Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, like citizens in Ohio, Vermonters like to work hard. They get up each day and face the day, and they don't fear hard work. They are glad to do that to protect their families and to improve their communities. But, you know, they work hard, but they don't like paying for wasteful things, and right now, President Trump is demanding--demanding--$1 billion to build an East Wing, which, by the way, is an East Wing that he destroyed. He tore it down. Now he has promised Americans that he will rebuild it and that it will be through private contributions, but he is asking--demanding, really--the U.S. Congress to spend $1 billion to rebuild what he destroyed. Vermonters don't like that at all.

It has been said that a budget does reflect our shared values, not the personal preferences of any one individual, including the President of the United States.

So let's just talk about some of the other ways $1 billion could be spent that would have a significant benefit to Vermonters who are working hard, who

are paying their bills, and who care about their community.

With $1 billion, we could extend the ACA premium tax credits--that you and I worked on, by the way--to make healthcare more affordable for 30,000 Vermonters.

With $1 billion, we could provide really important title I funding, which helps rural and underserved schools in Vermont, for 23 years.

With $1 billion, we could provide $153,000 in relief for every single one of our 6,537 farms, which are all struggling.

With $1 billion, we could provide a $12,000 small business loan-- small businesses being really essential to Vermont--to all 82,000 Vermont small businesses.

With $1 billion, we could restore the SNAP Program for every Vermonter who has been kicked off nutrition assistance because of the Trump tax bill. Mr. President, 4,547 Vermonters have lost what we call 3Squares. Terrible.

With $1 billion, we could fund the Women, Infants, and Children benefits for Vermonters for 147 years.

With $1 billion, we could provide childcare for every child under 5 in Vermont for a year and a half.

With $1 billion, we could fund the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, in Vermont for 50 years. This vital program provides home heating and cooling aid for more than 26,000 Vermonters.

With $1 billion, we could help provide $50,000 loans to 20,000 Vermonters who have been impacted by flooding or other natural disasters in the past 3 years.

With $1 billion, we could support FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund, which is operating in immediate-needs-funding status, meaning everything is precarious.

As I mentioned, if you want to show me your values, show me your budget. This reconciliation budget bill, which adds billions of dollars to an already bloated ICE budget and CBP budget with absolutely no reforms and no oversight and gives hundreds of millions of dollars-- potentially $1 billion--to President Trump's ballroom, is a statement of values. This $1 billion won't help communities or families from Barre, VT, to Biloxi, MS.

You know, I want to give just a straightforward, rhetoric-free reading of just a few headlines we saw this week alone. This is the world we are in, and it reflects how the administration is spending its time and resources.

The Washington Post: ``Millions expected to lose Affordable Care Act coverage as costs spike.''

Associated Press: ``Under Congressional Scrutiny, Blanche Defends Nearly $1.8 [Billion] Fund to Pay Trump Allies.''

The Washington Post: ``EPA wants to repeal limits on `forever chemicals' in drinking water.''

The Associated Press: ``Trump distorts recent revisions of scientific projections of global warming.''

The Washington Post: ``Health worker shortage will worsen with federal loan limit.''

NOTUS: ``Trump's Latest White House Makeover Includes a Helipad.''

The New York Times: ``Deported Despite DACA: Dreamers Face Uncertainty Under Trump.''

The President of the United States has been clear: He is choosing a go-it-alone approach on his ballroom, he wants to fund ICE and CBP on a partisan basis with none of the reforms so many Americans are demanding, and he is going to totally bypass regular order and any hope of a bipartisan budget.

It is really a waste of taxpayer dollars. The folks that you represent and I represent, who are willing to work hard, who are willing to pay their fair share, really wonder: Why are we spending $1 billion on a ballroom?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague the senior Senator from Connecticut, and I too want to join him in commenting on the Callais decision. And I want to put the decision also in a context of what the Supreme Court has been doing consistently since at least Bush v. Gore, and that is, on the one hand, they have been stripping the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate--the legislative body--of their legislative powers. On the other hand, they have been extending unprecedented extension of powers to the executive. It is a threat to democracy. The Supreme Court is doing real damage to everyday people in all of our country by upsetting the constitutional order of the separation of powers in coequal branches of government.

Let me talk a little bit about the Callais decision. You know, I was inspired to get involved in politics, in public service, by the civil rights movement in the sixties. In 1967, I dropped out of college. I hitchhiked to Chicago, and I began working against housing discrimination against African-American citizens on the West Side of Chicago. And it was amazing to me two things: one, how much of the discrimination they suffered was legal. A veteran who served in World War II, if he was Black, could not get a mortgage. Banks were allowed to redline districts where it meant nobody who lived in them--and they were Black neighborhoods--could even get a mortgage. It was legal.

But what I was also astonished by and aspired by, as I am to this day, was the generosity, the resilience, and the determination of people who were on the receiving end of what, in effect, was Jim Crow discrimination to forge ahead, to help each other, and to make changes.

The civil rights struggle in that decade culminated with the legal protections delivered by the Voting Rights Act.

The Supreme Court's recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais literally turns the clock back on that hard-won progress. Already--already--in an instant, States from Louisiana to South Carolina to Tennessee have called for redistricting ahead of the midterm elections in 6 months. And hundreds of thousands--if not millions--of voters are being impacted by this decision.

In addition, in my view, being wrong on the merits and incredibly damaging, the Supreme Court's decision is the latest example of what the Court is doing that is, in fact, eroding our democracy. A trail of decisions has led us to this remarkable moment. Look at what has happened over just the last decade and a half.

In 2010, Citizens United, the Supreme Court opened the door to unlimited gargantuan sums of money in our elections. Money is speech. And, of course, what has happened is that, literally, billionaires dominate funding for elections. And it is not about what the country needs; it is about what they want.

In 2013, in Shelby County v. Holder, the Court removes the Federal oversight of potentially discriminatory State voting restrictions that threatened the access to the ballot itself. Since that decision, States have added nearly 100 restrictive voting right laws.

In 2018, Rucho v. Common Cause, the Court refused to act on partisan--wildly partisan--gerrymandering.

And by the way, both parties have engaged in that. So I am condemning that radical gerrymandering, regardless of which party uses it for their own advantage.

But now, across the country, in light of this recent decision, we are literally seeing a race to the bottom where Members of Congress--pardon me--where members of State legislatures, with the assent of many Members of Congress, are choosing their voters by this radical gerrymandering on a partisan basis where the goal is to get your side elected and to do that by picking your voters. And then we are seeing the spectacle of redistricting every 2 years instead of every 10 years. It is stripping away the right of the voters to be the ones picking their leaders, as opposed to the leaders picking their voters.

And, of course, in 2024, Trump v. United States, that decision defied our 250 years of history which said that no person, including the President of the United States, was above the law.

Every single one of these decisions by the Court has made our democracy less democratic. And now this Court's decision in Callais can be added to that really damaging list.

The Court has gutted section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as passed by Congress, making it exceedingly difficult for plaintiffs to prove discrimination. They have to prove ``intent''--impossible burden with 535 Members and every one may have a different intent. They have to disregard, now, the actual impact of the map that is put together by partisan State legislators.

The Court decision has also given the green light for States to reduce the electoral role that minorities have played in our democracy, unraveling one of the last opportunities for minorities to elect people of their choice.

Let me go through a few of the States. In Louisiana, a third of the population is African American. Joe Biden won 40 percent of the vote there. Yet after Callais, Louisiana has proposed a map that won't even come close to one-third representation for African Americans--and by the way, that might be a Republican or a Democrat; it is the voters' choice. There will only be one Black Representative out of six House Members.

The Supreme Court knows exactly what it is doing. By blessing partisan

gerrymandering while gutting the Voting Rights Act, the Roberts Court has completed the mission of the Jim Crow laws in the South: removing the ability of elected representatives to be Representative of and responsive to those they represent.

Equally concerning, partisan gerrymandering all but guarantees that the politicians will choose who wins elections--not the people of their State and their district. They are picking their voters. This is a race to the bottom that is detrimental to the country and should be rejected by both parties.

It is very concerning to me as well how the legislative branch, by its passivity, has allowed this to happen. Under the Constitution, the Congress--as I mentioned, the branch most responsive to the will of the people--is supposed to be the counterweight against the other branches of government. But as Congress has stood on the sidelines, the executive branch, aided by the Supreme Court, has unleashed the unrestrained power in our campaign financing system of billionaires to play an oversized role--a decisive role--to select their own political elite.

But the outcome of Callais is not just about the degradation of our democracy. The Supreme Court reached its judgment based on its own individual assessment of the protections that were codified by the judgment of Congress that recognized and protected against racial discrimination in voting. Congress said those protections continue to be necessary. The Supreme Court casually blew that off and said: No, they are not necessary. Now the Supreme Court has overruled Congress on a question of policy which was within the purview of this institution to make.

Congress has reauthorized the Voting Rights Act five times in recognition of the need to prevent voting discrimination in this country. And despite such clear instruction, the Court has still taken it upon itself to encroach upon Congress' prerogative by requiring victims of racially discriminatory gerrymandering to prove that States had a discriminatory motive--an impossible task to prove, even when the impact is absolutely clear.

Justice Kagan, dissenting from the Callais decision, put it plainly:

[The Voting Rights Act] was born of the literal blood of

Union soldiers and civil rights marchers. It ushered in awe-

inspiring change, bringing this Nation closer to fulfilling

the ideals of democracy and racial equality. And it has been

repeatedly, and overwhelmingly, reauthorized by the people's

representatives in Congress. Only they have the right to say

it is no longer needed-not the Members of this Court.

It is incumbent on us that we, as Congress, reassert our authority to make judgments about what is best in terms of access to the ballot.

My view, by the way, is that this race to the bottom is going to be a killer for our democracy, and I believe both parties should renounce radical partisan gerrymandering, and I believe both parties should support eliminating these every 2-year redistrictings that all have, as their stated goal, advantaging one party over the other.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, multiple press articles and reports by human rights organizations, as well as United Nations human rights investigators, have documented widespread acts of horrific sexual violence against prisoners in the Middle East over many years. These articles and these reports describe--often in graphic, gruesome detail--a consistent pattern of sexual abuse corroborated by multiple sources and in some cases with shocking photographs and videos posted on social media by the perpetrators themselves.

These allegations amount to gross violations of human rights, including torture, and if committed by members of foreign military and police forces that receive training or equipment from the United States, they are sanctionable under U.S. law--the Leahy Law.

In Egypt, allegations of acts of systemic sexual violence against prisoners are not new. The allegations have been the subject of reports, including by U.S. and Egyptian human rights organizations and the Department of State, for many years.

We also know that Hamas militants who invaded Israel on October 7, 2023, committed absolutely brutal acts of sexual violence, including gang rape, against Israelis during the attack and against Israeli hostages.

On May 12, a team of Israeli researchers released a report which concluded that sexual violence by Hamas militants against women and men was ``systematic, widespread and integral'' to the attack. Many of us have condemned those barbaric crimes and called for justice for the Israeli victims.

I personally still have vivid memories of hearing personally of the horrors of these attacks from Israeli victims who bravely came and spoke to Members of the U.S. Senate.

There is also extensive evidence, both before and after October 7, of a pattern of sexual violence against Palestinian prisoners by Israeli security forces. Allegations of such abuses in Israeli prisons are not new, but they have sharply increased since October 7.

So have reports of widespread abuses and killings of Palestinian civilians by Israeli soldiers and acts of violence, including sexual assault and murder by Israeli settlers which reportedly continue to this day.

I will not repeat the gruesome details of the attacks reportedly committed against Palestinian prisoners by Israeli soldiers, but I do urge my colleagues, as uncomfortable as it may be, to read the articles by Nicholas Kristof in the May 11 New York Times entitled ``The Horror of Sexual Assault in Israeli Prisons,'' and ``The Silence That Meets the Rape of Palestinians.''

The heinous acts that were described to him by former prisoners and witnesses, if proven in a court of law, would warrant decades-long prison sentences. Despite overwhelming evidence,

Egyptian authorities and Hamas officials have denied that forces under their command have sexually assaulted prisoners.

Likewise, Israeli authorities, including Prime Minister Netanyahu, while rightly condemning Hamas's acts of sexual violence, dismissed out of hand the reports of similar acts by Israeli soldiers as fabrications.

The fact is that these are not isolated reports, nor are victims of sexual violence prone to voluntarily invite the public scrutiny and profound embarrassment that comes with describing being subjected to these types of humiliating mistreatment.

Every year, Egypt and Israel receive more military aid paid for by American taxpayers than any other countries, and that is by far. Yet neither of their governments, nor our own, have shown the slightest concern about addressing longstanding allegations of the widespread use of sexual violence against prisoners in their custody.

That is unacceptable. It must change. American taxpayer funds are directly supporting foreign military units that have been credibly implicated in rape and other abhorrent acts of sexual violence.

The United States has long embraced in its foreign policy the protection of human rights. It is at the heart of the Leahy Law passed by this U.S. Senate. That law directs the Secretary of State to investigate credible reports of human rights abuses.

In light of the credible reports of gross human rights abuses, I call upon the Secretary of State to act, to investigate, and to abide by the provisions of the Leahy Law.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to S.J. Res. 134, which would restore the CFPB's rule to ensure that consumers are granted critical protections when they are using ``buy now, pay later'' loans.

Mr. President, there is now widespread and growing use of ``buy now, pay later.'' The reason families are doing that is to buy things like school clothing, not some incidental that is a discretionary expense.

The reason ``buy now, pay later'' is so much increasing in demand is because people are really broke. They are struggling with the high gas prices, they are struggling with record inflation, and at the end of the month, there are more bills than there is money.

The people using ``buy now, pay later'' are in every single State of the Union--in West Virginia, in Vermont--and they are good people that we care about and are concerned that the economy is not working for them, and they are struggling with very severe shortages of income.

These products can be risky. You know, most of us wouldn't recommend ``buy now, pay later.'' It is much better if you have the money to pay cash and you don't get in a risky situation. But the fact is, this is a necessary tool for some families.

Why in the world would we all not want to take the necessary action to protect those vulnerable families from abusive practices? That is what the CFPB did with its rule. I am absolutely mystified--absolutely mystified--that the administration would rescind that because, as I mentioned and as we all know, this is a protection that helps people that each and every one of us represents.

I know there is every bit as much concern on the Republican side of the aisle as there is on the Democratic side of the aisle to protect people from getting ripped off, particularly vulnerable people who work full time but can't pay their bills.

So the Trump CFPB withdrew this rule, and it obviously sends a clear signal to ``buy now, pay later'' that they can get away with what they want.

Vote with us to rescind this rule.

I yield the floor.

Vote on Motion to Proceed

Mr. President, I move to proceed to S.J. Res. 135.

Mr. President, the CFPB promulgated a rule to protect whistleblowers.

Whistleblowers have historically revealed information about abusive practices and rip-offs in organizations where they had the ability to see what happened and to stand up to protect the rule of law and to stop rip-offs.

The biggest proponent of whistleblower protection in this Chamber is our President pro tempore Senator Grassley, and I have such admiration for him in his steadfast commitment to whistleblowers.

The corporations that don't like whistleblowers are now forcing them to sign nondisclosure agreements that are overly broad, and it means that a whistleblower has no protections because they are being threatened with lawsuits, and they are being threatened that they are going to be accused of breaking the law or that they are engaged in corporate misconduct if they essentially blow the whistle on bad practices that are hurting the people we represent.

I don't know why the Trump administration rescinded that rule. Whistleblowers, as Senator Grassley has eloquently stated over and over again, protect us, protect the taxpayers, and protect us from abuse of practices.

I believe, as Senator Grassley believes, it is absolutely critical for Congress to act to protect whistleblowers.

I yield the floor.

Vote on Motion to Proceed

Mr. President, World Press Freedom Day, observed annually on May 3, is not only a celebration of the world's intrepid journalists, but a reminder that journalists and the free press at large are under attack. In 2025, a record number of journalists and media workers were killed, a somber milestone.

International humanitarian law provides clear protection for journalists and civilians, including protection from direct attack and the indiscriminate use of force. International law requires that those engaged in conflict take precautions to verify that targets are lawful, avoid attacks in areas where civilians are present, and facilitate the rapid provision of medical care to the wounded.

Two-thirds of the journalists who died last year were killed by Israeli security forces. As of April 23, 2026, at least 258 journalists had been killed by Israeli security forces since Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. Since then, journalists have been killed by Israel's retaliatory actions in Gaza, Yemen, Lebanon, and Iran.

Israel's pattern of targeted killings is not new or unique to Palestinian and Lebanese journalists. Shireen Abu Akleh was a Palestinian American correspondent for Al-Jazeera. She was fatally shot in the head on May 11, 2022, while covering an Israeli Army operation in the West Bank. Multiple investigations concluded that she was killed by a member of the Israeli Defense Forces. Shortly after, the State Department called for an immediate and thorough investigation in addition to full accountability. To date, there has been no such evidence of an investigation and no accountability.

Throughout the war in Gaza, Palestinian journalists have been killed with impunity--207 Palestinian journalists killed, to date. The world witnessed the shocking strikes at Nasser Hospital on August 28, 2025, which claimed the lives of 22 people, including five journalists, and drew global condemnation. The attack was three successive strikes--a tank shell hit the hospital, killing a Reuters cameraman and others. Nine minutes later, as health workers and journalists came to the aid of the injured, Israeli forces fired two more times.

Israeli forces have been accused of war crimes for utilizing double- tap strikes, which target first responders and journalists. On October 13, 2023, Dylan Collins, an AFP video journalist from Vermont, was fired on by Israeli soldiers in a deadly double-tap attack, despite wearing clear press insignia. The attack killed Reuters journalists Issam Abdallah and wounded several others in the group. Despite repeated efforts by myself and my Senate and House colleagues, there has been no credible investigation or accountability for Dylan or his colleagues.

Just last week, Lebanese journalist Amal Khalil was killed by an Israeli strike. She, too, was clearly identifiable as a member of the press. She died after 7 hours of being trapped under rubble. Ambulances attempting to deliver medical care were also fired upon. Her case reflects a pattern and practice of the use of force that disregards the rights and lives of journalists protected under international law.

These are only a select few of the tragic stories of journalists killed for

simply doing their jobs. While the number of journalists killed in Gaza over the past 2 and a half years is overwhelming, journalists have been threatened, imprisoned, tortured, and killed in many countries, including in our own hemisphere.

Press freedom is fragile abroad, and fragile here at home. President Trump's rhetoric and attacks on the press must be condemned. Journalists in the United States have been threatened, attacked, and targeted by their own government for doing their jobs: reporting the truth.

We take pride in the First Amendment, and the United States has long been seen as a global defender of freedom of expression. But the situation is becoming worse, not better. The very concept of independence of the media is being challenged. Journalists are regularly subjected to ridicule and denied access to the White House and the Defense Department for merely asking hard questions.

Being a journalist is more dangerous today than at any time in history. In recognition of World Press Freedom Day, Congress should pause to remember the lives of journalists killed while reporting and recommit to defending press freedom in our own country and around the world.

Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of the resolution offered by Senator Kaine and others to prohibit the unauthorized use of American Armed Forces in hostilities against Cuba.

Now, some may think this isn't a necessary concern, but to quote the President of the United States, our Commander in Chief:

Cuba is next.

This is urgent, and it requires immediate attention by the U.S. Senate.

Cuba is a bankrupt country. It is the size of Tennessee. It has neither the capacity nor the intention to threaten the United States. And even before the Trump administration cut off oil from Venezuela and started illegally blockading oil shipments to Cuba from other countries, Cuba's economy was barely functioning.

Today, electricity is unavailable for most hours of the day across the entire island. Think of what that means for everyday life. It doesn't take much imagination. Just think about what it is like in our own communities when there is a power outage for a period of time.

In Cuba, where it is sustained, it is catastrophic. Havana's streets are filled with smoldering garbage. The country is facing economic collapse, literally, and the United States is complicit in that economic collapse.

So by causing Cuba's economy to fall apart and leaving millions of Cubans without enough food or access to medical care, the White House hopes to create a national security ``emergency'' to justify regime change, including, if necessary, the use of military force.

And we have seen that script play out before with the Trump administration.

President Trump has said as much. He has repeatedly threatened to use force against Cuba. Without any legal justification, he said:

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

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

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

The reason Cuba is ``down to [the] fumes'' is due to its own government, its failed policies. And because of the U.S. oil blockade, both, together, have led to this catastrophic situation.

But no American President, under any circumstances, ``friendly'' or ``unfriendly,'' should threaten to take over another sovereign nation. It is Congress's responsibility to reject such a flagrant ``might makes right'' abuse of Executive power.

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

Cuba's centralized economy has practically ruined the country, despite its tropical climate and abundance of rich farmland.

For our part--we control our part--the United States has tried to overthrow the Cuban Government by armed invasion, by assassination, by financing Cuban dissidents, and imposing a web of punitive sanctions with extraterritorial reach.

So after 65 years of an embargo that has not achieved any of its goals but has exacerbated and tested the daily suffering of the Cuban people who are not our adversary, the United States and Cuba need to find a way to peacefully coexist.

A few weeks ago, I outlined what I thought such an agreement would look like. I won't repeat that here, but at the very least, the President should, No. 1, remove Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, which has no legal or factual basis and which no other country agrees with.

And the President should pressure Congress to repeal the failed U.S. embargo so Cuba's economic reconstruction can begin.

And Cuba's leaders--and they have enormous responsibility here-- should abandon central planning of the economy. It has been an absolute disaster for the Cuban people. And the Cuban Government must release all political dissidents and accept the right of the Cuban people to express themselves freely and without fear of prosecution.

Political and economic change in Cuba is long overdue. Neither is sufficient by itself. The Cuban people--90 percent of whom were born after the 1959 revolution--they want leaders who accept the need for fundamental changes in how to govern with greater participation of the people, greater transparency, and greater freedom and real accountability.

Rather than threats of a ``takeover,'' the United States should negotiate a solution with Cuba that puts U.S. national interests and the needs and aspirations of the Cuban people first, not the interests of the Cuban Government or American billionaires.

I urge my colleagues to support Senator Kaine's resolution. The American people do not want to wake up in the morning to learn that we are at war with Cuba, and I urge the Trump administration and Cuba's leaders to take the steps I have outlined to finally put an end to the decades of hostility between us.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, known as LIHEAP, is a lifesaving program with a long history of bipartisan support from its very first days. LIHEAP was started in the administration of Ronald Reagan, and the program helps people in need heat their homes in the winter and cool their homes in the summer.

You know, it is a beautiful day here in DC, but across the country, in many places, it is still very cold and still very hot. LIHEAP was established, as I mentioned, in 1981, by President Ronald Reagan, and it provides funding to States to help low-income households with their energy costs. The program originally just covered heating, but in 1984, it was expanded to cooling, as it should be, because people in the Presiding Officer's State, people in Arizona, Nevada, and many other States are threatened by extreme heat, just as those in cold-weather States, like Vermont, are threatened by extreme cold.

This program has been reauthorized many times since its inception, and I am so pleased that it has always been bipartisan, because the folks we represent, whether it is in cold- or warm-weather States, know that people need the security that they are not going to freeze to death or that they are not going to die of heatstroke. And that happens; that is real.

And the Americans that rely on LIHEAP to heat their homes in the winter and cool their homes in the summer are very scared. They need help, and their neighbors and friends need help and assurance that this program will continue.

President Trump, in his budget, has proposed to zero out the budget for LIHEAP--literally, to end what Ronald Reagan began.

And when we are talking about those who do get some help with their heating bills, we are talking about folks who are barely able to pay their bills at the end of the month and often can't. And, again, this is in the Presiding Officer's State and in my State.

For a family of four, the eligibility limit is $61,000. For a single mother and a child, it is $40,000. For a single person just trying to get by, it is $29,000.

So Vermonters who are struggling to pay their bills themselves but are thinking about neighbors across the country are concerned about this. I had a constituent from Essex, VT, urging me to protect LIHEAP because ``I know it gets awfully cold in North Dakota and . . . Minnesota.''

People in all our States understand how their neighbors and, in many cases, they themselves need this. This is not a luxury. It can be a matter of life and death for hundreds of thousands of Americans, from Montpelier to Fairbanks, AK.

You know, this year, Burlington, VT, had its coldest weather in 17 years, with more than 20 straight days of below freezing temperatures. In Fairbanks, Alaskans endured more than 89 days below zero, many days below 30 to 40 degrees below zero.

And LIHEAP also provides cooling assistance to families in warm weather climates, like Phoenix, AZ, where more than 100 days a year saw temperatures of 100 degrees.

You know, I have gone on some fuel deliveries with the fuel dealers who have a program to provide assistance, and what I know is, Vermonters, when they see that fuel truck show up, are terrified because that is a big, big monthly bill. And without the assistance that we have been providing to people around the country to help them with this, they literally are facing freezing or heatstroke.

That is also at a time when our heating bills are going up, and our cooling bills. In December, household energy bills were up by more than 13 percent. The war in Iran has absolutely exacerbated that problem. Gas prices are up more than 30 percent, over $4 a gallon. They are approaching $5 a gallon. More and more commentators believe that the Strait of Hormuz will be closed for much longer, indefinitely. We don't know when. And that is also going to continue the pressure on the price of home heating fuel.

You know, I do have a real contention with the administration when President Trump, on the one hand, is zeroing out the home heating assistance program, and cooling assistance as well, but on the other hand, is pursuing policies that are driving up energy costs, as we saw and are seeing with the war in Iran, which has closed the Strait of Hormuz and is crippling the economy but is leading directly to higher home heating fuel costs.

And that is in contrast with some of the comments that I can only characterize as cruel and totally ``out of it'' by some of his advisers. Kevin Hassett made a very telling remark to CNBC. Here is what he said:

While it's very frustrating to go to the pump and see what

the price of gasoline looks like . . . the benefit for oil

producers is significant.

Seriously? What about your constituents and mine, who are paying the price that is of benefit to the oil producers and then find out that the home heating and cooling assistance help that they had last year is going to be zeroed out this year. That is absolutely outrageous.

The only people benefitting from this energy crisis are people in Big Oil. They are making an estimated $30 million windfall every hour.

The price goes up. It is painful for consumers and for businesses and for farmers, but it is a windfall for the oil companies.

So shouldn't this Congress stand up and provide some help to maintain some sense of security for the people we represent?

But by proposing a 100-percent cut to Federal LIHEAP funding, President Trump has made it clear what his priority is. It is accelerating the profits for the oil industry at the expense of people who have absolutely no control over what the price is at the pump, what the price is when that home heating gas or oil is being delivered to their homes.

All of us are here and believing that we are fighting for the families that we represent in our States, and I am fighting for Vermont families. Last week, Senator Reed and I filed an amendment to the Republican budget resolution that would protect LIHEAP from this zeroing out in the Trump budget.

The amendment was not adopted. But I will keep fighting, and I hope many of my colleagues will join me to protect LIHEAP so that there can be some reassurance to the people who are going to be hammered and threatened by the zeroing out of this program.

You know, in the past, Congress has, on a bipartisan basis, rejected the administration's attempts to zero out the LIHEAP budget and illegally fire the staff that oversees the disbursement of LIHEAP funding to the States. That is why we included report language in the fiscal year 2026 bill to require that funds that are allocated to States be distributed on a timely basis. And that is true in Alabama, and it is true in Vermont.

And I urge my colleagues to join those of us who want to make certain this fuel assistance is available to families, regardless of whom they voted for, regardless of policy orientation, and regardless of politics.

This is not a red State or blue State issue. Americans everywhere are paying for the reckless economic policies in this illegal war, and this war is imposing substantial and daily and punitive costs on struggling Americans, struggling farmers, and struggling businesses.

But all of us are in need of maintaining this program, and we can if we come together to do it.

You know, Texas receives about $181 million in LIHEAP funding, and it helps 65,000 households; in Nebraska, $32 million, 53,000 households.

So by attempting to zero out LIHEAP funding, the Trump administration has said it loud and clear. It is plain before our eyes. They are willing to throw Americans out in the cold or in the heat and are quite content with a $30 million-an-hour windfall for the oil companies.

My hope is that we in Congress, whatever our differences are, can work together to save and preserve the LIHEAP program, which is a lifeline for so many people you represent and I represent.

I yield the floor.

(Mr. LANKFORD assumed the Chair.)

Mr. President, on March 6 of this year, the Pentagon released a video of what it claimed was the destruction of a drug traffickers' training camp near the village of San Martin in the jungle of rural Ecuador. As reported by the New York Times, ``The video was meant to show that the U.S. military, which for months had bombed boats it says are carrying drugs from South America, was `now bombing Narco Terrorists on land,' '' according to a post by Defense Secretary Hegseth.

A thorough, credible investigation of this operation has yet to be carried out. However, based on detailed inquiries by American journalists and Ecuadorian human rights organizations who visited the site and collected testimonies and audiovisual evidence, the official narrative turns out to bear little, if any, resemblance to the facts as they are currently known.

Rather than a drug training camp, the Ecuadorian military, relying on U.S. military intelligence, appears to have bombed a cattle and dairy farm, targeting impoverished workers and terrorizing neighboring villagers.

According to workers at the farm, Ecuadorian soldiers arrived by helicopter on March 3. After reportedly arresting the workers at gunpoint, interrogating and subjecting them to beatings, suffocation, electric shocks, threats of mutilation, water immersion, and mock executions at an undisclosed military facility before releasing them, they returned to the site, poured gasoline on several structures, and burned them to the ground. Villagers said helicopters returned 3 days later, apparently dropping explosives on what remained of the farm, which the soldiers recorded on the video that the Pentagon released.

In addition to releasing the video, the Pentagon claimed credit for carrying out ``target action'' against the supposed traffickers at the request of the Ecuadorian authorities, although no U.S. troops were directly involved in the operation. Ecuadorian officials said the operation relied on U.S. ``intelligence and support'' to identify the farm, which they claimed was a camp for as many as 50 members of irregular armed groups.

According to the owner of the farm, he bought it 6 years ago and had a herd of more than 50 cows used for milk and meat. He said the destroyed structures were two wooden shelters, sheds for equipment, a chicken coop, and a place to make cheese. He said, ``It's a lie that 50 people trained here. Where are they going to train? Out in the open? There's no logic.'' He went on, ``Everywhere you look there are animals: the cows I milk, the calves, the horses.''

According to an Ecuadorian human rights lawyer, ``There isn't a single public official who has come to verify what happened.''

This violent operation occurred in a remote, dangerous area along the border between Ecuador and Colombia where armed groups are engaged in illicit mining and cocaine trafficking. But the version of events recounted by the villagers and the farm workers is totally at odds with the version promoted by the Ecuadorian military and the U.S. Department of Defense. It has been more than a month and half since the incident, and the Ecuadorian Government has yet to present any credible evidence to dispute the farm workers' harrowing account. Instead, they have continued to repeat their assertions and vilify the work of human rights organizations. The farm workers and the villagers have also reported acts of harassment and intimidation by the Ecuadorian military against them since the New York Times story came out. This is the same military that is accused of committing at least 43 cases of enforced disappearances in 2024, according to Amnesty International.

There is no evidence that, prior to issuing a press release characterizing the attack as a counter ``narco-terrorist'' operation, anyone at the Pentagon had visited the site or spoken with any of the Ecuadorian inhabitants. Perhaps the Ecuadorian Government is reluctant to conduct a credible, thorough investigation, fearing the possibility of having to refute the version of its own soldiers and the U.S. Secretary of Defense. But its responsibility is first and foremost to its own citizens, to the truth, and to the law. If the facts described by the owner of the farm are borne out, the operation violated multiple laws, including arbitrary detention, denial of due process, torture, and the destruction of property. And if this was, in fact, an attack based on faulty intelligence that never should have happened, the owner of the farm and the workers who were abused must be compensated and those responsible brought to justice.