Floor Statements

Mr. President, the Third Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Cluster Munitions is underway in Laos, a country where millions of U.S. cluster munitions from the Vietnam war continue to maim and kill civilians. Large areas of provinces bordering Vietnam remain contaminated with these deadly explosives. The U.S. is helping clear these munitions, but more resources are needed.

Cluster munitions continue to be used today in other armed conflicts. A provision in U.S. law authored by my predecessor Senator Leahy prohibits the sale or transfer of cluster munitions with a failure rate of more than 1 percent. That was an important step, but further action is necessary. Cluster munitions are delivered by artillery or aircraft, disbursed by hundreds or thousands over wide areas. If they detonate on impact as designed, they threaten the lives and livelihoods of anyone-- combatant or noncombatant--within a large radius. Cluster munitions that fail to detonate pose an unacceptable risk to innocent people for years or decades, just like landmines.

I commend the states parties to the Convention and the nongovernmental organizations around the world, like Legacies of War in the United States, which have worked to rid the world of these indiscriminate weapons. The U.S. and the other major powers should join both the Convention on Cluster Munitions and the Anti-personnel Mine Ban Convention and work to end the production, stockpiling, transfer, and use of these weapons that have no place in the arsenal of civilized nations.

Madam President, I rise today to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the Vermont Country Store opening its doors in Weston,

Mr. President, I listened to the presentation by my colleague from Maryland and agree with everything he said.

And the heart of the question is whether the person who has been nominated to serve as Attorney General will serve the people of the United States or will he serve the President to whom he has indicated blind, complete, servile loyalty?

And the recitation of facts about what Mr. Blanche has done in this incredibly important job as Acting Attorney General has made clear what his client is, who that client is.

There is no place at the top of the Justice Department for a person who pledges personal loyalty to anyone other than the American people. But, you know, the reality here is, the President won't appoint anybody to the Attorney General's position who won't act as his personal attorney.

And there is a sadness that I have about this whole story that is before us. It is the story of a person who when he was a young man, a young attorney, Todd Blanche was extraordinarily talented, was very idealistic, was a prosecutor's prosecutor, and who did abide by and uphold the rule of law.

He became a new person in service of a President that I believe is corrupt. Two billion dollars of income to the President of the United States in his first year raises more than a mild question.

And this person now to be Attorney General, in his Acting Attorney General role, essentially provided tax immunity to the President and to all of his children, family, and affiliates. It is totally outrageous. When you say it, you can't even believe the words are coming out of your mouth. It is absolutely unprecedented.

It has nothing to do with the way public business should be conducted. But Mr. Blanche, who has considerable talents, has used those talents to enable and to facilitate and to cover up and to revise and accommodate the corrupt goals of a President who, I believe, is corrupt.

And, by the way, as I mentioned earlier, that is whom the President wants. He wants someone who is going to do his work for him unquestioned, no matter what. But, you know, there is another question that belongs right here in the U.S. Senate. Is there no line that the U.S. Senate will not allow this President to cross?

The Senate confirmed Bondi; it confirmed Hegseth; it confirmed Patel; it confirmed Noem; and we are about to confirm Blanche. The President is abusing his authority, in my view, in every day and in every way. And that is shame on him, but the U.S. Senate is failing to use its authority, its power on any day or in any way. Shame on the U.S. Senate.

Should not the U.S. Senate use its advice and consent authority to demand competence and integrity? Did the Senate do that with Bondi, with Noem, with Hegseth, with Patel, and now with Blanche? Should not the U.S. Senate use its taxing authority to stop tariffs that the vast majority of this body believes is hurting the American people and is not the right of the Executive to impose?

Should not the U.S. Senate use its constitutional power of the purse to stop the invasion by President Trump into the power of the purse? And should not the U.S. Senate use its constitutional authority over the awesome power to declare war and stop this illegal war in Iran that, in fact, President Trump is losing?

The President is abusing his authority. We are failing to use ours. We can stop capitulating today by rejecting this nomination.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, we are faced today with two urgent and compelling foreign policy priorities: ending the war in Iran and winning the war in Ukraine.

The war in Iran is increasing the world price of oil, enriching Putin's Russian wanton war machine. On February 27, just before the start of the U.S.-Iran war, oil was at $70 a barrel. Last week, it was up to $100 a barrel. And if the Strait of Hormuz is closed again, experts warn prices could surge up to $125 a barrel, driving up fuel, fertilizer, and food costs. And with every $10 increase in global oil prices, Putin's war machine receives a windfall of more than $1.5 billion a month--$1.5 billion a month--in extra revenue. If oil reaches $125 a barrel, as many experts predict, Putin's windfall would be $9 billion a month or $108 billion a year.

It is a very compelling reason why, to win the war in Ukraine, we must end the war in Iran. It is also a reason why taking up the Graham- Blumenthal Russia sanctions bill is urgent. From the first day of Putin's savage attack on Ukraine, no one has been a more stalwart defender of Ukrainian victory than our departed colleague Senator Lindsey Graham. He and Senator Blumenthal had a compelling insight: You hurt Russia by going after the buyers of Russian oil. And the way to go after the buyers was by imposing a tariff on the major buyers of Russian oil, making it too costly for those buyers to continue purchasing it. It would starve the Russian beast of the revenue fueling its cruel aggression.

The language in that original bill by Senators Blumenthal and Graham was specific and limited. Buyers of Russian oil would be targeted and tariffed. It was a limited and specific delegation of congressional tariff authority that could be used for the limited and sole purpose of cutting off oil revenue to Russia--all for the purpose of assisting U.S. efforts to help defend Ukrainian freedom and repel Russian aggression. That is why the original Graham-Blumenthal bill had 84 bipartisan cosponsors, myself enthusiastically among them.

But we are now on the threshold and are now considering a new version of the Graham-Blumenthal bill, one that Senator Graham and, we understand, the White House have signed off on. But we have to remind ourselves, in any delegation of congressional tariff authority to the Executive, the statutory language must be specific, and it must be limited to the purpose of squeezing Russia and its oil revenues. To achieve Senator Graham's goal--starving Russia of its oil revenues-- care must be taken in the drafting to guarantee that outcome and that outcome only and not language that would facilitate other outcomes.

In broad terms, the revised Graham-Blumenthal bill does two things. No. 1, it imposes tariffs at the discretion of the Executive of up to 100 percent on the top five purchasers of Russian oil and gas. No. 2, it allows the Executive to impose 100 percent tariffs on the top five countries ``facilitating'' the evasion of sanctions on Russian oil.

(Ms. LUMMIS assumed the Chair.)

Madam President, my concern is with this second provision. There is a fatal absence of specificity as to what countries could be considered ``facilitators'' or what conduct or the extent of that conduct that could constitute being a ``facilitator.''

In the bill text, the new tariffs would apply to ``countries in which . . . foreign persons are knowingly engaging in transactions, activities, or services that circumvent, or assist any third party to circumvent, any sanction related to oil that originated in the Russian Federation.''

This language is very general. In effect, this would be a blanket delegation

of congressional tariff authority to the Executive. In the name of targeting a ``facilitator,'' the Executive could target and tariff any country for any reason under the methodology of this language.

Congress cannot and Congress must not give this type of blanket delegation of tariff authority to this Executive--or, for that matter, to any Chief Executive.

We are all very much indebted to Senator Graham and Senator Blumenthal for their relentless pursuit of a Russian sanctions bill and to the many others who have fought to keep Ukraine at the center of the Senate's agenda. Colleagues like Senator Shaheen, Senator Wicker, Senator McConnell, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Risch, and Senator Murkowski, among others, have all been critical to protecting freedom in Ukraine and America's national security interests in Europe.

But in all my own personal conversations with Senator Graham and, I suspect, in all the discussions my colleagues had with Senator Graham, he was always focused on specific and binding language that would enable and it would require the Executive to impose tariffs on buyers of Russian oil, not on undefined ``facilitators.''

Senator Blumenthal, who spoke to Senator Graham just before he died, has informed us that Lindsey was over the moon about this bill. But the Presiding Officer and I both know Senator Graham was really unique among us. Despite the open-ended language about ``facilitators,'' Senator Graham had a unique relationship with President Trump, and if any among us could have persuaded President Trump to carry out Congress' narrow and limited intent, it was Senator Graham.

But without Senator Graham, our language must specify our intent and do so with absolute clarity: Go after the buyers. That was Senator Graham's goal, and we must have language that makes achieving that goal real.

That is why, when we take up the Graham-Blumenthal bill, I will offer an amendment to strike the overly vague delegation of tariff authorities to also target ``facilitators'' of sanctions evasions.

As currently written, the ``facilitator'' provision enables the Executive, with full congressional authorization, to impose any tariffs on any country, for any reason, so long as the Executive labels the tariffed country a ``facilitator.''

If we delete the ``facilitator'' provision, as I propose, we do achieve Senator Graham's goal without his bill being used for any other purposes. In doing so, the bill will retain the original tariff authority that only targets buyers of Russian oil.

Senator Graham and many of us, myself included, agreed about maximizing the imperative of sanctions and tariff tools to hurt Putin and stop his aggression against Ukrainian civilians, and I hope we can honor Senator Graham by quickly coming together to pass a bipartisan bill that will specifically and effectively target the companies and countries that are buying the oil that Putin is using to pay for the missiles and the bombs that are raining down on the innocent people of Ukraine.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in December 2022, I traveled to Guatemala as part of a congressional delegation led by Senator Tim Kaine. Four months earlier, to the shock and dismay of powerful rightwing forces in Guatemala's Congress and business community, Bernardo Arevalo, an anti- corruption activist, had been overwhelmingly elected President in an election widely recognized as free and fair.

Guatemala is one of Central America's most corrupt countries, so it was not surprising that his election triggered a frantic attempt by his opponents, led in part by then-Attorney General Consuelo Porras, who had been sanctioned by the United States, to invalidate the election on fabricated grounds of fraud and prevent Arevalo's inauguration. The purpose of our trip was to demonstrate our strong support for the choice of the Guatemalan people, in particular Guatemala's historically marginalized indigenous population, and for the integrity of the democratic process.

To the country's credit, Arevalo was inaugurated on January 15, 2024, and for the first time in decades, Guatemala has a President who is not beholden to the corrupt forces that have exploited political power for their own enrichment and used Guatemala's armed forces and police to harass, threaten, arbitrarily arrest, and even murder their opponents.

But having failed to prevent Arevalo from taking office, those forces have carried out a relentless campaign, aided by counterparts and lobbyists in Washington with close ties to the Trump administration, to sabotage his efforts to reform the justice system and end the culture of corruption, violence, and impunity that has plagued Guatemala for generations. Career U.S. foreign service officers who stood up for the rule of law and democracy in Guatemala, were summarily replaced by U.S. Embassy appointees who reportedly urged members of Guatemala's Congress to support a rightwing candidate tainted by corruption for a seat on the constitutional court, or risk losing their U.S. visas.

Unlike President Trump and officials in his administration, I do not believe it is our role--using threats, inducements, or other means--to try to influence the outcome of election of foreign candidates for office, whether Presidents, legislators, or judges. We oppose such interference in our own sovereignty, and it is hypocritical and unwise to engage in such conduct ourselves.

I mention this because President Arevalo has another year and a half in his 4-year term. If political and economic forces in Guatemala, backed by nefarious associates of the Trump administration, continue to try to deny the will of the Guatemalan people and thwart Arevalo's anti-corruption mandate by using their influence to undermine the institutions of democracy for the benefit of themselves and their cronies, they will pay a price when the balance of power shifts in Washington. People here know the history of U.S. political and economic intervention in Guatemala dating back to 1954, and they have long memories when it comes to corruption and the manipulation of judicial and law enforcement institutions in that country.

The appropriate role of the United States in Guatemala, as in the rest of Latin America, is to support the people there by improving their lives through free and fair elections, equitable economic opportunities, and access to justice that conforms to international protections of due process. Too often, U.S. policy in Guatemala has strayed from those goals, motivated instead by greed and corrupt interests in our own country, and promoting the militarization of internal security. That is a recipe for a return to authoritarianism, ethnic and social division, and armed conflict. Guatemalans who choose that path should be forewarned that it will ultimately be their own, and the country's, undoing.

No President, even in the best of circumstances, can transform a country like Guatemala in 4 years, but President Arevalo deserves our strong support. At a time when the trend in Latin America is to elect leaders who equate law and order with subverting judicial independence, militarizing the police, and running roughshod over due process of law, President Arevalo has restored integrity to the office and defended the institutions of democracy. In the long run, that has the best chance of producing the transparency, accountability, stability, and prosperity the Guatemalan people need.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the Senator from Maryland, for leading this discussion on what is an absolutely critical decision that this U.S. Senate is going to have to make.

One of the most important things we do is pass the National Defense Authorization Act. That is the moment where, through the committee process and the floor debate, America lays out a pathway to secure the defense of this country against all threats. It is an extraordinarily important piece of legislation that sets the course for a year.

This National Defense Authorization Act fails to address the critical question that is before this country right now, and that is the war in Iran. It fails to address the changing nature of warfare by spending a half a trillion dollars more on weapons systems that are the weapons systems of yesterday.

Third--and this is a point my colleague has been making, and I am going to talk about it very immediately--it outsources to another country those decisions on intelligence sharing and weapons production that should only be made by our country.

Fourth, it commits the taxpayers of this country to the obligation of another half a trillion dollars with absolutely no outline of how we are going to pay for it, and this on top of a deficit that is the highest we have ever had in this country.

So let me talk about these one by one.

First of all, it is absolutely catastrophic what is going on, in the Middle East, to our economy. We are in a war that was decided by the President of the United States unilaterally to enter into that war. It was done with the expectation that B-1 bombers would be able to blast their way into victory. And it was done without an appreciation or awareness that, once the extraordinary power of the U.S. military was applied with weapons that are only ours to deploy, the asymmetric response by the Iranians allowed them to close the Strait of Hormuz, which to this day is not open to the passage of ships.

That is having an incredible impact on our economy, on our farmers, on our manufacturers, and on grocery prices. And there is no end in sight.

And the fact that we are going to have a debate about authorizing a $1.5 trillion defense budget without having any discussion about what is driving the cost or what is the major defense threat right now--and that is this ongoing war in Iran--is not acceptable. We have the obligation to debate that, and many of my colleagues have indicated already by their vote that they oppose the authorization of warfare in Iran.

This NDAA bill comes before us as though that is not even going on. That is wrong. We have an obligation to debate that, and we have an obligation to vote on it.

But, second, there are provisions in this bill that do outsource fundamental responsibilities and obligations of our military and our national security organizations and our President to make decisions on the basis of what is in our national interest and what is required for national security.

My colleague mentioned them. There are provisions in this bill that create a legal obligation for the United States to do information and intelligence sharing with another government and to enter into joint production agreements with another government.

When it comes to sharing intelligence, I want our generals, I want our national security officials, I want our President--our Chief Executive and Commander in Chief--to have unfettered discretion to make those decisions about with whom we share information, what information we share, and under what circumstances to be our decision and our decision alone.

And, of course, our military and our national security organizations work very hard to have cooperative relationships with neighboring countries or with fellow countries that are aligned with us on interests, and that can include Israel, as it has at times.

But we have never, ever had an obligation to relinquish the exclusive right of decision making that has to fundamentally be made in the best interest of what is in the national security interest of the people of this country. We cannot relinquish that right and that responsibility.

So this provision that ``the President, acting through the Director of National Intelligence and, as necessary, the Secretary of Defense, shall''--shall--``subject to applicable law and the protection of intelligence sources and methods, expand and enhance intelligence sharing with the Government of Israel''--my concern here is less the Government of Israel. It is about the national security interests in this country and the unfettered right of our military, national security, and President to make decisions on behalf of the American people and exclusively for what is in the best interest of the national security of this country. That provision has no place in this national defense authorization.

A third point I want to make is that what we have seen with the extraordinary conflicts in Ukraine, in Iran, and Lebanon is that the old weapons systems that are so expensive don't win the victories. The drone warfare in Ukraine has allowed them, through their ingenuity, to turn the tide on Russia.

The B-1 bombers--the exquisite weapons systems that cost so much money--are not winning the conflict in Iran for the United States. And we are seeing these situations where there will be a $35,000 drone that is taken out by a $1 million missile, and all of us know that is not a sustainable situation. Our Pentagon knows that.

But in the rush to make the adjustment--and I know that the people in the Pentagon are trying to make that adjustment. You don't make that adjustment by suddenly coming up with a half a trillion dollars where you don't have a plan, you don't have a strategy, and you end up throwing money at a problem without a plan on how to solve the problem.

So I have gone through three things here: one, an NDAA that acts as though the war in Iran is not a war that is having an impact on the American people; No. 2, outsourcing absolutely critical decisions about intelligence sharing and weapon-production sharing that have to be the sole prerogative of the United States, our military, our national security community, and our President; and then, third, the failure to have a coherent plan about the extraordinary adjustments that have to be made in the design of weapons systems of the future.

And the fourth point I want to make--and I know this is a topic of great concern to you: How are we going to pay for this? We are adding half a trillion dollars to the deficit, and there is literally-- literally--no discussion about how we are going to pay for it.

You know, we have a debate in this body about how to spend money, what the priorities should be. And I will acknowledge that I am on the side of spending more money on domestic efforts. I do think we should help our farmers more. I do believe we should put more into education. I do believe we should put more into scientific research. But when I say we should do that, I am also willing to pay for it. And I do believe we have to have a strong military, but we have to pay for that too.

And what we have seen in this Congress is that the folks who want to put more money in the military, they may be willing to pay for it by cutting scientific research, by cutting education, by cutting nutrition benefits for the thousands--millions--of Americans who are struggling to feed their kids and can't do it without the SNAP program.

There is a lot of good work that has been done by our committee on a bipartisan basis with many of the provisions--policy provisions--in this NDAA, but we cannot act on the NDAA in a responsible way if, No. 1, we don't address the war; No. 2, we don't absolutely insist on defense and intelligence and production decisions being the sole prerogative of this country and not delegate authority to any other country to interfere with what we believe is in our national security interest. Third, we need a coherent plan to have a production system that

focuses on weapons of the future and not legacy weapons of the past that are revered by the defense-industrial complex but are not effective on the battlefield. And, fourth, we have to come to a reckoning that, whether it comes to national defense or even domestic programs, they don't pay for themselves, and we have got to step up and accept that responsibility. For far too long, we have been ignoring it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, whatever one thinks of the Cuban Government--and I am one who believes its repressive policies and mismanagement of the economy have caused immense hardship for the Cuban people--the depth of misery and desperation people in Cuba are currently experiencing is largely due to the oil blockade, for which the United States is responsible.

More than 84 percent of Cuba's total energy supply relies on oil and petroleum products. Cuba's economy is entirely dependent on imported fuel to power its electrical grid, agriculture, and transportation needs, the country typically requiring around 100,000 barrels per day to function normally. Since January 30, the United States has imposed an illegal blockade on oil shipments to Cuba, so the island is entirely dependent on domestic production which consists of heavy, high-sulfur crude that cannot be easily refined.

When asked about the humanitarian crisis on the island, where electricity is unavailable most hours of the day and night and hospitals, schools, and factories have all but ceased to function, the Trump administration routinely blames the Cuban authorities. Any objective observer knows that is a convenient oversimplification.

Imagine if there was no electricity in this country for lack of access to oil, due to the hostile acts of another government. We would rightly condemn it as an act of war. Cuba is a bankrupt country the size of Virginia that poses no threat to the United States. And today, Cuba's economy has all but collapsed.

According to the United Nations, the impact of the oil blockade has been devastating for Cuba's health system. More than 100,000 surgeries have been delayed, including 12,000 pediatric procedures, due to acute shortages of medicines and medical supplies. Survival rates for children with cancer have fallen from 85 percent to 65 percent. That amounts to thousands of children who would otherwise be alive today.

More than 2.5 million people are experiencing water shortages--more than one-fifth of the total Cuban population. The national water system is functioning with only 37 percent of the fuel required, and 84 percent of water pumping runs on electricity. Food prices have increased by 18 percent. Energy shortages are disrupting agricultural production, food processing, refrigeration, and distribution. Hunger and malnutrition are widespread.

The lack of electricity and water, combined with food shortages, is causing psychological distress and exhaustion, especially among children, the elderly, and caregivers.

The streets are overflowing with rotting garbage. The hurricane season is beginning, and rising temperatures are creating conditions for a surge in vector-borne and waterborne diseases when the health system is already stretched to its limits.

The bottom line is this: All basic services, from potable water and sanitation to food production and healthcare, are being severely impacted by the lack of fuel and electricity caused by the U.S. oil blockade.

The energy crisis is also limiting the ability of the UN and other humanitarian agencies to deliver aid already committed, with dozens of containers of food and medical supplies reportedly still sitting in ports due to the lack of fuel. The UN's Plan of Action to respond to the crisis is only 21 percent funded. The U.S. has offered $100 million through private mechanisms like the Catholic Church, but it has not yet been delivered.

We would all like to see a better government in Cuba, one that cares more about the Cuban people than in holding onto power and enriching themselves. I would say the same about other corrupt, undemocratic governments, including some we treat as partners. But the American people have always opposed using food and medicine as a weapon. That has been a bedrock principle that Republican and Democratic administrations, and the Congress, have reaffirmed over decades. By cutting off the oil, we are imposing collective punishment on Cuba's most vulnerable people. Children and the elderly are dying needlessly.

I urge Secretary of State Rubio to consider the human cost of the administration's oil blockade. It is illegal. It is immoral. It is preventable. And it is beneath this country.

Mr. President, I strongly support the resolution offered by my colleagues Senator Cortez Masto and Senator Kaine.

This resolution requires a report from the State Department on the human rights practices of the Government of Honduras during the very corrupt Presidency of Juan Orlando Hernandez and a report on steps the United States has taken to promote human rights and to bring drug traffickers and criminals in Honduras to justice.

During former President Hernandez's time in office, the United States--our taxpayers--provided hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to Honduras, including to the Honduran security forces.

So the information requested in this resolution is directly relevant to Congress' oversight responsibilities. We have an obligation to make certain that taxpayer dollars are served in the

purpose of the United States and our citizens.

There is no reason why the State Department should not do this oversight.

According to U.S. Federal prosecutors, Mr. Hernandez--the former two- term President of Honduras--was at the center of one of the largest and most violent drug trafficking conspiracies in the entire world. Mr. Hernandez used the Honduran military and he used the Honduran police to arrest, to imprison, to torture, and in some cases to murder his political opponents and independent journalists who challenged and exposed the rampant corruption and abuses of his government.

In March 2024, a U.S. Federal jury in Manhattan found Mr. Hernandez guilty of three charges: conspiring to import tons of cocaine into the United States, using and carrying machine guns and destructive devices to advance that trafficking conspiracy, and conspiring to use such weapons. He was sentenced to 45 years' imprisonment and was fined $8 million.

Mr. Hernandez claimed that he was the victim of ``political persecution,'' but there has been absolutely no credible evidence to support that fraudulent claim. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. Far from being treated unfairly, Mr. Hernandez was afforded every right of due process and a fair trial available to criminal defendants under our system of justice.

Astonishingly and to my dismay, on December 1, 2025, Mr. Hernandez received a full and complete pardon from President Trump. Mr. Hernandez is free because of President Trump's pardon, but he does remain a convicted felon.

The resolution we are voting on today calls for a full accounting of the Hernandez administration's violations of human rights and connections--direct connections--with drug traffickers, the corruption of government officials, and the involvement in torture, murder, and other crimes of violence.

It also requires an assessment of the likelihood that U.S. aid to the Honduran security forces was used to support activities related to drug trafficking and related crimes. None of us want our foreign aid to be used for drug running. This is information the State Department has access to and that Congress and the American people, as well as the people of Honduras, have every right to know.

Again, there is absolutely nothing partisan or controversial about this resolution. All of us--all of us--are against corruption. All of us demand accountability of foreign aid that is financed by taxpayers. All of us want to bring to justice those who commit crimes that involve drugs that cause so much damage to the men and women and the young people in all of our States.

I commend the Senators from Nevada and Virginia for offering the resolution, and I urge its adoption.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank my colleague from

Kansas for making beautiful remarks about a beautiful person. Thank you, Senator.

Mr. President, 103 days ago, President Trump started a war, a war with Iran. He started it. It was a unilateral decision he made based on the Venezuela model, where he would be in and out. It would be over quickly, as he said. It hasn't worked out that way.

This war is illegal and unconstitutional. And, in my view, it is a shameful moment in the history of this U.S. Senate where, even though this war is into its fourth month, this body--which is invested with the authority under article I to declare war--has not even had a vote on whether this war is authorized.

But I also want to point out what the problems are that the American people are experiencing as a result of this war. First of all, none of the President's goals have been met. He was going to decapitate the regime, and it was going to be regime change. Failed.

He was going to end the missile program. Failed.

And he was going to get rid of the nuclear material. Failed.

What did happen is that the Strait of Hormuz has been closed, and that fact is creating immense economic hardship on people across this country and really around the world.

Americans who were already struggling to make ends meet--ironically struggling at a time when our economy, in some ways, has never been stronger--they say the cost of living is getting worse and worse. And, of course, that is, No. 1, due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. It has put immense pressure on our farming and food production system, leading to long-term price increases.

And what we are hearing is that it is going to be a 4.2 percent inflation, when a year ago it was 2.4 inflation. So folks showing up to the grocery store, they are going to be paying 19 percent more for ground beef, 50 percent more for tomatoes compared to last year.

Rising diesel and fertilizer costs could spell disaster for many farms. We are seeing more and more farm foreclosures. This is a real pressure in Vermont, but it is a pressure that is already all around our country.

And, as you know, Mr. President, higher oil prices also translate directly into higher energy costs and burdens, and it is especially true for rural households. Rural America uses about 14 percent more energy and spend a higher share of their income on home energy costs than those in urban areas. So that really affects all of us who serve rural constituencies, and that definitely is true in Vermont.

Also, plastic products that are made of oil have spiked 40 percent, and that price change has--or will very soon--be passed on to our consumers. So this is really costing everyday people a lot more.

And even before the start of the war, rural households were already spending nearly $600 more per year on gas than folks in urban areas. They have to drive to get to wherever it is they are going: to work, their child's school, to a hockey practice, everything. You have got to get on the road.

And let's not forget about what is happening with air travel. It is a real crisis. United Airlines is predicting that airlines could increase ticket prices by as much as 20 percent in response to the current oil market dynamics. It is putting a real squeeze on jet fuel.

President Trump brushes these concerns off. You know, what he says inexplicably is: Once you explain that this is all about Iran having a nuclear weapon, people are willing to pay a little bit more.

And he also asserted that gas prices are going to drop at the pump ``very quickly.''

Well, that is simply not true. And also this plan about this military engagement that he is involved with, along with Prime Minister Netanyahu, is not having the intended goal of getting rid of the nuclear stockpile and material that Iran has.

Last year, the average household in Chittenden County--I want to get back to the cost--home to Burlington, which is our State's largest city, paid around $1,800 in gas. As a direct result of this war and the closure of the Strait, that is going to go up to 2,300 bucks a year. That is $500 more.

And many commuters in our State and others have changed their daily routines. They have got to change the way they live their lives because they have got to scrimp and save so they can afford the gas. And oftentimes they are staying home rather than going out.

Dennis, a retired doctor in Vermont, even said:

We're definitely driving less now.

You know, we shouldn't impose these kind of decisions on Americans for a pointless and destructive war. It is not doing us any good and causing us a lot of pain.

But President Trump has repeatedly shown that he has no qualms about doing this. He says:

I don't think about Americans' financial situation.

I believe him. He doesn't think about it. Because any of us who are thinking about it know that Americans' financial situation has deteriorated as a result of this war.

You know, I think the President and all of us who serve here, our No. 1 priority should be finding ways to make American lives better and more affordable. That is not what the President says is his goal.

So while the President isn't thinking about this affordability challenge, let me tell you who is, and it is Vermonters. It is people in your State, Mr. President.

Herbie in South Burlington said:

Honestly, gas prices are ridiculous. It's just way too much

to fill up. We're barely saving anything, maybe 50 bucks a

month. With prices of gas and food and everything else going

up, we've eaten through our savings.

Creating enormous economic insecurity.

David, a Vermonter who works in the construction industry, said:

It's painful to the pocketbook.

Sarah, a substitute teacher in Burlington said about the increase in gas prices:

It's definitely going to be a new budget item, in a

different category.

Ryan Bellavance the president of Bellavance Trucking, a revered small business in our State, operates a fleet of nearly 100 trucks based out of Barre said:

It's gonna to be fine until the people stop buying, you

know? And then everything comes to a halt.

That is down the road and not that far down the road.

You know, this war, this march to war in the Middle East, has also pushed affordable air travel out of reach. The closure of the strait means that airlines are facing up to $24 billion in additional fuel expenses this year, a cost which will be directly passed on to consumers. For airlines to break even, an increase of $1 a gallon on jet fuel is the equivalent of a $50-per-roundtrip-ticket increase for flying passengers.

And we are not talking about the future. In April, every single major U.S. airline raised checked baggage fees. Spirit Airlines--which many Americans relied on for more affordable travel--met its demise.

But we need more than predictions. The American people deserve transparency about how the skyrocketing jet fuel prices will impact their wallets in the coming weeks and months.

I partnered with my colleagues from Illinois Senator Duckworth and Connecticut Senator Blumenthal in writing a letter to Airlines for America--whose members include major carriers like Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, FedEx, JetBlue, Southwest, United, and UPS--seeking information about the measures that airlines plan to take in response to these higher jet fuel costs and how rising prices will hurt our broader air travel industry.

And by the way, one of the threats to our air travel industry is service that goes to rural airports. The essential service that is so vital to the well-being of the economies of rural parts of Vermont and rural parts of America.

But what is really close to my heart is what has happened to America's farm country. Vermont's farmers and producers, who are already contending with incredible economic challenges as a result of the trade war and the tariffs, are now struggling to figure out how they are going to pay, literally, the highest diesel prices since 2022.

And to make matters worse, we are now in planting season. That means

that farmers now have to spend at least $350 more per day just for a full run of one of their tractors. They use a lot of fuel and it is diesel fuel and diesel is expensive. And by the way, diesel prices already make up more than 60 percent of the fuel costs for farm operations.

Lindsey Brand of the Northeastern Organic Farming Association of Vermont said it best:

Diesel fuel powers some farm equipment and the trucks to

transport food. We've heard from some farms that distribute

regionally that trucking costs have doubled since the Strait

closed.

The war has also surged the price of fertilizer--including urea, which is what most farmers use for their crops--to 27 percent higher than it was before the war.

No matter which way you look at it, the war in Iran has been a disaster on all fronts. It has nowhere near come close to achieving its goals, and there are no negotiations going on. Essentially, there is a dance. It is about trying to do face-saving for Trump. But also, economically, it has had an immediate and wicked impact on families that are already struggling to afford essentials as a result of the affordability crisis. You add this to the trade war, to the tariffs, to the loss of markets, and it is a grim situation.

We can change it. We have got to end the war. And we have got a dilemma here. The President actually does want a negotiated outcome, but his partner in this war, President Netanyahu, wants to intensify the war.

We should end this war through diplomacy. The goals we seek will not be accomplished through military means. They must be achieved through diplomacy.

We have to come to grips with the reality that this war continues to escalate the incredible pressure that our families, our farmers, our industries, our small businesses are facing. We have got to bring it to an end. We have got to get inflation down. We have got to make America more affordable.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, my predecessor Senator Patrick Leahy is known for many groundbreaking pieces of legislation over the course of his 48 years in the Senate. But he was also responsible for many initiatives that are not so well known, and I want to speak briefly about one of them.

From 1989 until his retirement in 2023, Senator Leahy served as either chairman or ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of State Foreign Operations, and Related Programs which among other things funds U.S. assistance around the world. During those years, he built a record of strong support for programs to protect tropical forests and endangered species, which are under siege from illegal logging, mining, industrial scale agriculture, urban encroachment, and wildlife poaching and trafficking. One of those programs established by Senator Leahy was to protect our closest ancestors, the four species of great apes: orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos.

Each of these species faces the threat of extinction in the wild due to habitat loss and poaching. Some are killed for meat; others are captured and sold as pets. On the islands of Borneo and Sumatra, the only places where orangutans live, the rainforests are being cut down at a furious pace to make way for vast palm oil plantations. Habitat loss and poaching are similarly threatening the survival of the other three species of great apes in Africa.

By the end of President Trump's first term, funding to protect great apes had reached $45 million annually. The funds were administered by USAID and used by nongovernment organizations in Indonesia, Rwanda, Tanzania, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo for anti-poaching initiatives and strengthening law enforcement in local biological reserves and along international borders; promoting sustainable land use and forest management to safeguard areas critical to great apes; and working with local villagers to develop sustainable livelihoods and reduce reliance on poaching or destructive agricultural practices. USAID also partnered with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through its Great Apes Conservation Fund, which provided grants for field projects in Africa and Indonesia.

In addition, the State Department's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs has supported programs to strengthen the capacity of local law enforcement in Africa and Asia to combat wildlife trafficking and

the money laundering, corruption, and violent crime associated with it.

While these efforts have helped stem the precipitous decline in the numbers of great apes, their survival in the wild remains far from assured. Transnational criminal organizations, catering to a rapacious Asian market for wildlife parts, are reaping huge profits from the illegal wildlife trade. These organizations are often also involved in trafficking drugs, weapons, and human beings. The ever-increasing demand for timber, minerals, and food in Asia, Africa, and Latin America is destroying wildlife habitat at an alarming rate. Rainforests are being transformed into polluted wastelands from mining, massive farms of oil palm and soybeans, and grazing land for cattle. Great apes, which like many species need large areas to forage for food, are being squeezed from all directions.

Despite the administration's disastrous decision to shut down USAID and destroy the careers of thousands of talented and dedicated USAID employees, Congress has continued to provide funding to protect endangered species, including great apes. But the amount of funding has been sharply reduced, and it remains to be seen whether the State Department will manage the funds in the manner intended by Congress.

Orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos are the only existing examples of our earliest apelike ancestors who first began walking upright nearly 4 million years ago. Despite having existed for millions of years and sharing 97 percent of our DNA, great apes today are entirely dependent on us for survival.

I have urged the Appropriations Committee to increase funding for great ape conservation while there is still time to protect them from extinction. I also urge the State Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to recognize what is at stake and to resume and significantly expand their efforts to protect great ape habitat and combat poaching and trafficking.

And finally, I urge the leaders of Indonesia and the central African countries that are home to great apes to recognize their unique responsibility to ensure the survival of these animals by protecting their forest habitat; greatly strengthening enforcement of anti- trafficking laws; supporting programs to rescue, rehabilitate, and return to the wild great apes that have been trafficked; and educating their people about the need to protect great apes and the forests they depend on.

Mr. President, when the Senate considers the reconciliation bill, S. 2, it is my intention to make the following motions to the bill:

A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on

Agriculture, Nutrition, Forestry to provide relief is for

farmers affected by increased costs of fertilizer, fuel, and

other input costs as a result of the Iran War.

A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on

Agriculture, Nutrition, Forestry to promote research into

reducing reliance on foreign-produced agricultural inputs.

A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on

Agriculture, Nutrition, Forestry to reduce inflated farm

input costs to support United States agricultural production.

A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on

Agriculture, Nutrition, Forestry to make strong investments

in rural communities, including improvements to water and

wastewater infrastructure, energy efficiency, business

development, and high-speed internet infrastructure.

A motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Homeland

Security and Governmental Affairs to ensure that $31.75

billion is available to FEMA to implement climate and

resiliency programs

A motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Homeland

Security and Governmental Affairs to ensure that $31.75

billion is available to FEMA to accelerate the delivery of

disaster response and mitigation assistance to rural

communities.

A motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Homeland

Security and Governmental Affairs to ensure that $31.75

billion is available to FEMA to increase the capacity of

rural communities to better respond to natural disasters.

A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Commerce,

Science, and Transportation, with instructions to report the

same back to the Senate in 1 day, not counting any day on

which the Senate is not in session, with changes that--

provide funding for rural communities detrimentally impacted

by a significant reduction in international tourism during

the 2025 and 2026 calendar years.

A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance

with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 1

day, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in

session, with changes that-- require CBP to prioritize

providing tariff refunds to small businesses first.

A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance

with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 1

day, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in

session, with changes that--to provide relief for tariff-

related cost increases to household staples, such as food and

paperware.

A motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Judiciary

with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 1

day, not counting any day on which the Senate is not in

session, with changes that--prohibit the use of intrusive

electronic and facial recognition surveillance tools by

federal immigration agencies.

A motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on the

Judiciary with instructions to report the same back to the

Senate in 1 day, not counting any day on which the Senate is

not in session, with changes that--prohibit the use of

generative Artificial Intelligence tools by immigration

agents to write incident reports related to their

interactions with civilians.

A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Energy and

Natural Resources to prevent the Secretary of Energy from

using emergency authorities to order uneconomical fossil fuel

power plants to continue operating at ratepayer expense,

which may include uneconomical coal-fired power plants

scheduled for retirement.

A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Energy and

Natural Resources to prevent utilities from allocating to

residential consumers the costs primarily incurred to serve

large load interconnection.

A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Energy and

Natural Resources to prohibit the Secretary of Energy from

approving liquified natural gas exports that have been

determined to increase energy prices in the U.S.

A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance to

lower the price of energy by extending the Investment and

Production Tax Credits for solar and wind projects through

2032.

A motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Judiciary

with instructions to limit the use of FBI Director luxury

travel.

A motion to commit the bill to the committee on Homeland

Security and Governmental Affairs with instructions to ensure

that DHS is complying with all IG investigations.

A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Health,

Education, Labor, and Pensions to reallocate funds

appropriated under this bill to support community health

centers.

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

Mr. President, ever since the capture of Nicolas Maduro, the Trump administration has been ratcheting up pressure on Cuba in the hope that Cuba's leaders will either capitulate or the Cuban people will rise up and overthrow them.

Three months ago President Trump said:

Cuba is going to fall pretty soon . . . They want to make a

deal so badly . . . and we'll see how that works out.

Like so many of the President's apocalyptic predictions, there is no sign the administration wants to negotiate a deal, and Cuba has not fallen. Instead, the United States oil blockade, which if the tables were turned every one of us would denounce as an illegal act of war, has absolutely paralyzed Cuba's economy. It has plunged the Cuban people into darkness and to misery.

Then on May 20, the Department of Justice announced that it had indicted former Cuban President Raul Castro who is 95. Another U.S. aircraft carrier group has been sent to the Caribbean. The writing on the wall is unmistakable. President Trump is tiptoeing up to leading us into another reckless war, this time with Cuba.

Cuba is a bankrupt country. It is smaller than Virginia. It has neither the capacity nor intention to threaten the United States. And even before the Trump administration cut off the oil, Cuba's economy was barely functioning. Today, electricity is unavailable for most hours of the day and night across the entire island.

So this means that hospitals, schools, factories, food production have ground to a halt. Havana's streets are overflowing with garbage. The country is facing economic collapse literally, and the United States is complicit in that. In fact, that is the point of the U.S. actions.

By causing Cuba's economy to collapse and leaving millions of innocent Cubans without enough food or access to medical care, the White House hopes to create a ``national security emergency.''

It seeks to justify regime change, including, if necessary, using military force. President Trump has repeatedly threatened to use force against Cuba. Without any legal justification he has said:

[I]t may be a friendly takeover, it may not be a friendly

takeover. Wouldn't really matter because they are really down

to . . . fumes. They have no energy, they have no money.

You know, the reason Cuba is ``down to fumes'' is due to its own government's repressive failed policies and because of the United States oil blockade. But no American President under any circumstances, friendly or unfriendly, should threaten to take over another sovereign nation that poses no imminent or credible threat to our country. And no U.S. Congress should condone such flagrant misuse of military power.

You know, there is plenty of blame to go around for how we got to this point. Cuba's leaders whose priority is holding on to power systematically violate the rights of the Cuban people and align themselves ideologically with some of the world's worst regimes.

The Cuban military's corrupt grip on the economy has practically ruined the economy, and that is on Cuban leadership. But for our part, the United States has tried to overthrow the Cuban government by armed invasion, by assassination, financing Cuban dissidents, and imposing a web of punitive sanctions with extraterritorial reach. Yet after 65 years, the U.S. embargo has not achieved any of its goals. Instead, it has contributed to the daily suffering of the innocent Cuban people.

There is no doubt that political and economic changes in Cuba are long overdue. Neither is sufficient by itself. The Cuban people, 90 percent of whom were born after the 1959 revolution, want leaders who accept the need for fundamental changes in how to govern, with greater participation of the people, greater transparency, greater freedom, and real accountability.

But attacking Cuba would be another reckless and illegal use of United States military power. And no matter what hyperbolic or false accusations are used as a pretext for attacking Cuba, Cuba poses no credible threat to the United States.

Instead of starting another unnecessary war, the United States and Cuba can and must negotiate a deal that puts United States national interests and the needs and aspirations of the Cuban people first.

And, you know, the elements of the deal are pretty obvious. On the United States side, President Trump needs to end restrictions on travel by Americans to Cuba--many Vermonters, when that was allowed, went to Cuba, many Americans did--and should support Cuba's struggling private sector. We should support that.

The President should remove Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. That has no credible legal or factual basis, and no other country agrees with us on that designation. And it should also, the administration, call on Congress to repeal the failed embargo so that reconstruction can begin.

On the Cuban side, Cuba's leaders' only choice is to make a deal. They are staring, literally, at the barrel of a gun. They need to end the military's control of the economy. They need to take steps for American companies to invest in Cuba and help rebuild the country's broken infrastructure. Cuba's leaders must release all political dissidents and accept the right of the Cuban people to express themselves freely and without fear of persecution.

If President Trump and Cuba's leaders take these steps, they could finally put the last vestige of the Cold War in this hemisphere behind us.

But that, regrettably, is not where President Trump is leading us. And like Maduro, Cuba's leaders have always cared more about their own privileges and power than the welfare of the Cuban people.

Nobody here or in Cuba should be under any illusions. An unauthorized, unjustified, reckless war with Cuba is where we are headed. The United States has one playbook that fits all, and that is its approach to dealing with regimes that it doesn't like: pile on the economic sanctions, threaten to wipe them off the face of the Earth, and when that fails, attack.

There is no plan B if things don't go as predicted, no plan for what comes next, and no plan for how to pay for it. A United States invasion of Cuba with warplanes and missiles and Special Forces would pose real risks for the United States, for our troops, and for the Cuban people.

It almost certainly would not be a repeat of the swift capture of Maduro. More likely, Cuba's leaders, sworn and determined to defend their failed revolution, would not give up easily. The fighting could go on for weeks or months.

And assuming they would all eventually flee or be captured or killed, who would govern Cuba? Who would prevent the country from descending into lawlessness and becoming a haven for transnational criminals? Who would be responsible for public services? There is no Cuban Delcy Rodriguez, nor any organized political opposition.

The American people would be saddled with the immense cost of providing security and rebuilding Cuba from the ground up, while millions of Cubans would likely abandon the island to seek refuge in the United States.

The American people overwhelmingly do not want a war with Cuba, especially not after the costly, ill-conceived debacle in Iran, which has defied all the administration's rosy predictions. Rather than causing more suffering and more chaos in Cuba and triggering yet another refugee crisis 90 miles from Florida, President Trump could make history through effective--effective--deal making, not by a violent takeover financed by American taxpayers.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on June 10, Vermont and Canada will come together to celebrate the inauguration of a new entryway on the Canadian side of the Haskell Free Library and Opera House, a building that straddles the U.S.-Canada border. For 200 years, Derby Line, Vermont, and Stanstead, Quebec, have functioned as one community. Citizens of the United States and Canada--but born in the same hospital, colleagues in the same factory, and teammates on the same sports teams. They even drink the same water.

They also shared the same cultural center, the Haskell Free Library and Opera House.

A surveyor's error in 1771 mistakenly mapped the border between Quebec and Vermont roughly \3/4\ mile north of the 45th parallel, and the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842 finalized the physical coordinates, cementing the original surveying error in place, somewhat arbitrarily dividing properties and roads between the U.S. and Canada.

For over a century, the Haskell Free Library and Opera House has stood as a symbol of lasting goodwill and mutual friendship. Since 1903, this small but mighty beacon of bi-nationalism has been welcoming people in from both sides of the border with nothing more than a strip of black tape on the floor to demarcate the international border, allowing both Canadian and U.S. citizens to enter the library through the U.S. door in Derby Line, VT. Where else can you see a theater production in which much of the audience is seated in one country, while the performers onstage are in another?

While it has been a challenging period of shared history that brought us to this moment, we celebrate the continuation of the library's commitment to continue sharing municipal services and resources such as this one, just as Martha Stewart Haskell had originally envisioned. The municipalities of Stanstead and Derby Line, located in Quebec and Vermont, are committed to community collaboration in all of its forms.

June 10 will be a celebration of what we here in the Northeast do best: embrace community, and embrace collaboration--especially between neighbors.

Thank you to all of the members of this very special bilateral community who are working together to help make this happen.