Floor Statements

Madam President, I have good news. Senator Stabenow, leader, chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, has presented a bill that will allow us to consider an ag bill. And we have got work to do.

But as we know, for more than 90 years, the U.S. Congress--we have always worked together on this to advance the farm bill. And that is critical to rural America, and it is critical to all of America. It is about our agricultural and food policy and our environment. It reaches far beyond farms and fields and into the lives of every American throughout our country.

The farm bill, as you know, shapes the future of ag policy for every 5 years. It is always tough to get from here to there, so we have much more work to do. But it has been something that is essential to give our farmers the support they need. And it is also the most important legislation that we take up to support rural America. The small towns across our entire country that sustain our agricultural sector do so much for our economy and so much for sustaining important personal and patriotic values.

Vermont is a very proud rural State, and agriculture is a keystone of our culture as well as economy. Vermont's farmers, our dairies, our sugarmakers have shaped our small towns in rural Vermont for generations. We want to keep that going.

We have worked to keep that culture of the small, family-sized farms in our State, independent farmers, with most of our farms below a couple of hundred acres and town populations less than 2,500 people.

Vermont is by far not unique in this regard. America will not thrive if our rural communities aren't thriving. That is a commitment all of us have to make, and it is why as the chair of the Agriculture Committee's Subcommittee on Rural Development and Energy, I am urging my colleagues to support and work with us to improve the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act. It helps our farmers keep farming. It keeps our families fed, something very important to our farmers, and it keeps rural communities strong.

The Senate Agriculture Committee, under Chair Stabenow's outstanding leadership, recently unveiled the farm bill. Our bill has over 100 bipartisan provisions and a host of policies that many of my colleagues across the caucus and across the aisle support. It will strengthen rural America in many ways.

And by the way, Chair Stabenow included 100 bipartisan provisions, but she is totally open to more bipartisan provisions. Anything we can do to improve this with suggestions from both sides of the aisle, she and we want to do.

The farm bill, as I mentioned, supports farms, families, and rural farming. It is going to improve the quality of life for families in Vermont and America, with baseline funding--that is important, as we know--for the first time ever, to make improvements in rural healthcare. Our rural hospitals are hanging on by their fingernails, whether it is Kansas or Vermont or Idaho.

It is going to improve childcare availability, which is so essential to all families across the country but especially in rural America. And it is going to help our Tribes continue to have access to USDA programs.

The Senate farm bill will help us more efficiently build out high- speed rural broadband. I want to acknowledge the work on both sides of the aisle to build out broadband, but we have got to maintain that-- just like we built out electricity in the thirties--so that rural America is fully a part of the modern economy.

This bill will invest in and it will modernize wastewater and public water systems and those are under enormous stress and our local communities don't have the tax base to do all that needs to be done. There needs to be some recognition on the part of the Federal Government, and in the farm bill, we make that recognition.

It will help modernize our wastewater and public water systems and help remove in rural communities those toxic ``forever chemicals'' like

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Hawaii. First of all, I want to acknowledge my great appreciation for the work that the Senator and his committee have done on bringing attention to the ongoing challenge that communities that have been hammered, like your community of Lahaina and my State of Vermont, from natural disasters, and I am going to speak in support of the efforts you are making to get supplemental funding for the absolutely essential, flexible funding that goes with the block grant Disaster Relief Fund. Thank you very, very much.

You know, we are all in this together. What Senator Schatz said about the formality of a Federal disaster declaration--the formality is it is an acknowledgement that what happened, through no fault of anybody in Hawaii, through no fault of anybody in Vermont, is beyond the capacity of the communities in Vermont and Hawaii--beyond the capacity of Vermont and beyond the capacity of Hawaii--to handle the entire consequence of those events.

What is more important, more essential for the Senate than to acknowledge that all of us as Americans, that there but for the grace of God goes our community when a natural disaster occurs? So we have to respond.

There are two times that there is a response. One is in the immediate trauma of the event. It is all hands on deck. The community does everything it can. And there is one story after another in Lahaina; in Ludlow, VT; in Johnson, VT, of people coming together literally to save fellow citizens and neighbors and oftentimes people they don't even know. And the Federal Government comes in--President Biden was immediately responsive in Vermont, as he was in Lahaina--and our FEMA administration came in and was immediately responsive, and that really helps. It really, really makes a difference.

But do you know what? This is a photograph of the capital of Montpelier right after the flood. It is totally inundated in water. Every business on Main Street was basically destroyed, and the immediate relief efforts were about the water going down, getting the mud out, trying to find some temporary place to live, and see if you can save your business. But on that Main Street in Montpelier, our businesses are coming back, but they are not all back yet.

What I have seen is that the money that comes in right away and the help that comes in right away gives hope to folks. It gives all of the citizens in the State who are sad by what has happened to their neighbors but who, by the grace of God, avoided their own home and their own business from being flooded, it gives them and me hope that those folks are going to get some help from the Federal Government. And they did. Our roads and bridges, we are putting them back together. Some of the water treatment facilities that were destroyed, we are putting some of those back together. But the reality is, there is a long and lasting trauma and practical challenge of trying to get everybody back on their feet.

I get asked by my colleagues--and I really appreciate their concern-- Peter, how is Vermont doing? I don't quite know how to answer that because on one level, Vermont is doing great. We have moved on. That flood in July, we have done the major things that have to be done. The help we got from the Federal Government was really essential in doing that. The good wishes from my colleagues, I am so grateful for.

But the other part of that is when I am asked: How is Vermont doing? The Vermonters, if it was your home, if it was your business, if it was your farm, you are not doing well. You know, it is a lot to try to put that business back together. It is a lot to look at that home and realize you may not be able to get back in.

So let me just give an example. You know, I was in Barre, VT. That is about 5 miles from Montpelier. You are seeing that here. They got flooded, much like Montpelier did. In Montpelier, most of the damage was to businesses; in Barre, most of it was the homes.

FEMA Administrator Criswell joined me and Senator Sanders and Congresswoman Balint on the tour of homes. I returned in March, and the folks who came to our meeting and took a tour of Barre with me were a lot of the folks whose homes had been damaged. They are still trying to find out whether they can get bought out. They are still trying to find out whether they can get back in their home.

One couple was at the home when I showed up. They weren't able to get back in. They are living in a mobile home about 50 miles from where their home is. And there is a lot of confusion about what you can do and how you can do it. Those thorny questions about what is available and how are you going to implement what is needed for that home or for that business, those really linger.

At this point, FEMA--I don't want to say they are gone because they have done what their job is. But the pain and recovery, the pain is still very present for those folks: your farm, your business, your home. And the challenges of getting through the bureaucracy are very complicated. That is what I learned with the folks in Barre who basically have a group of volunteers who have managed to stay together to try to address concerns and questions that various members of the community have.

But the thing that is absolutely vital--absolutely vital--is the flexible funding that comes from the Disaster Relief Fund.

You know, no matter how hard and how competent and how professional our FEMA folks are, the reality is they have to move on to the next disaster. That is what is happening in this country.

But the pain in that community is behind, and it is the folks in the community who really have to have the capacity and the tools and the resources to do what only can be done by folks in Barre, in Montpelier, in Johnson, in Ludlow, in Weston. And I am sure that is true in Lahaina. Of course, those are the best people to do the work. They live in that community. The most important thing to them is to restore the vitality of the community that they love.

So the disaster relief funding is the absolutely essential component to allow the full rebuilding and the recovery for the folks who lost their homes, for those farmers whose crops have been wiped out, and for those businesses that are so vital, not just to that individual business owner but to that downtown community that depends on retail downtown so neighbors can come in, shop, see one another, and have a sense of community.

If we are going to have an effective disaster relief program, yes, it starts with the Federal declaration. Our President and previous Presidents, in my experience, have been very responsive to communities that, through no fault of their own, suffered a devastating loss from a weather event or a fire, as was in the case of Lahaina. But what happens after the waters recede, after the FEMA emergency folks are gone? It is the hard work of actually rebuilding that house, repairing that business. That is left in the community, and if they don't have that disaster relief funding and the flexibility that is required to respond to the very particular challenges in that community, then we haven't completed the job. And it creates a sense of frustration and anguish and pain that we can alleviate by having a disaster relief response that starts when the event occurs--that is the disaster declaration--but continues until the job is done.

And that is where the funding for the disaster relief is so absolutely essential for us in order to maintain the commitment that I believe this Senate has to help folks who have been on the receiving end of a catastrophic loss.

I am fully in support of the supplemental appropriations request that the Senator from Hawaii is making because, in my view, he speaks for all of us. In my view, there but for the grace of God goes your community. We in Vermont, just as Senator Schatz in Hawaii, have always been there to support the funding for communities around this country that have suffered losses such as what happened in Hawaii and what happened in Vermont. I thank the Senator for organizing this, and I look forward to working with Senator Schatz and others in order to make sure we get that disaster relief funding in the supplemental appropriations.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, May 11 will mark the second anniversary of the fatal shooting of a Palestinian American and accomplished Al Jazeera journalist, Shireen Abu Akleh. She was shot in the head while reporting on an Israeli raid in the Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank. At the time of her death, she was wearing a bulletproof vest with ``PRESS'' written in large letters on the front and on the back.

While there had been some earlier exchanges of gunfire between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian militants, there is no credible evidence that has been produced that the shooter acted in legitimate self-defense. No one in Shireen's immediate vicinity was armed, and no shots were fired from her location. Another journalist near her was also shot, but he survived.

Shortly after Shireen's death, Secretary of State Antony Blinken rightly called for a credible, thorough investigation and that the individuals responsible should be held accountable.

Israeli officials first denied responsibility. But when it became clear where the shots were fired from, they called Shireen's death an unintentional, tragic mistake. The shooter reportedly fired from an armored vehicle that was 190 meters away.

The inescapable conclusion is that she was intentionally targeted. The question is: Why?

My predecessor, Senator Patrick Leahy, asked detailed questions about her case, including why the Leahy law was not applied to stop U.S. assistance to the unit--the particular unit--responsible for Shireen's death. His questions were never answered. Since then, there has been no credible investigation.

I am disappointed that Israeli authorities have failed to fully cooperate with U.S. efforts to determine what happened, and nobody has been held accountable.

Shireen Abu Akleh's case has become one of many unresolved shootings in the West Bank and Gaza. Since the Hamas attack--the terrible attack on October 7--more than 140 journalists have reportedly been killed in Gaza. None of those cases have been investigated, and no one has been held accountable.

We have not and we will not forget Shireen Abu Akleh. She was an American citizen. More importantly, she was an innocent civilian doing her job, which she paid for with her life. She, her family, and her colleagues in the press deserve justice.

On May 3, World Press Freedom Day, Secretary Blinken said:

In their pursuit of truth, journalists often face

unprecedented danger worldwide. On World Press Freedom Day,

we recognize their bravery, resilience, and vital role in

ensuring the free flow of accurate information. Our support

for journalists and an independent media is unwavering.

My hope is that Secretary Blinken uses his influence and insists on the credible, thorough investigation of the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh that he called for 2 years ago and that those responsible be brought to justice.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the eclipse was a momentous occasion for Vermont, bringing more than 160,000 people to our State. I am especially thankful to our emergency personnel, law enforcement, and small business owners who handled the busy weekend with grace. Everyone viewing ``totality'' in the Green Mountain State, whether they were locals or visiting for the first time, experienced something that was pretty special: the beauty of our State.

Steven Pappas, publisher and executive editor of the Times Argus and Rutland Herald, summarized the celestial spectacle in his editorial titled ``Overshadowed'' and published April 9. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Alaska and really appreciate her remarks.

Affordable Connectivity Program

Mr. President, one of the rays of hope we have in this Congress is the bipartisan accomplishment of the past several years to build out broadband high-speed internet across the country, from Vermont to Alaska and everywhere in

between. And that was because this Congress, on a bipartisan basis, made a decision--a decision that is similar to what was made by this Congress in the 1930s, when electricity was becoming widely available.

We decided that it was absolutely essential for the well-being of our country and all of the citizens in urban and rural America that they have access to high-speed internet. And we built out that broadband network that made it within reach.

We also committed ourselves to a program called the Affordable Connectivity Program, which is really modest but incredibly important. And what it understands is that you may be a person with really low income in Pennsylvania or in Vermont or in Alaska, where the internet that has been constructed is right out in front of your mobile home or your home, wherever it is you live, but you can't afford to connect. So having the internet cable go by but you can't connect your home means you don't have internet.

And the Affordable Connectivity Program--a bipartisan program--is used by 23 million households, by 4 million veterans. And it is the difference between them being able to connect and get the benefit of high-speed internet or not.

And it makes such a difference because that internet is used by all of us. It might be to do your job. It might be to apply for a job. It might be for kids to do homework. It might be to get an appointment with a doctor through telehealth, something that is really important in rural America. That is the good news.

The dangerous news is that the Affordable Connectivity Program that is that lifeline for our veterans, for our seniors, and for our low- income folks is going to expire in a matter of weeks. And we have the opportunity and, I believe, the responsibility to extend the Affordability Connectivity Program so that people will be able to maintain access.

As I mentioned, more than 23.3 million American households have subscribed in the ACP, about 26,000 households in my State of Vermont. About 10.6 million subscribers are over the age of 50. And half the households that benefit are considered military families.

I mentioned 4 million veterans. A December 2023 survey of ACP subscribers reported that 77 percent said they used the program to schedule or attend healthcare appointments, and nearly 330,000 ACP subscribers live on Tribal lands.

You know, one of the keys to the bipartisan support is that this helps the citizens that all of us represent, whether you are in a red district or a blue district, a red State or a blue State, the folks we represent need access to the internet.

Let me just give a little example. I have a chart here about the 23 million Americans who use it. In Texas, one in four households--what a difference that makes for those folks in Texas. In Indiana, one in four. I am sorry. It was one in six in Texas. In Kentucky, one in four households. In North Carolina and Mississippi, one in five households. In Louisiana, every third household depends on the Affordability Connectivity Program in order to be linked to the internet that goes right by the front of their house.

So we have got to allow folks to continue to have that access to that vital program. So we need a supplemental appropriation from Congress to make certain that that happens.

If we let the ACP run out, funding would have devastating effects on people who use the program. And 77 percent of the households that rely on ACP say that losing that benefit would disrupt their service by making them change their plans or drop the internet service completely.

And, by the way, that 30 bucks--you know, it cost more than that. So folks have to dig deep in their pockets. And this is like Vermonters making $15,000 a year and having two kids. They don't have a big budget.

Let me give you a couple of examples because I think it brings it home.

Cynthia is a retired American who lives in Florida. She is an ACP subscriber. She told CNN, which did a great story on that, that she connects to her granddaughter and her great-grandson on video calls every week.

Do you know what? That matters. You are lonely. You have got grandchildren. You want to stay connected. You want to be in touch. That is a huge, huge part of her life. So let's not deny her that access.

Jonathan is a software engineer in my State of Vermont. He is an ACP subscriber who also spoke with CNN. This is what he said:

You're taking ACP away from the farmers that can check the

local produce prices and be able to reasonably negotiate

their prices with retailers. You're removing disabled

people's ability to fill their subscriptions online.

That really, really matters.

I have also gotten messages from my constituents, like Leslie in Brandon, VT, who said:

I was just informed by Consolidated Communications [the

internet provider] that I would be losing my ACP benefit for

my internet service at the end of April. . . . What a shame.

The internet is our way of communicating with our family

members who live outside Vermont plus many other contacts

necessary for our stay-at-home lives. I use the internet

almost . . . [every day].

That is why we have bipartisan support. When we--all of us, whoever it is we represent or whatever district we represent--listen to our constituents, and they say to Senator Fetterman or they say to Senator Welch or they say to Senator Wicker or they say to Senator Vance, ``This access to the internet really matters,'' we share a common opportunity to help the people all of us represent.

And, by the way, that helps bring us together when we are working on solving the problems that we all share.

And we have got bipartisan support to show for it. Joining me on the Affordable Connectivity Program Extension Act is Senator Vance, Senator Cramer, Senator Rosen, Senator Marshall, and Senator Brown. And many others have indicated support and interest when we find the way to come up with the funds to make certain it doesn't expire.

And, by the way, a lot of the leadership came from eight of my Republican colleagues, who sent a letter to President Biden encouraging the administration to fund the program, calling the ACP ``an important tool in our efforts to close the digital divide.''

And I thank my colleagues--Senator Wicker, Senator Crapo, Senators Tillis, Capito, Risch, and Young for sending that letter to President Biden.

And, of course, most importantly, it is really popular with the American people. The majority of Republican voters, 62 percent, support the ACP, according to a poll from the Digital Progress Institute. That same poll found that 80 percent of rural voters support continuing ACP.

And, boy, does this matter in rural America. You know, in the Roosevelt administration, there was a commitment: We are going to get electricity to the last barn on that last dirt mile in whatever rural town you live in. And do you know what? We made that same commitment here when we began extending broadband. But we won't make it real unless we can make certain that those people at the end of the road, on that dirt road, can afford it, and that is what the ACP does.

We need all of us--Democrats and Republicans--now to come together to pass our bipartisan Affordability Connectivity Program Extension Act and keep America connected.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, it has been more than 6 months since Hamas's horrific attack on October 7 that killed 1,200 innocent Israelis and led to the capture of 240 hostages. Around 130 people are still being held hostage, and an estimated 100 are alive and remain in captivity in absolutely horrific conditions. The cruelty that has been and continues to be inflicted on them is horrendous, and obtaining their freedom becomes a more urgent priority every day.

In the past 6 months, Israel's indiscriminate bombing has obliterated most of Gaza's infrastructure. Nothing has been spared. More than 33,000 Palestinians have been killed. Another 7,000 are believed to be buried beneath the rubble. And among the dead are hundreds of aid workers and health workers. Nearly 2 million people have been displaced. Aid trucks are lined up for miles in Egypt waiting to get into Gaza, while the bombs and shells keep exploding. The magnitude of this calamity is staggering.

Now, 6 months into this war, Prime Minister Netanyahu has announced that a date has been set for an invasion of Rafah. Rafah today is jammed with an estimated 1 million desperate, destitute Palestinians who were ordered by the Israeli military to leave their homes in the north--homes that have since been demolished--and who are now sheltering under plastic with the few possessions they could carry and not nearly enough food.

And last week, less than a month after Jose Andres briefed me and other Senators on the daunting challenges his remarkable organization, the World Central Kitchen, faces in getting food to desperate families in Gaza, Israeli missiles destroyed three of their vehicles and killed seven of their aid workers.

The descriptions and coordinates of the World Central Kitchen vehicles that were targeted had been shared with the Israeli military. There was nothing about those vehicles or the people in them that could reasonably have been confused with Hamas. The vehicles were far apart. They were labeled as World Central Kitchen vehicles. Each was targeted and destroyed separately.

The deadly attacks on aid and health workers in Gaza have become shockingly common. World Central Kitchen and other humanitarian organizations, which so many people depended on, have had to suspend operations in Gaza. This incident and the killings of other aid and health workers must be thoroughly and independently investigated. Calling it a mistake begs the question: We need to know what happened and why.

This outrageous attack on aid workers and Prime Minister Netanyahu's plans to invade the very place his government told Palestinians to go is the latest evidence that the way the Netanyahu government is conducting this war is terribly wrong. It is yet another tragic reason why a cease-fire is immediately needed.

Our priority must be to secure a cease-fire to free the hostages and get adequate food, water, and medical care to the Gazan population before more innocent people die needlessly. This was affirmed unanimously in the resolution recently adopted by the U.N. Security Council.

But rather than acknowledge Israel's responsibility to implement that resolution and secure a cease-fire, Prime Minister Netanyahu criticized the United States for allowing it to pass. He said the U.S. abstention harms both the war effort and the effort to release hostages.

I could not disagree more. After 6 months of relentless bombing, the war in Gaza has been a disaster. It has been a disaster not only for the Palestinian people but for Israel, for the United States, for the hostages, and for the cause of peace and security in the Middle East.

Last week, families of the hostages were among the tens of thousands of Israeli protesters calling for Netanyahu to resign.

We need to ask ourselves what could possibly need to happen before the United States finally stops financing a war strategy that has so disproportionately killed civilians, used food as a weapon, made Gaza unlivable, and that has no realistic vision of a peaceful future for either Palestinians or Israelis.

I believe that the time has already come. Israel does not need more bombs for Gaza. The United States should stop paying for this.

What Mr. Netanyahu consistently fails to acknowledge is that the American people are paying for this war--a war that most Americans do not support. It is their tax dollars that have purchased the bombs, tanks, artillery shells, machine guns, and ammunition that have been used by Israel in what has become a war not just against Hamas but a war against the Palestinian people.

Overwhelmingly, Vermonters who have contacted me, like a substantial majority of the American people, are absolutely horrified about what is happening in Gaza.

In all the years he has served as Prime Minister, Mr. Netanyahu has never articulated the vision for an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To the contrary, he has been on a mission--which he has confirmed publicly--to destroy any possibility of a future Palestinian state while preserving Israel as a Jewish state.

Those goals are fundamentally incompatible, if Israel is to remain a democracy. And we support the Jewish democratic State of Israel. Yet, on March 22, the Netanyahu government announced the largest seizure of land in the West Bank since 1993.

Nothing can excuse the brutality of Hamas--we all know that--which, for years, has squandered precious resources that could have been used to improve the impoverished lives of the people of Gaza.

But just as Hamas's atrocities and the Iranians and others who aid and abet them should be absolutely universally condemned, so must we recognize that there is a long history to this conflict.

For years, the United States--Republican and Democratic administrations and this Congress--has unconditionally supported increasingly extreme rightwing governments led by Mr. Netanyahu, even though he has consistently acted in ways that are directly contrary to our policies, our principles, and our national interests.

In the West Bank in the past 3 years alone, Israeli land seizures, settlement construction, demolitions of homes, and violence against Palestinians have soared, in flagrant violation of international law.

But rather than hold the Netanyahu government accountable, U.S. government officials keep repeating the same tired refrain that such actions are ``an obstacle to peace.'' And nothing changed. And despite evidence of human rights violations by Israeli soldiers, the Leahy Law has never been applied to Israel--not by this administration or any of its predecessors. And, meanwhile, Congress has continued to approve billions of dollars unconditionally for the Netanyahu government.

I have spoken many times about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Month after month, as Gaza was being destroyed, I and others have called for greater access for aid trucks and the protection of civilians and aid workers. I have called for indefinite cease-fire. President Biden has called for a cease-fire. Vice President Harris has called for a cease- fire. And so has the U.N. Security Council.

And Prime Minister Netanyahu has ignored it all, the humanitarian crisis has grown steadily worse, and the war is far from being won. Netanyahu's strategy in Gaza is reminiscent of that famous quote of an unnamed U.S. major in Vietnam who said:

It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save

it.

That is what is happening to Gaza. It won't work here, as it didn't work there.

Nobody--nobody--disputes Israel's right to go after the perpetrators of the October 7 massacre. But that atrocity and that security failure did not provide license for Israel to go to war against an entire population killing tens of thousands of defenseless people, targeting aid workers, preventing lifesaving aid from getting to the victims--all while the hostages remain trapped underground not knowing if they will survive another day.

This is not the Israel the American people have supported and defended--with my support--with $300 billion since its founding 75 years ago--far more aid than we have provided to any other country.

As Jose Andres said:

Israel is better than the way this war is being waged. . .

. You cannot save the hostages by bombing every building in

Gaza. You cannot win this war by starving an entire

population.

The words of Chef Andres.

I recognize that the Prime Minister makes his own decisions, and it is for the Israeli people to hold him accountable. But he is not--and in my view, has never been--a credible partner for the United States. Combating ruthless terrorists like Hamas is a challenge we face, Israel faces, the world faces. But this war is not making any of us safer from terrorism. It is creating the next generation of terrorists.

With an invasion of Rafah looming, the Biden administration has warned Mr. Netanyahu that unless there is a credible plan to relocate the Palestinians who are trapped there, such an invasion would cause unacceptable civilian losses. That, however, does not appear to have dissuaded Prime Minister Netanyahu.

World opinion has shifted sharply against Israel and the United States. The administration, while calling for a cease-fire and more humanitarian aid, is simultaneously sending more bombs and ammunition to Israel. It is an inconsistency that is not sustainable.

It is long past time for the U.S. to adopt a consistent policy, to stop financing a war strategy that was deeply flawed from the very beginning--a strategy of unending death and destruction without any plan for what comes next.

Instead of prolonging this catastrophe, let's use our influence and our resources to advance a consistent policy for the Middle East--a policy that has to be grounded in the recognition that the people of Israel will never be secure without upholding the inherent rights and dignity of the Palestinian people as well.

After 6 months of war, the situation, regrettably, in Gaza is worse than ever. Hamas is not defeated, nor do the experts that I have spoken to believe it can be. Gaza is all but destroyed. Two million Palestinians lack the basic necessities of life and have nothing to return to.

We need to change course. The hostages need to come home. The killing needs to stop. The war must end.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, our judicial system is vital, and every player has an important role--from the judge to the prosecutor, to the public defender, to the bailiffs, to the jurors. Cuts to our Federal public defender program have caused real difficulties in meeting the constitutional obligation of the role that public defenders play in our justice system.

Every day, across the country, public defenders work to ensure that the Constitution is applied fairly and evenly to all, regardless of whether you are the richest or the poorest person in the courtroom. By doing so, public defenders safeguard our democratic values, providing a necessary check and balance in our judicial system.

As the Senate's only former public defender, this is very personal to me, but it really is vital to all of us. I spent some of my first years after law school serving as a public defender in White River Junction, VT, and I saw firsthand how many people who find themselves in our criminal justice system are struggling with substance abuse or misuse, mental health challenges, and oftentimes both. And I saw how absolutely important it is that every person who comes into the courtroom gets as good a lawyer as those who walk in with a high-priced attorney.

The principles that public defenders represent are vital to what we believe in our Constitution: fidelity to due process and fidelity to equal treatment under the law. Those have been engrained in our country since its founding.

Mr. President, as I think you well know, John Adams--hardly a supporter of England--chose to represent British troops after the Boston Massacre. Why? Because he believed in the right to counsel, and he believed in the presumption of innocence, and that they were indispensable to our democracy. He had so much confidence in acting on those principles that it showed the confidence he had in the future of our country.

Public defenders are the direct descendants of those founding principles that underpin the rule of law so vital to our well-being.

As the Supreme Court recognized in 1938, when it required appointed counsel for Federal defendants, access to a competent lawyer is an ``essential barrier against the arbitrary or unjust depravation of human rights.'' That led the Court to realize, 25 years later, in the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, that the right to counsel is one of the fundamental rights for all of us who live in the United States. The Court's words then are as true today as they were before:

The right of one charged with crime to counsel may not be

deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some

countries, but it is in ours.

That is a confident country. It can live with the rule of law, and the rule of law requires representation. We will provide it, and we will make ourselves stronger for it.

For months, I have been talking to many of my colleagues, highlighting that there was a funding shortfall facing Federal public defenders. Six months ago, it looked like Federal defender offices across the country were going to have 10 percent personnel cuts. Those are very painful cuts, and really it was going to affect the quality of representation.

Instead, Congress acted, and Congress has basically corrected the shortfall in the final appropriations package released today. I understand that these Federal funding levels will allow the Federal defenders to avoid layoffs this year and end what had been a proposed and very harsh hiring freeze.

I am so grateful. I am so grateful to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: Chair Patty Murray, Vice Chair Susan Collins, Chair Chris Van Hollen, Ranking Member Bill Hagerty, along with the chair of our Judiciary Committee, Dick Durbin. All have worked diligently on this issue.

And I really want to thank the hard-working Appropriations staff for supporting the important role public defenders play in protecting our Constitution and our democracy and working as staff members to get the job done, with the leadership of their Senate leaders.

I ask that this budget cycle be a reminder and a lesson that we don't repeat this next year. The Constitution guarantees indigent criminal defendants the right to counsel, and it is our obligation to make certain that they are there, just as we pay for the salaries of prosecutors. The Administrative Office of the Courts has already submitted a budget request for next year that would allow us to honor this obligation.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to support public defenders throughout the next budget cycle.

This decision by this Congress in this budget to uphold and strengthen all of the people who play such a vital role in our justice system is an act of commitment and renewal to our constitutional principles, and it is an act of confidence in the future of our democracy.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, an article in the February 29 New York Times, entitled ``5 Convicts Familiar With Navalny's Prison Confirm Hellish Conditions,'' describes the horrifyingly cruel treatment of political prisoners in Russia. Anyone who reads the article could easily mistakenly assume that they were reading about the shocking ways that prisoners were dehumanized, brutalized, starved, and murdered in the Middle Ages, except this is 2024.

What the article describes is not new, but it has received renewed attention since the murder, on February 16, of Aleksei Navalny, who bravely challenged Putin's corrupt and ruthless crusade to destroy any semblance of democracy and freedom in Russia today.

I want to quote a few passages from the article for the benefit of those who have not read it:

Locked in an Arctic prison, Aleksei A. Navalny is likely to

have spent his final days in some of the most inhumane

conditions within Russia's extensive penitentiary system,

according to five men who have served sentences in the same

penal colony as the Russian opposition leader.

The men described in phone interviews unbearable cold,

repulsive food, unsanitary conditions, and beatings in Penal

Colony No. 3 of the remote Yamalo-Nenets region, where Mr.

Navalny arrived in December to serve out the remainder of his

19-year prison sentence. The former inmates said the

conditions were especially brutal in the solitary cells where

Mr. Navalny is believed to have been confined on the day he

was pronounced dead.

But what made the prison, known as IK-3 or the Troika,

dreaded even by Russia's hardened inmates was the exceptional

psychological pressure and loneliness, they said. It was a

system devised to break the human spirit, by making survival

depend on total and unconditional obedience to the will of

guards.

``It was complete and utter annihilation,'' said a former

inmate named Konstantin, who spent time in the prison's

solitary confinement cells. ``When I think about it, I still

break into cold sweat,'' he said, adding that he has

struggled with mental illness since his release.

Set in the tundra, the Troika is built to hold about 1,000

prisoners in some of the most remote, strict and harsh

conditions in Russia, which former convicts say can cross

into torture.

``You had to make peace with the fact that no one will help

you, that you're on your own,'' Aleksandr added.

The article includes a photograph of a sign at the entrance to the penal colony, reminiscent of Auschwitz, with the words ``Happiness not far off.''

According to a former inmate, ``You could spend 10 years

there, and not see and not know anything about anyone else.''

When asked about the convicts' reaction to Mr. Navalny's

death, he said: ``No one gives a damn about anyone else

there, because everyone only thinks about themselves and when

they can get the hell out of there.''

Still, he noted that any disruption of routine, such as the

arrival of federal officials to the prison following an

inmate death, would be welcome as a small respite. He

recalled a time in 2022 when another inmate had died.

``It may sound callous, you know, but his death stopped the

beatings and somewhat lightened the daily routine,'' the

person said.

Vladimir Putin, who Donald Trump has praised for being a strong leader, is today's version of Joseph Stalin, who killed millions of his own citizens and destroyed any vestige of freedom or prosperity in Russia. Aleksei Navalny was Putin's latest victim. Navalny possessed all the attributes that Putin lacks: honesty, charisma, an inspiring vision for Russia's future, and of course, the admiration, love, and gratitude of millions of Russian citizens.

Countless other Russian prisoners who have dared to stand up for democracy and human rights, like Vladimir Kara-Murza, are at risk of the same fate as Navalny, at any time.

In many respects, the people of Ukraine are no better off. Every day, if they survive the night, they wake up not knowing if it will be their last, the latest casualties of Putin's relentless attacks against civilian targets.

Vladimir Putin reminds us of the massive death and destruction that a single cruel individual, devoid of morality and motivated by ideology, greed, and a lust for power, can inflict on millions of innocent people. That is not a sign of strength. It is the worst form of criminality. It is what Putin will be remembered for. It will be his legacy.

Madam President, indigenous people in Latin America and around the world are facing unprecedented threats to their communities and cultural survival. Faced with increasing intrusions of settlers, illegal miners, loggers, ranchers, wildlife traffickers, narcotics traffickers, and explorers for oil and gas, coupled with woefully inadequate police protection, they are among the world's most vulnerable people.

This crisis is illustrated by the alarming situation facing the Yanomami people in the Upper Orinoco region of Venezuela, an area that is being destroyed by illegal gold miners. It is reminiscent of the decimation of Native American Tribes in past centuries in our own country, when millions were forced off their land, murdered, or infected with smallpox, measles, and other fatal diseases brought by White settlers.

The Venezuelan Government has an obligation to guarantee the right to health, as part of the right to life, enshrined in the country's Constitution. In the case of indigenous people like the Yanomami, this includes the adaptation of health services and programs to their unique circumstances and needs.

After the ``Haximu Massacre of the Yanomami'' in 1993, when 16 Yanomami were killed by a group of illegal miners, was brought before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the Venezuelan Government signed a settlement agreement that established commitments regarding surveillance and control of illegal mining and healthcare for the Yanomami people. Although the Yanomami Health Plan yielded positive results between 2005 and 2010, it began to decline due to lack of resources and is now almost completely defunct. Currently, there is no healthcare available in the Yanomami territory in the Upper Orinoco region.

This crisis has resulted in a sharp increase in the prevalence of and death from preventable and curable diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis, among others. Malnutrition is also a pervasive problem, especially among children. Patients who require emergency treatment must be flown to Puerto Ayacucho, the state capital. The Yanomami in the border zone of Sierra Parima must go to Brazil to obtain health care.

The Government of Venezuela has repeatedly failed to protect the Yanomami people from violence, child

labor, and forced labor and sexual exploitation from illegal miners. The increased flow of Brazilian wildcat miners, coming into Venezuela in partnership with the Venezuelan military and corrupt civilian authorities to mine for gold and cassiterite, is contributing to the transmission of infectious diseases for these vulnerable communities due to their lack of immunity. Malaria, sexually transmitted infections, and mercury poisoning are closely linked to illegal mining.

According to the Yanomami's own records, between 2022 and mid-2023, 35 people died from malaria and tuberculosis in different sectors of Sierra Parima, which comprises only a portion of the Upper Orinoco region. The Yanomami reported 350 deaths due mainly to malaria between November 2023 and February 2024. The serious epidemic and negligent inaction of the Venezuelan Government have forced the Yanomami to abandon their villages and flee into the forest to escape the malaria epidemic.

Since 2021, the Venezuelan Government has received support from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. The Venezuelan Ministry of Health, through the U.N. Development Program, receives the supplies that are part of the malaria elimination strategy--mosquito nets, rapid diagnostic kits, medical treatments, and other equipment. But sorely lacking are the transportation logistics, infrastructure, and personnel to carry out malaria control and prevention activities in remote indigenous communities.

Anyone who has seen photographs of the devastation caused by illegal mining in the Upper Orinoco region cannot help but be appalled by the capacity of human greed to destroy the natural environment and the people and wildlife that depend on it. The Yanomami are responsible stewards of the forest who are being threatened, attacked, and infected by deadly diseases contracted from those who are illegally extracting resources from their territories.

While the Venezuelan Government has contributed to their plight by allowing and even profiting from the illegal mining in that sensitive region, the United States has a positive role to play. The Barbados Accords, signed by the Maduro regime and the opposition Unitary Platform, were the result of negotiations between the Biden Administration and Mr. Maduro. They required the Venezuelan Government to create conditions for a free and fair election in 2024, and in return, the U.S. would grant licenses to relax sanctions on oil, bond, and gold transactions.

Like many, I had hoped the Barbados Accords were the beginning of a path for Venezuela to move beyond the years of internal division, repression, corruption, and misery that have caused millions to flee the country. But Maduro reneged on his commitments and arrested leading opposition candidate Maria Corina Machado, and on January 29, the administration announced that the sanctions on gold will be snapped back in April.

Perhaps Maduro will reverse course again and do what he agreed to do under the Barbados Accords. But whether he does or not, absent strong action by the international community to make it more difficult for illegal miners and their profiteers to launder the proceeds, the suffering of the Yanomami people is likely to continue unabated.

Mr. President, before I begin my remarks, I just want to associate myself with the remarks of the chair of the Judiciary Committee about the nominee. Everything he said is true. I share his horror at the vilification of him, which I do believe is based on his faith, and he would be an outstanding member of the Federal court.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your defense on behalf of an excellent nominee.

Mr. President, every day we are reminded of the worsening humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. Most of the infrastructure in the territory has been destroyed. Thousands of apartment buildings, schools, mosques, hospitals, shops, and markets have been reduced to piles of twisted metal and rubble, under which the bodies of an unknown number of people are buried.

Of the world's many humanitarian crises, the situation in Gaza is among the worst. This is due in large measure to the onerous impediments by the Netanyahu government to the delivery of sufficient food, water, medicines, shelter, and fuel.

Getting aid to those who are suffering and preventing starvation should be our most immediate and highest priority, along with obtaining the release of the hostages.

As I said when I spoke out for a cease-fire in November, an immediate and indefinite cease-fire is the only way to achieve these goals. I am very heartened by Vice President Harris's call for an immediate--if temporary--cease-fire to get aid in and hostages out, because the reality is, the supply of lifesaving aid has dwindled to a trickle.

Last week, the depth of the humanitarian emergency in Gaza exploded with the deaths of dozens of Palestinian civilians as they frantically tried to reach food supplies from aid trucks that were guarded by Israeli soldiers. People were trampled, people were run over by trucks, and they were shot.

It was a horrifying scene and a direct result of the Netanyahu government's failure to put in place workable procedures for the delivery of sufficient aid to starving people. As others have said, there is no legal or security justification for restricting humanitarian aid to civilians who are caught in the middle of an armed conflict.

The more desperate people become, the more chaotic and precarious the security situation, the more likely there will be other senseless tragedies just like this.

I recently introduced a resolution, along with 15 of my colleagues, calling for the urgent delivery of sufficient humanitarian aid.

The Biden administration has repeatedly called for greater access for more aid trucks to Gaza, but the number getting through remains far below prewar levels. And I am encouraged, nevertheless, that President Biden has directed the United States to begin airdropping aid in--a decision made with the understanding that, while not enough by any means, it could save lives.

Israel now occupies Gaza. It has an obligation under international law--not to mention the moral responsibility--to feed and shelter Palestinians under its occupation.

Beyond the moral imperative, the path to peace, security, and stability would be enhanced dramatically by facilitating the delivery of essentials for survival to the Palestinian people whose fate is imperiled. But as we saw last week, that is not happening.

The Netanyahu government's rejection of U.S. and international appeals to meet the basic needs of innocent Palestinians trapped in Gaza and the resulting loss of innocent lives, is really the latest in a pattern that we have seen for years.

The United States has long supported--and the United States will always support--Israel as a free and Jewish democratic state. But candor requires acknowledging that we have an ongoing, serious difference with Israeli leadership.

It is the longstanding U.S. policy that the Middle East conflict can only be solved through negotiations to create two independent states of Israel and Palestine. President Biden has reaffirmed this.

But Prime Minister Netanyahu has publicly rejected a two-state solution, and he has even credited himself for actively working to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state. I will use his words. He couldn't have been more clear. He said:

I will not compromise on full Israeli security control over

the entire area in the west of Jordan--and this is contrary

to a Palestinian state.

The United States opposes settlements and the destruction of Palestinian homes, orchards, schools, and other infrastructure in the West Bank. It violates international law and is a severe obstacle to peace. Secretary of State Blinken has reaffirmed this.

Yet Prime Minister Netanyahu embraced the settlements. In 2017, he said:

We will deepen our roots, build, strengthen and settle.

In 2019, he said:

With God's help we will extend Jewish sovereignty to all

the settlements as part of the land of Israel, as part of the

state of Israel.

Under his leadership, settlements have expanded exponentially. Settlements bring extremist settler violence, some of it with firearms financed by American taxpayers.

Shootings of West Bank Palestinians, threats laced with hateful messages that if they don't leave their homes, they will be killed, and the destruction of land and other property have surged--surged--in recent months, including, in some instances, with Israeli soldiers passively standing by and watching.

It is the longstanding U.S. policy, codified by the Leahy law, that units of foreign security forces that violate human rights are not eligible for U.S. training or equipment or other assistance.

And according to multiple reports, that law has not been applied to the Israeli Defense Forces, despite numerous cases of shootings of Palestinian civilians.

We must face the contradiction of what we are doing. We are airdropping food to famine-stricken Gaza today and supplying bombs for Israel to drop on devastated Gaza tomorrow.

We call for humanitarian relief, but how can that call be meaningful when aid workers are killed in their effort to deliver it and Palestinians are killed in their effort to retrieve it?

It is time for us to acknowledge--all of us to acknowledge--what the entire world knows: It is impossible to deliver humanitarian aid in a very active war zone.

Israel is a great country, Jewish and democratic. Israel has been-- and remains--our closest ally in the Middle East. For decades, Israel has been under attack by those who have sought to destroy it.

President Biden--and so many of us--understand the history of Israel and the history of the Jewish people. October 7 was the worst attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust. And we cannot ever let that happen again.

But both of our countries right now are on a wrong path. Israel must stop its indiscriminate attacks that are killing so many Palestinian civilians--women and children, the majority among them who perished.

And the United States must end its unconditional support when Israeli policies are wrong that are unjustified; that are causing so much suffering; and that, in the view of many of us, are doomed to fail in the goal of achieving lasting peace.

How many times do we have to be repudiated by Prime Minister Netanyahu on the use of indiscriminate force; on the recklessness of expanding West Bank settlements; on impeding the delivery of aid; on advocating an endless Israeli post-conflict occupation of Gaza? How long and how often will Prime Minister Netanyahu reject our policies but take our money before we say, ``Enough''?

How many more than the 30,000 Palestinians already killed and the 70,000

wounded before we say to Prime Minister Netanyahu, ``Enough''? How many more homes and shops and schools and childcare centers and hospitals must be destroyed before we say to Prime Minister Netanyahu, ``Enough''?

Israel must--and Israel always will--make its own decisions as to who will be its political leaders. Israel must and Israel always will make its own decisions as to when and how to defend itself. It is their right.

But the United States, too, must make its own decisions consistent with our values, with our judgment, and with what we believe to be in our national interest. The Biden administration has taken important steps to bring accountability through diplomacy by issuing a national security memorandum that builds on the Leahy law, but it is time for us--and I include all of us in the U.S. Congress--to stop accommodating the Netanyahu government. It has consistently shown it does not share our goal of achieving peaceful coexistence between the Israeli and Palestinian people.

Our failure to act damages the authority, credibility, and reputation of the United States, not to mention our foreign policy and security interests. In my view, it undermines the security interests of Israel, which is increasingly isolated in the international community. Opposition to the disproportionate use of force in Gaza is widespread, including in our own country. So, too, regrettably, is the rise of anti-Semitism, which we must always condemn, and Islamophobia, likewise, which we must always condemn.

It has been said many times before: U.S. aid is not a blank check. When it comes to the Netanyahu government, it has, for many years, across Democratic and Republican administrations, been a blank check. It is long past time for the United States to stop supporting by commission and omission actions that are inconsistent with our principles and our policies, and which make peace between Israelis and Palestinians ever more elusive, ever more difficult to achieve.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this is indeed a historic day--the passage of the national security supplemental appropriations bill. I want to commend the extraordinary work of Leader Schumer, of Leader McConnell, of our Appropriations chair and vice chair, Senator Murray and Senator Collins, and also our colleagues who worked so hard on the bipartisan border agreement that was ultimately repudiated by the Republicans.

The supplemental includes important additional military aid for Ukraine and Taiwan and aid for Israel and humanitarian aid for the Palestinians and other vulnerable populations.

I unequivocally support the additional aid for Ukraine. It is facing an existential threat. We must pass that aid. I am very pleased to see that Ukraine is going to be receiving the aid it desperately needs. Putin must be stopped.

The other provision in the supplemental I strongly support is funding for the humanitarian aid for Palestinians and for humanitarian catastrophes around the globe. But the situation in Gaza is what is of great concern to me. It is horrific.

Two million Palestinians have been uprooted from their homes. Those homes have been reduced to rubble. Folks are desperately seeking to survive. They lack adequate food, safe water, and shelter. Many are injured without anything remotely resembling sufficient medical care or shelter.

I introduced a resolution, cosponsored by 15 of my colleagues, urging the administration to dramatically increase access and delivery of humanitarian aid for Palestinians in Gaza, and I am gratified that the supplemental does include several billions of dollars for that purpose.

But despite these provisions that I do support, I voted against the supplemental for one key reason: I cannot in good conscience support sending billions of additional taxpayer dollars for Prime Minister Netanyahu's military campaign in Gaza. It is a campaign that has killed and wounded a shocking number of civilians. It has created a massive humanitarian crisis with no end in sight. It has inflamed tensions in the Middle East, eroding support among Arab States that had been aligned with Israel. And, of course, it has severely compromised any remaining hope--almost all remaining hope for the two-state solution that we all know is ultimately essential for peace in the Middle East. And this is an opinion that is not just my own, but it is

expressed by a large majority of Vermonters who have contacted me and shared their dismay at the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza.

During my years in Congress, like the Presiding Officer, I have voted for tens of billions of dollars in aid for Israel, but I cannot send more taxpayer dollars to support Prime Minister Netanyahu's continued bombardment in the wholesale destruction of Gaza, knowing the calamity that more U.S. bombs and artillery shells will cause for countless more civilians who had nothing whatsoever to do with the atrocities that were committed by Hamas terrorists on October 7.

As I made clear on November 28 when I called for an indefinite cease- fire in Gaza, really for the purpose of saving civilian lives, we all do want Hamas gone. They are terrorists. The depth and cruelty Hamas perpetrated against innocent, defenseless people, many of them women and children, was appalling. It was reminiscent of the brutality of ISIS. The viciousness of the Hamas attack was intended to terrorize and traumatize all Israelis. And it goes without saying that Israel has a right and responsibility to pursue those who ordered and carried out the October 7 attacks.

But Israel's enemy is Hamas, not the Palestinian people, and neither Israel nor any country has the right to use lethal force in ways that violate the laws of armed conflict by inflicting egregious and disproportionate harm to civilians. Palestinian civilians are, by definition, innocent. They are defenseless, as were Hamas's victims.

What has occurred in Gaza using weapons and munitions provided by the United States and what will continue to occur as long as Prime Minister Netanyahu pursues his current war strategy is more of the same. It is a strategy which I and many others believe is deeply flawed. It has cost more than 28,000 Palestinian lives.

Netanyahu's war plan has never been articulated beyond his oft- repeated refrain of pursuing nothing less than the complete destruction of Hamas and the release of the hostages.

Like many of us, I have spoken with families of hostages who are desperately waiting for the safe return of their loved ones, who are trapped in the vast network of Hamas tunnels--narrow, cloistered, dark tunnels--as Israeli bombs explode above. It is hard to imagine anything that is more terrifying for the hostages, as well as for their families, as the weeks turn into months with no end in sight.

Since Israel launched its invasion of Gaza nearly 4 months ago, Prime Minister Netanyahu has said nothing about what Israel's strategy is for the future of Gaza or the people of Gaza after Gaza is in ruins when the war ends.

Obliterating civilian infrastructure--and that is happening now with demolitions set to take down homes and infrastructure--makes it impossible for people to have a place to return to. Intentionally reducing to rubble hospitals, schools, mosques, and apartment buildings is not right. Forcibly displacing 2 million people and creating a humanitarian catastrophe and looming famine, this is not an acceptable strategy.

The inescapable conclusion is that the Netanyahu government is not listening--is not listening to the White House and President Biden, is not listening to key Arab governments that are imploring Israel to change course.

Their belief, which I share, is that the way to prevent a wider war and begin building a safer and ultimately more secure Middle East is to stop killing and otherwise mistreating innocent Palestinians.

Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has rejected out of hand the right of Palestinians to have a state of their own, is stubbornly pursuing what can only be called a scorched-earth policy. It is difficult not to conclude that his enemy is not only Hamas but the Palestinians.

To make matters worse, he and other Israeli officials continue to deny that there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

How much worse does the situation have to get in Gaza? How much wider of a war in the Middle East will be accepted before we use the leverage America does have, including the withholding of additional lethal aid, to get Israel to stop that bombing campaign, to negotiate a cease-fire and the release of the remaining hostages, and to allow the dramatic increase in food and water and other humanitarian aid that is needed to prevent the widespread starvation, death, and disease the United Nations and other relief organizations warn are imminent, and to negotiate an end to the war?

The massive destruction and loss of innocent life is not making Israel more secure. To the contrary, it has eroded progress Israel has made with its neighboring Arab States, it has inflamed tensions in the Middle East, and it has incited attacks on American soldiers. It has severely damaged Israel's reputation on the world stage and set back the cause of peace in the Middle East, which we must continue to strive to achieve.

The possibility of a two-state solution, which Prime Minister Netanyahu has publicly rejected, is on life support. Throughout the years, the United States has provided tens of billions of dollars in aid to the Netanyahu government, in effect consistently financing a government that implements policies that we support for a two-state solution but pursues policies that make it impossible for a viable independent State of Palestine to emerge. That has been endorsed--a two-state solution--by Republican and Democratic administrations. We have to mean what we say.

This must end, and it must end now by sparing innocent Palestinians in Israel's pursuit of Hamas and renewing vigorous efforts to create a viable Palestinian State--something the Biden administration is doing energetically.

Mr. President, a majority of the Senate has voted to approve additional military aid for Israel. I know that the White House will not treat that as a blank check. We must increase pressure on the Netanyahu government to respect international humanitarian law.

I am very encouraged by the White House's release on February 8 of an unprecedented national security memorandum based on an amendment sponsored by Senator Van Hollen and cosponsored by many of us, including the Presiding Officer. It articulates a global policy and reporting requirements that put Israel and other recipients of U.S. military aid on notice that our aid is contingent on their written commitment and adherence to U.S. and international laws of armed conflict and allowing the unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid.

I also urge the Secretary of State to apply the Leahy law, passed by my predecessor, Patrick Leahy of Vermont. Apply that to Israel. This has not been the practice.

For far too long, successive administrations have failed to apply the law to the Israel Defense Forces despite many incidents when the IDF was credibly implicated in violations of the human rights of Palestinians. The Leahy Law is the law of the United States. It should be enforced.

Finally, Mr. President, I do want to say a few words about the southern border.

Our immigration system is broken. Our southern border is overwhelmed with thousands of would-be immigrants on a near daily basis. Asylum seekers can wait 5 years or more to plant roots in this country before learning their fate. They are forced to wait to join the workforce when they are here and face bureaucratic backlogs. Most potential immigrants have no meaningful way to enter the U.S. legally, given the failure of Congress to improve the system for 30 years. Cities all around our country are dealing with the consequences and are exhausted. In essence, we don't have a functioning immigration system.

I commend my colleagues, Senators Sinema, Lankford, and Murphy, for their extraordinary work, and I am very disappointed that that effort was rejected and repudiated by our Republican colleagues.

The agreement proposed reforms to improve border security that both Republicans and Democrats have long recognized that we need in order to significantly improve our operations at the border and have a secure border. It provides that agreement for additional pathways for legal migration, and we need legal migration.

Our rural communities, like those in Vermont, rely on immigrant and seasonal farmworkers and know how important improving our legal migration system is to our rural economy.

We need to address the limited number of family- and employment-based visas to address the backlog of green card applications that already exceed 10 million people, and we need more worker visas and other alternatives for our employers to be able to get the job done.

I voted last week to proceed on the first version of that border agreement that was worked out by our colleagues in the hope that we could work and pass amendments, improve it, and pass it. But the Republicans who first embraced that agreement or that effort turned their backs once Donald Trump insisted they take no action to secure the southern border before the November election. Donald Trump has a campaign, and we have a responsibility to govern, and that includes taking action on the southern border.

That situation is the result of inaction over many years. Republicans and Democrats can take credit for some of those failures, but we have to do there what we have done in so many other places--work together to get a secure border, find pathways for legal migration, and have safety and security at a border we control.

I am going to end where I began, and that is by thanking Leader Schumer and Leader McConnell for their extraordinary effort in getting us to this vote on this important legislation.

I also want to say to the Senate staff and to our Senate pages, who have been here all night: Thank you. We are very grateful for the work that you do. This was not just an important day; it has been an important several months where the business of the Senate in debating the important issues of our time has occurred, and you all have been part of history.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to recognize the recent passing, and honor the life of an extraordinary Vermonter, Raymond ``Ray'' Bradley Jacoby. Ray touched the lives of many in our State, and his presence in his community will be deeply missed.

Ray dedicated much of his professional career to volunteerism and nonprofit service. Ray was the executive director of the Chittenden County United Way in Burlington, VT, for 10 years in the 1970s and 80s. In this role, he worked to make financial stability, healthcare, and affordable education accessible to everyone, coordinating with community partners to provide crucial assistance to Chittenden County residents.

Throughout his life, Ray was also a devoted attendee, employee, and supporter of YMCA summer camps. As a young boy, he attended YMCA camps across New England. Later in his life, he served in nearly every camp position, from counselor-in-training to camp director. After his retirement from the United Way, he worked with YMCA Camp Abnaki in North Hero, VT, for years. He helped the camp to raise funds and provide support to the staff to ensure campers had the best experience possible every summer.

Ray will be remembered by many for his contributions to his community, commitment to his work, and devotion to his family. It is with both great sadness and honor that I celebrate the life of Raymond Jacoby and extend my deepest condolences to his family and loved ones. His impact on Vermonters will never be forgotten.

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

Mr. President, I am here to speak about the extension of the Affordable Connectivity Program. COVID was brutal, but something good came out of it. And that was a recognition by the U.S. Congress-- Republicans and Democrats--that access to high-speed internet was absolutely essential all across America.

Before COVID, there were many of us who represented rural States-- Republicans and Democrats--who were making the case, when people were arguing for high-speed internet, that we had no-speed internet. And our concerns were really dismissed by many of our urban colleagues.

With the effect of COVID, it was apparent: You couldn't go to work if you didn't have internet. Your kids couldn't do homework without internet. You couldn't get a doctor's appointment unless you could do it online. And we had come to the conclusion as a Congress that high- speed internet was as essential to all of America today as electricity was in the 1930s.

And in the 1930s, when the debate was whether we build out electricity, there wasn't an economic argument that was made, although that was important; it was a commitment to the social cohesion of this country that we are all in it together. And whether you lived on a dirt road on a farm in Iowa or you lived in Manhattan on Fifth Avenue, you needed electricity. We made the same decision during COVID in the U.S. Congress, and we allocated billions of dollars to start building out high-speed internet across the entire country.

There is another matter, though, that is important if we are going have access to the internet. It is affordability. And the Affordable Connectivity Program was a lifeline for many low-income people in the State of Vermont and States, in counties, and in cities and towns all across this country.

If you were a Vermont family with 200 percent of poverty level income and you lived in a rural area, you made $15,000 a year and you had two kids, you could have internet going right by your house, but you had to make a really tough decision about whether you could afford it. The Affordable Connectivity Program helped that family with $30 toward the cost of the monthly bill for the high-speed internet. That doesn't sound like a lot. It is a lot to a family that is making $15,000 or $11,000 and has kids.

You know, it is tough to be poor. It is hard work to be poor. A lot of parents were making enormously difficult decisions about whether they could get access to internet, and they were able to make that choice because they cared about their kids and knew how important it was to their future. That was the only chance they had to look for jobs.

That program has been tremendously beneficial to folks you represent and I represent and to my colleagues who are my cosponsors on the extension bill, because this program will expire in months, and notices will be going out to families that that rebate they have depended upon is expiring.

But that is why the bipartisan nature of this reflects how this internet program is so essential to everybody who wants and needs to have access to

internet--whether they are in a Republican district or not; whether they are Democratic or not.

I am proud to partner with J.D. Vance of Ohio; Jacky Rosen of Nevada; Kevin Cramer of South Dakota; and colleagues in the House, Yvette Clarke and Brian Fitzpatrick. All of us have constituents and all our constituents need this access to high-speed internet; so we cannot allow this program to expire.

In the State of Vermont, what we have done in order to do the hard work of taking the money that the Federal Government has provided to build out high-speed internet is we created community union districts where towns have gotten together and used funds to contract to build out that internet and where that community union district has a commitment, not so much to shareholders or investors, but to the people in the community. The goal in Vermont is to make sure that farmer at the last mile on the dirt road in our most remote town has access to internet.

It has really worked because there has been really serious community engagement. Our local community union districts have done an enormous amount to let folks know--those who are eligible, very low-income folks, hard-working folks--let them know about this program where that $30 is really going to make the difference on whether they can hook up or they can't.

We are really proud in Vermont, too, of one of our first internet providers that was local called ECFiber. They set up their own program even before the affordable connectivity program was established.

We have a decision we have to make as a Congress. Will we maintain this bipartisan commitment we have had to the citizens of this country to make certain that everybody, regardless of income, has the best possible opportunity to have access to that high-speed internet that is as essential to our well-being, our social connection, our sense of working together, as electricity was in the thirties?

It is very popular among Republicans, at least 62 percent; among Democrats, 90 percent. But most importantly, among rural Americans, 80 percent of rural Americans are in favor of this, and they know how vital this program is.

Mr. President, 25,000 Vermont families have benefited by it, and 22.5 million American families have benefited by it. Let us continue the program. Find the $7 billion that is necessary to maintain this, and make sure that the progress we made working together to build out high- speed internet to make it accessible to all our citizens continues.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the October 7 slaughter of at least 1,200 innocent Israeli citizens and the abduction of 240 hostages was a monumental atrocity. The cruelty and depravity of that massacre, especially the torture and killings of women and girls, has shocked our collective conscience. Like others here, I have consistently supported Israel's right and responsibility to respond. We would all like to see Hamas disappear. But people with decades of experience in the Middle East say that is almost certainly not going to happen. To the contrary, they warn that the Netanyahu government's wholesale destruction of Gaza, which has caused the death of more than 24,000 of its citizens and displaced more than 1.5 million who had nothing to do with the crimes of October 7, will increase the terrorist threat by Hamas and other violent extremist groups who share a common hatred of Israel and the United States.

As horrifying as the October 7 attack was, neither the atrocities committed that day, nor Gaza's dense population and Hamas's insidious use of civilian infrastructure, justify the appalling scale of death and destruction in Gaza directed by Prime Minister Netanyahu that has ignited global condemnation. It has also failed to free the hostages whose survival becomes more precarious every minute of every day.

The inescapable conclusion is that the Netanyahu government is not listening to either the White House or to key Arab governments that are imploring Israel to change course. Their belief, which I share, is that the way to begin to build a safer and ultimately more stable and secure Middle East is to stop killing and otherwise mistreating innocent Palestinians. Yet Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has rejected out of hand the right of Palestinians to have a state of their own, is stubbornly pursuing the opposite approach with no political endgame. It is difficult not to conclude that his enemy is not only Hamas but also the Palestinian people. To make matters worse, he reportedly denies there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Last week, Netanyahu said he ``needs to be able to say no, even to our best friends.'' Well, American taxpayers provided the planes and bombs and tanks, and the United States needs to be able to say no to him. How much worse does the situation have to get in Gaza, and how much wider of a war in the Middle East, before we use this country's considerable leverage--including withholding additional lethal aid--to get Israel to stop its bombing campaign, negotiate a ceasefire and the release of the remaining hostages, and allow the dramatic increase in food, water, and other humanitarian aid needed to prevent the widespread starvation, death, and disease the UN and other relief organizations warn is imminent?

What is happening in Gaza is intolerable and we share responsibility. In a January 17, 2024, op-ed in the New York Times entitled ``Team Biden Needs a Reset on Israel,'' David Levy, with whom I had the privilege of traveling to the Middle East some years ago, makes the case more effectively than I could. I hope President Biden and his top advisers read it.

I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.