Peter Welch

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, every day we are reminded of the worsening humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. Most of the infrastructure in the territory has been destroyed. Thousands of apartment buildings, schools, mosques, hospitals, shops, and markets have been reduced to piles of twisted metal and rubble, under which the bodies of an unknown number of people are buried. Of the world's many humanitarian crises, the situation in Gaza is among the worst. This is due in large measure to the onerous impediments by the Netanyahu government to the delivery of sufficient food, water, medicines, shelter, and fuel. Getting aid to those who are suffering and preventing starvation should be our most immediate and highest priority, along with obtaining the release of the hostages. As I said when I spoke out for a cease-fire in November, an immediate and indefinite cease-fire is the only way to achieve these goals. I am very heartened by Vice President Harris's call for an immediate--if temporary--cease-fire to get aid in and hostages out, because the reality is, the supply of lifesaving aid has dwindled to a trickle. Last week, the depth of the humanitarian emergency in Gaza exploded with the deaths of dozens of Palestinian civilians as they frantically tried to reach food supplies from aid trucks that were guarded by Israeli soldiers. People were trampled, people were run over by trucks, and they were shot. It was a horrifying scene and a direct result of the Netanyahu government's failure to put in place workable procedures for the delivery of sufficient aid to starving people. As others have said, there is no legal or security justification for restricting humanitarian aid to civilians who are caught in the middle of an armed conflict. The more desperate people become, the more chaotic and precarious the security situation, the more likely there will be other senseless tragedies just like this. I recently introduced a resolution, along with 15 of my colleagues, calling for the urgent delivery of sufficient humanitarian aid. The Biden administration has repeatedly called for greater access for more aid trucks to Gaza, but the number getting through remains far below prewar levels. And I am encouraged, nevertheless, that President Biden has directed the United States to begin airdropping aid in--a decision made with the understanding that, while not enough by any means, it could save lives. Israel now occupies Gaza. It has an obligation under international law--not to mention the moral responsibility--to feed and shelter Palestinians under its occupation. Beyond the moral imperative, the path to peace, security, and stability would be enhanced dramatically by facilitating the delivery of essentials for survival to the Palestinian people whose fate is imperiled. But as we saw last week, that is not happening. The Netanyahu government's rejection of U.S. and international appeals to meet the basic needs of innocent Palestinians trapped in Gaza and the resulting loss of innocent lives, is really the latest in a pattern that we have seen for years. The United States has long supported--and the United States will always support--Israel as a free and Jewish democratic state. But candor requires acknowledging that we have an ongoing, serious difference with Israeli leadership. It is the longstanding U.S. policy that the Middle East conflict can only be solved through negotiations to create two independent states of Israel and Palestine. President Biden has reaffirmed this. But Prime Minister Netanyahu has publicly rejected a two-state solution, and he has even credited himself for actively working to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state. I will use his words. He couldn't have been more clear. He said: I will not compromise on full Israeli security control over the entire area in the west of Jordan--and this is contrary to a Palestinian state. The United States opposes settlements and the destruction of Palestinian homes, orchards, schools, and other infrastructure in the West Bank. It violates international law and is a severe obstacle to peace. Secretary of State Blinken has reaffirmed this. Yet Prime Minister Netanyahu embraced the settlements. In 2017, he said: We will deepen our roots, build, strengthen and settle. In 2019, he said: With God's help we will extend Jewish sovereignty to all the settlements as part of the land of Israel, as part of the state of Israel. Under his leadership, settlements have expanded exponentially. Settlements bring extremist settler violence, some of it with firearms financed by American taxpayers. Shootings of West Bank Palestinians, threats laced with hateful messages that if they don't leave their homes, they will be killed, and the destruction of land and other property have surged--surged--in recent months, including, in some instances, with Israeli soldiers passively standing by and watching. It is the longstanding U.S. policy, codified by the Leahy law, that units of foreign security forces that violate human rights are not eligible for U.S. training or equipment or other assistance. And according to multiple reports, that law has not been applied to the Israeli Defense Forces, despite numerous cases of shootings of Palestinian civilians. We must face the contradiction of what we are doing. We are airdropping food to famine-stricken Gaza today and supplying bombs for Israel to drop on devastated Gaza tomorrow. We call for humanitarian relief, but how can that call be meaningful when aid workers are killed in their effort to deliver it and Palestinians are killed in their effort to retrieve it? It is time for us to acknowledge--all of us to acknowledge--what the entire world knows: It is impossible to deliver humanitarian aid in a very active war zone. Israel is a great country, Jewish and democratic. Israel has been-- and remains--our closest ally in the Middle East. For decades, Israel has been under attack by those who have sought to destroy it. President Biden--and so many of us--understand the history of Israel and the history of the Jewish people. October 7 was the worst attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust. And we cannot ever let that happen again. But both of our countries right now are on a wrong path. Israel must stop its indiscriminate attacks that are killing so many Palestinian civilians--women and children, the majority among them who perished. And the United States must end its unconditional support when Israeli policies are wrong that are unjustified; that are causing so much suffering; and that, in the view of many of us, are doomed to fail in the goal of achieving lasting peace. How many times do we have to be repudiated by Prime Minister Netanyahu on the use of indiscriminate force; on the recklessness of expanding West Bank settlements; on impeding the delivery of aid; on advocating an endless Israeli post-conflict occupation of Gaza? How long and how often will Prime Minister Netanyahu reject our policies but take our money before we say, ``Enough''? How many more than the 30,000 Palestinians already killed and the 70,000 wounded before we say to Prime Minister Netanyahu, ``Enough''? How many more homes and shops and schools and childcare centers and hospitals must be destroyed before we say to Prime Minister Netanyahu, ``Enough''? Israel must--and Israel always will--make its own decisions as to who will be its political leaders. Israel must and Israel always will make its own decisions as to when and how to defend itself. It is their right. But the United States, too, must make its own decisions consistent with our values, with our judgment, and with what we believe to be in our national interest. The Biden administration has taken important steps to bring accountability through diplomacy by issuing a national security memorandum that builds on the Leahy law, but it is time for us--and I include all of us in the U.S. Congress--to stop accommodating the Netanyahu government. It has consistently shown it does not share our goal of achieving peaceful coexistence between the Israeli and Palestinian people. Our failure to act damages the authority, credibility, and reputation of the United States, not to mention our foreign policy and security interests. In my view, it undermines the security interests of Israel, which is increasingly isolated in the international community. Opposition to the disproportionate use of force in Gaza is widespread, including in our own country. So, too, regrettably, is the rise of anti-Semitism, which we must always condemn, and Islamophobia, likewise, which we must always condemn. It has been said many times before: U.S. aid is not a blank check. When it comes to the Netanyahu government, it has, for many years, across Democratic and Republican administrations, been a blank check. It is long past time for the United States to stop supporting by commission and omission actions that are inconsistent with our principles and our policies, and which make peace between Israelis and Palestinians ever more elusive, ever more difficult to achieve. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, this is indeed a historic day--the passage of the national security supplemental appropriations bill. I want to commend the extraordinary work of Leader Schumer, of Leader McConnell, of our Appropriations chair and vice chair, Senator Murray and Senator Collins, and also our colleagues who worked so hard on the bipartisan border agreement that was ultimately repudiated by the Republicans. The supplemental includes important additional military aid for Ukraine and Taiwan and aid for Israel and humanitarian aid for the Palestinians and other vulnerable populations. I unequivocally support the additional aid for Ukraine. It is facing an existential threat. We must pass that aid. I am very pleased to see that Ukraine is going to be receiving the aid it desperately needs. Putin must be stopped. The other provision in the supplemental I strongly support is funding for the humanitarian aid for Palestinians and for humanitarian catastrophes around the globe. But the situation in Gaza is what is of great concern to me. It is horrific. Two million Palestinians have been uprooted from their homes. Those homes have been reduced to rubble. Folks are desperately seeking to survive. They lack adequate food, safe water, and shelter. Many are injured without anything remotely resembling sufficient medical care or shelter. I introduced a resolution, cosponsored by 15 of my colleagues, urging the administration to dramatically increase access and delivery of humanitarian aid for Palestinians in Gaza, and I am gratified that the supplemental does include several billions of dollars for that purpose. But despite these provisions that I do support, I voted against the supplemental for one key reason: I cannot in good conscience support sending billions of additional taxpayer dollars for Prime Minister Netanyahu's military campaign in Gaza. It is a campaign that has killed and wounded a shocking number of civilians. It has created a massive humanitarian crisis with no end in sight. It has inflamed tensions in the Middle East, eroding support among Arab States that had been aligned with Israel. And, of course, it has severely compromised any remaining hope--almost all remaining hope for the two-state solution that we all know is ultimately essential for peace in the Middle East. And this is an opinion that is not just my own, but it is expressed by a large majority of Vermonters who have contacted me and shared their dismay at the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. During my years in Congress, like the Presiding Officer, I have voted for tens of billions of dollars in aid for Israel, but I cannot send more taxpayer dollars to support Prime Minister Netanyahu's continued bombardment in the wholesale destruction of Gaza, knowing the calamity that more U.S. bombs and artillery shells will cause for countless more civilians who had nothing whatsoever to do with the atrocities that were committed by Hamas terrorists on October 7. As I made clear on November 28 when I called for an indefinite cease- fire in Gaza, really for the purpose of saving civilian lives, we all do want Hamas gone. They are terrorists. The depth and cruelty Hamas perpetrated against innocent, defenseless people, many of them women and children, was appalling. It was reminiscent of the brutality of ISIS. The viciousness of the Hamas attack was intended to terrorize and traumatize all Israelis. And it goes without saying that Israel has a right and responsibility to pursue those who ordered and carried out the October 7 attacks. But Israel's enemy is Hamas, not the Palestinian people, and neither Israel nor any country has the right to use lethal force in ways that violate the laws of armed conflict by inflicting egregious and disproportionate harm to civilians. Palestinian civilians are, by definition, innocent. They are defenseless, as were Hamas's victims. What has occurred in Gaza using weapons and munitions provided by the United States and what will continue to occur as long as Prime Minister Netanyahu pursues his current war strategy is more of the same. It is a strategy which I and many others believe is deeply flawed. It has cost more than 28,000 Palestinian lives. Netanyahu's war plan has never been articulated beyond his oft- repeated refrain of pursuing nothing less than the complete destruction of Hamas and the release of the hostages. Like many of us, I have spoken with families of hostages who are desperately waiting for the safe return of their loved ones, who are trapped in the vast network of Hamas tunnels--narrow, cloistered, dark tunnels--as Israeli bombs explode above. It is hard to imagine anything that is more terrifying for the hostages, as well as for their families, as the weeks turn into months with no end in sight. Since Israel launched its invasion of Gaza nearly 4 months ago, Prime Minister Netanyahu has said nothing about what Israel's strategy is for the future of Gaza or the people of Gaza after Gaza is in ruins when the war ends. Obliterating civilian infrastructure--and that is happening now with demolitions set to take down homes and infrastructure--makes it impossible for people to have a place to return to. Intentionally reducing to rubble hospitals, schools, mosques, and apartment buildings is not right. Forcibly displacing 2 million people and creating a humanitarian catastrophe and looming famine, this is not an acceptable strategy. The inescapable conclusion is that the Netanyahu government is not listening--is not listening to the White House and President Biden, is not listening to key Arab governments that are imploring Israel to change course. Their belief, which I share, is that the way to prevent a wider war and begin building a safer and ultimately more secure Middle East is to stop killing and otherwise mistreating innocent Palestinians. Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has rejected out of hand the right of Palestinians to have a state of their own, is stubbornly pursuing what can only be called a scorched-earth policy. It is difficult not to conclude that his enemy is not only Hamas but the Palestinians. To make matters worse, he and other Israeli officials continue to deny that there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. How much worse does the situation have to get in Gaza? How much wider of a war in the Middle East will be accepted before we use the leverage America does have, including the withholding of additional lethal aid, to get Israel to stop that bombing campaign, to negotiate a cease-fire and the release of the remaining hostages, and to allow the dramatic increase in food and water and other humanitarian aid that is needed to prevent the widespread starvation, death, and disease the United Nations and other relief organizations warn are imminent, and to negotiate an end to the war? The massive destruction and loss of innocent life is not making Israel more secure. To the contrary, it has eroded progress Israel has made with its neighboring Arab States, it has inflamed tensions in the Middle East, and it has incited attacks on American soldiers. It has severely damaged Israel's reputation on the world stage and set back the cause of peace in the Middle East, which we must continue to strive to achieve. The possibility of a two-state solution, which Prime Minister Netanyahu has publicly rejected, is on life support. Throughout the years, the United States has provided tens of billions of dollars in aid to the Netanyahu government, in effect consistently financing a government that implements policies that we support for a two-state solution but pursues policies that make it impossible for a viable independent State of Palestine to emerge. That has been endorsed--a two-state solution--by Republican and Democratic administrations. We have to mean what we say. This must end, and it must end now by sparing innocent Palestinians in Israel's pursuit of Hamas and renewing vigorous efforts to create a viable Palestinian State--something the Biden administration is doing energetically. Mr. President, a majority of the Senate has voted to approve additional military aid for Israel. I know that the White House will not treat that as a blank check. We must increase pressure on the Netanyahu government to respect international humanitarian law. I am very encouraged by the White House's release on February 8 of an unprecedented national security memorandum based on an amendment sponsored by Senator Van Hollen and cosponsored by many of us, including the Presiding Officer. It articulates a global policy and reporting requirements that put Israel and other recipients of U.S. military aid on notice that our aid is contingent on their written commitment and adherence to U.S. and international laws of armed conflict and allowing the unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid. I also urge the Secretary of State to apply the Leahy law, passed by my predecessor, Patrick Leahy of Vermont. Apply that to Israel. This has not been the practice. For far too long, successive administrations have failed to apply the law to the Israel Defense Forces despite many incidents when the IDF was credibly implicated in violations of the human rights of Palestinians. The Leahy Law is the law of the United States. It should be enforced. Finally, Mr. President, I do want to say a few words about the southern border. Our immigration system is broken. Our southern border is overwhelmed with thousands of would-be immigrants on a near daily basis. Asylum seekers can wait 5 years or more to plant roots in this country before learning their fate. They are forced to wait to join the workforce when they are here and face bureaucratic backlogs. Most potential immigrants have no meaningful way to enter the U.S. legally, given the failure of Congress to improve the system for 30 years. Cities all around our country are dealing with the consequences and are exhausted. In essence, we don't have a functioning immigration system. I commend my colleagues, Senators Sinema, Lankford, and Murphy, for their extraordinary work, and I am very disappointed that that effort was rejected and repudiated by our Republican colleagues. The agreement proposed reforms to improve border security that both Republicans and Democrats have long recognized that we need in order to significantly improve our operations at the border and have a secure border. It provides that agreement for additional pathways for legal migration, and we need legal migration. Our rural communities, like those in Vermont, rely on immigrant and seasonal farmworkers and know how important improving our legal migration system is to our rural economy. We need to address the limited number of family- and employment-based visas to address the backlog of green card applications that already exceed 10 million people, and we need more worker visas and other alternatives for our employers to be able to get the job done. I voted last week to proceed on the first version of that border agreement that was worked out by our colleagues in the hope that we could work and pass amendments, improve it, and pass it. But the Republicans who first embraced that agreement or that effort turned their backs once Donald Trump insisted they take no action to secure the southern border before the November election. Donald Trump has a campaign, and we have a responsibility to govern, and that includes taking action on the southern border. That situation is the result of inaction over many years. Republicans and Democrats can take credit for some of those failures, but we have to do there what we have done in so many other places--work together to get a secure border, find pathways for legal migration, and have safety and security at a border we control. I am going to end where I began, and that is by thanking Leader Schumer and Leader McConnell for their extraordinary effort in getting us to this vote on this important legislation. I also want to say to the Senate staff and to our Senate pages, who have been here all night: Thank you. We are very grateful for the work that you do. This was not just an important day; it has been an important several months where the business of the Senate in debating the important issues of our time has occurred, and you all have been part of history. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the recent passing, and honor the life of an extraordinary Vermonter, Raymond ``Ray'' Bradley Jacoby. Ray touched the lives of many in our State, and his presence in his community will be deeply missed. Ray dedicated much of his professional career to volunteerism and nonprofit service. Ray was the executive director of the Chittenden County United Way in Burlington, VT, for 10 years in the 1970s and 80s. In this role, he worked to make financial stability, healthcare, and affordable education accessible to everyone, coordinating with community partners to provide crucial assistance to Chittenden County residents. Throughout his life, Ray was also a devoted attendee, employee, and supporter of YMCA summer camps. As a young boy, he attended YMCA camps across New England. Later in his life, he served in nearly every camp position, from counselor-in-training to camp director. After his retirement from the United Way, he worked with YMCA Camp Abnaki in North Hero, VT, for years. He helped the camp to raise funds and provide support to the staff to ensure campers had the best experience possible every summer. Ray will be remembered by many for his contributions to his community, commitment to his work, and devotion to his family. It is with both great sadness and honor that I celebrate the life of Raymond Jacoby and extend my deepest condolences to his family and loved ones. His impact on Vermonters will never be forgotten.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam President, on December 18, 2023, I was not present for a rollcall vote, vote No. 347, to confirm the nomination of Martin O'Malley to serve as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. If present, I would have voted to confirm Commissioner O'Malley.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, the October 7 slaughter of at least 1,200 innocent Israeli citizens and the abduction of 240 hostages was a monumental atrocity. The cruelty and depravity of that massacre, especially the torture and killings of women and girls, has shocked our collective conscience. Like others here, I have consistently supported Israel's right and responsibility to respond. We would all like to see Hamas disappear. But people with decades of experience in the Middle East say that is almost certainly not going to happen. To the contrary, they warn that the Netanyahu government's wholesale destruction of Gaza, which has caused the death of more than 24,000 of its citizens and displaced more than 1.5 million who had nothing to do with the crimes of October 7, will increase the terrorist threat by Hamas and other violent extremist groups who share a common hatred of Israel and the United States. As horrifying as the October 7 attack was, neither the atrocities committed that day, nor Gaza's dense population and Hamas's insidious use of civilian infrastructure, justify the appalling scale of death and destruction in Gaza directed by Prime Minister Netanyahu that has ignited global condemnation. It has also failed to free the hostages whose survival becomes more precarious every minute of every day. The inescapable conclusion is that the Netanyahu government is not listening to either the White House or to key Arab governments that are imploring Israel to change course. Their belief, which I share, is that the way to begin to build a safer and ultimately more stable and secure Middle East is to stop killing and otherwise mistreating innocent Palestinians. Yet Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has rejected out of hand the right of Palestinians to have a state of their own, is stubbornly pursuing the opposite approach with no political endgame. It is difficult not to conclude that his enemy is not only Hamas but also the Palestinian people. To make matters worse, he reportedly denies there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Last week, Netanyahu said he ``needs to be able to say no, even to our best friends.'' Well, American taxpayers provided the planes and bombs and tanks, and the United States needs to be able to say no to him. How much worse does the situation have to get in Gaza, and how much wider of a war in the Middle East, before we use this country's considerable leverage--including withholding additional lethal aid--to get Israel to stop its bombing campaign, negotiate a ceasefire and the release of the remaining hostages, and allow the dramatic increase in food, water, and other humanitarian aid needed to prevent the widespread starvation, death, and disease the UN and other relief organizations warn is imminent? What is happening in Gaza is intolerable and we share responsibility. In a January 17, 2024, op-ed in the New York Times entitled ``Team Biden Needs a Reset on Israel,'' David Levy, with whom I had the privilege of traveling to the Middle East some years ago, makes the case more effectively than I could. I hope President Biden and his top advisers read it. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I am here to speak about the extension of the Affordable Connectivity Program. COVID was brutal, but something good came out of it. And that was a recognition by the U.S. Congress-- Republicans and Democrats--that access to high-speed internet was absolutely essential all across America. Before COVID, there were many of us who represented rural States-- Republicans and Democrats--who were making the case, when people were arguing for high-speed internet, that we had no-speed internet. And our concerns were really dismissed by many of our urban colleagues. With the effect of COVID, it was apparent: You couldn't go to work if you didn't have internet. Your kids couldn't do homework without internet. You couldn't get a doctor's appointment unless you could do it online. And we had come to the conclusion as a Congress that high- speed internet was as essential to all of America today as electricity was in the 1930s. And in the 1930s, when the debate was whether we build out electricity, there wasn't an economic argument that was made, although that was important; it was a commitment to the social cohesion of this country that we are all in it together. And whether you lived on a dirt road on a farm in Iowa or you lived in Manhattan on Fifth Avenue, you needed electricity. We made the same decision during COVID in the U.S. Congress, and we allocated billions of dollars to start building out high-speed internet across the entire country. There is another matter, though, that is important if we are going have access to the internet. It is affordability. And the Affordable Connectivity Program was a lifeline for many low-income people in the State of Vermont and States, in counties, and in cities and towns all across this country. If you were a Vermont family with 200 percent of poverty level income and you lived in a rural area, you made $15,000 a year and you had two kids, you could have internet going right by your house, but you had to make a really tough decision about whether you could afford it. The Affordable Connectivity Program helped that family with $30 toward the cost of the monthly bill for the high-speed internet. That doesn't sound like a lot. It is a lot to a family that is making $15,000 or $11,000 and has kids. You know, it is tough to be poor. It is hard work to be poor. A lot of parents were making enormously difficult decisions about whether they could get access to internet, and they were able to make that choice because they cared about their kids and knew how important it was to their future. That was the only chance they had to look for jobs. That program has been tremendously beneficial to folks you represent and I represent and to my colleagues who are my cosponsors on the extension bill, because this program will expire in months, and notices will be going out to families that that rebate they have depended upon is expiring. But that is why the bipartisan nature of this reflects how this internet program is so essential to everybody who wants and needs to have access to internet--whether they are in a Republican district or not; whether they are Democratic or not. I am proud to partner with J.D. Vance of Ohio; Jacky Rosen of Nevada; Kevin Cramer of South Dakota; and colleagues in the House, Yvette Clarke and Brian Fitzpatrick. All of us have constituents and all our constituents need this access to high-speed internet; so we cannot allow this program to expire. In the State of Vermont, what we have done in order to do the hard work of taking the money that the Federal Government has provided to build out high-speed internet is we created community union districts where towns have gotten together and used funds to contract to build out that internet and where that community union district has a commitment, not so much to shareholders or investors, but to the people in the community. The goal in Vermont is to make sure that farmer at the last mile on the dirt road in our most remote town has access to internet. It has really worked because there has been really serious community engagement. Our local community union districts have done an enormous amount to let folks know--those who are eligible, very low-income folks, hard-working folks--let them know about this program where that $30 is really going to make the difference on whether they can hook up or they can't. We are really proud in Vermont, too, of one of our first internet providers that was local called ECFiber. They set up their own program even before the affordable connectivity program was established. We have a decision we have to make as a Congress. Will we maintain this bipartisan commitment we have had to the citizens of this country to make certain that everybody, regardless of income, has the best possible opportunity to have access to that high-speed internet that is as essential to our well-being, our social connection, our sense of working together, as electricity was in the thirties? It is very popular among Republicans, at least 62 percent; among Democrats, 90 percent. But most importantly, among rural Americans, 80 percent of rural Americans are in favor of this, and they know how vital this program is. Mr. President, 25,000 Vermont families have benefited by it, and 22.5 million American families have benefited by it. Let us continue the program. Find the $7 billion that is necessary to maintain this, and make sure that the progress we made working together to build out high- speed internet to make it accessible to all our citizens continues. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam President, the inauguration of Bernardo Arevalo as President of Guatemala shortly after midnight on January 15 was a triumph for the people of Guatemala. Despite corrupt forces in the outgoing government, the Congress, and the Office of the Attorney General--who abused their authority in a flagrant attempt to subvert the result of a free and fair election that President Arevalo won overwhelmingly--in the end, Guatemala's democracy was preserved. I want to congratulate the Guatemalan people for their courage and perseverance, especially the indigenous Mayan population who have suffered deprivation and indignity under successive governments whose officials cared far more about enriching themselves than improving the lives of the country's most vulnerable. It is long past time for Guatemala's indigenous leaders to have a central role in the national government. I also want to commend the Biden administration, in particular U.S. Agency for International Development Administrator Samantha Power, Assistant Secretary of State Brian Nichols, Charge d'Affaires Patrick Ventrell, and the other U.S. Embassy staff, who in the months leading up to the election and late into the chaotic night of January 14 until Arevalo was finally sworn in, used a combination of diplomacy, sanctions, and advocacy to support a peaceful democratic transition of power. Without their sustained diplomatic engagement and the strong support of the international community, it is likely that the so-called Pact of the Corrupt would have prevailed in destroying Guatemala's fragile democracy. President Arevalo faces immense challenges. Late last year, in an attempt to ensure that if he came to power he would be unable to govern effectively, the Congress slashed the national budget for the social programs and economic reforms necessary to carry out his anti- corruption, anti-poverty, pro-justice, and accountability vision for the country. The Guatemalan people expect him to deliver on his campaign promises, but the very forces that sought to prevent him from taking office have made clear that they will do every possible to prevent him from governing. Despite these formidable obstacles, Bernardo Arevalo's remarkable ascendency to the Presidency offers Guatemala and the United States an opportunity that has not existed for generations. Hundreds of thousands of impoverished Guatemalans have fled their country, risking their lives in search of safety and a better life in the United States. In President Arevalo, we finally have a partner of integrity with whom we can focus on addressing the root causes of migration. For generations, Guatemala's elites, including business and political leaders, have profited from a corrupt system at the expense of the best interests of the country. Tax revenues are a fraction of what they should be. Large areas of the country lack basic public services. Millions of Guatemalan children are malnourished and have no access to higher education. The justice system has been used to perpetuate the unjust and inequitable status quo. If the Pact of the Corrupt had succeeded, Guatemala's business community would have also paid dearly. The choices were, and remain, stark. They can either help create the conditions for new investment and economic growth or share responsibility for putting the country on a course leading to the scale of criminality and economic decline that have engulfed Nicaragua and Venezuela. With American companies relocating from China back to this hemisphere and with a Guatemalan President who believes in transparent and accountable governance, there is an opportunity for new investment and business partnerships in Guatemala unlike any time in recent memory. It is time for Guatemala's business leaders to embrace President Arevalo's vision for the country and to become real partners in the Guatemala's development. I had the privilege of traveling to Guatemala in December as part of a bicameral congressional delegation led by Senator Tim Kaine. Our purpose was to show our support for Guatemala's democracy and for a peaceful transfer of power. We left Guatemala convinced that, while the outcome was far from certain, the people of that country would defend their democracy to the end. That is what they have done, and while the daunting challenges of governing lie ahead, they and President Arevalo deserve our congratulations and our strong support.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I support this resolution and appreciate the leadership of my good friend, the senior Senator from Vermont. Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act is an important and long underutilized tool. It provides a practical mechanism to focus attention on serious human rights concerns around the world. These concerns should matter deeply to every Member of Congress and every American. There are some who may not support asking the State Department to provide the information called for in this resolution. That is unfortunate. The Senate should be asking the hard questions, especially when fundamental rights and thousands of innocent lives are at stake. Though there are clauses in the resolution I believe could be more effective if drafted differently, that is the nature of the legislative process. The people of Gaza are in the midst of a humanitarian catastrophe. The amount of death and destruction is staggering. An estimated 10,000 children have been killed and many more likely buried under rubble. The United Nations and other humanitarian relief organizations have warned of widespread starvation if the amount of food, potable water, medicines, and other necessities of life getting into Gaza is not drastically increased in the coming days. Differences regarding this resolution and the conduct of the war aside, we have a shared responsibility to do whatever we can to save the lives of the 2 million men, women, and children who have been displaced in Gaza and are now completely dependent on international aid. That should be our immediate priority, and I look forward to working on this with other Members of Congress, the State Department, USAID, the United Nations, and other relief organizations in the coming days and weeks. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on the Richards nomination occur at 5:15 p.m. and that if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be considered expired and the Senate vote on confirmation at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Republican leader.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam President, I ask that the Senate resume consideration of Executive Calendar No. 144.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I thank my colleagues tonight, and I thank Senator Whitehouse for his work on this. You know, the question that is facing, I think, all of us and is troubling Americans is an erosion of confidence in our institutions. We are seeing that with a lot of erosion of confidence in the legislature, which is here to serve the interests of the people we all represent. It is also sometimes with the Executive--huge battles there. And, of course, January 6 was an indication that the norms that have guided us throughout our history--that is, the peaceful transfer of power after the people of this country make a decision about who shall be their elected leader--have all been challenged. And now we have the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has an incredibly important role in the preservation of our democracy because it has the capacity to make decisions about legislative actions and whether what the legislature did fits within the parameters of the Constitution, and it is an awesome responsibility. As my colleagues have said, I have an enormous amount of reverence for the institution of the judiciary, and I have an enormous amount of reverence for the particular role of the U.S. Supreme Court. I have immense respect for the individuals who have achieved that status of being a member of the U.S. Supreme Court. They serve an important institution. They have a very important job. But they are not more important, as individuals, than any other American. They are not. They have more responsibility. They have a special obligation as Justices of the Supreme Court, but they are not above the law. This is not exactly about whether there are legal questions involved. It is about whether they accept the responsibility that goes with representing an institution that must maintain credibility for the American people in order to have the people whom they serve respect their decisions. We have a situation in the Supreme Court now. Within our judiciary, we have 850 judges at all different levels. Every single one of those judges is subject to rules that are designed to try to instill public confidence. Those rules require those judges to make financial disclosures. That includes whether they have been the beneficiary of gifts. There are nine people in this country who are in the judiciary who don't adhere to those rules, who don't believe it is their burden to share and disclose with the American people what gifts they have received, and those are the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. That is outrageous. You know, when I talk to Vermonters about this and I say: Do you think that a justice of the Vermont Supreme Court or a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court should be required to let you know--let the public know--if they got private jet travel to a location to get on a private yacht to take a private vacation? They have an obligation to disclose that. And Vermonters look at me in dismay and they say: Peter, are you serious? They can do that? This is not about disclosure. This is astonishment that somebody in a position of authority who they know--and every Vermonter knows--is getting that offer of a free jet travel, who is getting that offer of a free yacht trip and vacation in the Indonesian islands. It has nothing to do with who they are as persons. It has to do with who they are because of their responsibility and role as U.S. Supreme Court Justices. Vermonters can't believe it. So this question of gifts and the bare minimum of having to disclose it, how is it even a question? You know, I served in the House, as you know, and, in 2011, I and several of my colleagues wrote a letter inquiring about these gifts and why is it that they didn't have to be disclosed. This has been going on for far too long. There is another matter of personal respect. The Supreme Court Justices, all of them, have the highest position in the judiciary, and all of those other 850 judges under them, are they not entitled to expect that what is required of them will be accepted by those nine members? I have to confess enormous dismay that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who is in the position to bring those other eight Justices together and say, ``Hey, let's deal with this; why are we creating this problem when it does so much to undercut public confidence in what it is we are trying to do?'' hasn't done it--hasn't done it. So we have to do it. I believe that the judiciary--not just the 850 members of the judicial branch but 859 members of the judicial branch-- should all be subject to the same disclosure rules. And let me tell you, if they disclose these gifts, maybe they won't take these gifts-- because, actually, what is the point? I mean, really? This is where I go back to the Vermonters I talked to who say: Peter, what is the deal? You literally can take an all-expense-paid vacation, and this person thinks it is not going to influence them? And they want to know what I have been smoking--seriously. So what we are doing here is pretty modest, bare bones, but even if it is bare bones and modest, it is absolutely essential to the first step that we take in our effort to restore confidence to the people of this country--Republicans, Democrats, Independents--that our judiciary is all about serving them, not benefiting individually by their positions. I yield to my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about the nomination of Michael Whitaker of Vermont to be Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration. Yesterday, as you know, his nomination was reported unanimously out of the Senate Commerce Committee in which we both serve. That was by voice vote, with all the Members of the Commerce Committee overwhelmingly agreeing in a bipartisan fashion that Mr. Whitaker should lead the FAA. This is welcome after 18 months of having no one leading the FAA. It is not surprising that he had such strong support. Why? Michael Whitaker is immensely qualified, with over 30 years of experience in aviation, both in the public sector and in the private sector. His background and knowledge of the industry is formidable. First, Michael is a longtime aviator, so he has practical concern about safety in the air and personal experience about flying. Second, he has real experience running large and complex systems. During his time as the Deputy Administrator at the FAA from 2013 to 2016, Mike helped the FAA upgrade to satellite-enabled surveillance technology. He managed cybersecurity threats and chaired an interagency committee coordinating safety and security enhancements in our airspace. He made flying safer. Third, he has relevant private sector experience. While in the private sector, Mike has worked on strategy operations for some of the world's largest travel companies. They include United Airlines, InterGlobe Enterprises, and Trans World Airlines. He will bring those management skills--that capacity to build a team and organize systems in his forward-thinking vision--to the FAA. Fourth, Mike's focus is on performance, and his commitment to safety is absolute. That is something that the FAA is primarily responsible for, and it is an awesome responsibility that Mr. Whitaker has taken seriously every day of his life while he has served in both private and public positions in aviation. Mike is a Vermonter--a small-town person who lives in a small town in Vermont, but he has got big-time experience. He understands the importance of ensuring that everyone is represented, and he knows the realities of what the industry and the FAA needs to succeed. With Mike in the cockpit of the FAA, our skies will be safer, and he will work tirelessly to ensure that Americans across the country can fly safely and seamlessly wherever they please with as few disruptions as possible. We urgently need a full-time FAA administrator, and Michael Whitaker of Vermont is the ideal candidate for that role. I urge my colleagues to support his nomination. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I want to make it very clear that there are 100 Members of the U.S. Senate who absolutely condemn the brutal attack by Hamas on innocent Israeli citizens; that absolutely condemn the kidnapping of Israeli citizens and some Americans; who absolutely condemn the vicious ``kill Jews'' philosophy of Hamas. And all of us have an opportunity--which I think all of us are going to take--to stand by Israel when it comes to going after Hamas. I hope all of us are also going to do everything we can to encourage that every precaution that can be taken to protect innocent Palestinians be taken because they, too, have been kidnapped by Hamas, who cynically use them as human shields. But I read the resolution of my colleague from Florida. This is not about enforcing the existing law. This is about compromising a constitutional right that Americans have enjoyed since the inception of our country. It is the First Amendment. And it may be something that people in this body may object to, but when a person is in the United States, they enjoy the protections of our magnificent founding document to be free from unlawful searches and seizures and, certainly, to be able to say things that we may find repugnant. There have been many things that have been said that are repugnant. But at a time of maximum stress--and we are in that right now--is when there is the maximum stress to compromise the right we have enjoyed of free speech protected by the First Amendment since the founding of our country. And we have had some recent experience with this. After 9/11 and the trauma that our Nation experienced with the loss of over 3,000 wonderful people--in the Twin Towers, at the Pentagon, in Pennsylvania--there was a call to go after groups, to compromise rights. In hindsight, in those times when we did do the wrong thing, because we harmed innocent people in our anger--our justified anger, by the way--we don't want to do that again. So this resolution--however my colleague wants to characterize it--is about what happens in this country. This may be something my colleague disagrees with, but when a person is in this country, they enjoy the benefits of our Constitution and the right of free speech. I stand for free speech. My preference is that we focus on doing the things that this U.S. Senate can do to help Israel go after Hamas, to help all of the innocent Palestinians who seek to live in peace have that opportunity to do so. I object. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to make a few comments. First of all, the Senator from Arkansas speaks for 100 Members of the Senate when he expresses his outrage at the horrendous killings and terrorist acts by Hamas against innocent people in Israel--the worst attack and suffering in Israel since the Holocaust. So the Senator from Arkansas speaks for every single one of us. Second, in his characterization of Iran as a malign actor, their association with Hamas, Hezbollah, the attacks they had on our soldiers when they were in Iraq, I believe the Senator from Arkansas speaks for all 100 of us. He certainly speaks for me. I want to salute the Senator for the time he has spent during his service in the Senate alerting America to the threat that Iran poses. But I object for the following reasons: First of all, this President, President Biden, made a tough decision that Presidents before him had to make--including President Trump-- about using the power of the office to bring back hostages who were viciously detained, cruelly detained, in this case by Iran. He made that decision, and, with the help of Qatar, we were able to bring five American hostages home. That is a tough decision, but I would disagree with my colleague when he says that decision in any way indicates weakness or lack of resolve on behalf of President Biden towards what is happening and has happened in Israel. There is no better friend to Israel than President Joe Biden. He has been an ally and supporter of Israel throughout his time of service in the U.S. Senate, as Vice President, and as President of the United States. I do disagree, but this is not the time to get into a debate about the Senator from Arkansas's characterization of some of the intelligence about what was the role of Iran in what just happened. That is a debate for a separate time. I also want to disagree with the characterization that this is more money that is going to go to Iran. When this was being negotiated, there was great care given to the fact that this money had to be fenced off so that it could only be used essentially for humanitarian purposes. I am talking about medicine, medical devices, food, and agricultural products. Let's keep in mind that, yes, we have an adversary in Iran with the ayatollahs, with Iran's Revolutionary Guard, but there are Iranians who are suffering and who do need medicine. And our beef is not with the people; it is with that government. How are these funds limited? No bank can approve any one of the transactions. This money is not in the hands of Iran. For any money to be released, we have the backup of Qatar, where the funds are deposited. The money cannot be approved for any expenditure to any vendor unless it gets approval from the U.S. Government first. There is constant--constant--monitoring to make certain that the purpose--that it be for humanitarian use only--is met. The United States completely controls the valve of these funds, with the backup of Qatar. Finally, this would be somewhat insulting to the confidence we placed in Qatar. What diplomatic efforts they may be involved in now for other hostages, I don't know, but we want to express confidence in Qatar, which has assisted us in bringing five Americans home. Finally, there is the basic proposition--the United States made an agreement here. We got the benefit of that agreement with five Americans back home with their families. Mr. President, we keep our word. We keep our word. For these reasons, I object to the unanimous consent request.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I want to join my colleague from Hawaii, Senator Schatz, whose reasons for avoiding a shutdown are points that we all share, as his State also has suffered a devastating fire now in Maui, where we in Vermont have suffered a major flood this summer and need FEMA aid. There are a couple of things I just want to say. No. 1, I want to express my gratitude to my colleagues in the Senate who have come together--Leader Schumer and Leader McConnell--in bipartisanship, where we have a way of passing a bill to keep the lights on, to keep government functioning. No good comes out of a shutdown, to quote Senator McConnell. Like Senator Schatz, I have been through it before. And as Senator Schatz has said, when you ask the folks who literally explicitly favor a shutdown, ``What is next?'' they don't have any answer and don't seem to think they need to have an answer. And we do. The consequences of a shutdown are really devastating in large ways and in small ways. A shutdown means our men and women in uniform don't get paid. Seriously? We are going to condone asking people who are protecting the safety of this Nation to do it without pay? That is what shutdown advocates are saying. It is no big deal to them. And on some small things, I got a letter from a Vermonter whose heart has been set on taking his family to a hike in the Grand Canyon. I don't know if any of you have ever done that hike. You have to go on the website. It is almost like a lottery. You have to get a permit to hike. He got a permit to hike and camp for 2 nights for his family. That is, I think, October 5 and October 6. If we are shut down, that family hike is not going to happen. Well, do you know what? That is cruel. It is such a wonderful thing that our families can enjoy the Grand Canyon. They won't be able to do it. But I want to talk specifically about what happens to Vermonters, and this is a situation that Senator Schatz and Senator Hirono share with Hawaii. We got hammered in this flood. FEMA has done a tremendous job. The FEMA fund needs to be replenished because, as a result of the low amount of money in the FEMA fund, they have had to cut back on their efforts of recovery that have already been promised. Just yesterday, the Washington Post reported that FEMA is delaying $2.8 billion in disaster aid to keep from running out of funds. They have to have some money available if there is another event that requires immediate response to save lives. We understand that. That is the right decision for them. But it has real consequences for us in Vermont. Repayment of these long-term recovery projects that are being halted are not from last month. They are from last year. Just think of what that means for my State of Vermont, which is in the throes of recovery now. FEMA's transition to ``immediate needs'' funding has paused 13 projects in Vermont, totaling about $7.5 million. As of September 15, Vermont has incurred $291 million in flood-related infrastructure damages, and we need over $160 million from FEMA and $131 million from the Department of Transportation. On top of that, the State has estimated that it has incurred $225 million in damages related to FEMA public assistance activities, $75 million for FEMA public assistance hazard mitigation for 406 mitigation activities, $48 million for the Severely Damaged or Destroyed Residential Property Mitigation or Buyout Program, $20 million in damages related to FEMA individual assistance activities, and $11 million for the Minor Residential Damage Repair Program. Again, it was so reassuring to me that Republican colleagues approached me and said: Peter, we are going to be there to help you because we know, but for the grace of God, it could have been in my State. Thank you, colleagues. But there is a small group in the House that has this notion that it is no big deal if we literally shut down government. Well, it is a big deal for those folks in Vermont who need FEMA relief. It is a big deal for those men and women who serve in the U.S. military services when they won't get paid. And it is a big deal to that family that wants to have this dreamed-about hike in the Grand Canyon and won't be able to do that if, in fact, we are shut down on October 5 and October 6. So, thank you to my colleagues. I believe we are going to pass the bipartisan bill. Bipartisanship is the only way you can avert a shutdown and for us to have an opportunity to negotiate other issues down the road. And I thank my colleagues for their assistance in our effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. First, I want to thank Senator Collins and assure her that I appreciate the excellent work that she and Senator Murray have been doing, and I will be a vote for cloture so that we can proceed. Mr. President, Vermont is one of the States that suffered devastating damages as a result of recent floods and very much is in need of the replenishing of the FEMA disaster aid fund. As a Congress, as a Senate, our leaders, Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer, and our Appropriations chair and vice chair, Senator Murray and Senator Collins, have been working very hard to get a continuing resolution passed so that we will keep the lights on in government. And we can't shut down. Just think about it. Military people won't get paid. That is just absolutely unacceptable. Start there, and the cascade of terrible things that are all avoidable will happen. I am very appreciative of the efforts of our leadership, especially our committee chair and vice chair, for their work to avoid a shutdown. I am totally committed to avoiding a shutdown. It is unacceptable to inflict so much unnecessary harm on so many innocent people because of a crackpot theory that if you shut things down and burn the place down, it is going to result in a good outcome. There are no good outcomes, as Senator McConnell said earlier, when you use as a tactic to try to get your way to shut the government down. So I will be supportive of the efforts on a bipartisan basis here to work toward a resolution. It is still very much in play as to what is going to happen to the FEMA money that is so essential to people who have suffered as a result of natural disasters. I talk about Vermont, of course--and I will do that right now--but I am very mindful that my colleagues in Hawaii suffered that devastating fire in Maui, and, of course, we have had hurricanes and storms in Texas, in North Carolina, in Georgia, in Florida. So one thing all of us should be doing is helping each other when our citizens are the victims of a natural disaster. So the No. 1 priority is to keep the lights on because we are going to fight another day. No. 2, my hope, is that there is still time to include aid for the Federal Emergency Management Agency to help us in Vermont, to help folks in Hawaii, to help folks in North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and elsewhere. But I want to talk a little bit about what the situation is in Vermont. We remember the iconic photo that was broadcast nationwide of the downtown of the capital city of Vermont, Montpelier, underwater. The water is gone now. It has dried up. This is a local business in Montpelier, and that is the Minikin toy shop in Montpelier. The water was up to here. This is now gone, but the question is--this shop, the Minikin toy shop, where I bought things for my grandkids--Kelly Tackett, the owner, she spoke with the Burlington Free Press about the flooding in her toy store. And she said: This was my lifelong dream shop. Those photos [of the flooding] make me realize this is likely the end of Minikin. I worked so hard to bring it to life. She really needs a second chance here, and our FEMA funding can make a difference. I visited and spoke with her and her young family as they were cleaning up the shop right after the flood. Cabot, VT, is a small community, the home of Cabot cheese. It is at the headwaters of the Winooski River, and all of the businesses in the town were hit by flooding. The owners of Harry's Hardware, which also serves--this is a real Vermont story--as a bar and the town's only gas station, were trapped in the building by the floodwaters, which rose from a trickle to a flood within minutes. Vermont is still dealing with major infrastructure damage. There were more than 1,100 damage sites on roads and bridges in the State, causing significant challenges for commuting in rural areas due to unclear information on closures. We are still dealing with the recovery from that. Over 12 million pounds of debris from the flooding have been cleared, and the community has stepped up to extract it, as seen on Flood Recovery Day, where volunteers cleaned up over 100,000 pounds in 1 day. But there is still much more to go. Other key components of Vermont's infrastructure and economic drivers--railways, rail and hiking trails, ski resorts--suffered damage and need to be repaired. For the vast majority of these business owners, the disaster recovery loans offered by the Small Business Administration, they are not a financial reality; it will only force folks into more debt. They need grants. They need flexibility. They need options. I want to thank my senior Senator, my colleague Senator Sanders, who convened a meeting with the FEMA Administrator, with Governor Scott, and Congresswoman Balint. But the Administrator, Criswell--who is doing a terrific job, by the way, and Vermonters thank FEMA for their great work--she was very candid that the FEMA fund is running on vapors. It needs to be replenished. So as tough as the situation is--and I do agree we have to avoid the shutdown--my hope is that, before the end of the day, we will be able to have included FEMA relief to replenish that fund and make certain that the good work that FEMA is doing can continue. It is really a basic question here: No. 1, do we use shutdown threats and shutdown reality as a tactic? We, in this body, have rejected that. And the second is, do we find a way to make certain that when citizens throughout our country--not just Vermont or Hawaii but any citizens--who are in harm's way when a natural disaster occurs, that we are here so they can count on us to help them get to the other side? We have an opportunity to begin the process of keeping government functioning and rejecting the politics of shutdown threats. And we have the opportunity to work together again to replenish the FEMA disaster relief--the farm relief--that is so essential so that our citizens who have been in harm's way can get the recovery funds that they need. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam President, I want to thank my colleagues, and I want to thank the administration for the response to the devastating floods that we experienced in Vermont this August. I am here to make a report and also to make a plea that we replenish the Disaster Relief Fund in the FEMA budget so that the work that needs to be done in Vermont to help our farms, our families, our communities recover will continue to be done. Today, I had a telephone conversation that was set up by Senator Sanders. Our Governor was on the phone, and my colleague Congresswoman Balint was on the phone with the FEMA Administrator. And she has been doing a tremendous job. She has been extremely responsive. We are all grateful to her for that work. But what she did make very clear is that it is absolutely essential to the well-being of FEMA's capacity to continue to provide a response that this budget be supplemented and the FEMA supplemental be passed. So I urge my colleagues--and, again, I want to thank them--from both sides of the aisle who have approached me and said: Peter, your folks have been hammered by the natural disaster, and we will be here to help you. But there is a long way from where we are with the precarious activities going on in the House. First of all, we are pretty proud of the response. President Coolidge, who was our President in 1927 and was a Vermonter from Plymouth, VT, toured the flood damage when we had a catastrophic flood in 1927. And he nicknamed the State ``a brave little State.'' And that is who we are in Vermont. And his appellation of that term was his recognition of the indomitable spirit that our people in Vermont have to pick themselves up, to pull together, and to rebuild. Nearly a century later, of course, this August we experienced another devastating flood. What we experienced in July and August was nothing short of catastrophic. Towns across the State were devastated, with homes and businesses and farms completely destroyed. You can see here, this is our capital, Montpelier. And that was right after the rains that were parked over Montpelier and just would never leave. It is dry now, but these businesses along Main Street have not reopened. Some have; many haven't. To some extent, their decision is, will the FEMA aid be there so that they have a chance to open those doors and make up for the lost income and, hopefully, revive that downtown. Damage estimates are still coming in; but, currently, it is totaling in the hundreds of millions of dollars for our very, very small State. The impact on Vermont's farmland is stunning. This is Paul Mazza's farm. That farm, with vegetables, row crops, that was under tremendous amounts of water. When the water receded--the crops, the berries, the pick-your-own crops are not only important to families and nutrition, but it was a revered activity by families in Vermont to come to Paul's farm and pick their berries with their kids. He is not going to be able to harvest any berries this year. By the way, in terms of the damage that was done, USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service estimates anywhere between 145,000 and 686,000 acres of agricultural land in the State was impacted by flooding. The Conant's Riverside Farm, which I visited along with the Governor and Senator Sanders, half their hay and corn was impacted by the flooding--silk from the flood-covered corn that was used to feed their cows. There is real question about how they are going to make it through the winter because what they do is grow the crop and store it to feed to their animals over the winter. The Foote Brook Farm, which is owned by Joie and Tony Lehouillier in Johnson, VT, is one of the main services of food for that community in Johnson. The grocery store in that town was totally flooded out but will be reopening. Their farm was flooded, too. They had over $100,000 in losses. And what was really bad this time, they also lost a lot of their equipment. I do thank the administration, President Biden, and FEMA. I acknowledge the tremendous work that Governor Scott and his team have been doing staying on top of this. And there has been a tremendous effort on the part of Senator Sanders, who has been the leader of our delegation of three here in the U.S. Congress, but we have got to get that FEMA supplemental passed. While $16 billion in FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund is critical, the Vermont delegation, as I mentioned, is pushing for more because, with what has happened, regrettably, to our colleagues in Hawaii and the hurricane in Florida has added to the challenge and of the need. We need to increase FEMA's cap for hazard mitigation. We need to make small business loans forgivable. If you are a small business and you have just implemented a plan to expand and you borrowed money from the bank in order to do it, you can't afford to take out more loans. So it is really essential that we make it possible for folks to get grants--these businesses that are so critical to our communities--rather than saddle our small businesses with more debt. We also need to expand the USDA's Emergency Grant Relief Program for our farmers. (Mr. MARKEY assumed the Chair.) Mr. President, even if the world has moved on for other parts of the country, Vermont still needs help. One of the heartbreaking situations that you see, we visit when there is a farm, there is a family whose home has been destroyed, a business that can't open, and do all we can to make certain the relief gets there. But if it is your home that you can't get back into, if it is your business that you are not certain at all you can reopen, if it is your farm where the crops have been destroyed, there is a lot of suffering that continues. And it takes an immense amount of courage. What we have to do is make certain that folks who are willing to rebuild and come up from the floodwaters to do their work again, that we make certain we do our work here. That means getting the FEMA supplemental passed and enacted into law with the signature of President Biden. Our farmers, like the seventh generation Conant family farm, they need the support of Congress to get through the flooding. Our businesses on Main Street that hope to reopen need the support of Congress and the FEMA resources. And, of course, our homeowners, including folks who have mobile homes that were washed away, they absolutely need the assistance in order to get back into a safe and secure home. So my request to my colleagues is to do what all of us have done for each other when the people we represent have been on the receiving end of a catastrophic natural disaster, and that is to make certain that we come to the aid of our fellow citizens. And the way we can do that is by the passage of the FEMA supplemental request. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Grace Potter, a talented singer-songwriter who was born and raised in Fayston, VT. She is a Grammy-nominated artist and has been described by Spin Magazine as ``one of the greatest living voices in rock today.'' As her career as a musician has reached remarkable heights, she has continued to be a beacon of hope for her community back home in Vermont. Music and the arts bring people together and foster healing through difficult times. Ms. Potter has always used her musical talent to build community, which is what Vermonters do best. She has consistently uplifted young musicians and worked to create opportunities for the arts to flourish in Vermont. These efforts are critical to strengthening both local economies and the social fabric of our great State. Ms. Potter has also spent her career bringing attention to causes that she is passionate about, including promoting fair trade labeling and supporting local farmers. At the height of the pandemic, Ms. Potter hosted a virtual benefit concert with proceeds going to Shift Meals, an organization which delivers locally grown food to food-insecure households throughout the State. After Hurricane Irene devastated Vermont communities in 2011, Ms. Potter performed benefit concerts to support flood relief efforts. Catastrophic flooding again hit Vermont this past July and August, destroying downtowns, damaging businesses, and forcing Vermonters to evacuate their homes. Thanks to Vermont's indomitable spirit, communities have come together to rebuild from the flooding. Ms. Potter has been a critical part of this rebuilding, again hosting multiple benefit concerts to bring aid to those most impacted by the floods. Ms. Potter is a source of inspiration for so many, and she stands in solidarity with those in need of assistance during an incredibly challenging time. As Vermonters continue to recover from this summer's floods, we are grateful for Ms. Potter's dedication to the place we call home. Thank you, Grace Potter, for your contribution to flood relief efforts in Vermont and for your embodiment of Vermont values.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam President, I am delighted to be here with my colleagues, the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Kansas. I am going to start by answering a question that the Senator from Kansas asked rhetorically: Why is it that American citizens and consumers and merchants pay seven times what is paid by merchants and individuals in Europe? It is because our government doesn't protect our consumers. Our government is not protecting our merchants and our small businesses. Where there is a monopoly or, in this case, a duopoly and there is this massive pricing power that Visa and Mastercard have, they are doing what monopolies and duopolies do. They abuse that pricing power, and they just stick it to our merchants. It was $33 billion in charges in 2013, and it is $93 billion in charges now. And it is not as though the expenses for Visa and Mastercard have really gone up anything close to that. Inflation is their ally, as the Senator said. COVID was their ally, as we had to rely more on those cards. And they justify what they are doing because it is a convenience for the shopper. You know what, it is a convenience for the shopper. It is a convenience for the merchant. But how does that justify a rip-off just because you are doing something that we need? And it is folks in Kansas who voted for my Republican colleague, it is folks in Illinois who voted for my Democratic colleague, and it is all of the people we represent, not only these small businesses that are absolutely essential to our local economy and to the vitality of our small communities. We were at that press conference, and Senator Marshall's grocery store folks were here. They were salt of the Earth. They were like--the highest compliment I can give: They are almost like Vermonters, all right. They were terrific people. And we had a father, and we had the son who was going into the family business, and the family business is about serving people in that community. And we have got a store in Vermont, Dan & Whit's, which has been there for generations, and its motto is, ``If we don't have it, you don't need it.'' And you can basically get anything you want. But, do you know, during COVID, when they had these incredible challenges with workforce, they actually put an ad on the signboard, and retired folks from Norwich would come help do the work, stack the shelves, and do the checkout. And when a lot of my neighbors found out that every time a customer used a credit card it was costing Dan & Whit's 2 to 3 to 4 percent just so they would pay the bill, they were shocked and appalled. And this store, like the Senator's store in Kansas, all of them--retail is hard. That is such hard work. You have got to watch your costs. You have got to save your money. You have got to provide really good service. And Senator Durbin mentioned the second highest expense for many of these small merchants is the cost of the credit card, paying the bill. And it is invisible to most of us when we use our card, because I always thought, if I use my card and I pay my bill, I am not going to have to pay those 25 percent interest rates. But when I found out about what was going on, how much the merchants were getting ripped off, it actually was the last time we had over $4 gas and I was filling up at my local small convenience store, and I went in and talked to the owner. I got my coffee and got a doughnut. But he got out his bill, and he showed me that when I filled up the tank of gas, with the swipe fee and then the percentage that was taken out--and a very, very small margin on the sale of a gallon of gas for these stores--he was losing money. Visa and Mastercard were doing fine, but my local merchant was losing money. And the thing that I so enjoy about being with my colleagues here and Senator Vance on this bill is, at the heart of this, we understand that, in rural America and smalltown America and in neighborhoods even in big cities like Chicago, these local stores, these merchants, they give us so much service and so much emotional satisfaction. It is where you stop in, you talk to folks you see every day, you share the stories about who won, what happened to the Bears, what happened to the Patriots. But we need those places. Our communities, democratic life need those places. And this is not a Democratic-Republican deal. All of the people we represent and all of America want to have a sense of community, and who more than our local merchants, who oftentimes live above the store, right? I mean, a pretty tough job. They come down, sweep it up in the beginning and at the end. They give kids their first jobs. So many high school kids work in these stores, and they learn how to be good employees, how to do good customer service. The ability to hire these kids gets compromised because of this extra expense. And, really, what are they doing? We are paying a bill, all right. They have got incredible intellectual property. They have got security systems and all of that. It is good. It is a service. So no dispute there. But just because you are providing a service doesn't entitle you to rip off everyday merchants because you can. And the question that I think we have to ask as the U.S. Senate is, What is our job and whom do we work for? Our job is not to pad the already obscene profits of Visa and Mastercard. Our job is to protect our merchants who are doing the work day in and day out and our consumers who are doing their best to stay afloat, pay their bills, get from one end of the month to the other, and hope their checks clear and they can pay their credit card bill. Our obligation is to the people who have no power but who do have a right to expect that their elected Representatives and Senators, when they see a rip-off, will call it a rip-off and stand up and say: You are going to get treated fairly. And that is essential for restoring our trust and faith in one another. It is essential for our obligation to help communities that are working so hard to create a sense of place that people want, a sense of connection that we want, to make certain that those businesses that are doing so much in all of our communities--that are doing so much in all of our communities--can keep doing that work that is strengthening communities, providing good jobs to our kids. And do you know what? Let's act. Let's pass Senator Durbin's and Senator Marshall's bill, and let's protect our merchants against these rip-off credit card fees from Visa and Mastercard. I yield back.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam President, I rise today to recognize Dan Fraser, manager of Dan & Whit's General Store, who will be stepping down from his role. Dan & Whit's is a family-owned general store and the unofficial community center of my town, Norwich, VT. Dan & Whit's is a local institution, carrying products from coffee to nails, breakfast sandwiches to rubber gloves. As one employee stated, ``Dan & Whit's is the heartbeat of this community''--and I could not agree more. For decades, Dan Fraser has been an integral member of the Norwich community. Since he was in fourth grade, Dan has been working at the general store, named for his grandfather Dan Fraser, and has been a full-time employee since 1990. Dan's philanthropy and dedication to his community, whether it be on the Harford Town Selectboard or in special education, exemplifies what it means to be a community leader. Small businesses are the heart and soul of small towns and rural communities. Small businesses account for 99 percent of all businesses in Vermont, and our State serves as a model for the Nation, highlighting that local communities are at their best when small businesses are given the resources they need to thrive. Supporting our neighbors and supporting local businesses is the Vermont way. The town of Norwich is a better place because of Dan & Whit's. The COVID-19 pandemic made clear what Vermonters already knew: Small businesses and general stores are essential to our communities. The sacrifices that Dan & Whit's made during the pandemic, including a grocery delivery fund for folks who lost their jobs as a result of the pandemic, illustrate the store's commitment to serving the community. Even when staffing shortages nearly forced the store to close, they made sure to meet the community where they were and did all they could to ensure the community could thrive in trying times. Margaret and I will miss the warm welcome from Dan when we visit the store. His ability to always point us to what we need underscores the store's slogan: ``If we don't have it, you don't need it.'' While the store may no longer have Dan, the Norwich community will always need him. His enthusiasm and passion for his community will be especially missed, along with his colorful and lively shirts and shoes. Dan has served his community well, and Margaret and I are wishing him well in his next chapter of life.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in celebrating a major and long overdue achievement allowing the American people to have the benefit of a government that will stand up to negotiate prices and try its best to make the prescription medications that they need for themselves and the people they love to be affordable. You know, what is a greater responsibility that a government has to its citizens to help create a healthcare system that is accessible and is affordable? Why is it that in this country, the citizens that we all represent are getting hammered on the cost of medications that if they just go across the border to Canada, they can get at one-tenth, one- fifth of the price? Why is it? It is because until this day, we have been the only government that has not been willing to use price negotiation to protect consumers from price gouging by Big Pharma, and it is really brutal. I mean, every one of us--I talk to Vermonters, Senator Stabenow was talking about Michiganders, Senator Whitehouse was talking about constituents in Rhode Island--by the way, some of whom are Republicans, some of whom are Democrats, some of whom are Independents, many of whom don't even bother to pay much attention to the political process. But when they have to get access to that medication that is really essential to their well-being, they can't afford it. We are paying, they are paying--all our citizens--in many cases, 2\1/ 2\ times, on average, what folks across the border in Canada or in Europe are paying for the same medication. And, you know, it is terrific when Big Pharma, through their research, comes up with medications that can extend our life. But if they charge so much that we can't afford it, what does that do? And time after time, we have seen folks make these horrible decisions about cutting back on their medication at the threat to their own life and safety because they literally can't afford it. Now, the pharmaceutical industry, let's give them credit: They have created lifesaving drugs. That is a tremendous thing. But they can't use the fact that they are doing something good to jack up prices to make it unaffordable just for self-enrichment. You know, we, as a government, have done an enormous amount to help pharma with the innovation side, and they are suggesting that this legislation is going to interfere with that capacity. Is it true? No. Think about what we have done--we, the government, taxpayers. No. 1, the intellectual property is protected; so for that period of time, oftentimes well over a decade, they can charge whatever they want to charge and they have the exclusive right to have that drug on the market. And they charge a lot. No. 2, we have created an employer-sponsored healthcare system where we have employers in all of our States where it is really important to that employer to provide good-quality healthcare to its employees, and they have to pay whatever the premiums are that are, oftentimes, inflated as a result of us having the highest prescription drug prices in the world. Third, we have a Medicare/Medicaid program, which is a guaranteed purchasing pool to buy the products that they create. So pharma has protection on its profits with an exclusive period; it has a government that stands behind the right of citizens to have access to healthcare through Medicare particularly, Medicaid, and also employer-sponsored healthcare. And then what you see is the pharmaceutical industry going beyond the patent rights that it has for that market exclusivity and do the things that Senator Klobuchar was talking about where they try to extend the life of the patent well beyond what that limited period was supposed to be. And then, by the way, Wall Street gets in the game here, because what many of the companies have claimed is research is a corporate buyout. Company A buys company B that has a patent, a popular and necessary drug. They pay billions for it; and then to pay for the purchase price, they inflate the cost of that prescription drug. And they can do it; they get away with it. So, you know, Senator Hickenlooper asked the question: Why is the outrage not about that we let it go on for so long? So pharma is going to do fine and keep doing what they are going to be doing. They are going to have the patent exclusivity; they are going to have a government and a Senate with Republicans and Democrats maintaining the Medicare program so that folks who are going to need prescription drugs are going to be able to get them. They are going to do fine. But, finally, we have price negotiation so that, in effect, if you or I are going to the pharmacy to buy aspirin and we buy a hundred because the per-unit cost is a lot less, we get to pay wholesale--we get to decide about bargaining by what we purchase, a big amount or a little amount. Medicare should be able to do the same thing. So this is so overdue and so beneficial to everybody that we all represent, regardless of, politically, whose side they are on. This is about a shared need that our society has for access to prescription medication. And, of course, to the Presiding Officer, we all appreciate the focus that you put on insulin. I mean, if there isn't a more shocking example of a rip-off. This drug has been around for decades; there is no new innovation. But what there is, is pricing power. So those companies that had the ability to set the price, to raise the price, and to do it again kept going up and up and up, even though there were not any additional intellectual breakthroughs with the actual core of what insulin is. You know, we in this country know that working Americans are struggling to pay their bills. Things are expensive, and it is not just inflation. Things are expensive in many cases because there is real corporate power, and they can set the price they want. Nowhere do they do that with more abusive consistency than in pharmaceutical prescriptions. And we can decide, as a Senate, that we are going to find ways to make things affordable by stopping the rip-off. Having the capacity for Medicare to negotiate prices is a major breakthrough. It is no small thing. It is the beginning; it is not the end of our efforts. And I thank all of my colleagues for working together to help all of our constituents, regardless of who they voted for, because the thing they all have in common is they want to protect, especially, the people that they love. And in the arguments from pharma, what I find so alarming is that what they prey upon is the love that people in America have for their families because, if you are a mom or you are a dad and you have got a son or a daughter who needs a prescription drug and you can't afford it, you will take out a second mortgage or you will sell the house or you will get rid of your retirement account. You will do whatever it takes to save the person you care about. And pharma, with their pushback, saying this is going to threaten innovation is preying on those fears that all of us have about what will happen if we don't do everything we can to help the person that we love. And you know what, it is not about that for pharma. They are doing pretty well. Those salaries are astonishing. Those corporate buybacks are very rich. So I am proud to be with my colleagues here to stand up for the right that our citizens have--affordably, confidently, securely--to be able to have, when they need it, access to the prescription medication that is going to extend their life and save their loved ones. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam President, I would like to address the Senate and describe the situation in Vermont. On July 10, we had a catastrophic flood that affected parts of the entire State. What I would like to speak about today are a couple of things: one, where Vermont stands in the recovery and, two, to describe specifically damages to our agriculture community and our farming community. Before I do start, I want to express my gratitude to the Biden administration, to the FEMA folks who visited, to the Secretary of Transportation, who visited, and to the staff at FEMA, who have been working tirelessly to help Vermonters go through the very difficult process. There are folks who have lost their homes or suffered significant damage to their homes, folks who have lost their businesses. We saw, when I was here originally, a photograph of Montpelier, where the entire downtown district was flooded, and the individuals in the farming community who have seen all of their work and all of their crops destroyed. Senator Sanders and Congresswoman Balint and I are working as closely as we possibly can with Governor Scott, whose administration is totally dedicated to trying to help Vermonters recover. What did happen in Vermont affected homes, it affected infrastructure, it affected businesses, but it also affected the farming communities. Earlier this week, Governor Scott and I visited the farm of Paul Mazza in Essex Junction. Paul has been farming for about 40 years, since he was 11 years old. The farmland that we see here along the river--as you can see, it has risen up so that it covers much of the acreage. The acreage included raspberries, blueberries, blackberries-- crops for which neighbors and Vermonters from all around look forward to coming to the Mazza farm and self-harvesting. As Paul Mazza said to Governor Scott and to me, ``The people of Essex and the people of Vermont need my farm, and my farm needs the people of Vermont.'' A custom in Vermont was for folks, with their families, to go to the Mazza farm and do their own picking. He has about 40 acres that are dedicated to those extraordinary crops, and they have been destroyed. We walked that farm and saw the devastation. When the flooded waters rose up above the crops and then receded, it left a residue which destroyed them. He also has almost 300 acres of corn, feed corn, and about 250 acres of that were destroyed as well. What we understand is that about 100,000 acres of forest and cropland have been affected by the flood. About 10,000 of those acres are in direct agricultural activity. As for the vegetable crops from our small farmers, whose work is only paid for at the end of the season when they harvest and sell those crops, those crops are destroyed. So, with many of our smaller vegetable farmers, who are so important to community life and so important to getting good, nutritious food, those crops have been destroyed. The question is whether those farmers are going to be able to get back in business, and we are going to need to be able to help them if that is going to happen. I have a couple of things I would like to say. One is to Vermonters and to Vermont farmers: Report. Report. Report. In order for us here in Washington to be able to make the case for the aid that we need and you need, we have to document what the damages are. Some folks in Vermont are hesitant to make that report, thinking they might affect their neighbor's ability to get aid. That is not the case. We need to document how much loss has been suffered by every Vermonter. So, please, especially our farmers but our homeowners and our businesses, report. Call 211, and let us know what the damage is where you live. It could be anything from driveway damage to Paul Mazza's crop damage of a couple hundred acres. Second, Senator Sanders and I will be asking at some point, when we know what that damage is, for the assistance of our colleagues to help out Vermonters who have been the victims of this natural disaster, this catastrophic flood, that occurred 17 days ago. Before I finish, I want to express the inspiring response that Vermonters have had. You know, we are 17 days into this, and immediately after the flood, there was an outpouring of support from volunteers--other Vermonters-- to come to help businesses that were flooded, to help homeowners who were flooded, and even to help our farmers. People are going back to their lives, but Vermonters still want to help. Some of the stories so inspired me, and I will give one. In Marshfield, there is an owner of a general store, Michelle Eddleman McCormick. She thought she was running a country store. Well, on the day of the storm, in Marshfield, it was absolutely devastated. She took in three dozen people who stayed in her store, and she sheltered them. I just can't believe the generosity of this person to fellow Vermonters in need--taking three dozen people in, sleeping on the floor, and doing whatever they could to get through the night and the next day. The damage was enormous. Marshfield, where the country store is, lost three bridges, and a fourth was severely damaged. In the small town of Johnson, a sewer main was taken out when the line attached to the bottom of a bridge was ripped away by a car that was floating down the river. The wastewater treatment facility in Johnson was totally destroyed. It suffered 8 feet of water in the plant itself. Across Vermont, we lost 33 wastewater treatment plants. In the small town of Cabot--famous for its Cabot/Agri-Mark cheese-- every single road was damaged, and people were stranded within the community because you couldn't get out, and you couldn't get in. In Cambridge and Jeffersonville, these small towns were completely cut off during the flood. A senior low-income housing project was lost to the flood. So we are now in that stage where the initial trauma of that flood on July 10 is behind us, but there is very hard work that is required to try to get that business back on its feet or for that homeowner to find shelter, for that farmer--Paul Mazza and his daughter, Katie, and the folks who worked so hard on the Mazza farm--they have to do the day by day, step-by-step recovery because we want folks to be back in their homes; we want folks to be back on their farms; and we want folks to be back in their businesses. Vermonters are going to do everything they possibly can. The Governor's response and the legislative response is important, and there is public and private activity that is going on to help Vermonters get back on their feet, but we in the Federal Government have to do our part. Vermonters have always, always been there to help other parts of our country that have suffered natural disasters, which is through no fault of anyone's, but for the folks who are on the receiving end--in this case a flood, in another case a hurricane, in another case a wildfire-- we have to help each other, and Vermonters have always helped others. My hope--and I am confident on the basis of the very supportive comments that my colleagues have made to Senator Sanders and to me--is that we will get the help that we need for Vermonters. I am inspired by how Vermonters have helped each other, and my hope is that we will help them get back, fully recovered as soon as possible. I yield the floor. (Mr. COONS assumed the Chair.) (Mr. WELCH assumed the Chair.)

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, on May 24, 2023, Congressman Jim McGovern spoke on the House floor about the distressing situation in Cuba, and I want to associate myself with his remarks. He expressed his deep disappointment and frustration, which I share, with the current policy of the United States toward Cuba that amounts to little more than a continuation of the failed policies of the previous administration. If the consequences of our policy were benign, perhaps one could ignore what is happening on that tiny island of 11 million people. But, as Congressman McGovern described, it is anything but benign. Our policy is contributing, directly and indirectly, to widespread hardships and hunger in Cuba that caused some 313,000 Cubans to abandon the island last year alone, seeking entry to the United States. As any objective observer of Cuba knows, since long before the Castro revolution, the Cuban people have suffered continuous deprivations and humiliations. Political oppression and severely limited economic opportunities, punctuated by recurrent natural disasters, have circumscribed their lives. Through it all, they have persevered, propelled by their extraordinary ingenuity, national pride, and innate resilience. However, the mass exodus of Cubans in the past two years illustrates how dire the situation has become. This is by no means the first time that large numbers of Cubans have risked their lives to seek refuge and a better life in the United States, but none were on the scale of recent years. Several factors have led to the current calamity, including punitive Cold War sanctions reimposed by the previous administration and unfortunately kept in place by the current administration. The Cuban Government's mismanagement of the economy and its reluctance to fully unleash and energize Cuba's fledgling private sector, the global COVID pandemic and economic downturn, and the cutbacks in oil imports from Venezuela have all played a role in the Cuban people's plight. However, there also are several deeply flawed U.S. policies which enable Cuban authorities to continue to deflect blame for their own failures onto the United States. They have compounded the misery of average Cubans and damaged our relations with partners in the hemisphere. These policies must change. First, Cuba must be removed from the state sponsors of terrorism list. We will continue to have profound differences with the Cuban Government over the importance of democracy and protection of human rights. But the designation as a state sponsor of terrorism is based on a determination that a government has ``repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism,'' not on differences of opinion about democracy or association with unsavory governments. Removing Cuba from this list, as President Obama did, will bolster Cuba's growing private sector and enable American commercial investment, trade, and travel to Cuba. Both are critical to the future prosperity of the Cuban people. The Biden administration should expeditiously complete any necessary review to remove Cuba from the terrorism list. Second, the administration should waive the extraterritorial sanctions under title 3 of the Helms-Burton Act, which drew the ire of our hemispheric allies when it was enacted in 1996 and have been waived by all previous Republican and Democratic administrations, save one. Cubans continue to flee the island out of desperation, and we cannot credibly claim to ``stand with the Cuban people,'' while supporting policies designed to cripple their economy and increase their daily hardships. Finally, we should continue on the path of improving relations between our two governments, including by sending an ambassador to Havana. U.S. engagement with a foreign country does not ascribe legitimacy to its government. If that were the case, we would recall our Ambassadors and close our Embassies in dozens of countries. Our isolationist policy is helping to expand malign Chinese and Russian influence in Cuba, not prevent it. Engagement creates opportunities to cooperate when it is in our national interest and to actively defend universal rights and freedoms. Notably, engagement provides the United States the ability to more effectively counter the influence of our adversaries who seek to exploit the vacuum created by our absence. None of us condone the repressive policies and practices of the Cuban Government but there are serious consequences to our policy of unilateral isolation. History has shown that regardless of how difficult life is in Cuba, the Cuban authorities will take whatever measures they deem necessary to crush public dissent to maintain control, as we saw in the wake of the historic street protests of July 11, 2021. Hundreds of brave protesters continue to languish in Cuban jails. For years, Senator Patrick Leahy worked to replace an anachronistic, failed, punitive policy toward Cuba with one based on common sense and in accordance with our national interests. His efforts played a central role in President Obama's decision to restore diplomatic relations and engagement with Cuba in 2015. That policy was producing unprecedented, positive results for the Cuban people until it was unfortunately reversed. I urge the Biden administration to continue the work Senator Leahy and President Obama began. It is the only policy worthy of the United States.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, my colleague the Senator from Arizona speaks and spoke with the authority of a person who committed his life, before he came to the U.S. Senate, to the service of our country in the military. I do not speak with that authority. I speak with the gratitude of a citizen who has benefited from the willingness of folks like the Senator from Arizona to dedicate their professional lives to the defense of our country. In that respect, as a citizen, I speak for what all Americans have come to expect and rely on, and that is the willingness of young men and young women to sign up for service in the military--among them, the people who make that commitment that this will be their careers. They do it day in and day out, being ready for whatever may come, being willing to respond to the call of the Commander in Chief no matter what that may be, and all of us citizens who have not worn the uniform may take it for granted that we have these folks out there. What the Senator from Alabama is doing is essentially attacking that willingness to serve by pulling the rug out from under the people who have dedicated their lives, who have served with distinction, and who have earned the promotions for which they have been nominated by the President of the United States. You can't have an organization that functions when you don't have leaders. You can't have an organization that functions when the people who have committed their lives to the profession and who perform with great distinction and get that nomination for promotion aren't promoted. It does, as the Senator from Arizona described, erode morale, and it erodes the effectiveness of the institution. The cascading effects will be long term, and it is all on the basis of a willful determination to essentially abuse the men and women of the military and to abuse the military itself for an individual goal that is unrelated to the performance of the military but that has a very detrimental impact on the military. But do you know there is another element here? We are Senators, so that is a big position, and there is a lot of authority that goes with that job. But can any of us look in a mirror and feel good about the use of that authority when the effect of that power as it is being used right now is just flat-out mean? It is mean to families. It is mean to kids. You have folks whose lives are committed to the service of the military. They have been promoted. They are making a plan about taking children out of the schools they are in and getting them into new schools. That is incredibly disruptive, and it takes an immense amount of love and concern on the part of the men and women of the military to make certain, as they get promoted and move on in their careers and go from where they are to where their next assignments are, that they take care of those kids. That is incredibly important. How can a Senator take an action that is going to cause so much trauma for innocent people--including the children of these people--who have earned the distinction of a promotion? This has got to end. It has got to end. It has got to end because the citizens of this country are entitled to a functioning military, and a single Senator cannot intrude or should not intrude on the promotion process. This has got to end so that we show respect for families and the burden that goes along with moving from where you are to the next duty station. So I join with my colleagues in calling upon the Senator from Alabama to stand down and let us act on these promotions. Our men and women in the military deserve it, our military needs it, and the citizens of this country are entitled to it. I yield the floor.