Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following bills: Calendar No. 127, S. 612, Lake Tahoe Restoration Act, and Calendar No. 292, S. 912, Mining Schools Act.

I ask unanimous consent that the bills be considered read a third time en bloc.

I know of no further debate on the bills en bloc.

I further ask that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, all en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 78, S. 412.

I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn, the Klobuchar substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to, and the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time.

I know of no further debate on the bill.

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

Madam President, I have ten requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it recess until 10 a.m. on Thursday, July 11.

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

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

Madam President, the United States had 75 major disaster declarations since July of 2023. Just last week, a flood tore through southern Florida, and it is only a matter of time before another State is hit.

This ``natural disaster'' caucus is growing, and it is growing quickly. It is a caucus none of us want to join nor do we ask to join, but instead are forced into it with a single mission: to help our constituents--our communities that have been through unimaginable suffering and pain--to get the resources that they need.

Vermonters know all too well the immense toll a natural disaster takes. It takes it on our communities and our economy.

Nearly 1 year ago, Vermont experienced nonstop rain over a period of several days. It led to flash flooding, washouts, and mudslides all across our State. It was brutal. Homes and businesses and farms and public infrastructure were damaged, and many were destroyed. It was an all-hands-on-deck moment, and neighbors helped neighbors dig out. From the municipal level to the Federal Government, we tried to help people get back on their feet. And we did get back on our feet, but the damage--if it was your home, if it was your business, if it was your farm--is still lasting.

I have come to the Senate many times since the floodwaters receded to share stories of Vermonters. Their stories are of resiliency through hardship. Vermonters have stories of community and grit and determination. And I am proud, of course, of Vermonters, but I believe that this is the case in communities throughout our Nation.

But our recovery, despite that, is far from complete. Madam President, I will say it loud, clear, and directly: Vermont needs more recovery money. What happened to these families and to these businesses was an act of nature--no fault of their own--but they deserve a shot to get back on their feet.

And as I revisit communities that were hit hard by flooding--places like Barre, Johnson, Hardwick, Montpelier, Ludlow, and Londonderry--it is clear that work to recover from this flood will last for years. There are home and business buyouts that are stalled, farmers who need help, and resiliency projects that need to get done before the next flood comes--and it will be coming.

We need supplemental disaster funding, and we really do need it now. The funds need to be flexible so that our communities in Vermont, in Hawaii, in Texas, in Florida, in California, and in other States can use the funds as needed for their recovery to their unique needs.

A flood and a fire require different recovery strategies, and that should be reflected in the funding. That is why the community development block grants for disaster recovery are so critical. They are flexible. They are local-led. These funds give the communities the flexibility needed to rebuild and recover, allowing them to prepare for future disasters and safeguard their communities. Senator Schatz has been a fantastic partner in this, and I am thankful for his leadership as subcommittee chair on the Appropriations Committee.

Last week, the Joint Economic Committee's Democratic majority released a new report on the economic cost of flooding. The findings are really stunning: Flooding will cost $180 to $496 billion each year. These costs are probably an undercount. They are only a fraction of what our communities truly endure as we recover from a flood. I encourage my colleagues and everyone listening to read this report. See for yourself how climate change is ravaging our economy.

There are obvious ways that flooding costs our economy: structural damages to our homes, farms, businesses, schools, transit systems, and more; infrastructure upgrades needed to protect against future flooding; and the direct and indirect commercial impacts from flooding. But then there are the costs that you might not consider: costs associated with flood-related deaths; decreased tax revenues; increases in insurance premiums; and crop loss, among the many other costs.

This should be an alarm bell. It should give pause to every one of my colleagues in the Senate and in the House because every State could be the next victim of the severe weather that is all about us as a result of the change in our climate. Vermonters know it all too well.

But there is good news. We can do something to mitigate these costs. Another recent analysis found that every $1--$1--spent on flood resiliency efforts saves up to $318 in flood-related damages. It is a pretty good return on investment.

And if you want to talk about cost-saving measures, resiliency funding should absolutely be paired with recovery funding for natural disasters. We need to build back in a more resilient way after natural disasters hit, not build back in the same way for it to be done all over again.

I was just in Brattleboro on Friday, where I saw a new FEMA-funded floodplain restoration project. It is terrific. A similar project helped downtown Brattleboro avoid damage during the July floods and will hopefully help the community avoid flooding in the future when the rains come again.

We cannot rebuild in the same way and in the same place and hope for the best. The reality is that climate change is here, and it is unpredictable. We need to do more to make our homes, farms, and communities more resilient.

Gone are the days, by the way, of so-called climate havens. In 2020, ProPublica and the New York Times Magazine published a report that found that in Vermont, Lamoille County, Orange County, Franklin County, and Essex County were the top four counties in the United States to live in to avoid climate change-related crises.

I can tell you--as a Vermonter--no longer. Climate change has come to all of Vermont.

I am going to keep working with my friends and colleagues, the senior Senator from Vermont Senator Sanders and Representative Balint in the House, to get Vermont the flood recovery funding we need, but I want to do that in partnership with every other Senator and Representative whose districts need flood recovery funding.

Congress, in both Chambers and both parties, need to come together to help

all our States impacted through a natural disaster. The next natural disaster, be it a flood, a fire, a tornado, or a hurricane, could happen in your State. And as we often say, there but for the grace of God go I.

I urge my colleagues to have grace for their fellow Americans and fellow colleagues who need the help now because you never know when your State could be next.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of this legislation. I thank my colleagues, Senator Murray, Senator Booker, and Senator Duckworth.

You know, there are two things. One is good news, and one is bad news. I will start with the bad news.

We have a terrible U.S. Supreme Court. It will live in infamy for many reasons but none more than an ignominious decision that took away constitutional rights that American citizens enjoyed. They stripped women of their right to choose. Enormously bad consequences. It has created an incentive for folks who have their views to try to impose them on others, and we saw that in Alabama with their effort to prohibit people from having access to in vitro fertilization.

But there is good news. The good news: our American families, couples who want to have a child, who are so excited about taking on that challenge of loving this new person and caring for them through their infancy, through their adolescence, looking forward to when they themselves will be grandparents. That is the good news.

In 2022, 91,000 infants, through IVF, came into these families, so those couples have that opportunity to have this place to give the love that is within them that they can now express, having this child. That is really the good news here. So, yeah, I am upset about the Supreme Court, but I am so excited about American families that want to make this decision and have IVF as an option for them to be able to realize their dreams of giving love to this new person in the world.

Now, our Republican colleagues are saying that this is a show vote so why pay attention to it. Well, you know what, they are right. They are right. It is a vote to show that we want to make certain, with the power of the U.S. Congress, that the decision a family wants to make about trying to conceive through IVF is protected; that they have the capacity to take advantage of the best medicine that is out there to realize that dream that is a dream about life. And what is wrong with showing the people of the United States that each and every one of us in the U.S. Senate wants to not only show that we respect and honor the decision

those citizens are making, but with the power invested in us as U.S. Senators, we are going to use the authority of our vote to guarantee they have that right?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, my colleagues on the Republican side have made the assertion that this legislation would interfere with the independence of the judiciary. That is a serious assertion, and it deserves to be respected and responded to.

The judiciary is an absolutely vital branch of government that is independent. It is independent in the process by which it makes decisions that come before it for its decision. That is where it is independent. As much as I disagree with many of the decisions of the Supreme Court, that Court has the right, without interference from Congress, to make the decisions it makes.

There is absolutely nothing in this legislation that interferes with the judicial power that the Court alone exercises in considering cases and making decisions--there is absolutely nothing--and to have our colleagues suggest that this legislation would do that is flat-out wrong.

What this legislation responds to is the conduct of individual Justices that is, you know, frankly, pretty shocking. You get a call: Hey, there is a yacht that needs you on board. Hey, don't worry about how to get there; we have a private plane. Hey, don't worry--if you didn't come, that seat would be unoccupied.

The Justice actually does it. They get on that plane and go, and they get on that yacht.

Hey, by the way, we are having a fishing trip. It is in Alaska. It is really cool. Let's go. There is an empty seat. Why don't you come. It is worth $100,000, but it doesn't have to be reported.

You know, when we talk about a code of ethics for the Supreme Court-- and these are some of the examples of why it is needed--my constituents from Vermont say: Peter, what are you talking about--a code of ethics? They can get away with that? They can do that? They can take this free trip?

It is really, really shocking.

You know, my colleague from Connecticut said it right: The Chief Justice has not only the authority but the responsibility to deal with the problems of behavior on his own Court, and he is not doing it. He is not doing it.

Another point that my colleagues make that I am in 100 percent agreement with is that we need a Supreme Court that has the credibility and confidence of this country. We face very difficult decisions that are quite contentious and that divide America, and when those are contested and they go to the Court and the Court renders a decision that all of us have to abide by whether we were on the winning side or the losing side, we absolutely must have a Court that has credibility. The credibility has to be, if it is going to be enhanced by the Court, by following codes of conduct and by giving the American people confidence that they are on the level. They are not doing it.

These free trips, these private planes, the private yachts--that is just self-serving and, frankly, gross. Who has the opportunity to take those trips in the jobs they do?

By the way, this is an important job they have, but it is a job. You know, you do your job. You get your paycheck. You show up for work. You treat the people you work with decently. But you don't have some expectation because of the particular job you have of getting free special trips just because you are ``important.'' That is not part of the deal here. That is not constitutionally protected. That

is not anything to do with the independence of the judiciary. That is just about venal, self-serving conduct by people who happen to have a lifetime appointment.

The other point here that is really, truly shocking and astonishing is that we have got over 800 judges--circuit court, appellate court, bankruptcy judges--and they have a code of conduct. They can't do this. There are only nine folks who can do it, and they are on the Supreme Court. They should have the highest standards that apply to them, self- imposed. They have no standards.

This is the Supreme Court eroding the confidence the public--all of us, whichever side of the decision we are on--is entitled to have from the people who have that lifetime appointment, and they are squandering it. They are turning a blind eye to the needs of the people they serve.

This ethics legislation is unfortunately necessary because the Supreme Court will not do what it has the responsibility to do. The Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court will not face down colleagues on that Court who are just disregarding normal rules of decency.

So I say to the Presiding Officer and my colleagues and I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: All of us should be doing everything we can to restore confidence in the judiciary. This is step one.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, last Friday, President Biden announced the elements of a proposed plan for a permanent cease-fire in Gaza. If accepted by both Israel and Hamas, the plan would prevent many more months of death and destruction, it would save countless lives, free the hostages, and offer a way forward to lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

In order for the plan to succeed, the President will need to use the leverage that only he has as President, that leverage with Israel, with Egypt, Qatar, Jordan, and others.

I believe it will also require a very decisive change in our own policy. After 8 months of relentless bombing and shelling, the United States should stop--should stop--supporting a war strategy that has not only caused massive death and destruction but has failed to achieve either of Prime Minister Netanyahu's key objectives: total victory over Hamas and release of the remaining hostages.

Instead, 8 months into this war, Gaza is in ruins, tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed and many more have been injured, including thousands of women and children. Some 100 hostages remain trapped underground. They are subjected to daily abuse by their captors while bombs explode above them with no idea if they will live to see the light of day.

And on May 26, Israeli Defense Forces--using munitions provided by the United States--attacked a camp of displaced Palestinians in Rafah, where the Israeli military had ordered them to relocate to avoid bombing in the north. The attack incinerated 45 people and injured many more. Mr. Netanyahu called it a tragic mistake. In reality, it was the gruesome result of an ill-conceived, scorched-earth campaign that has gone on for far too long.

For years, Mr. Netanyahu used Hamas as an asset in his very cynical strategy to ensure the Palestinian Authority could not become an effective partner for peace. He steadily expanded Israeli settlements, roads, and other infrastructure in the West Bank to create conditions on the ground to undermine the viability of a Palestinian State.

His policies fueled hatred and violence among Israelis and Palestinians. Yet throughout those years, the United States has supported his government unconditionally.

The Israeli and Palestinian people are now paying the price for these failed policies. Today, over a million Palestinians in Gaza are suffering from acute hunger. Children are starving. The wounded are dying from lack of medical care. Children with life-threatening injuries cannot leave Gaza to obtain the surgery that they need in other countries. Hundreds of trucks carrying food, medicines, and other aid have been stalled in Egypt. And the sea pier constructed by our Department of Defense, using hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, is in pieces.

Despite intensifying criticism around the world, Mr. Netanyahu has responded to his many critics--including Israeli citizens--with reckless defiance.

The time will come when the war ends. President Biden announced a plan to achieve through diplomacy what military force has failed to achieve. But whenever that time comes, Gaza will be uninhabitable. Two million Palestinians will be dependent on international aid for years to come.

Rather than bringing security and peace to the Middle East, I fear that the legacies of this war could be the opposite: more hatred, regardless of what is left of Hamas, more acts of violence against Israelis and Americans.

Last week, Secretary Blinken said Israel must decide if its military actions are worth the cost in civilian lives. I agree.

(Ms. Cortez Masto assumed the Chair.)

But the United States, not just Israel, must answer this question, too: Is Israel's use of our planes, our tanks, our bombs, our ammunition worth the cost in civilian lives?

Is it worth the risk of creating a new generation of terrorists, victims of bombing and shelling who saw their parents, siblings, and friends die, their homes destroyed?

Is it worth the lives of the hostages?

I believe the answer is no.

The United States must stop providing offensive weapons and munitions to a polarizing foreign leader who treats billions of dollars in military aid from American taxpayers as an entitlement while he ignores the appeals of the American officials to stop bombing, shooting, and denying aid to Palestinian civilians.

The United States should stop providing offensive weapons and munitions to a foreign leader who promotes policies that are diametrically against U.S. national interests and, by doing so, sets back progress for Middle East peace and puts American lives at risk.

The United States should stop supporting a war strategy that has repeated some of our own worst mistakes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The United States also should defend the Geneva Conventions and the international tribunals, including the International Criminal Court. Some here have denounced the chief prosecutor for bringing charges against Prime Minister Netanyahu. There is no equivalence between Israel and Hamas to be sure. But there are credible allegations of violations of the laws of war in Gaza. Attacking the Court plays into the hands of war criminals like Vladimir Putin and weakens our own credibility and the Court's legitimacy.

It undermines the universal principle that no one and no government is above the law, a cardinal principle that the United States should strongly defend.

The perpetrators of the October 7 massacre must be brought to justice. Such horrendous crimes must not go unpunished. But destroying Rafah is not going to finish off Hamas. It is not going to save the hostages. It may doom them.

President Biden has outlined a credible plan for peace. While Israel and Hamas will ultimately decide when this war ends, we, the United States, can decide when it ends for us. Secretary Blinken asked the right question, which should have been asked months ago.

The right answer is no. Israel's bombardment of Gaza is not worth the cost in civilians lives, and we should stop supporting it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we have had a dismal history recently with the U.S. Supreme Court. In my view, it has totally failed the American people.

In the name of States' rights, the Supreme Court has taken away freedom and caused distress and uncertainty for women and individuals across the country. It is outrageous that, because of this Court and this decision, people have fewer rights today than they did 50 years ago. Of course, I refer to the Dobbs decision, in which the Supreme Court--to its everlasting shame and in its infamy--took away a constitutional right.

It should be noted that, in a post-Dobbs world, women are leaning on contraceptive care more, and doctors see more demand. That now is threatened. For anyone who read that Dobbs decision and the Thomas concurrence in that decision, he laid it out where he at least intends to go.

There seems to be some confusion among my colleagues across the aisle about what this bill is and how important reproductive healthcare is, and I thank the Presiding Officer for his leadership on this with our colleague from Hawaii.

It is very important as everyone needs access both to whatever birth control options make the most sense to them and access to whatever preventive healthcare makes sense to them. Contraceptives can help prevent and treat medical conditions. This is about ensuring that every person in every ZIP Code has access to the birth control that they need if they need it.

This is the right of women and every individual to make decisions about their bodies and their futures. Politicians should not be involved. The Court shouldn't even be intimating it is threatening to take that away, and this legislation is needed to guarantee that they won't.

After Roe was overturned in June 2022, Vermont voters went to the polls. They took their own liberty into their own hands after not being able to rely on the U.S. Supreme Court to protect it. In article 22 of the Vermont Constitution--a new amendment--it permanently protects reproductive liberties.

It says:

That an individual's right to personal reproductive

autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine

one's own life course and shall not be denied or infringed

unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by

the least restrictive means.

This would stop future anti-choice legislation from advancing in our State of Vermont.

We enacted comprehensive legislation in 2019 in Vermont, under a Republican Governor, that would ``recognize

as a fundamental right the freedom of reproductive choice'' and ``prohibit public entities from interfering with or restricting the right of an individual to terminate the individual's pregnancy.''

As far back as 1972, the Vermont Supreme Court became the fourth State in the Nation to legalize abortion. Vermont has a long history of protecting reproductive rights and standing up for the rights of women.

Also, contraception is supported by the American people. It is widely used by women. People who can get pregnant need it and use it. There are 9 out of 10 voters who ``want it to be legal'' and 3 out of 4 who want to have easier access. There are 78 percent who say ``they see it as basic healthcare for women,'' and 72 percent are ``thankful it allows them to manage several health conditions.''

So it is absolutely essential, in the face of the U.S. Supreme Court and what it did to deprive women of their own right to choose by reversing the Roe v. Wade decision that was so enshrined in our law and part of our society for 50 years, that we in the Senate take all action possible to guarantee that women's rights will be protected.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I was in the Chair and objected in my capacity as the Senator from Vermont to the unanimous consent request of the Senator from Arkansas. I would like now to have an opportunity to explain the basis of that.

First, the Senator from Arkansas essentially said that President Biden is appeasing pro-Hamas voters in imposing an arms embargo on Israel and, also in that assertion, suggesting that President Biden is not fully supportive, as he has been throughout his political life, to Israel.

Let me start by saying what I believe represents the unanimous points of view of this U.S. Senate, and that is that the attack by Hamas on Israel, the taking of hostages, the sexual assaults, the murder of so many innocent Israelis are condemned by each and every one of us. No one condemns it more than President Biden, who went to Israel on his own to show his solidarity and empathy for what happened to the Israeli people.

Second, I believe that every Member of the U.S. Senate supports the Jewish, democratic State of Israel.

Third, while the Senator from Arkansas suggested an ``arms embargo,'' the U.S. Congress--without my support, by the way, for reasons I will explain--has sent billions of dollars in aid with the supplemental appropriations bill.

The fact that the President is raising questions about how best to secure the long-term status of Israel as a Jewish and democratic State in the context of this conflict in Gaza is in no way a suggestion of lack of support.

There is serious debate within Israel about the war plan that is being prosecuted by the Netanyahu government. In fact, a member of the war cabinet has indicated that he will leave the war cabinet if, in fact, the Prime Minister does not come up with a plan for what happens after the cessation of hostilities in Gaza.

Is there going to be an occupation by Israel? Is there going to be a joint Arab force that will be peacekeeping? Will there be an effort to constitute a Palestinian Government that has the support of its people?

None of these plans envision Hamas having a role, and they can't have a role. But the President is asking responsible questions that are being asked by seriously engaged military, political, and security folks in Israel.

So to suggest that the President is raising questions because he is looking over the horizon and saying that adding to the 35,000 casualties in Gaza--half or more women and children--to suggest that the President, when he says Israel should not invade Rafah because of the catastrophic consequences of more humanitarian losses, to suggest that when the President says 2,000-pound bombs that would be dropped on the most densely populated couple of square miles in the world, without massive civilian casualties, is not showing support for Israel, I dispute that. I disagree with that.

This effort requires judgment, and the President has been given authority by this Congress to send arms to Israel. He has made a decision that 2,000-pound bombs should not be included in that. And he is not alone. There are many in Israel raising the question about the wisdom of how this war is being prosecuted.

We know that in order for there to be peace between Israel and the Palestinians, we must have a two-state solution. That is not just the policy of the Biden administration; it has been the policy of the Obama administration, the Bush administrations, and the Carter administration. Two states for two people where the respective rights of those people for self-governance and the renunciation of violence toward one another has got to be the long-term goal.

We have a situation right now where our ally Israel--and the current government Israel--disagrees with that two-state solution approach. And, in fact, the Netanyahu government position is that there should be one state.

And what we are seeing right now is the escalation of violence by extreme settlers in the West Bank that is causing more instability. So the President, as our Commander in Chief, must be given some latitude about how best to distribute whatever munitions have been authorized by the U.S. Congress. And in the President's judgment, 2,000-pound bombs to Rafah are the wrong munitions at the very wrong time.

All of us have enormous heartbreak for what has happened to those Israelis and their families, to those Palestinians in Gaza who are being used by the vicious Hamas as human shields. But the President is committed, as I am committed--as I believe all of us are committed--to peace and security in the Middle East, and we believe--most of us--that that requires a two-state solution where there is an independent, democratic Palestinian state--self-governing, respectful of Israel's security--and where there is an Israeli state that reciprocates toward the Palestinians in Gaza and in the West Bank.

And it is for those reasons, Mr. President, that I stood in opposition and objected to the unanimous consent request of my colleague from Arkansas.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, the question here is about the control by Congress over the District of Columbia governance and the right to self-govern.

There has been a tendency in this Congress, and there is debate in this Congress, about whether there should be home rule for Washington. I believe there should be. Many of my colleagues don't. And this Congress does have authority.

But what is really at stake here is the question of whether a law passed by the city council of the District of Columbia should be allowed to go into effect or overwritten by action here. My view is that the elected representatives have the right and the responsibility to pass laws that go with being a self-governing city council.

The question of the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act--that is what we are talking about--was passed by the city council. It is the will of the representatives of the people of this city, through their representatives, to allow this to happen.

This initiative has been something that has been taken up by other local governments in other States, where the prerogative is to make their own laws with respect to voting. And I believe that the District of Columbia should have that ability to pass these laws without interference from Congress.

Now, this was challenged in court. In March, the U.S. District Court for DC dismissed a constitutional challenge to the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022.

Also, as a practical matter, voting has already begun in DC's 2024 primary elections. Senator Marshall's bill would absolutely cause chaos in the ongoing election.

So while folks can disagree on the policy, at the end of the day, this is settled local policy matter.

I object.

Mr. President, I would like to speak in support of the Biden-Harris administration's finalized furnace efficiency standards and against S.J. Res. 58.

The Department of Energy's finalized rule has been a long time coming, and we have not meaningfully updated the standards since the 1990s. Technology has advanced, but our regulations haven't kept up.

Now, let me just talk, first of all, about the importance of efficiency in the role that regulations can play in allowing efficiency to benefit consumers and our environment. When we have standards, it means that the manufacturers compete with the production of products that meet those standards. It is not a race to the bottom. It is a level playing field for those in the manufacturing industry that want to sell their products to consumers.

Having standards that are reasonable--and these are very reasonable-- then allows these better products to be sold, and the competition is a restraint on the price that is charged.

So efficiency has always been something that can help us do the following:

No. 1, reduce carbon emissions. The less energy that is used, the less carbon emissions are created.

No. 2, it saves money. At the end of the day, you have a more efficient appliance. It is going to use less energy by whatever means that energy has been produced.

No. 3, it tends to create jobs. The folks who manufacture these have workers. They have good jobs, and it is really important.

In Vermont, we face very high heating bills, and one of the reasons we want and fully support more efficient furnaces is to get those bills down. With a furnace that isn't up to the new standard, a family can face $600 in additional heating bills annually, and that is a lot of money for a lot of Vermonters.

The efficiency rule here has the potential to reduce the average household energy cost by $50 a year and $350 over the lifetime.

Many of the policies that we have worked on to pass through the Inflation Reduction Act will also help mitigate the costs. When you are doing an upgrade for some of your home appliances under the HOMES Act, you can get a taxpayer rebate, reducing the cost of what this will be.

These standards can also be especially helpful for lower income folks who rent their homes and, also, often face very high energy bills, largely because there is not an incentive for the landlord to provide a more efficient furnace.

By the way, the standards will make a major impact in our carbon emissions, cutting 332 metric tons over the next 30 years. And that is equivalent to the annual emissions from 34 percent of U.S. households.

So, for over a decade, Canada has had very similar furnace efficiency standards and has seen that there have not been significant issues with implementation. We should follow suit and implement the Department of Energy's standards to realize all of the important benefits I just mentioned.

I urge my colleagues to vote against S.J. Res. 58 and show strong support for the efficiency policy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on November 25, 2023, three Palestinian American students--Hisham Awartani, Kinnan Abdalhamid, and Tahseen Ali Ahmad--were shot by a local resident while they were walking along a quiet street in Burlington, VT. The three friends had gone to Burlington to celebrate Thanksgiving with Hisham's uncle and grandmother, who lives there. Instead, shots rang out, and they fell to the ground bleeding, for no apparent reason other than that they were speaking a mix of Arabic and English and wearing Palestinian kaffiyehs. Hisham was paralyzed from the chest down and now uses a wheelchair.

This despicable crime shocked and outraged Vermont. This despicable act of violence is a tragic reminder that even relatively tranquil and tolerant communities like Burlington cannot escape the curse of Islamophobia, racism, and other forms of hate, such as anti-Semitism and homophobia. We all have a responsibility to speak out against hatred, extremism, intolerance, and stereotypes that divide our communities and can lead to violence.

The alleged perpetrator of this senseless attack was quickly arrested and is in jail awaiting trial. We can be reasonably confident that justice will be done. But the lives of Hisham, Kinnan and Tahseen have been changed forever.

One of the things that is especially insidious about this crime is that if these three young Palestinians had been shot and wounded or killed back home in the West Bank, the chances that anyone would be arrested or appropriately punished is next to zero, nor would they have access to anything remotely resembling the quality of medical care Hisham is receiving in this country.

Hisham wrote about his experience and what daily life is like for Palestinians in the West Bank in a moving guest essay published in the New York Times on May 16, 2024. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record. I encourage all Senators read it.