guest essay published in the New York Times on May 16, 2024. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record. I encourage all Senators read it.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam President, I have good news. Senator Stabenow, leader, chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, has presented a bill that will allow us to consider an ag bill. And we have got work to do. But as we know, for more than 90 years, the U.S. Congress--we have always worked together on this to advance the farm bill. And that is critical to rural America, and it is critical to all of America. It is about our agricultural and food policy and our environment. It reaches far beyond farms and fields and into the lives of every American throughout our country. The farm bill, as you know, shapes the future of ag policy for every 5 years. It is always tough to get from here to there, so we have much more work to do. But it has been something that is essential to give our farmers the support they need. And it is also the most important legislation that we take up to support rural America. The small towns across our entire country that sustain our agricultural sector do so much for our economy and so much for sustaining important personal and patriotic values. Vermont is a very proud rural State, and agriculture is a keystone of our culture as well as economy. Vermont's farmers, our dairies, our sugarmakers have shaped our small towns in rural Vermont for generations. We want to keep that going. We have worked to keep that culture of the small, family-sized farms in our State, independent farmers, with most of our farms below a couple of hundred acres and town populations less than 2,500 people. Vermont is by far not unique in this regard. America will not thrive if our rural communities aren't thriving. That is a commitment all of us have to make, and it is why as the chair of the Agriculture Committee's Subcommittee on Rural Development and Energy, I am urging my colleagues to support and work with us to improve the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act. It helps our farmers keep farming. It keeps our families fed, something very important to our farmers, and it keeps rural communities strong. The Senate Agriculture Committee, under Chair Stabenow's outstanding leadership, recently unveiled the farm bill. Our bill has over 100 bipartisan provisions and a host of policies that many of my colleagues across the caucus and across the aisle support. It will strengthen rural America in many ways. And by the way, Chair Stabenow included 100 bipartisan provisions, but she is totally open to more bipartisan provisions. Anything we can do to improve this with suggestions from both sides of the aisle, she and we want to do. The farm bill, as I mentioned, supports farms, families, and rural farming. It is going to improve the quality of life for families in Vermont and America, with baseline funding--that is important, as we know--for the first time ever, to make improvements in rural healthcare. Our rural hospitals are hanging on by their fingernails, whether it is Kansas or Vermont or Idaho. It is going to improve childcare availability, which is so essential to all families across the country but especially in rural America. And it is going to help our Tribes continue to have access to USDA programs. The Senate farm bill will help us more efficiently build out high- speed rural broadband. I want to acknowledge the work on both sides of the aisle to build out broadband, but we have got to maintain that-- just like we built out electricity in the thirties--so that rural America is fully a part of the modern economy. This bill will invest in and it will modernize wastewater and public water systems and those are under enormous stress and our local communities don't have the tax base to do all that needs to be done. There needs to be some recognition on the part of the Federal Government, and in the farm bill, we make that recognition. It will help modernize our wastewater and public water systems and help remove in rural communities those toxic ``forever chemicals'' like PFAS. The bill will also support timber innovation and markets, including American wood products. The Senate farm bill focuses, too, on cutting energy costs for homeowners in rural America, for farms, and for small businesses, and helps folks who want to make that transition to renewable energy so they have an affordable way to do it. It will strengthen our energy security and support energy innovation in the field of bio-based chemicals and products. The Senate farm bill does something that I think all of our bills should do, invest in the middle class--in middle-class rural jobs, by supporting manufacturing, entrepreneurship, small businesses, and the rural cooperatives that have been so essential to the well-being of so many of our communities. And finally, it does all this while supporting and strengthening local and regional food systems. Nothing excites people in a community more than a farmer's market. They are excited that they are getting local food. They know that it is healthy. They know they are supporting their farmers. And all of us who are not farmers appreciate the role that our farmers in our communities play as custodians of the landscape. In the Rural Development and Energy titles of the bill alone, there is a lot to celebrate, and I am also pleased that the bill includes many of the priorities that I and others have championed in my role as the chair of the Subcommittee on Rural Development and Energy. This bill includes some proposals we made there. The bipartisan ReConnecting Rural America Act. That would strengthen USDA's ReConnect Loan and Grant Program and in so doing, reduce redtape and speed broadband development and deployment in rural America. It strengthens critical rural development programs like the Rural Innovation Stronger Economy Program, REAP Zones, and rural development loans and grants. Bottom line, that helps with financing of local businesses in our rural communities. One other provision is a bipartisan bill that I have sponsored with others, the USDA's Rural Energy Savings Program. It provides no- interest loans to rural utilities. They have been a backbone for those communities to access cost-effective energy upgrades for homes and businesses. That lowers costs and accelerates sustainability. With funds from this program, rural utilities can finance projects to electrify household heating and cooling, increase energy efficiency, and assist in that transition to renewable energy. Another provision that really is being taken up by many Americans is the access to heat pumps, and the provision is the Heat Pump Energy Assistance and Training Act, which would create a program within USDA to help deploy heat pumps in rural communities across the country. I have to tell you, folks in Vermont, when they can get a heat pump, it works out on the numbers, and they save money, and they stay cozy and warm in our cold winters, they like that. Let's have more of it. By the way, it helps with cooling in Texas as well. Now, these are just a handful of the provisions in the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act that are helping our rural communities. So we want to keep working hard to support our farms and what they do, to shore up and expand the nutrition programs that so many families and seniors depend on. And, by the way, you know, the economy is doing better than ever in some ways. The stock market is up. But we have, like, 1 in 12 Americans who are food insecure, and a lot of those are folks who have jobs and are working really hard. So we have got to maintain our commitment to the nutrition and well-being of our citizens, particularly our children. Over the past hundred years, we have made a commitment to America's farmers and our farm communities. We want to keep that up. But the truth also is that, for too many years, Congress has not focused as much, in my view, as it should on our family and small farms that we have in Vermont and so many other States throughout our country. We have to make it possible for them to do the local agriculture that is so essential to the strength of local communities. We are working to support and deliver for some of those small farmers that we have in Vermont, and I will mention a few whose farms I have visited. And, by the way, I don't know anybody who works harder than a farmer. The Corse family, Leon Corse and his daughter Abbie, have the Corse Farm Dairy, and I visited there in my first week as a Senator. Their family has been farming in Whitingham, VT, for over 155 years. We want to keep them going for another century. The Choiniere Family Farm, a diversified organic dairy farm at the other end of the State up in Highgate Center; Jon Wagner and Karin Bellemare, owners of Bear Roots Farm and Roots Farm Market in Middlesex, in the center of our State; Justin Rich of Burnt Rock Farm, which is an organic produce farm in Huntington--they are doing a lot for us in Vermont and for those communities. Before I close, I want to thank Chairwoman Stabenow and her Senate Agriculture Committee staff for the work on the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act. I also want to acknowledge what a joy it is for me to work with Senator Boozman, who was a colleague of mine in the House and is doing a great job over here in the Senate. This bill, in any year, is complicated--huge. And I am thankful for the many, many hours that staff and colleagues have invested in this bill and in our farming communities, and we are ready to put in more hours to make this bill better. We have got to make it pass. For the sake of communities from Vermont to California, we must pass this 5-year farm bill to help America's farms and rural communities. Let's pass the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act and keep our farmers farming, keep our families fed, and keep our rural communities strong. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Hawaii. First of all, I want to acknowledge my great appreciation for the work that the Senator and his committee have done on bringing attention to the ongoing challenge that communities that have been hammered, like your community of Lahaina and my State of Vermont, from natural disasters, and I am going to speak in support of the efforts you are making to get supplemental funding for the absolutely essential, flexible funding that goes with the block grant Disaster Relief Fund. Thank you very, very much. You know, we are all in this together. What Senator Schatz said about the formality of a Federal disaster declaration--the formality is it is an acknowledgement that what happened, through no fault of anybody in Hawaii, through no fault of anybody in Vermont, is beyond the capacity of the communities in Vermont and Hawaii--beyond the capacity of Vermont and beyond the capacity of Hawaii--to handle the entire consequence of those events. What is more important, more essential for the Senate than to acknowledge that all of us as Americans, that there but for the grace of God goes our community when a natural disaster occurs? So we have to respond. There are two times that there is a response. One is in the immediate trauma of the event. It is all hands on deck. The community does everything it can. And there is one story after another in Lahaina; in Ludlow, VT; in Johnson, VT, of people coming together literally to save fellow citizens and neighbors and oftentimes people they don't even know. And the Federal Government comes in--President Biden was immediately responsive in Vermont, as he was in Lahaina--and our FEMA administration came in and was immediately responsive, and that really helps. It really, really makes a difference. But do you know what? This is a photograph of the capital of Montpelier right after the flood. It is totally inundated in water. Every business on Main Street was basically destroyed, and the immediate relief efforts were about the water going down, getting the mud out, trying to find some temporary place to live, and see if you can save your business. But on that Main Street in Montpelier, our businesses are coming back, but they are not all back yet. What I have seen is that the money that comes in right away and the help that comes in right away gives hope to folks. It gives all of the citizens in the State who are sad by what has happened to their neighbors but who, by the grace of God, avoided their own home and their own business from being flooded, it gives them and me hope that those folks are going to get some help from the Federal Government. And they did. Our roads and bridges, we are putting them back together. Some of the water treatment facilities that were destroyed, we are putting some of those back together. But the reality is, there is a long and lasting trauma and practical challenge of trying to get everybody back on their feet. I get asked by my colleagues--and I really appreciate their concern-- Peter, how is Vermont doing? I don't quite know how to answer that because on one level, Vermont is doing great. We have moved on. That flood in July, we have done the major things that have to be done. The help we got from the Federal Government was really essential in doing that. The good wishes from my colleagues, I am so grateful for. But the other part of that is when I am asked: How is Vermont doing? The Vermonters, if it was your home, if it was your business, if it was your farm, you are not doing well. You know, it is a lot to try to put that business back together. It is a lot to look at that home and realize you may not be able to get back in. So let me just give an example. You know, I was in Barre, VT. That is about 5 miles from Montpelier. You are seeing that here. They got flooded, much like Montpelier did. In Montpelier, most of the damage was to businesses; in Barre, most of it was the homes. FEMA Administrator Criswell joined me and Senator Sanders and Congresswoman Balint on the tour of homes. I returned in March, and the folks who came to our meeting and took a tour of Barre with me were a lot of the folks whose homes had been damaged. They are still trying to find out whether they can get bought out. They are still trying to find out whether they can get back in their home. One couple was at the home when I showed up. They weren't able to get back in. They are living in a mobile home about 50 miles from where their home is. And there is a lot of confusion about what you can do and how you can do it. Those thorny questions about what is available and how are you going to implement what is needed for that home or for that business, those really linger. At this point, FEMA--I don't want to say they are gone because they have done what their job is. But the pain and recovery, the pain is still very present for those folks: your farm, your business, your home. And the challenges of getting through the bureaucracy are very complicated. That is what I learned with the folks in Barre who basically have a group of volunteers who have managed to stay together to try to address concerns and questions that various members of the community have. But the thing that is absolutely vital--absolutely vital--is the flexible funding that comes from the Disaster Relief Fund. You know, no matter how hard and how competent and how professional our FEMA folks are, the reality is they have to move on to the next disaster. That is what is happening in this country. But the pain in that community is behind, and it is the folks in the community who really have to have the capacity and the tools and the resources to do what only can be done by folks in Barre, in Montpelier, in Johnson, in Ludlow, in Weston. And I am sure that is true in Lahaina. Of course, those are the best people to do the work. They live in that community. The most important thing to them is to restore the vitality of the community that they love. So the disaster relief funding is the absolutely essential component to allow the full rebuilding and the recovery for the folks who lost their homes, for those farmers whose crops have been wiped out, and for those businesses that are so vital, not just to that individual business owner but to that downtown community that depends on retail downtown so neighbors can come in, shop, see one another, and have a sense of community. If we are going to have an effective disaster relief program, yes, it starts with the Federal declaration. Our President and previous Presidents, in my experience, have been very responsive to communities that, through no fault of their own, suffered a devastating loss from a weather event or a fire, as was in the case of Lahaina. But what happens after the waters recede, after the FEMA emergency folks are gone? It is the hard work of actually rebuilding that house, repairing that business. That is left in the community, and if they don't have that disaster relief funding and the flexibility that is required to respond to the very particular challenges in that community, then we haven't completed the job. And it creates a sense of frustration and anguish and pain that we can alleviate by having a disaster relief response that starts when the event occurs--that is the disaster declaration--but continues until the job is done. And that is where the funding for the disaster relief is so absolutely essential for us in order to maintain the commitment that I believe this Senate has to help folks who have been on the receiving end of a catastrophic loss. I am fully in support of the supplemental appropriations request that the Senator from Hawaii is making because, in my view, he speaks for all of us. In my view, there but for the grace of God goes your community. We in Vermont, just as Senator Schatz in Hawaii, have always been there to support the funding for communities around this country that have suffered losses such as what happened in Hawaii and what happened in Vermont. I thank the Senator for organizing this, and I look forward to working with Senator Schatz and others in order to make sure we get that disaster relief funding in the supplemental appropriations. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELCH. Madam President, May 11 will mark the second anniversary of the fatal shooting of a Palestinian American and accomplished Al Jazeera journalist, Shireen Abu Akleh. She was shot in the head while reporting on an Israeli raid in the Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank. At the time of her death, she was wearing a bulletproof vest with ``PRESS'' written in large letters on the front and on the back. While there had been some earlier exchanges of gunfire between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian militants, there is no credible evidence that has been produced that the shooter acted in legitimate self-defense. No one in Shireen's immediate vicinity was armed, and no shots were fired from her location. Another journalist near her was also shot, but he survived. Shortly after Shireen's death, Secretary of State Antony Blinken rightly called for a credible, thorough investigation and that the individuals responsible should be held accountable. Israeli officials first denied responsibility. But when it became clear where the shots were fired from, they called Shireen's death an unintentional, tragic mistake. The shooter reportedly fired from an armored vehicle that was 190 meters away. The inescapable conclusion is that she was intentionally targeted. The question is: Why? My predecessor, Senator Patrick Leahy, asked detailed questions about her case, including why the Leahy law was not applied to stop U.S. assistance to the unit--the particular unit--responsible for Shireen's death. His questions were never answered. Since then, there has been no credible investigation. I am disappointed that Israeli authorities have failed to fully cooperate with U.S. efforts to determine what happened, and nobody has been held accountable. Shireen Abu Akleh's case has become one of many unresolved shootings in the West Bank and Gaza. Since the Hamas attack--the terrible attack on October 7--more than 140 journalists have reportedly been killed in Gaza. None of those cases have been investigated, and no one has been held accountable. We have not and we will not forget Shireen Abu Akleh. She was an American citizen. More importantly, she was an innocent civilian doing her job, which she paid for with her life. She, her family, and her colleagues in the press deserve justice. On May 3, World Press Freedom Day, Secretary Blinken said: In their pursuit of truth, journalists often face unprecedented danger worldwide. On World Press Freedom Day, we recognize their bravery, resilience, and vital role in ensuring the free flow of accurate information. Our support for journalists and an independent media is unwavering. My hope is that Secretary Blinken uses his influence and insists on the credible, thorough investigation of the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh that he called for 2 years ago and that those responsible be brought to justice. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, the eclipse was a momentous occasion for Vermont, bringing more than 160,000 people to our State. I am especially thankful to our emergency personnel, law enforcement, and small business owners who handled the busy weekend with grace. Everyone viewing ``totality'' in the Green Mountain State, whether they were locals or visiting for the first time, experienced something that was pretty special: the beauty of our State. Steven Pappas, publisher and executive editor of the Times Argus and Rutland Herald, summarized the celestial spectacle in his editorial titled ``Overshadowed'' and published April 9. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Alaska and really appreciate her remarks. Affordable Connectivity Program Mr. President, one of the rays of hope we have in this Congress is the bipartisan accomplishment of the past several years to build out broadband high-speed internet across the country, from Vermont to Alaska and everywhere in between. And that was because this Congress, on a bipartisan basis, made a decision--a decision that is similar to what was made by this Congress in the 1930s, when electricity was becoming widely available. We decided that it was absolutely essential for the well-being of our country and all of the citizens in urban and rural America that they have access to high-speed internet. And we built out that broadband network that made it within reach. We also committed ourselves to a program called the Affordable Connectivity Program, which is really modest but incredibly important. And what it understands is that you may be a person with really low income in Pennsylvania or in Vermont or in Alaska, where the internet that has been constructed is right out in front of your mobile home or your home, wherever it is you live, but you can't afford to connect. So having the internet cable go by but you can't connect your home means you don't have internet. And the Affordable Connectivity Program--a bipartisan program--is used by 23 million households, by 4 million veterans. And it is the difference between them being able to connect and get the benefit of high-speed internet or not. And it makes such a difference because that internet is used by all of us. It might be to do your job. It might be to apply for a job. It might be for kids to do homework. It might be to get an appointment with a doctor through telehealth, something that is really important in rural America. That is the good news. The dangerous news is that the Affordable Connectivity Program that is that lifeline for our veterans, for our seniors, and for our low- income folks is going to expire in a matter of weeks. And we have the opportunity and, I believe, the responsibility to extend the Affordability Connectivity Program so that people will be able to maintain access. As I mentioned, more than 23.3 million American households have subscribed in the ACP, about 26,000 households in my State of Vermont. About 10.6 million subscribers are over the age of 50. And half the households that benefit are considered military families. I mentioned 4 million veterans. A December 2023 survey of ACP subscribers reported that 77 percent said they used the program to schedule or attend healthcare appointments, and nearly 330,000 ACP subscribers live on Tribal lands. You know, one of the keys to the bipartisan support is that this helps the citizens that all of us represent, whether you are in a red district or a blue district, a red State or a blue State, the folks we represent need access to the internet. Let me just give a little example. I have a chart here about the 23 million Americans who use it. In Texas, one in four households--what a difference that makes for those folks in Texas. In Indiana, one in four. I am sorry. It was one in six in Texas. In Kentucky, one in four households. In North Carolina and Mississippi, one in five households. In Louisiana, every third household depends on the Affordability Connectivity Program in order to be linked to the internet that goes right by the front of their house. So we have got to allow folks to continue to have that access to that vital program. So we need a supplemental appropriation from Congress to make certain that that happens. If we let the ACP run out, funding would have devastating effects on people who use the program. And 77 percent of the households that rely on ACP say that losing that benefit would disrupt their service by making them change their plans or drop the internet service completely. And, by the way, that 30 bucks--you know, it cost more than that. So folks have to dig deep in their pockets. And this is like Vermonters making $15,000 a year and having two kids. They don't have a big budget. Let me give you a couple of examples because I think it brings it home. Cynthia is a retired American who lives in Florida. She is an ACP subscriber. She told CNN, which did a great story on that, that she connects to her granddaughter and her great-grandson on video calls every week. Do you know what? That matters. You are lonely. You have got grandchildren. You want to stay connected. You want to be in touch. That is a huge, huge part of her life. So let's not deny her that access. Jonathan is a software engineer in my State of Vermont. He is an ACP subscriber who also spoke with CNN. This is what he said: You're taking ACP away from the farmers that can check the local produce prices and be able to reasonably negotiate their prices with retailers. You're removing disabled people's ability to fill their subscriptions online. That really, really matters. I have also gotten messages from my constituents, like Leslie in Brandon, VT, who said: I was just informed by Consolidated Communications [the internet provider] that I would be losing my ACP benefit for my internet service at the end of April. . . . What a shame. The internet is our way of communicating with our family members who live outside Vermont plus many other contacts necessary for our stay-at-home lives. I use the internet almost . . . [every day]. That is why we have bipartisan support. When we--all of us, whoever it is we represent or whatever district we represent--listen to our constituents, and they say to Senator Fetterman or they say to Senator Welch or they say to Senator Wicker or they say to Senator Vance, ``This access to the internet really matters,'' we share a common opportunity to help the people all of us represent. And, by the way, that helps bring us together when we are working on solving the problems that we all share. And we have got bipartisan support to show for it. Joining me on the Affordable Connectivity Program Extension Act is Senator Vance, Senator Cramer, Senator Rosen, Senator Marshall, and Senator Brown. And many others have indicated support and interest when we find the way to come up with the funds to make certain it doesn't expire. And, by the way, a lot of the leadership came from eight of my Republican colleagues, who sent a letter to President Biden encouraging the administration to fund the program, calling the ACP ``an important tool in our efforts to close the digital divide.'' And I thank my colleagues--Senator Wicker, Senator Crapo, Senators Tillis, Capito, Risch, and Young for sending that letter to President Biden. And, of course, most importantly, it is really popular with the American people. The majority of Republican voters, 62 percent, support the ACP, according to a poll from the Digital Progress Institute. That same poll found that 80 percent of rural voters support continuing ACP. And, boy, does this matter in rural America. You know, in the Roosevelt administration, there was a commitment: We are going to get electricity to the last barn on that last dirt mile in whatever rural town you live in. And do you know what? We made that same commitment here when we began extending broadband. But we won't make it real unless we can make certain that those people at the end of the road, on that dirt road, can afford it, and that is what the ACP does. We need all of us--Democrats and Republicans--now to come together to pass our bipartisan Affordability Connectivity Program Extension Act and keep America connected. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam President, it has been more than 6 months since Hamas's horrific attack on October 7 that killed 1,200 innocent Israelis and led to the capture of 240 hostages. Around 130 people are still being held hostage, and an estimated 100 are alive and remain in captivity in absolutely horrific conditions. The cruelty that has been and continues to be inflicted on them is horrendous, and obtaining their freedom becomes a more urgent priority every day. In the past 6 months, Israel's indiscriminate bombing has obliterated most of Gaza's infrastructure. Nothing has been spared. More than 33,000 Palestinians have been killed. Another 7,000 are believed to be buried beneath the rubble. And among the dead are hundreds of aid workers and health workers. Nearly 2 million people have been displaced. Aid trucks are lined up for miles in Egypt waiting to get into Gaza, while the bombs and shells keep exploding. The magnitude of this calamity is staggering. Now, 6 months into this war, Prime Minister Netanyahu has announced that a date has been set for an invasion of Rafah. Rafah today is jammed with an estimated 1 million desperate, destitute Palestinians who were ordered by the Israeli military to leave their homes in the north--homes that have since been demolished--and who are now sheltering under plastic with the few possessions they could carry and not nearly enough food. And last week, less than a month after Jose Andres briefed me and other Senators on the daunting challenges his remarkable organization, the World Central Kitchen, faces in getting food to desperate families in Gaza, Israeli missiles destroyed three of their vehicles and killed seven of their aid workers. The descriptions and coordinates of the World Central Kitchen vehicles that were targeted had been shared with the Israeli military. There was nothing about those vehicles or the people in them that could reasonably have been confused with Hamas. The vehicles were far apart. They were labeled as World Central Kitchen vehicles. Each was targeted and destroyed separately. The deadly attacks on aid and health workers in Gaza have become shockingly common. World Central Kitchen and other humanitarian organizations, which so many people depended on, have had to suspend operations in Gaza. This incident and the killings of other aid and health workers must be thoroughly and independently investigated. Calling it a mistake begs the question: We need to know what happened and why. This outrageous attack on aid workers and Prime Minister Netanyahu's plans to invade the very place his government told Palestinians to go is the latest evidence that the way the Netanyahu government is conducting this war is terribly wrong. It is yet another tragic reason why a cease-fire is immediately needed. Our priority must be to secure a cease-fire to free the hostages and get adequate food, water, and medical care to the Gazan population before more innocent people die needlessly. This was affirmed unanimously in the resolution recently adopted by the U.N. Security Council. But rather than acknowledge Israel's responsibility to implement that resolution and secure a cease-fire, Prime Minister Netanyahu criticized the United States for allowing it to pass. He said the U.S. abstention harms both the war effort and the effort to release hostages. I could not disagree more. After 6 months of relentless bombing, the war in Gaza has been a disaster. It has been a disaster not only for the Palestinian people but for Israel, for the United States, for the hostages, and for the cause of peace and security in the Middle East. Last week, families of the hostages were among the tens of thousands of Israeli protesters calling for Netanyahu to resign. We need to ask ourselves what could possibly need to happen before the United States finally stops financing a war strategy that has so disproportionately killed civilians, used food as a weapon, made Gaza unlivable, and that has no realistic vision of a peaceful future for either Palestinians or Israelis. I believe that the time has already come. Israel does not need more bombs for Gaza. The United States should stop paying for this. What Mr. Netanyahu consistently fails to acknowledge is that the American people are paying for this war--a war that most Americans do not support. It is their tax dollars that have purchased the bombs, tanks, artillery shells, machine guns, and ammunition that have been used by Israel in what has become a war not just against Hamas but a war against the Palestinian people. Overwhelmingly, Vermonters who have contacted me, like a substantial majority of the American people, are absolutely horrified about what is happening in Gaza. In all the years he has served as Prime Minister, Mr. Netanyahu has never articulated the vision for an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To the contrary, he has been on a mission--which he has confirmed publicly--to destroy any possibility of a future Palestinian state while preserving Israel as a Jewish state. Those goals are fundamentally incompatible, if Israel is to remain a democracy. And we support the Jewish democratic State of Israel. Yet, on March 22, the Netanyahu government announced the largest seizure of land in the West Bank since 1993. Nothing can excuse the brutality of Hamas--we all know that--which, for years, has squandered precious resources that could have been used to improve the impoverished lives of the people of Gaza. But just as Hamas's atrocities and the Iranians and others who aid and abet them should be absolutely universally condemned, so must we recognize that there is a long history to this conflict. For years, the United States--Republican and Democratic administrations and this Congress--has unconditionally supported increasingly extreme rightwing governments led by Mr. Netanyahu, even though he has consistently acted in ways that are directly contrary to our policies, our principles, and our national interests. In the West Bank in the past 3 years alone, Israeli land seizures, settlement construction, demolitions of homes, and violence against Palestinians have soared, in flagrant violation of international law. But rather than hold the Netanyahu government accountable, U.S. government officials keep repeating the same tired refrain that such actions are ``an obstacle to peace.'' And nothing changed. And despite evidence of human rights violations by Israeli soldiers, the Leahy Law has never been applied to Israel--not by this administration or any of its predecessors. And, meanwhile, Congress has continued to approve billions of dollars unconditionally for the Netanyahu government. I have spoken many times about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Month after month, as Gaza was being destroyed, I and others have called for greater access for aid trucks and the protection of civilians and aid workers. I have called for indefinite cease-fire. President Biden has called for a cease-fire. Vice President Harris has called for a cease- fire. And so has the U.N. Security Council. And Prime Minister Netanyahu has ignored it all, the humanitarian crisis has grown steadily worse, and the war is far from being won. Netanyahu's strategy in Gaza is reminiscent of that famous quote of an unnamed U.S. major in Vietnam who said: It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it. That is what is happening to Gaza. It won't work here, as it didn't work there. Nobody--nobody--disputes Israel's right to go after the perpetrators of the October 7 massacre. But that atrocity and that security failure did not provide license for Israel to go to war against an entire population killing tens of thousands of defenseless people, targeting aid workers, preventing lifesaving aid from getting to the victims--all while the hostages remain trapped underground not knowing if they will survive another day. This is not the Israel the American people have supported and defended--with my support--with $300 billion since its founding 75 years ago--far more aid than we have provided to any other country. As Jose Andres said: Israel is better than the way this war is being waged. . . . You cannot save the hostages by bombing every building in Gaza. You cannot win this war by starving an entire population. The words of Chef Andres. I recognize that the Prime Minister makes his own decisions, and it is for the Israeli people to hold him accountable. But he is not--and in my view, has never been--a credible partner for the United States. Combating ruthless terrorists like Hamas is a challenge we face, Israel faces, the world faces. But this war is not making any of us safer from terrorism. It is creating the next generation of terrorists. With an invasion of Rafah looming, the Biden administration has warned Mr. Netanyahu that unless there is a credible plan to relocate the Palestinians who are trapped there, such an invasion would cause unacceptable civilian losses. That, however, does not appear to have dissuaded Prime Minister Netanyahu. World opinion has shifted sharply against Israel and the United States. The administration, while calling for a cease-fire and more humanitarian aid, is simultaneously sending more bombs and ammunition to Israel. It is an inconsistency that is not sustainable. It is long past time for the U.S. to adopt a consistent policy, to stop financing a war strategy that was deeply flawed from the very beginning--a strategy of unending death and destruction without any plan for what comes next. Instead of prolonging this catastrophe, let's use our influence and our resources to advance a consistent policy for the Middle East--a policy that has to be grounded in the recognition that the people of Israel will never be secure without upholding the inherent rights and dignity of the Palestinian people as well. After 6 months of war, the situation, regrettably, in Gaza is worse than ever. Hamas is not defeated, nor do the experts that I have spoken to believe it can be. Gaza is all but destroyed. Two million Palestinians lack the basic necessities of life and have nothing to return to. We need to change course. The hostages need to come home. The killing needs to stop. The war must end. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, our judicial system is vital, and every player has an important role--from the judge to the prosecutor, to the public defender, to the bailiffs, to the jurors. Cuts to our Federal public defender program have caused real difficulties in meeting the constitutional obligation of the role that public defenders play in our justice system. Every day, across the country, public defenders work to ensure that the Constitution is applied fairly and evenly to all, regardless of whether you are the richest or the poorest person in the courtroom. By doing so, public defenders safeguard our democratic values, providing a necessary check and balance in our judicial system. As the Senate's only former public defender, this is very personal to me, but it really is vital to all of us. I spent some of my first years after law school serving as a public defender in White River Junction, VT, and I saw firsthand how many people who find themselves in our criminal justice system are struggling with substance abuse or misuse, mental health challenges, and oftentimes both. And I saw how absolutely important it is that every person who comes into the courtroom gets as good a lawyer as those who walk in with a high-priced attorney. The principles that public defenders represent are vital to what we believe in our Constitution: fidelity to due process and fidelity to equal treatment under the law. Those have been engrained in our country since its founding. Mr. President, as I think you well know, John Adams--hardly a supporter of England--chose to represent British troops after the Boston Massacre. Why? Because he believed in the right to counsel, and he believed in the presumption of innocence, and that they were indispensable to our democracy. He had so much confidence in acting on those principles that it showed the confidence he had in the future of our country. Public defenders are the direct descendants of those founding principles that underpin the rule of law so vital to our well-being. As the Supreme Court recognized in 1938, when it required appointed counsel for Federal defendants, access to a competent lawyer is an ``essential barrier against the arbitrary or unjust depravation of human rights.'' That led the Court to realize, 25 years later, in the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, that the right to counsel is one of the fundamental rights for all of us who live in the United States. The Court's words then are as true today as they were before: The right of one charged with crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours. That is a confident country. It can live with the rule of law, and the rule of law requires representation. We will provide it, and we will make ourselves stronger for it. For months, I have been talking to many of my colleagues, highlighting that there was a funding shortfall facing Federal public defenders. Six months ago, it looked like Federal defender offices across the country were going to have 10 percent personnel cuts. Those are very painful cuts, and really it was going to affect the quality of representation. Instead, Congress acted, and Congress has basically corrected the shortfall in the final appropriations package released today. I understand that these Federal funding levels will allow the Federal defenders to avoid layoffs this year and end what had been a proposed and very harsh hiring freeze. I am so grateful. I am so grateful to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: Chair Patty Murray, Vice Chair Susan Collins, Chair Chris Van Hollen, Ranking Member Bill Hagerty, along with the chair of our Judiciary Committee, Dick Durbin. All have worked diligently on this issue. And I really want to thank the hard-working Appropriations staff for supporting the important role public defenders play in protecting our Constitution and our democracy and working as staff members to get the job done, with the leadership of their Senate leaders. I ask that this budget cycle be a reminder and a lesson that we don't repeat this next year. The Constitution guarantees indigent criminal defendants the right to counsel, and it is our obligation to make certain that they are there, just as we pay for the salaries of prosecutors. The Administrative Office of the Courts has already submitted a budget request for next year that would allow us to honor this obligation. I look forward to working with my colleagues to support public defenders throughout the next budget cycle. This decision by this Congress in this budget to uphold and strengthen all of the people who play such a vital role in our justice system is an act of commitment and renewal to our constitutional principles, and it is an act of confidence in the future of our democracy. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam President, indigenous people in Latin America and around the world are facing unprecedented threats to their communities and cultural survival. Faced with increasing intrusions of settlers, illegal miners, loggers, ranchers, wildlife traffickers, narcotics traffickers, and explorers for oil and gas, coupled with woefully inadequate police protection, they are among the world's most vulnerable people. This crisis is illustrated by the alarming situation facing the Yanomami people in the Upper Orinoco region of Venezuela, an area that is being destroyed by illegal gold miners. It is reminiscent of the decimation of Native American Tribes in past centuries in our own country, when millions were forced off their land, murdered, or infected with smallpox, measles, and other fatal diseases brought by White settlers. The Venezuelan Government has an obligation to guarantee the right to health, as part of the right to life, enshrined in the country's Constitution. In the case of indigenous people like the Yanomami, this includes the adaptation of health services and programs to their unique circumstances and needs. After the ``Haximu Massacre of the Yanomami'' in 1993, when 16 Yanomami were killed by a group of illegal miners, was brought before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the Venezuelan Government signed a settlement agreement that established commitments regarding surveillance and control of illegal mining and healthcare for the Yanomami people. Although the Yanomami Health Plan yielded positive results between 2005 and 2010, it began to decline due to lack of resources and is now almost completely defunct. Currently, there is no healthcare available in the Yanomami territory in the Upper Orinoco region. This crisis has resulted in a sharp increase in the prevalence of and death from preventable and curable diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis, among others. Malnutrition is also a pervasive problem, especially among children. Patients who require emergency treatment must be flown to Puerto Ayacucho, the state capital. The Yanomami in the border zone of Sierra Parima must go to Brazil to obtain health care. The Government of Venezuela has repeatedly failed to protect the Yanomami people from violence, child labor, and forced labor and sexual exploitation from illegal miners. The increased flow of Brazilian wildcat miners, coming into Venezuela in partnership with the Venezuelan military and corrupt civilian authorities to mine for gold and cassiterite, is contributing to the transmission of infectious diseases for these vulnerable communities due to their lack of immunity. Malaria, sexually transmitted infections, and mercury poisoning are closely linked to illegal mining. According to the Yanomami's own records, between 2022 and mid-2023, 35 people died from malaria and tuberculosis in different sectors of Sierra Parima, which comprises only a portion of the Upper Orinoco region. The Yanomami reported 350 deaths due mainly to malaria between November 2023 and February 2024. The serious epidemic and negligent inaction of the Venezuelan Government have forced the Yanomami to abandon their villages and flee into the forest to escape the malaria epidemic. Since 2021, the Venezuelan Government has received support from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. The Venezuelan Ministry of Health, through the U.N. Development Program, receives the supplies that are part of the malaria elimination strategy--mosquito nets, rapid diagnostic kits, medical treatments, and other equipment. But sorely lacking are the transportation logistics, infrastructure, and personnel to carry out malaria control and prevention activities in remote indigenous communities. Anyone who has seen photographs of the devastation caused by illegal mining in the Upper Orinoco region cannot help but be appalled by the capacity of human greed to destroy the natural environment and the people and wildlife that depend on it. The Yanomami are responsible stewards of the forest who are being threatened, attacked, and infected by deadly diseases contracted from those who are illegally extracting resources from their territories. While the Venezuelan Government has contributed to their plight by allowing and even profiting from the illegal mining in that sensitive region, the United States has a positive role to play. The Barbados Accords, signed by the Maduro regime and the opposition Unitary Platform, were the result of negotiations between the Biden Administration and Mr. Maduro. They required the Venezuelan Government to create conditions for a free and fair election in 2024, and in return, the U.S. would grant licenses to relax sanctions on oil, bond, and gold transactions. Like many, I had hoped the Barbados Accords were the beginning of a path for Venezuela to move beyond the years of internal division, repression, corruption, and misery that have caused millions to flee the country. But Maduro reneged on his commitments and arrested leading opposition candidate Maria Corina Machado, and on January 29, the administration announced that the sanctions on gold will be snapped back in April. Perhaps Maduro will reverse course again and do what he agreed to do under the Barbados Accords. But whether he does or not, absent strong action by the international community to make it more difficult for illegal miners and their profiteers to launder the proceeds, the suffering of the Yanomami people is likely to continue unabated.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam President, an article in the February 29 New York Times, entitled ``5 Convicts Familiar With Navalny's Prison Confirm Hellish Conditions,'' describes the horrifyingly cruel treatment of political prisoners in Russia. Anyone who reads the article could easily mistakenly assume that they were reading about the shocking ways that prisoners were dehumanized, brutalized, starved, and murdered in the Middle Ages, except this is 2024. What the article describes is not new, but it has received renewed attention since the murder, on February 16, of Aleksei Navalny, who bravely challenged Putin's corrupt and ruthless crusade to destroy any semblance of democracy and freedom in Russia today. I want to quote a few passages from the article for the benefit of those who have not read it: Locked in an Arctic prison, Aleksei A. Navalny is likely to have spent his final days in some of the most inhumane conditions within Russia's extensive penitentiary system, according to five men who have served sentences in the same penal colony as the Russian opposition leader. The men described in phone interviews unbearable cold, repulsive food, unsanitary conditions, and beatings in Penal Colony No. 3 of the remote Yamalo-Nenets region, where Mr. Navalny arrived in December to serve out the remainder of his 19-year prison sentence. The former inmates said the conditions were especially brutal in the solitary cells where Mr. Navalny is believed to have been confined on the day he was pronounced dead. But what made the prison, known as IK-3 or the Troika, dreaded even by Russia's hardened inmates was the exceptional psychological pressure and loneliness, they said. It was a system devised to break the human spirit, by making survival depend on total and unconditional obedience to the will of guards. ``It was complete and utter annihilation,'' said a former inmate named Konstantin, who spent time in the prison's solitary confinement cells. ``When I think about it, I still break into cold sweat,'' he said, adding that he has struggled with mental illness since his release. Set in the tundra, the Troika is built to hold about 1,000 prisoners in some of the most remote, strict and harsh conditions in Russia, which former convicts say can cross into torture. ``You had to make peace with the fact that no one will help you, that you're on your own,'' Aleksandr added. The article includes a photograph of a sign at the entrance to the penal colony, reminiscent of Auschwitz, with the words ``Happiness not far off.'' According to a former inmate, ``You could spend 10 years there, and not see and not know anything about anyone else.'' When asked about the convicts' reaction to Mr. Navalny's death, he said: ``No one gives a damn about anyone else there, because everyone only thinks about themselves and when they can get the hell out of there.'' Still, he noted that any disruption of routine, such as the arrival of federal officials to the prison following an inmate death, would be welcome as a small respite. He recalled a time in 2022 when another inmate had died. ``It may sound callous, you know, but his death stopped the beatings and somewhat lightened the daily routine,'' the person said. Vladimir Putin, who Donald Trump has praised for being a strong leader, is today's version of Joseph Stalin, who killed millions of his own citizens and destroyed any vestige of freedom or prosperity in Russia. Aleksei Navalny was Putin's latest victim. Navalny possessed all the attributes that Putin lacks: honesty, charisma, an inspiring vision for Russia's future, and of course, the admiration, love, and gratitude of millions of Russian citizens. Countless other Russian prisoners who have dared to stand up for democracy and human rights, like Vladimir Kara-Murza, are at risk of the same fate as Navalny, at any time. In many respects, the people of Ukraine are no better off. Every day, if they survive the night, they wake up not knowing if it will be their last, the latest casualties of Putin's relentless attacks against civilian targets. Vladimir Putin reminds us of the massive death and destruction that a single cruel individual, devoid of morality and motivated by ideology, greed, and a lust for power, can inflict on millions of innocent people. That is not a sign of strength. It is the worst form of criminality. It is what Putin will be remembered for. It will be his legacy.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks, I just want to associate myself with the remarks of the chair of the Judiciary Committee about the nominee. Everything he said is true. I share his horror at the vilification of him, which I do believe is based on his faith, and he would be an outstanding member of the Federal court. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your defense on behalf of an excellent nominee.