Peter Welch

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I will yield to the Senator.

Mr. WELCH. Well, if you are a billionaire, it works out. The fact is, it can't be explained. It hasn't happened yet. This is about to go into effect if we don't act as the Senate.

Mr. WELCH. Yes.

Mr. WELCH. It is the actual imposition of the premium increase. The only way we can spare this heartache--literally, taking away people's healthcare--is by extending the premium tax credits. So that is a decision this body has to make.

Mr. WELCH. I did.

Mr. WELCH. Let me get that number for you but go ahead.

Mr. WELCH. Right.

Mr. WELCH. That is right.

Mr. WELCH. That is right; $37,000 a year, and there are 40,000 as you mentioned. This is really about the Affordable Care tax credits that expire. This was not in the Big Beautiful Bill. The Big Beautiful Bill took a trillion dollars away from the Medicaid Program, but now we have pending before us the imminent cliff where the premium increases that were passed by this body on a bipartisan basis to help during COVID, those expire. When that expires, those families in Wyoming are going--who are on the Affordable Care Act and who are 60 years old and they have $82,000 in income, they are going to see a premium increase of $37,193.

Mr. WELCH. That is a loaded gun. It is the heart of the family and their ability to carry on. This just can't happen. It can't happen. We are the body that has the option of ignoring the hardship and the catastrophic consequences of this on the families we represent or sparing them and allowing them to continue having access to healthcare they depend on.

Mr. WELCH. That is exactly right. That is exactly right. That is within the power. This is the wonderful thing of those of us that have this job. We have the power to do something that can help the people we represent. They need healthcare. Republican families need it. Democratic families need it. People who don't care anything about the political process, they need it. And in this country, they should be entitled to it. We can act. It is not a partisan thing. It is not a victory for one side or the other. It is really a lifesaver for these families--the Wyoming families, the Vermont families, the Illinois families. So I urge this body to come together to do something that the people we represent--every single one of them--need and would benefit by.

Mr. WELCH. Right.

Mr. WELCH. Well, you know, you are exactly right because that family making $82,000 a year, they are struggling to pay the premium as it is. If they have to pay $3,000 more a month, most of those families are going to say they would like to but can't because they are uninsured. I will give a story of my own. My first wife died of cancer, Senator. She had cancer for 9 years. We had terrific healthcare. She had a rare form of cancer. One night, my car broke down, and the wrecker guy picked me up. We had a long ride. We got to talking. It turned out that his wife--and he had two kids, younger kids--had the same form of rare cancer and his wife died and we talked about that. But there was a difference. We had insurance through the University of Vermont where my wife was a professor. He had no insurance. He was working late nights, long hours, raising these two kids by himself, and he was trying to pay off a $335,000 medical bill. That is not right. But that example you just mentioned or this Wyoming family or Vermont family or Illinois family, they are faced with $3,000 a month. They don't have the money; they go without healthcare. Somebody gets sick. It is a serious illness. They get medical debt. (Mr. JUSTICE assumed the Chair.) They get anxiety--anxiety on top of the anxiety that always accompanies a serious illness in a family, where all of your attention, if it is your partner, if it is your child, is about your partner, your child. On top of that, you have the incredible stress of bill collectors calling up: Where's the money? We don't have to allow this to happen. We don't, and we shouldn't. And I just want to emphasize, it is not a Republican, Democratic deal; it is a mutual responsibility that this U.S. Senator has to the people of this country in your State and in my State. So I urge us to get a solution. And I talked about West Virginia, the Presiding Officer's great State, where folks will face enormously high premium increases if these Affordable Care Act subsidies are expired. It will be brutal. I told the Presiding Officer about my visit to West Virginia, my respect for the coal miners, those hard- working folks there. And I know how highly important it is to the Presiding Officer about healthcare access. So let's act as a body. Let's do it together and make certain that folks do have healthcare, just don't have the anxiety and uncertainty and the bills that are just going to cripple them. I want to thank the Senator from Illinois. I want to thank my colleagues in the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, we are 9 months into the second Trump administration, and there are two dynamics that have become very painfully clear. One is the arbitrary use and abuse of power by the Executive and two, the regrettable passivity of the U.S. Senate. It is a dangerous combination--an Executive who is doing much more than he has the legal power to do and a U.S. Senate not doing what it is constitutionally required to do. The two very explicit examples of Executive overreach are tariffs and budgets. The U.S. Constitution, as you know, Mr. President, granted the Congress exclusive authority over setting tariffs under article I, section 8. That is because that is the taxing power that belongs to the Congress. The point of Congress having that obligation is that we are answerable--in the House, every 2 years; in the Senate, every 6 years-- to the constituents who elect us. The power to tax is the power to kill, and we have to exercise our responsibility on the taxing authority vested in this body by the Constitution. Yet the Executive is imposing tariffs, using as a pretext emergency authorities that, under special legislation, assumed restraint in the Executive. We have seen this in case after case after case--tariffs that are imposed on the personal decision of one person, an individual, the Executive. They can be for economic reasons. They can be for personal reasons. They can be for political reasons. It is not a policy; it is an erratic imposition of tariffs on our trading partners--in some cases, Canada, under the theory or argument that it is a ``national emergency'' when there is no threat to our national security by Canada--they are our near and dear friends; or it is for a personal reason--because the President does not like what the Brazilian Congress is doing with respect to its former President, and suddenly there is a 50-percent tariff that is imposed. This is a tax, and as a tax, it is our obligation to be the ones to decide if, when, whether, and how a tariff will be imposed. This should not be something that we look the other way when the Executive takes that constitutional responsibility that only we have. The second area of Executive overreach is in the budget. The power of the purse--that belongs to the Congress of the United States. Again, our Framers saw that the Congress would be the closest to the people we represent, that we would be the ones who would be making decisions about meeting their needs through the taxing and spending power vested in us. But what we now have is a situation where budgets that have been passed on a bipartisan basis by this Congress are being changed or ignored by the Executive. We have seen this year a rolling rescission and a rolling shutdown where funds that were appropriated by Congress are not being spent by the Executive, with no explanation other than he has the power to not write the check. That is not how the Congress and the Executive are supposed to work. Congress sets the budget--we are the appropriators-- and then the President implements that. Right now, there is $410 billion in funds that have been frozen by the Trump administration, and it is funds that are really important to our communities, that bipartisan votes authorized--$3.8 billion, for instance, to support local police, victims of crime, and other criminal justice programs; $1.5 billion to help U.S. farmers to help feed hungry people around the world through the Food for Peace Program; $220 million in funding to create regional tech hubs to strengthen the U.S. economic and national security. These are future-looking investments to bolster our higher education system and critical manufacturing supply. There is $109 million to support new and beginning farmers, veterans, and farmers historically left behind; $91 million to help improve weather forecasting. The list goes on. But the point here is that we as a Congress have the authority and the responsibility to set the budget. We did it, it was signed by the President, and now he is disregarding what the law requires him to do. So you have an Executive that is seizing the taxing power of Congress, and you have an Executive who is assuming unconstitutionally the spending power of Congress. Now, why is it important that Congress resist this? It is important because our founding document rested on the wisdom that there should not be a concentration of power in one branch of government--not the judiciary, not the Congress, and not the executive. The separation of powers, with three coequal branches of government, all hinged on the expectation that each branch would use the powers jealously that it was authorized to have under the Constitution and not cede those to another branch. That is an obligation that we have to the Constitution, that we have as a Republican or as a Democrat to the Constitution, and there is wisdom in that because, as we are seeing the power of Congress being seized by the Executive, with our assent, with us turning away as though it is not happening, we are failing to maintain that system of checks and balances that has served our country so well for so long. I have a lot of objections to many of the Trump policies, but there are many here who support the Trump policies. And that is the point. It is our job to debate, and then whoever gets the votes, that policy will prevail. But whatever differences we have about policy, we have a common, shared responsibility to meet our constitutional obligations, to be the branch of government that takes responsibility for whatever taxes are imposed on our citizens. That is our job, and we don't do it when we cede that authority to the Executive. It is also our job under the Constitution to provide for the appropriations that taxes pay for. Those are our decisions. And every single year we have debates about what are the best priorities, how to allocate the spending, what level of spending we should have. But once we make that decision, it is the limited authority of the Executive to then implement the decisions we have made. Instead, what this Congress is now doing is passing a budget only to see the Office of Management and Budget, on behalf of the Executive, saying: You know what, I don't care what you appropriated; I don't care if it was bipartisan. We will do what we want. We will spend what we want or we won't. That is a complete abdication of responsibility by this Congress, and it is very dangerous. It is dangerous because, with the taxing authority being made on the personal decisions of the Executive, you don't have a policy that anyone can count on. It is going to be damaging--it already is--to our economy. If we have passed budgets and then looked the other way when the Executive decides he is not going to spend it or spend it in the ways that we directed, it means that we have no capacity to meet the needs, as we see them, of our farmers, of our children, of our educational challenges. This dynamic of Executive overreach and U.S. Senate passivity has got to end to protect the well-being of our democracy and the well-being of the people of the United States of America. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, today I am proud to celebrate Melissa Appleton, a true champion for children, families, and the future of post-permanency support. As a leader in the Post-Permanency Program at Lund, Melissa's impact on the lives of children and families in Vermont is truly unmatched. With nearly two decades of experience providing exceptional post- permanency services, Melissa brings a rare combination of clinical expertise, ethical leadership, and compassionate advocacy to her work as Lund's post-permanency services coordinator. Her initiative, insight, and deep commitment to family-centered practices ensure that the Lund Post-Permanency Program remains a model of excellence. Vermonters praise Melissa for the support and empowerment she provides. For that reason alone, she is a wonderful nominee for the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute's Angels in Adoption honor. But it is also Melissa's extraordinary commitment to empowering diversity and inclusion through her work and at the recommendation of those who have witnessed her dedication that I submit her name for this honor today. Under Melissa's value-driven guidance, staff are encouraged to grow, reflect, and lead. Melissa's tireless commitment to making life better for children in need is further evident in her advocacy to secure additional funding and support for the post-permanency programs in Vermont. She played an instrumental role in writing and securing a grant that will bring a dedicated clinician into the program to support children and families. Vermonters like Melissa Appleton are at the heart of what makes our State so special and such a wonderful place to grow up and raise a family. She has truly raised the bar for what it means to be a leader in providing exceptional post-permanency services. I cannot imagine a more qualified or more deserving individual to receive this year's Congressional Angel in Adoption Award on behalf of Vermont.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I rise today to request unanimous consent to pass a bill I introduced with Senator Ron Wyden, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee. Our bill, the Repealing the Trump Sick Tax Act, would repeal provisions of the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, including a provision that excludes certain pharmaceutical drugs from the Medicare drug price negotiation program. It is a provision that hurts seniors particularly, people with cancer particularly, and helps pharmaceutical companies evade the responsibility to bring to heel their high-price prescription drugs. Our bill would also repeal the provisions of the reconciliation bill that would force Medicaid enrollees to pay out-of-pocket fees every time they need to see a provider. That is nothing more than a tax on patients. And it must be reversed. Mr. President, just this morning, with Senator Crapo and the Senate Finance Committee, we had the opportunity to interview, demand answers, and engage with Secretary Kennedy. Over the course of that hearing and in prior hearings, one of the points that Secretary Kennedy tried to make was that Members of the Senate, particularly Democrats--and he accused Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Michael Bennet of being pharma shills. Yet Secretary Kennedy and President Trump have championed the bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill--so-called--that literally is a $5 billion bailout for pharma by allowing them to get out of or delay indefinitely--and maybe forever--the obligation to negotiate fair prices. Let me give an example. Keytruda is a major cancer drug. It has been on the market since 2014. It costs between $150,000 and $170,000 per patient annually. Just think about that. You have cancer, you need this drug--I am glad it is there--but who can afford that kind of money? By the way, if it is paid for by Medicare or Medicaid, that means the taxpayers are paying this. It is not sustainable. It is not necessary. And as President Trump has often said, we pay the highest prices in the United States, even when it is us, the United States, that actually backs a lot of the research that goes into creating these drugs. We were making progress on price negotiations to have us achieve a goal of making our prescription drug prices come down, make them more affordable and not have the U.S. taxpayer, U.S. employer, and the U.S. families pay the most in the world. It just is not right. The One Big Beautiful Bill also included provisions that would delay the Trump administration from using Medicare drug price negotiations to lower the price of Keytruda. That is wrong. That is wrong. There is nothing beautiful about it, except that it maintains a big fat profit. Our bill would also repeal this part of the bill and allow the Trump administration to negotiate a lower price for cancer patients. I sincerely hope my colleagues will join me in helping pass this bill. Secretary Kennedy and President Trump said that their party wants to lower the price of drugs. I want to do that, and this bill would help us do that. My goal is we should pass this with unanimous consent. Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged; and that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2447, Repealing the Trump Sick Tax Act; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, on November 30, the people of Honduras will choose their next President and members of the National Congress. The stakes could not be higher. I am deeply concerned both about the integrity of the elections and the ongoing problems of corruption and impunity in the country. Given Honduras' history of fraudulent elections and the failure of the current government to take steps to ensure that the upcoming elections are free, fair, and transparent, it is incumbent on the Organization of American States, the United States, and other interested parties provide the support and observers necessary to mitigate opportunities for fraud. All candidates must be able to compete safely and fairly, and the Honduran people must be ensured the opportunity to cast their ballots in safety and without intimidation. Unfortunately, there are already reasons to question the government's commitment to protect the integrity of the electoral process. Honduras' Attorney General's office has reportedly increasingly acted to influence and undermine the autonomy of the National Electoral Council, a cornerstone of free and fair elections. The Attorney General's office has also failed to investigate credible allegations of political intimidation, further exacerbating concerns about the Council's impartiality. On July 16, 2025, Counselor Ana Paola Hall resigned, citing intense political pressure and threats against her and her family. Hall's departure leaves only two counselors and underscores the broader issue of political intimidation targeting electoral officials, which threatens the Council's ability to function. Further, the government has reportedly failed to implement the system for transmitting election results--intended to ensure the transparent and timely reporting of election results--increasing the risk of post-election disputes. These troubling developments undermine public confidence and make even more important the role of Honduran civil society in helping to prepare for and monitor the fairness of the elections. Articulacion Ciudadana por la Transparencia y la Justicia and Movimiento Indignados are examples of organizations that have worked for years to strengthen the institutions of democracy and the rule of law in Honduras. I also want to call attention, again, to the continuing threats and violence against members of the Guapinol, Tocoa, and other communities in the Bajo Aguan region of Honduras. It is a troubling reminder of the urgent need to counter the corrupt and abusive legacy of former President Juan Hernando Hernandez. Hernandez is serving a 45-year sentence in a U.S. prison, but the Honduran people remain victims of his violent legacy and of the failure of his successor to combat the corruption that is entrenched in Honduras or to take the steps necessary to end impunity. Many brave Honduran activists and journalists have been targeted and killed for nothing more than exposing the truth and resisting illegal actions. It has now been a year since the murder of Honduran environmental activist Juan Lopez, one of many victims of vigilante violence. Mr. Lopez had been wrongly imprisoned and prosecuted for speaking out against corrupt officials who seek to profit from an open- pit iron oxide mine and the Ecotek Thermoelectric Project. In addition to Mr. Lopez, there have been six other assassinations of members of the Guapinol water defenders. No one has been prosecuted or punished for those crimes, nor for the murders of other environmental and human rights defenders in Honduras. Juan Lopez, like Berta Caceres whose murder in 2016 was linked to officers of the company responsible for the hydroelectric project she and others in her indigenous community opposed, was a courageous defender of the environment and of the rights of the Honduran people. Following Mr. Lopez's murder last year, I urged the Honduran Government to take several steps immediately in response to the pattern of violence: Call for an international commission of experts to support the Honduran prosecutor's investigation, to ensure the investigation of Mr. Lopez' murder is thorough and impartial; protect human rights defenders at risk in the Bajo Aguan region; and investigate the abuses and corruption denounced by Juan Lopez and the pattern of violence against the Guapinol defenders. As far as I am aware, none of those steps have been taken. Nor has the Castro government followed through on her campaign promise to support the establishment of an international commission to combat corruption and impunity. As a result, impunity for these crimes and the vitriolic attacks against nongovernmental organizations by officials in the executive and legislative branches of government have continued. My State of Vermont and Honduras have been partners since 1966, just 2 years after the founding of Partners of the Americas. Vermonters have always had an interest in Honduras--its history, people, culture, and development. One of many examples is the Honduran Tolupan Education Program, which arranges for Vermonters and other volunteers to travel to indigenous villages in Honduras to help build community libraries where none exist. Vermonters want Honduras to succeed as a democracy where justice and economic opportunity are available to all its citizens. After 8 years of President Hernandez and 4 years of President Castro, the Honduran people deserve better. I hope that whoever wins in November will use their office to improve the lives of the people, rather than to enrich themselves. And I hope that the people of the communities in the Bajo Aguan will no longer have to live in fear that powerful companies and corrupt officials will steal their land, pollute their rivers, and murder them for peacefully defending the natural resources that are rightfully theirs.

Mr. WELCH

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

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, all of us are back from being at home for the past 30 days. In my visit in Vermont, my time in Vermont visiting with Vermonters, one issue that came up over and over again is incredible concern about healthcare. The cost of healthcare is beyond affordability, and this is really an existential moment for our healthcare system. Let me just talk about that in general but also with respect to the impact of the One Big Beautiful Bill. Under that legislation, 45,000 Vermonters are going to lose healthcare, literally lose it altogether. More than 26,000 Vermonters will lose access to premium subsidies which make the Affordable Care Act plans more affordable. Just let me give an example that I found shocking. A family of four in Vermont who makes $82,000 a year--right now, their premium is about $7,000 under the Affordable Care Act. That premium will increase by $23,600. So the premium will then be $30,648. They have done nothing. They have done nothing, and they have no control over what the healthcare expense will be. But their premium, when they wake up on January 1, is going to go up $23,600, and that is on income of $82,000. And, by the way, Vermont does not have high income. And in that respect, I know you are concerned about your folks in West Virginia. That is not affordable. It just isn't affordable, and the citizens have no control over what those costs are. They just have to pay the bill. The other thing that is happening is that our rural hospitals, they are going to lose $1.7 billion because of lost revenue. All those folks that lose Medicaid coverage are going to show up and get care. And our community hospitals, they will provide care for folks who are sick. But if they don't get paid, they can only do that so long before they go out of business. And our rural hospitals are like the rural hospitals in West Virginia. They are like the rural hospitals all around the country. They are operating on a very thin financial margin. They are in great jeopardy. So we are going to have rural hospitals that close. The other issue, we are all concerned about substance use disorder. Because of the cuts in Medicaid, about 8,000 Vermonters are at risk of losing access to the treatment that has been very effective. For the first time in years, the numbers of deaths has been going down, not up. And much of that is attributable to the fact that services were available to people who wanted them, needed them, and took advantage of them. You know, this is not me talking. This is Vermonters talking. I had a healthcare listening session. And the thing that folks, just as I mentioned, were really concerned about, worried about, is healthcare. And it was everyday care, care for their kids, care and access to healthcare, including care for new mothers and women who are giving birth. And we are in the process of having one of our hospitals, for financial reasons, have to shut down, a much utilized and much revered birthing center. So my view is we should repeal the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill. It is not a working-families tax plan. I mean, unless you mean taxes are what we do when we increase the premiums that our families have to pay. My view, we should absolutely be passing policies that help working families, and I have got bipartisan bills to do that. But we can't move forward without addressing these real threats to our healthcare system. And the repeal of healthcare provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill-- that is what we have to do. My longtime preference is that we have a healthcare system that covers everybody--regardless of age, regardless of income. It is what every other nation does. What we have is a system that is kind of a single-payer system in a variety of ways you can have it. But what we have is a system where we try to control costs by literally taking healthcare insurance away from people, as if taking away their healthcare insurance means they won't get sick. They are going to get sick. We have got to support Medicare and Medicaid. We need to extend the Affordable Care Act's premium tax credits so those Vermont families and families in every State across the country--red State, blue State-- don't get hammered with these multithousand-dollar premium increases. I serve on the Finance Committee, and tomorrow I am grateful to Chairman Crapo for inviting Secretary Kennedy in to report on ``progress in the healthcare system.'' I don't have that view of his tenure. My view, Secretary Kennedy has undermined, severely, vaccine research and vaccine delivery. My view, his policies have undermined rural health. My view, Secretary Kennedy should resign. We need a healthcare Secretary and a White House that is actually committed to practical ways to lower cost of healthcare, and we need leadership that cares about the very real and very painful structural issues that are making our healthcare system unaffordable and inefficient and out of reach for so many people. And that is true whether you are a lower income person who gets Medicaid benefits, you are a senior who gets your well-earned Medicare benefits, you are a private family trying to buy your own healthcare, or you are an employer where you really care about your workers--you want to provide employer-sponsored healthcare but you are getting hammered with these 10-, 15-, 25-percent premium increases. Healthcare is an essential concern of every single American family, and the concern is that it costs too much, access is too difficult, and the provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill have set us back. They have not moved us ahead. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I am horrified and outraged by the assassination of Awdah Hathaleen, a Palestinian teacher, community leader, father, and peace activist in the West Bank town of Umm Al- Khair. Awdah was a nonviolent activist, respected advocate for his community, and a voice for freedom in the West Bank. Awdah was shot by a settler terrorist Yinon Levi, who has been sanctioned by the UK, Canada, and the European Union and previously sanctioned by the United Sates under the Biden administration for perpetrating violence against Palestinians. The world knows how dangerous and reckless he is. Yet, on the first day of President Trump's second term, his administration removed the sanctions on Levi and other violent settlers. We need to call these actions what they are: terrorism--part of a violent, systematic effort, supported by the Israeli military, to forcibly remove Palestinians from their land. Awdah worked with film directors Basel Adra and Yuval Abraham on their Oscar-winning documentary ``No Other Land,'' which heroically showcased the violence in the West Bank, enabled by Israeli forces. I call on the White House to immediately reinstate the sanctions on those who disrupt the peace, security, and stability of the West Bank. I also urge Israel to hold Yinon Levi accountable for his crime. He should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Israeli officials often speak of their independent system of justice. Impunity for Mr. Levi's crime and the crimes of other settlers must end. We cannot be complacent in the face of this deadly violence and injustice.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, like my colleague from New Hampshire, I want to make a statement after, but I want to, at the moment, accommodate the scheduling requirements of some of my other colleagues. So I want to make a unanimous consent motion. As if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2383; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, these tariffs are terrible. No. 1, let's be clear, they are a tax. So every tariff is going to be paid for by every consumer in this country, and it is going to be an expense for every business in this country. That is No. 1. No. 2, these tariffs are totally chaotic in creating an immense amount of uncertainty so that businesses don't know what is the tariff from one day to the next. The least desirable situation for any of our businesses is when there is total uncertainty about what governmental policy is. The challenges to our consumers and to our businesses are universal. Every consumer in every State, every business in every State faces the threat of these higher expenses that go to consumers in this incredible uncertainty that is inflicted on businesses. But my legislation, the Creating Access to Necessary American- Canadian Duty Adjustments Act, the CANADA Act, cosponsored by Leader Schumer, by my colleague Senator Shaheen, Senator Murkowski of Alaska, Senator Kaine, Senator Collins, Senator Markey, and Senator Wyden, focuses special attention on our small businesses. The reason for that is as challenging as this is for every business, it is especially so for small businesses. They do not have the margin to deal with these price swings. They don't have the margin to adjust to the Monday-Tuesday-Wednesday policy changes. They don't have the margin to be able to absorb a huge hit in their expenses on the basis of whether a shipment that they were awaiting from another country was delivered on Monday or Friday. That literally is what is happening. Our small businesses are so profoundly important to us in Vermont-- and I know that is true in West Virginia, I know it is true in New Hampshire--and we have got to be doing things that help them. We should not be doing something that really hurts them. That is these tariffs. The impact to us in Vermont is especially acute in our proximity to Canada. Canada is Vermont's major trading partner, but Vermont is hardly unique. Thirty-four States in our country have as their major trading partner Canada. So we have got to level with the American people--the people we represent. The President is suggesting that these tariffs are nothing but pure revenue for our country. You know what, it is revenue for our country, but it is revenue that is paid for by our consumers and by our businesses. As Senator Shaheen has so eloquently stated, we have got a serious affordability crisis in this country. People who work hard, who work full time, cannot afford to pay their bills at the end of the month. Our businesses that are operating with enormous efficiency and who are super concerned about the price consciousness of consumers and are doing everything they can to keep their prices down but have enough of a profit to keep the lights on, to keep people employed--they are overwhelmed by what is happening with these tariffs and how it is inflicting uncertainty and causing them to have layoffs. You know what, those small businesses do not have the pricing power that our major businesses have. They can deal with it. They have got market power. And I am actually on their side because I don't think they should be subject to these horrible tariffs, but what I do have some appreciation for is the fact that the small businesses just don't have that margin no matter how hard they work, no matter how carefully they plan, no matter how committed their workforce is. If you have this tariff that creates a tsunami of uncertainty and expense, that jeopardizes their ability to hang on. Let me go through some of the effects on Vermonters that I spoke to. All of us, like Senator Shaheen, visited businesses, talked to real people. Here is what I am hearing in Vermont: Farmers: They are having to pay already 25 percent more for fertilizer. By the way, that is not unique to Vermont. That is all over the country. Our dairy farmers, small margin. How do you tell them to pay 25 percent more? And on August 1, by the way, it can go up to 35 percent. Our maple producers: We import a lot of maple syrup from Canada. We produce the most maple syrup in the United States of any State, but we cooperate with them, and it is going to create a distortion of the market and put a lot of pressure on our maple producers. Housing: As Senator Shaheen said, we get lumber from Canada. Housing is incredibly expensive. We all know that. It is true in your State, and it is true in mine. It is one of the big threats to people having an opportunity to move into the middle class. They can't afford a house. These tariffs are sticking it to our folks in housing. The National Association of Home Builders is absolutely opposed to these tariffs, and rightly so, because an already expensive house now is going to have a 25- to 35-percent increase in the cost of lumber. I mean, where is that coming from? How is that fair? How does that make any sense for everyday, hard-working people in Vermont and in every State? We are losing jobs from these. Steel and car manufacturers are having layoffs. They are in Michigan. They are in Indiana. They are in Alabama. They are in Minnesota. In my State, Orvis, which is an iconic producer of elegant and exceptional fly rods, has had to lay off workers for the first time in a very, very long time, and it is all totally as a result of these tariffs. You know, small business--I know we all believe this--is the backbone of our States, and every single one of us on both sides of the aisle, I think, sincerely believes that. But is it really a belief when we give lip service but not action to protect their opportunity to compete? And these tariffs are a killer for them. There is not a small business you can talk to that supports these tariffs and doesn't see it as an existential threat to their well-being. You know, the President, on these tariffs particularly with Canada-- we had the United States-Canada-Mexico Trade Agreement, and that was negotiated by President Trump. He, in his Trumpian way, bragged about that as the best deal ever, and now he is ripping it up. So what was it, the best deal ever? It actually was working. It gave stability. We had a market from Mexico up through Canada, and now that is getting ripped apart with these arbitrary actions on the part of the administration. So it is all downside here. You know, there is a lot of press recently about the President getting a deal here and a deal there. And in the short-term news cycle, that is regarded as a victory. But you know what, when you step back and look at what the deals are, it is a deal to raise the cost to folks in West Virginia; it is to raise the cost to folks in Vermont, raise the cost for folks in Oregon, raise the cost for folks in New Hampshire. I ask the obvious question: How is that a good deal? Maybe it is a good deal, politically, for the President, but it is a really bad deal for our small businesses and for our consumers. The other part of this, particularly with Canada--huge tourism industry. About 20 million Canadians come to the United States, about $20 billion. The folks from Canada--we, in Vermont, in New Hampshire, feel very close to them. We feel a social, economic, political connection to them. We really value them, and this has been such an insult to them. I mean, aside from the tariffs, to talk about the 51st State to the Governor of Canada, that is all really uncalled for and very hurtful and very harmful. Senator Shaheen and Senator Wyden both led delegations to Canada where I think they were, on behalf of all of us, expressing the appreciation and respect we have for our Canadian neighbors. We should not be doing something with these tariffs that shows massive disrespect to them. I just want to end with a few quotes from the Vermonters I spoke to. By the way, these are Republicans; these are Democrats and Independents. This is not a deal that relates to whose side you are on in the Presidential contest. These are folks committed to the community they live in, committed to the employees who work for them, and care about a strong economy and a strong social life for us in Vermont. Our treasurer said: Small local businesses will be hit very hard. They don't have the ability to find a different supplier and different vendors with the limited flexibility they already have. We had another, a vegetable farmer, small scale: It feels like death by a thousand cuts. Person in healthcare: Adding a tariff will either lead to drug shortages in the short term or long-term significant price increases. So there is a commonsense element here that just seems to escape the U.S. Senate at times. We are actually pretending that this tariff is not a tax. It is a tax. We are pretending that the constant change and whimsical nature, the arbitrary nature with which the radius of one thing today and a different thing tomorrow doesn't have a really disastrous impact on folks who have to make real-world decisions about their ability to produce a product to meet the obligations of a contract they have entered into, to maintain the stability of their workforce and their supply chain. It is all downside with these tariffs, and these are not targeted. You know, it is a separate question to use a tariff when you have got unfair labor or trade practices as we have from China. I think all of us here are quite open to the proper and limited use of tariffs as a tool. But this notion that tariffs as a revenue source and pretending that revenue is not being paid for by our businesses and by our consumers is wrong. It is just flatout wrong. As this policy gets implemented, we are going to lock in these price increases and further aggravate the affordability challenges that everyday, hard-working Americans are feeling more acutely than ever. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, the mass starvation in Gaza must end. The forced displacement of 2 million Palestinians in Gaza must end. We all condemn Hamas. We support a Jewish independent democratic state. We want a cease-fire, and we want the hostages home. But a colleague in the other body stated what needs to be said. It is the most truthful and easiest thing to say that October 7 in Israel was horrific and all hostages must be returned but so is the humanitarian crisis and starvation happening in Gaza. And that is happening with U.S. complicity, and it is time for us to stop complying. Let's face it, let's face the facts and not ignore them. The starvation that we are seeing today, it is not unforeseen. It is not the unintended, unfortunate consequence of war. The starvation we are witnessing today is the self-conscious result of a military policy to concentrate the Palestinian population into an ever-smaller slice of land. The starvation that we are witnessing today, it is an advanced and accelerating stage of the military strategy that is being executed by the Netanyahu government to force Palestinians out of northern Gaza and to induce them to leave the territory altogether. And Palestinians, compelled by hunger and thirst, are being forced to make their way to a handful of sites, which our closest allies uniformly condemn as a drip feeding of aid. And, in fact, aid was totally cut off--totally cut off--by Israel for over 2 months. How in the world did they justify doing that? And from the earliest days after October 7, we witnessed this plan of systemic and wanton destruction that included destruction of homes, destruction of mosques, hospitals, and schools. This was done. This is fact. We may not want to face it, but it was done with bombs that were provided by American taxpayers and approved by this Congress. Israel unleashed the most deadly and destructive aerial bombardment campaign since Vietnam. More than 200,000 buildings were destroyed. Thousands of children were killed and injured. Thousands are amputees. And in just the last 3 months, the last 3 months--May, June, and July-- the Netanyahu government campaign has continued, and thousands more homes have been flattened by controlled demolitions. That literally means the military folks go up to a home, wire it, and blow it up. It is a home. Thousands more have been demolished by bulldozers. Israeli forces have bulldozers, and they flatten the home. You know, it is too late, it is too late for the 60,000-plus people that have been killed in Gaza. But it is absolutely not too late for the U.S. Senate to act. We are at an absolute catastrophic inflection point. And I believe that the United States, in fact, does have an obligation under humanitarian law to act. And I do believe that the American people, in your State and in mine, whether they have been supportive of Israel or not, are horrified at what is happening to innocent people in Gaza. We have an obligation to act because if we do act, we can help save thousands of lives of Palestinians, who, as we speak, are starving. You know, some folks take the position that the suffering and starvation will end when Hamas lays down its arms or releases the remaining IDF hostages. Every single one of us wants that day to come. But you know what, we have to ask ourselves a frank question: Is it right, is it just to use as a tool of warfare the starvation of an innocent population? And I believe it isn't. International law says that is not allowed. It is a crime to starve a population to get what you want from your enemy. It is illegal and cruel to starve children to obtain a battlefield advantage. Yet the Israeli government, under Prime Minister Netanyahu, has said that it is doing that; that is what it is doing. It is so long past time for us to say enough. It is long past time to say, no, the United States will not stand by while hunger is being used as a weapon of war. And we cannot separate the current starvation in Gaza from the Netanyahu government's strategy of forcibly displacing Palestinians from their land. You know, the leaders of Israel have explicitly stated their vision for Gaza. So this is not like a discussion or a debate trying to figure out what is the story. Prime Minister Netanyahu said: I don't care about the tactics and ordered military officials to ``destroy the homes, bomb everything in Gaza.'' He said that. Finance Minister Smotrich, he said, ``Gaza will be totally destroyed, civilians will be sent to . . . the south to a humanitarian zone . . . and from there they will start to leave in great numbers to third countries.'' Heritage Minister Eliyahu, last week, said that the Israeli Government--this was last week he said that--was ``rushing toward Gaza being wiped out'' and ``driving out the population.'' There is no mystery about what the agenda here is under the Netanyahu government. You know, we are here to debate a continuation of American military weapons that are being used to implement the Israeli--Netanyahu-- Government policy. But we are doing it at a time when the horror of starvation has become apparent to everyone. And I applaud President Trump for saying it like it was. There is starvation in Gaza--and then being in conflict with Prime Minister Netanyahu, who still denies it. But America's closest allies are calling for an end to the war. America's closest allies are wanting to cut off the shipment of weapons that sends a green light to Netanyahu's extremist government. And yet we are here today where just 2 weeks ago, President Trump, in fact, indicated that he intends to ship another half billion dollars' worth of 2,000-pound bombs and 1,000-pound bombs to the Netanyahu government. So today we are here to debate, once again, whether we as representatives of the American people and the American taxpayers, people who want peace, who want the hostages home but are horrified at the starvation and the destruction of innocent civilian lives, the wholesale destruction of buildings and communities, whether we should continue to provide those weapons to Israel. These bombs, by the way, are in addition to the 70,000 tons of explosives--70,000 tons--that have already been dropped on Gaza. And that is the equivalent of six Hiroshima nuclear explosions. Those bombs, as Senator Sanders said, have been used to destroy more than 200,000 buildings in Gaza. That is more than three times the number of buildings in Manhattan. The bombs have killed thousands of kids, the equivalent of a classroom full of children every day has been killed in this conflict, a classroom. And let me tell you just about one strike. It was caused with a U.S.-provided JDAM. On June 30, a month ago, a 500-pound bomb struck a crowded beachfront cafe, the Al-Baqa Cafe. People were having coffee. How in the world they had the ability to do that with the destruction all around them, amazing. But CNN reported that 40 people were killed, dozens were injured, including a 4-year-old child and a well-known filmmaker. And a couple that had recently become engaged--just think about that. They got engaged in the midst of this destruction, showing that despite all this violence, they had hope for the future; they had love for one another; they had that capacity amidst this enormous suffering to see a future and want to be part of it--dead. Mona, who was the woman, was an engineering student, spoke fluent English, volunteered with orphans, and she was out for a break with her friend. Mariam Salah, she was a young painter who grew up in a refugee camp. She painted murals and dreamed of a career as a digital artist. She is dead. You know, the Netanyahu government claimed we were targeting terrorists. Who knows? Was there a ``terrorist'' there? There was nobody in combat. So we have to stop. We have to stop. And the question for this country is, Will we stop being complicit in this destruction? I yield the floor.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, the Israeli-inflicted starvation of Palestinians in Gaza must end. It must end. I have come to the floor time and again to urge the Senate to take action, to demand a cease-fire, to stop the bombing, to demand a surge of humanitarian aid in Gaza, and to bring home the hostages. Two months ago, I spoke about a young girl who starved to death in Gaza--Jinan Iskafi, seen here--who died in the arms of her father. All those speeches have been to no avail. Tragically, Jinan--and by the way, that name means ``paradise,'' the hope of that family for what they hoped would be a future for this beautiful, young girl--died of starvation, government-inflicted starvation, in Gaza. Tragically, many more young children have followed. Jinan's death and the deaths of so many--tens of thousands of innocent people--in Gaza will become part of our history because the U.S.A. shares responsibility for this catastrophe, and we and future generations of Americans will have to live with that forever. The children who survive this war will be remembered as victims of a unique class of warfare. This is a manmade famine caused by weapons provided by the United States--and paid for, by the way, by U.S. taxpayers. The starvation we are seeing today is not the unforeseen or unintended consequence of war. Let me be direct. The starvation we are witnessing today is the result of a military policy to concentrate the Palestinian population into an ever-smaller slice of land. The starvation we are witnessing today is an advanced and accelerating stage of the Netanyahu government's military strategy, devised and executed immediately following the terrible attacks by Hamas on October 7, and that was to force the Palestinians out of northern Gaza and to induce them to leave the territory forever. Compelled by hunger and thirst, the people, the Palestinians in Gaza, are being forced to make their way to a handful of sites that our closest allies have uniformly condemned as the drip feeding of aid. This so-called humanitarian pause is a mirage. It is false. It is a trickle of aid to the mere 12 percent of Gaza that is not a military zone that is being razed and flattened as we speak--razed and flattened as we speak--razed to ensure that it cannot be returned to. From the earliest days after October 7, we witnessed this plan that can only be seen for what it is--a systematic and wanton destruction of homes, of mosques, of hospitals, and of schools. That is what is happening. With bombs provided by American taxpayers, the Netanyahu government has unleashed the most deadly and destructive aerial bombardment campaign since Vietnam. More than 200,000 buildings were destroyed. Thousands of children were killed and injured, thousands of amputees, and it goes on and on. In the last 3 months, that campaign has continued. Thousands more homes have been flattened by controlled demolitions--self-conscious application of military explosives to destroy a home or a school. Thousands more have been demolished by bulldozers before the very eyes of people whose homes they are seeing totally flattened. It is too late for the 60,000 people that have been killed in Gaza, but it is not too late for the Senate to act. We are at an absolutely catastrophic inflection point, and I believe that the U.S. Senate has an obligation, as our country does, under international humanitarian law to act. We can act and help to save thousands of Palestinians who as I speak are starving to death--as I speak, are starving to death. Two months ago, I led a resolution. It was sponsored by 46 Democrats. It had a simple demand: Our country must work to end the siege on food aid. It was blocked. You know, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I am sure every bit as much as I am, are horrified at the suffering in Gaza. But it is not enough for us to be horrified. We have to act. We all condemn Hamas. We all want the release of the remaining hostages. But we have to ask ourselves the question: Is it at all justifiable that there is a policy that has to be recognized that starvation is being used as a tool of warfare? I reject the legitimacy of that act. It is a war crime. It is a war crime to starve a population to get what you want from your enemy. As righteous as your defense against an enemy may be, it is illegal to starve children to obtain a battlefield advantage. Yet the Netanyahu government has actually said it is doing that. In my view, Mr. President, it is long, long past the time to say: Enough, enough, no. The United States will not stand by while hunger is used as a weapon. We don't do that, and we cannot separate the current starvation in Gaza from the Netanyahu government's strategy of forcibly displacing Palestinians from their land. A short-term surge of aid to keep Palestinians alive is not what we need. We need full, uninhibited, generous, accessible aid, medical and food. But that is not the Netanyahu government policy. And we can sometimes act as though we are not an agent here or we don't quite see or we want to give them the benefit of the doubt because Israel has been our ally. But take the words--can we be numb to the words of the Netanyahu government officials? The Prime Minister himself said ``I don't care about targets'' and ordered military officials to ``destroy [the] homes, bomb [everything in Gaza].'' He said that. Finance Minister Smotrich said Gaza will be totally destroyed. Civilians will be sent to the south to a so-called humanitarian zone. And from there, they will start to leave in great numbers to third countries. He said that, a high official in the Israeli Government. Heritage Minister Eliyahu said last week--last week--that the Israeli Government was rushing toward Gaza being wiped out. There is no mystery here. These are the statements of high government officials. Defense Minister Katz said: Gaza residents, this is a final warning . . . you will pay the full price . . . return the hostages and remove Hamas, and other options will [be] open [to] you, including leaving for other places in the world for those who want to. The Palestinians who live in Gaza, hard as it may be for us to appreciate it, that is what they call home and they want to stay there. Mr. President, the tragedy and suffering in Gaza today demands our full attention and our full engagement because this is a war that we are contributing to sustain. I am here today to debate Gaza's famine conditions because the United States has been paying for weapons that Israel is using to flatten Gaza but not to feed Palestinians in Gaza. It was American taxpayers who paid for the bombs and bulldozers that are continuing to flatten homes to ensure they are never returned to and that are creating the misery that all of us are shocked to see today. America, first under President Biden and now under President Trump, provides cover for extremists in the Netanyahu government to continue these actions. America's closest allies have called for an end to the war and cut off the shipment of weapons that send a green light to the extremist government of Binyamin Netanyahu. And yet just 2 weeks ago, President Trump notified the Senate that he intends to ship another half billion dollars' worth of 2,000-pound bombs and 1,000-pound bombs to Israel. While President Trump speaks of trimming budgets and spending more money here at home, he is shipping billions of dollars of bombs and shells and bullets that are being used not just to starve the Palestinian people but to flatten their homes and drive them off of their land. Mr. President, I oppose this. I believe the American people have had enough. The American people are demanding leadership and clarity from us--from the White House--that can put an end to this terrible bloodshed and put an end to the misery of generations of Palestinians in Gaza. And the American people are demanding leadership from us today to help secure a real justice and peace for the people of the Middle East. Mr. President, whatever differences we may have, none of us can--none of us should; none of us can--condone the excruciating starvation and misery that can be abated immediately with the full access to the food and medicine that the people of Gaza need. I yield the floor.