Floor Statements

Mr. President, last Friday, President Trump was quoted saying that Cuba ``is going to fall pretty soon . . . They want to make a deal so badly . . . and we'll see how that works out.''

I agree that it is absolutely in the best interest of both countries to negotiate an agreement--a ``deal'' as the President calls them--but it needs to be a deal that puts the national interest of the United States and the national interest of the people of Cuba first.

To do that, we urgently need to do what the Vatican has called for, and that is a ``dialogue-based solution to the problems that exist'' between our two countries.

It has got to be a solution that stands the test of time, and it should, at a minimum, include the following: One, President Trump can end all restrictions on the right of Americans to freely travel to Cuba. The American and Cuban people should be able to freely interact with one another.

The President should offer maximum support for Cuba's private sector by allowing direct foreign investment and development financing for Cuba's struggling, but really essential, small businesses.

The President must remove Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. That designation has no legal basis. No other country agrees that it applies.

And the President must call on Congress to repeal the failed United States' embargo of Cuba so that Cuba's economic reconstruction can begin.

And President Trump should lift his punitive blockade of Cuban oil imports that has contributed to an unprecedented humanitarian crisis on the island.

And what about Cuba's leaders? Cuba's leaders should abandon central planning of the economy. It has been a disaster for the Cuban people, as it has been in every other country where it has been tried.

They should take the necessary steps so American companies can compete for contracts to invest in Cuba and help rebuild the country's dilapidated infrastructure--but not like Cuba before the revolution, when the island was run as a corrupt playground for the rich and famous while average Cubans lived in squalor. Contracts must be transparent, and investors must be accountable.

Cuba's leaders must release all political dissidents and accept the right of the Cuban people to express themselves freely, without fear of persecution.

And the United States' and Cuba's leaders should agree on a mechanism for resolving property claims.

Cuba is a small, bankrupt country. It has neither the capacity nor the intention to threaten the United States. And even before the Trump administration cut off oil from Venezuela and started blocking oil shipments to Cuba from other countries, electricity blackouts were common. And, today, electricity is unavailable--unavailable--for

most hours of the day and across the entire island.

Just think of what that means for homes, for hospitals, for schools, for factories, for farms, trash collection, and public transportation-- all of the essentials of daily life. It is absolutely catastrophic. How does one produce, how does one transport, how does one refrigerate food without fuel? How do you pump and transport water? How do you power ambulances, operating rooms, incubators? You simply can't do it.

Faith-based organizations, Cuban entrepreneurs, and concerned Americans are doing their part, but it is not nearly enough. Cuba's economy is collapsing, and millions of people are suffering hunger, disease, and despair. If this continues, thousands are likely to flee the island, seeking refuge in the United States, just as they did in 1994.

For many years, people in Washington and Miami have blamed Cuba's leaders for the country's problems. That is valid--to a point. The Cuban authorities have clung to their revolutionary slogans, while other countries with communist governments--and with the support, by the way, of the international community, including the United States-- transitioned to a market economy and more open society.

Cuba's centralized economy, after years of absolute mismanagement, dependence on foreign subsidies, and strangled by the U.S. embargo-- that economy is in total shambles. Housing and other infrastructure are decrepit. The health system--something Cubans were proud of--is collapsing due to the very severe shortages. Basic materials and supplies are unavailable, except for those with connections to the outside world.

To quell popular anger, Cuba's leaders always blame the United States, and they harass and unjustly imprison those who speak out against the one-party system. That is wrong, and that must stop.

But let's be candid. The United States is far from blameless. For fully three-quarters of a century, during Republican and Democratic administrations and with Congress, pressed by Cuban-Americans in Florida, we have tried to overthrow the Cuban Government by armed invasion, by assassination, by financing Cuban dissidents, and by imposing a web of sanctions with extraterritorial reach that are more punitive than what we inflict on even more brutal regimes.

You know, the oil blockade now under President Trump--which, if circumstances were reversed, we would condemn as an illegal act of war--is the latest tactic that is attempting to force Cuba's leaders to capitulate to U.S. demands.

You know, much of this could have been avoided. After more than six decades of a U.S. embargo that achieved none of its goals but did hurt the Cuban people, President Obama did change course. Supported by my predecessor Senator Leahy and others, President Obama did open travel for Americans to Cuba, supported Cuba's emerging private sector--it was working--and cooperation with Cuba on migration, public health, maritime security, and many other areas--that cooperation increased.

During those 2 years, the lives of many Cubans actually did improve-- much more so than during decades of U.S. hostility and punitive sanctions.

It was 10 years ago this month that our President then, President Obama, made his historic trip to Havana and offered a new policy of positive engagement to help Cuba modernize its economy and bring new opportunities to the Cuban people. What the President then said:

I have come here to extend the hand of friendship to the

Cuban people.

``[T]o the Cuban people.''

That official good will was reversed in 2017 when the then-Trump administration restored Cold War sanctions. The deal that the President is now seeking seeks to force Cuba's capitulation with the oil blockade, which is inflicting collective punishment on the Cuban population and creating a humanitarian emergency.

By the way, there was no progress built on what President Obama began during the Biden administration, so I don't want this to be seen as just something about one President versus another. This has been sustained policy by the United States over the course of almost 75 years, interrupted only during that moment after the historic trip by President Obama to Havana.

Political and economic change in Cuba is absolutely long overdue. That is not debatable. But the way to get there is not by causing more hardship for the everyday Cuban family. Cuba is no threat to us today, but a failed state 90 miles off our shores would be a threat to us today.

Cuban leaders have had many opportunities to show they could govern differently, and they did miss those opportunities. Today, countries that came to Cuba's rescue in the past are no longer willing to do that, leaving Cuba's leaders no choice but to negotiate with the United States.

So one thing seems certain: Cuba's Government is going to have to change its ways.

The Cuban people--90 percent of whom were born after the 1959 revolution--do want leaders who, rather than repeating tired slogans, accept the need for fundamental changes in how to govern, with greater participation of the people, greater transparency, greater freedom, and real accountability.

On Monday, in response to a question about Cuba, President Trump said:

It may be a friendly takeover, it may not be a friendly

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

to . . . as they say, fumes. They have no energy, they have

no money.

Of course, the reason Cuba is ``down to . . . fumes'' is largely because of the U.S. oil blockade. But despite that--let me be clear--no American President, under any circumstances, friendly or unfriendly, should threaten to take over another sovereign nation, whether Cuba, Greenland, or anywhere else.

Rather than threats of a takeover, the United States should--should-- negotiate a solution with Cuba which above all else puts U.S. national interests and, as I have said, the needs and aspirations of the Cuban people first.

I urge the Trump administration and Cuba's leaders to take the steps I have outlined to stop the suffering and repression in Cuba and finally put an end to the decades of hostility between our two countries. I believe they would receive overwhelming support from the people of both countries as well as overwhelming support here in Congress.

(The remarks of Mr. WELCH pertaining to the introduction of S. 4095 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly, if I may, on another subject.

During the war in Gaza, more than 20,000 children have been killed so far. There have been thousands of atrocities in Gaza. Over 70,000 have died, and even more have been gravely injured.

The Israelis' own data shows that the overwhelming majority of the people killed by Israeli forces have been civilians, and it is, regrettably, the highest proportion of civilians to combatants killed in any contemporary conflict.

Today, I want to speak about one such case, the killing of Hind Rajab. Hind was the beautiful 5-year-old child whose photograph you see here next to me. ``Hind,'' by the way means ``hope.''

Hind's death is the subject of a film that has been nominated for an Academy Award on Sunday. The film follows the killing of Hind, the killing of her four cousins, her aunt, her uncle, and two paramedics who were sent to rescue her. It does feature a recording of Hind's voice pleading for help that never arrives.

It is a virtual certainty that the weapons and ammunition provided by American taxpayer dollars were used in this crime. We know this based on forensic investigation of her family's car, where 335 bullet holes were counted.

Despite requests from the Biden State Department, Israel has produced no evidence that it has held anyone accountable for this atrocity. That is why today I am introducing the Justice for Hind Rajab Act, along with my colleague in the House of Representatives, Representative Sara Jacobs of California.

Our bill raises a simple question. Something must be done about this crime. The U.S. Government must--must--do its part to hold those responsible accountable as some small measure of justice for the thousands of children who have been killed in this war and that continues to this day.

Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly, if I may, on another subject.

During the war in Gaza, more than 20,000 children have been killed so far. There have been thousands of atrocities in Gaza. Over 70,000 have died, and even more have been gravely injured.

The Israelis' own data shows that the overwhelming majority of the people killed by Israeli forces have been civilians, and it is, regrettably, the highest proportion of civilians to combatants killed in any contemporary conflict.

Today, I want to speak about one such case, the killing of Hind Rajab. Hind was the beautiful 5-year-old child whose photograph you see here next to me. ``Hind,'' by the way means ``hope.''

Hind's death is the subject of a film that has been nominated for an Academy Award on Sunday. The film follows the killing of Hind, the killing of her four cousins, her aunt, her uncle, and two paramedics who were sent to rescue her. It does feature a recording of Hind's voice pleading for help that never arrives.

It is a virtual certainty that the weapons and ammunition provided by American taxpayer dollars were used in this crime. We know this based on forensic investigation of her family's car, where 335 bullet holes were counted.

Despite requests from the Biden State Department, Israel has produced no evidence that it has held anyone accountable for this atrocity. That is why today I am introducing the Justice for Hind Rajab Act, along with my colleague in the House of Representatives, Representative Sara Jacobs of California.

Our bill raises a simple question. Something must be done about this crime. The U.S. Government must--must--do its part to hold those responsible accountable as some small measure of justice for the thousands of children who have been killed in this war and that continues to this day.

Mr. President, today marks 10 years since the murder of Honduran environmental leader Berta Caceres. She lost her life after rallying her indigenous Lenca community to halt construction of the Agua Zarca Dam project.

Berta's killers were hired by the corrupt DESA hydroelectric company, financed by national and international banks. Some have been convicted. All are appealing. Others remain at large, while Berta's organization, the Council of indigenous and Popular Organizations of Honduras, continues to receive threats.

Throughout her life, Berta Caceres not only fought for the rights of Hondurans; she also built networks of solidarity across the hemisphere, organizing opposition against destructive policies, including the militarization of law enforcement and resource-extractive projects that harm indigenous communities and the environment.

Impunity for killings of Honduran social activists is endemic, but Berta's case shows that accountability is possible. The new Honduran Government can demonstrate that it is committed to truth, justice, and the rule of law by ensuring that all those involved in her assassination are severely punished, as well as those responsible for the hundreds of killings of other human rights and environmental activists in that country. It should study the findings in the recent Interdisciplinary Group of Independent Experts' report on Berta Caceres' murder and publicly commit to vigorously implement its recommendations.

Mr. President, we must act. The President has made a decision unilaterally without consultation of Congress to start yet another war in the Middle East. It is a reckless decision that is very detrimental to the well-being of our country and very threatening to the Constitution.

There are three issues that are absolutely essential to consider by this Congress. First of all, No. 1, America does not want this war. And I trust the American people. The reason America does not want this war is they have seen it before. They saw it in Iraq where the justification was weapons of mass destruction. They saw it in Afghanistan where the justification was getting rid of the Taliban. They saw it in Libya where the justification was getting rid of Qadhafi.

In each case--Saddam, Qadhafi, the Taliban--yes, they were evil people doing bad things--but what was a lie to the American people, and they saw, was that there were no weapons of mass destruction. The Taliban is now back in power after 20 years of war, and the chaos that was sown in Libya lives with us to this day.

America understands that it is easy for a President to assert he wants to go to war. He is the Commander in Chief. He can do it, as he has done in this case, by bypassing Congress. But what the American people have seen is that it is easy to start a war, but the consequences and the costs are not avoidable, and they have been very damaging to the well-being of the people of this country; they have been very damaging to our prosperity; and, of course, they have caused immense loss of life of our wonderful soldiers and men and women in uniform. The American people get it.

No. 2, we cannot, under our Constitution, go to war on the basis of a decision by one man. The whole point in our Constitution of vesting war-making authority in the Congress was because our Founders saw how Kings abused their powers to go to war, how an autocrat abuses his power to unilaterally decide to go to war.

A quote from Abraham Lincoln:

The provision of the Constitution [that is, our

Constitution] giving the war-making powers to Congress, was

dictated . . . by the following reasons . . . Kings had

always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars,

pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the

people was the object. This, our Convention understood

[Lincoln said] to be the most oppressive of all Kingly

oppression and they resolved to so frame the Constitution

that no one man should hold the power of bringing this

oppression upon us.

Yet, in fact, that is exactly what is happening now. One man--Donald Trump--unilaterally decided to start this war. It is the same person, by the way, with--who as candidate Trump decried, and quite rightly, the rush to war. He decried especially wars of regime change as total failures. He decried the $7 trillion that was spent in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So now, we have a new situation where the President woke up one day, announced he is going to war, and abandoned his America First commitment. What is clear here is this war is not necessary. Iran, the Ayatollah, the regime is a threat. We have been containing that threat. There were negotiations about their nuclear capabilities that were making significant progress. Don't forget that this administration is the one that tore up the agreement in the Obama administration where we had eyes on exactly what was happening in the Iran nuclear program and there was compliance. And we have substituted it with bluster and now, ultimately, this war of choice.

This is a war that has been pushed hard by Prime Minister Netanyahu, who just before the war started was whispering in the ear of Donald Trump, and it is pretty clear that the President was persuaded by Netanyahu. The President should be more persuaded by the voices of the American people who have learned lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan and even going to back to Vietnam.

The third reason Americans don't want this war is they want us in this Congress, in this administration, to focus on the needs of Americans. We have a situation in Vermont now that is similar to what people face all over this country. Healthcare is something that is out of reach for everyday Americans. That is absolutely essential. And you, yourself, and I and others did our level best to try to extend tax credits to working families and farmers and small businesses who depended on them to be able to continue to have healthcare. With the One Big Beautiful Bill, 15 million people are losing Medicaid access.

What we are seeing is the acceleration of income inequality where people

who work hard, oftentimes two jobs, who don't have more time in their life to even work more, at the end of the month can't pay their bills. And isn't it time that we focus on meeting the needs of Americans? Basic things like healthcare, like affordable housing, like childcare, things that make a family secure, things that make a community strong.

There is absolutely no coherent rationale that the President has offered for the end game of this war against Iran. And there is absolutely no explanation from the President about why he has abandoned what he asserted was his longtime opposition to wars of regime change.

And this is the question for all of us in this Chamber who serve in the U.S. Senate and who have responsibilities under the Constitution, specifically article I: Will this U.S. Senate allow a single man to plunge this Nation into war when it is our constitutional responsibility to make a decision as to whether to send our men and women into combat? That is our responsibility and vote, as all of us will. We cannot avoid our responsibility to vote, to stand and to be counted.

Now, at the close, I want to say something that I know every single one of the Members of the Senate feels very strongly, and that is support for our men and women in uniform.

We have brave members of the Vermont Guard that are serving right now, and I speak of my concern for them, their well-being, and their families. But I express that same strong sensibility toward every family who has a servicemember serving in this conflict, and I say that to every servicemember in the conflict: We support you.

But, Mr. President, this is a wrong decision. You do not have the right to make this decision unilaterally.

And I say to my colleagues in the Congress: We must stand up and do our job and meet our responsibility. And that is why I am a strong supporter of Senator Kaine and Senator Paul's War Powers Resolution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize John McClaughry, who will serve as the town moderator of Kirby, VT, for the 60th time this town meeting day.

John's journey toward this milestone began in 1963, when he first moved to Vermont. In 1965, John built a log cabin in Kirby, a small town with about 500 residents tucked away in Vermont's Northeast Kingdom. He quickly became an important member of the community. Though he lived just part of the year in Kirby--he spent the rest of the year in Washington--he was elected town moderator in 1966. As town moderator, John is responsible for facilitating Kirby's annual town meeting. He ensures that voters' voices are heard, and he shapes compromises that keep the town running.

John moved permanently to Vermont in 1970, on the same plot of land where he built his log cabin, and has lived there since. John was elected to represent Kirby in the Vermont House of Representatives from 1969-1973, where he advocated for his constituents and every Vermonter in the Northeast Kingdom.

After working on President Reagan's 1980 Presidential campaign, John joined the President's team at the White House Office of Policy Development. Despite his busy schedule in Washington, John always made it back to Kirby for town meeting day in March.

In 1989, John would return to the Vermont General Assembly, this time in the State senate representing Caledonia County. John later established the Ethan Allen Institute, a think tank named for Vermont's own hero of the American Revolution. Here, John advocated for limited government and free markets. In 2023, he stepped down from the Ethan Allen Institute to allow for a new generation of leadership, but John has undoubtedly left a mark on Vermont.

From the moment I met John in the 1970s, I admired him. John represents much of what makes Vermont's political culture unique: a devotion to localism; a belief in strong Vermont values; and a ``live and let live'' approach to governing. John's commitment to local governance and democracy runs through his life's work. From a life that has ranged from hitching rides on railcars, to serving in Vermont's State House and the White House, it is commendable that John has, for 60 years in a row, served as town moderator for Kirby, the beloved home of John and his wife Anne.

Mr. President, I join with Vermonters in celebrating the exceptional Vermont athletes who represented the United States at the 2026 Winter Olympic Games. Our State's athletes competed with great distinction, earning seven medals. The State of Vermont has a proud tradition of producing world-class athletes, and the 2026 Games were a powerful testament to that legacy.

Athletes with Vermont roots and connections won seven medals at the games, representing more than 20 percent of all medals earned by Team USA. Vermont's contribution to American Olympic success this year was historic by any measure.

Across alpine skiing, cross-country skiing, and freestyle disciplines, Vermont athletes competed at the highest level and delivered performances that will be remembered for years to come. These achievements did not happen overnight. They are the result of years of rigorous training, personal sacrifice, and an unrelenting commitment to excellence--supported by the world-class coaches and ski schools and training programs that Vermont has long been proud to call its own.

I congratulate Ben Ogden, Ryan Cochran-Siegle, Mac Forehand, Jessie Diggins, Paula Moltzan, and Mikaela Shiffrin for medaling. I also applaud Julia Kern, Jess Perlmutter, Jack Young, Sean Doherty, Margie Freed, Maxime Germain, Olivia Giaccio, Deedra Irwin, Lauren Jortberg, and Nina O'Brien for competing and making Vermont proud.

The Winter Games are a reminder of why our winter sports and outdoor recreation communities are so vital to the identity and economy of our State. Vermont's ski areas, trails, and training programs are not only excellent athletic institutions, but they are also the reason generations of young Vermonters have grown up with a love of the outdoors.

We are deeply proud of all our Vermont athletes have achieved, and we wish them continued success as they pursue the next chapters of their athletic careers and beyond. Their accomplishments will inspire young skiers and outdoor enthusiasts across Vermont for generations to come and serve as a lasting reminder of what is possible when talent and the spirit of the Green Mountains come together on the world's greatest stage.

Mr. President, we are 1 year into President Donald Trump's second term and 1 year into Secretary Kristi Noem's tenure as head of the Department of Homeland Security, which includes Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE. It is time for us to assess and state with clarity what that 1 year has brought us.

First of all, the deportation policy is not now about border security--not now. The border is secure, and that is a good thing. Migrant crossings into the United States from Mexico are at their lowest level since 1970.

In August of 2024, during President Biden's administration, there were 107,000 encounters at the southern border, but in August of 2025, there were only 9,000. The border is much more secure. I support that. We must maintain it, and we will.

So is the deportation policy now about deporting criminals--something we support? There is evidence, and the evidence of what the policy is about comes from a Department of Homeland Security report itself. What it says is that 14 percent--only 14 percent--of the people who have been deported are dangerous criminals. No objection to deporting criminals, but that it is only 14 percent shows that the real purpose is to inflict on this country a policy of mass deportation.

And the Trump administration is as good as its word. From day one, with Stephen Miller, it has announced its intention to conduct mass deportation in the United States. It set quotas. It has moved away from focusing on people with serious criminal convictions, and instead, it is focused on getting the highest number of arrests and deportations as possible, up to 3,000 a day.

Homeland Security got $75 billion from Congress--not from votes on our side. But it was really what allowed for this mass roundup of people from workplaces, from farms, from schools--all in service of a political agenda that is not about protecting Americans but is serving the political interests of the President and the fiendish design of Stephen Miller, with the implementation of a reckless Kristi Noem.

So if only 14 percent of those people deported are dangerous criminals, what are the others? It is about detaining and attempting to deport students who are here legally but said things that the President and the administration didn't like on a campus, folks who spoke out about the war in Gaza: Mohsen Mahdawi from Vermont, Mahmoud Khalil from Columbia in New York City.

It is about deporting a student who wrote an article in a student newspaper criticizing the Israeli Government. It is about ripping a preschooler--preschooler--1,300 miles away from his home to sit in a detention facility, and it is about using him as bait to get to his family. That is happening.

It is about detaining a U.S. citizen at gunpoint, on that person's front porch, without any warrant to go there and then forcing him to go outside in subfreezing weather wearing nothing but his underwear.

It is about detaining a churchgoer delivering groceries to his neighbors in freezing temperatures, and it is about denying him the necessary medication he needed after he had a kidney transplant, while he was in custody.

It is about a legal permanent resident, Donna Hughes-Brown. She was locked up for 143 days, threatened with deportation, because she did do something wrong: She bounced two checks that totaled 75 bucks over 10 years ago.

It is about Steven Tendo from Vermont, an asylum seeker and a pastor. He was arrested and detained outside the medical center in Shelburne where he works, and he said it was done brutally and it was done at gunpoint. This is not a threatening man. He is currently now being denied medication for his diabetes.

ICE is in such a rush to meet its quotas set by Secretary Noem and Mr. Miller that they are literally grabbing anyone and everyone they set their eyes on. What is their accent? What is their color? Where are they located? And ICE does not care who gets hurt in the process.

Wilmer Chavarria is a U.S. citizen, and he is the superintendent in the Winooski School District in Vermont. He was detained and questioned for hours by agents in Texas. His technology was seized and searched. He described this as ``the definition of psychological terror.''

A 21-year-old man protesting in California was blinded in his left eye. He told the AP after this he was ``just glad'' to be ``alive to tell my story.''

A pastor in Chicago, a reverend, was praying out loud at a protest, and an agent shot multiple rounds of pepper balls in his face, and he was sprayed by more pepper spray. It was indiscriminate and really vicious.

So far in 2026, ICE agents have shot eight people. These shootings happened in Minnesota and across the United States: Arizona, California, Oregon, Maryland, and Illinois. Officers fired on at least nine people who were in their cars, much like the horrible case of Renee Good. Ms. Good, as America all knows, was a 37-year-old mother, and Alex Pretti was a 37-year-old VA nurse. They were killed in Minnesota. We all saw it. No justification whatsoever.

We have seen massive ICE deployments in Minnesota and elsewhere: Washington, DC; Illinois; California. These ICE expeditions, with massive numbers of people coming in, are interfering with local law enforcement and creating real terror in the communities.

ICE has raided schools and farms and workplaces, including in my State of Vermont, that sow fear and chaos on farms like the Pleasant Valley Farm in Berkshire and construction sites in Hardwick, VT.

DHS is also rounding up so many people, they literally don't have places to put them. For the first time in our history, more than 70,000 people are in ICE detention. That is an increase of 75 percent from the previous year. Not surprisingly, the conditions are deplorable. There was no preplanning of how to accommodate the people that the government was taking into custody. Detainees are fed food laced with worms. These are all documented facts. It is not a political argument. This is what is happening. Many places have toilets that don't flush.

In a detention center in El Paso, a man named Geraldo Lunas Campos was choked by an officer, and he died. A teen was beat up by officers and now has hearing loss. Just this week, NBC reported that an 18- month-old baby who was detained in south Texas was rushed to a hospital and treated for pneumonia, COVID-19, and RSV in serious and severe respiratory distress. She was described as being at the brink of dying.

Thirty-five people died in custody last year, and at least 6 died in detention centers in January of this year alone.

ICE is in such a hurry that many of the officers don't get adequate training. Their identities are concealed. Most disturbingly, ICE and Kristi Noem accept no responsibility for the actions of their officers.

We are discussing reforms now in Congress, and the basic reforms that should be made are that any Federal Agency, including ICE, should have to abide by the standards that apply in Alabama or in Vermont to our local law enforcement agencies, where there is training, where there is accountability, where there are body cameras, where there are mechanisms in place for training, supervision, and accountability.

But the real question, in my view, is this: Do we want to support a policy of mass roundups? That is the policy of the administration right now. When it comes to the question of border security, yes. When it comes to the question of deporting criminals, yes. But mass roundups with untrained people that are meeting quotas and where we have seen the violent overreactions in many cases; where we are seeing suffering inflicted on people who are in detention because there is no capacity to provide humane treatment to the people taken into custody by the government; where we have seen the havoc in communities where there are raids on our farms that need the migrant

labor and there are raids in our construction sites; where, when there is an influx of thousands of agents from ICE, it totally disrupts local law enforcement; and where so many of these people who are being rounded up are not a threat to our safety--are not a threat to our safety--what is the benefit to the American people? What is the price that our communities are paying? And what is our responsibility as a U.S. Senate to open our eyes and candidly assess what is the impact of a mass deportation policy?

My view is that we have an opportunity to move beyond what has been incredibly partisan rhetoric about the immigration issue. The reason we have the opportunity is because there is now bipartisan agreement about a secure border. There is now bipartisan agreement about deporting criminals.

Isn't it time for us to have the discussion about legal ways to have an immigration policy that is safe and secure and benefits the American people, as immigration has benefited us from the onset of our history?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on February 13, 2025, President Trump said something few expected to hear. He said, ``There's no reason for us to be building brand-new nuclear weapons. We already have so many. . . You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over. And here we are building new nuclear weapons . . . We're all spending a lot of money that we could be spending on other things that are actually, hopefully, much more productive.''

I could not agree more with that statement. It is why I want to speak about the New START Treaty, which expires on February 5, and the very real possibility of a new nuclear arms race--something that, to my knowledge, neither the President, Vice President, nor any other senior U.S. official has meaningfully discussed.

The decision to start a nuclear war can be made by a single individual--the President of the United States--with no requirement that he first consult with anyone. A nuclear war could also be started at any moment by Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, or any other leader of a nuclear weapon state. Or it could be triggered by mistake.

A single use of a tactical nuclear weapon, either by accident or design, could trigger a flurry of escalating responses with far more powerful strategic weapons that would cause incalculable loss of life, widespread radiation poisoning, and destruction on a scale unlike anything seen in human history. We all, regardless of political affiliation, must reaffirm what Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev said 40 years ago: ``A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.''

For the past 80 years, the probability of mutually assured destruction has deterred the use of nuclear weapons. But in today's increasingly dangerous and unpredictable world, with mercurial leaders like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un, we cannot rely on deterrence alone. Existing nuclear arms control treaties are either no longer adhered to by Russia or the United States or, as in the case of New START, are on the verge of expiring.

That represents a colossal failure of leadership by both the United States and Russia. There is no greater threat to humanity than a nuclear war, yet there are no negotiations underway to replace the treaty, nor are there discussions to consider a new generation of limits on nuclear weapons.

My colleague from Massachusetts Senator Markey and several others here have sought to counter this complacency. But the danger of a new nuclear arms race has received far too little attention from Congress and the administration, and with tomorrow's expiration of the New START Treaty, it is staring us in the face.

The United States, and our allies, must urgently seek to reinvigorate negotiations on a verifiable replacement for New START, with more effective mechanisms to prevent the development, proliferation, and use of nuclear weapons. Until then, we and the Russians should agree to continue abiding by the limits under New START, as President Putin has reportedly proposed. Despite our stark differences with the Russians, they have as much interest in preventing an unwinnable nuclear war as we do.

We must also invigorate discussions with China, which has some 600 nuclear weapons. That number is expected to more than double in fewer than 10 years.

If Putin refuses to replace New START, despite it being in Russia's own national interest, there are other steps that we, Russia, and China should take--short of negotiating a new treaty--to help reduce the risk of a nuclear war, whether due to a false alarm, error, or other misperception. For example:

* Creating joint early warning centers to monitor missile

launches;

* De-targeting, so any accidental launch of a nuclear armed

missile lands in the ocean;

* Removing all nuclear weapons from high-alert status;

* Reducing incentives to respond quickly to an unconfirmed

nuclear attack;

* Reducing the number of deployed nuclear weapons; and

* Renouncing first use of nuclear weapons and eliminating

the President's authority to launch nuclear weapons without

congressional approval.

Since the 1980s, thanks to negotiators in both countries, the United States and Russia curtailed an unrestrained nuclear arms race that had led to the deployment of staggering numbers of increasingly destructive weapons that could not rationally be justified for deterrence or any other purpose. The START Treaty and New START were historic achievements.

Twelve months ago, President Trump spoke of the need for the United States, Russia, and China to stop building more nuclear weapons. Yet while his National Security Strategy calls for ``the world's most robust, credible, and modern nuclear deterrent,'' it says nothing about preventing another nuclear arms race. With respect to New START, he reportedly said, ``If it expires, it expires.''

As the New START Treaty fades into history, one commentator has suggested that ``one likely successor to nuclear weapons' sole dominance on the strategic value ladder could be AI technology. . . Either AI technology itself will become the primary strategic weapon-- or it will enable the rapid creation of alternatives that render nuclear arsenals increasingly irrelevant to real-world outcomes.''

It is only a matter of time--and probably far less time than we think--before the application of AI technology to warfare creates a whole new impetus for global instability. But even as AI becomes more versatile as a disruptive and destructive force, nuclear weapons and the threat of nuclear war are not going to disappear. So I urge President Trump to elevate nuclear arms control to the top of his national security agenda. Even the modest steps I have mentioned to reduce the chance of a catastrophic mistake or miscalculation resulting in the use of nuclear weapons should be among our highest national security priorities.

Mr. President, first, I want to acknowledge my colleagues

from Minnesota Senator Smith and Senator Klobuchar.

You have conveyed to us the deep pain and anguish that you feel and that every Minnesotan feels about the shocking shootings that occurred in your State. This follows on tragedies that occurred before this. The pain of your community is the pain of this U.S. Senate. My deep appreciation--and I know I express this on behalf of all of my colleagues--to you for putting this in a human, real perspective. Thank you very much.

Second, this is shocking. Two people got shot for no reason-- absolutely no reason. Renee Good was a 37-year-old mom of three kids. She was protesting. That officer walked from the back of her car to the side of her car to the front of her car and shot through the front windshield and then moved to the side and shot two shots in the driver's side window. That is what happened.

Alex Pretti was out with his cell phone camera observing what was going on and was shocked, I am sure, to see that an ICE agent was pushing a woman into a snowbank, and he came over to try to get between them. There was a scuffle. He was in total subjugation by the officers who had him on the ground. He was disarmed--never using, by the way, or even threatening to use the gun that he had legally in his possession. ICE officers--2 of them--shot him 10 times. Ten times. That is what happened.

Why aren't we all just totally shocked? That is not acceptable.

Then that is all done with the authority of the State--with no restraint.

Then the Secretary of Homeland Security, who is responsible for the training and the discipline and the mission, blows this off and says that these two people were domestic terrorists--no accountability, no expression of sadness, no expression of remorse.

How is this acceptable to any one of us here? How is that acceptable?

Yet what we are hearing when we are saying ``Let's look into this. Let's get some reforms in place that allow our citizens to feel safe, for there to be accountability''--we are being told that it is too complicated because we already have a bill and we will have to divide it, and that means procedural hassles; that means, oh, the House will have to come back.

Are we serious? That is called doing your job. It is called accountability. It is called taking responsibility.

I want to pay tribute to the people of Minnesota. We are actually having a discussion about inconveniencing House Members because they have to get on a plane and come back if we act to do something that every American knows we should do: Pass the bipartisan bills where we have five bills done, and take on the burden of responsibility that we have as a U.S. Senate to put reforms in an Agency that needs reform.

Folks in Minnesota--it is 20 degrees below zero--are out in the streets. They are out protesting peacefully. They are out providing coffee and cocoa and some warm soup to each other so they can get through this. Why are they doing it? Do you know what? They care about the right of assembly. They care about the First Amendment. They care about their constitutional rights. But the reason they are doing this is they care about each other. That is who they care about.

In this U.S. Senate, our job is to care about every single American. We have an Agency that is totally out of control, with a leader that is--you know, I would say incompetent, but the cruelty of that remark, to dismiss two innocent people who died as ``domestic terrorists,'' tells me there is not an inkling of acceptance of responsibility that goes with the enormously important job of being Secretary of Homeland Security. So I am not going to vote and give a blank check when we are not even willing to have a discussion about what the reforms are.

I want to say that I know every one of us here is shocked by what happened. This is not a Republican or a Democrat deal. This is about seeing two innocent people shot when they didn't need to be.

You know, one of the things that is so important for us if we have a family and if we live in a community is to act in a way in which the people around us can be confident that we have got their backs; that we won't hurt them or harm them; that we notice what their struggles are and that we will try to help.

You know, all of us here have such admiration for law enforcement and the work they do--it is such an incredibly hard job--but more than anyone else, the people who have contacted me in Vermont to express their shock at what happened in Minnesota have been people in law enforcement. They know the job is hard, but they have accepted the responsibility to be a guardian, to be protective.

We can accept our responsibility, wherein we are the 100 people in this country who are in this Senate, who have the opportunity to provide some reassurance in safety and in confidence to the people that each and every one of us represents.

So, yes, let's do our job.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on January 2, 2026, after a 15-year battle with multiple myeloma, David Mitchell passed away at the age of 75.

After being diagnosed with cancer and experiencing firsthand the exorbitant price of lifesaving medications in the United States, David founded Patients for Affordable Drugs, a national advocacy organization with the goal of lifting up patient voices in the fight to lower prescription drug prices.

David was not motivated by attention; he felt a responsibility to speak up for the millions of Americans struggling to afford their medications. With a lifetime of public health and communications experience and his own personal story to tell, David recognized his unique opportunity to take on a system in need of substantial reform. Under his leadership, Patients for Affordable Drugs became a trusted, bipartisan force for reform, centering patient voices in a debate long dominated by corporate interests. And to this day, Patients for Affordable Drugs is one of the only national patient advocacy organizations that doesn't accept funding from organizations that profit from the prescription drug industry.

In 2022, after nearly a decade of advocacy and coalition building, David's work paid off. The passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, IRA, included provisions that, for the first time ever, empowered Medicare to negotiate drug prices on behalf of patients. David and Patients for Affordable Drugs' fierce advocacy helped bring about this generational policy shift.

Known as ``the face of opposition to the pharmaceutical industry in Washington,'' David was a central voice in Congress. He testified before the House and Senate numerous times, and was a go-to, trusted expert. I worked closely with David in our efforts to lower drug prices. I admired his political acumen, his depth of policy knowledge, and mostly, his deep compassion for others going through the same struggle he was experiencing. It was his ability to connect the realities of everyday Americans with policy changes in Washington that made David such an effective advocate.

While Patients for Affordable Drugs may have been his crowning achievement, David also worked on some of the Nation's most effective public-health campaigns, including efforts to reduce drunk driving, increase seatbelt and child safety seat use, and improve roadway safety. His advocacy has saved countless lives, often quietly and outside the spotlight.

David's special power was knowing how to build lasting advocacy campaigns that led to real solutions. He demonstrated that patients are not passive observers of policy, but essential participants. And when someone told him that high drug prices were necessary, David countered with a simple slogan: ``Drugs don't work if people can't afford them.''

Mr. David Mitchell lived a meaningful life in service to others, and the world is safer, fairer, and more humane because of him. His legacy lives on through his colleagues, family, the laws he helped change, and the many patients' lives he empowered.

Mr. President, last week we learned that President Trump has decided to withdraw the United States from 66 United Nations organizations,

offices, and treaties that have had bipartisan support in Congress for decades. As far as I am aware, neither the White House nor the State Department consulted Congress about this extremist and, frankly, self- defeating decision.

We all want to see the United Nations become more efficient and eliminate unnecessary duplication and waste. This may, indeed, be a time to reassess our participation in some of these organizations, something we should do every 5 to 10 years. The world is constantly changing, and our priorities and funding decisions need to adapt. But for an administration to take such a drastic, unilateral step is unprecedented, short-sighted, and certain to weaken U.S. global leadership and U.S. national security.

Among the organizations and programs the President plans to withdraw from include the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary General on Sexual Violence in Conflict, the United Nations Population Fund, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the UN Register of Conventional Arms, the International Tropical Timber Organization, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

I seriously doubt that President Trump is familiar with the work that any of these organizations do or why the United States during Republican and Democratic administrations has been a leading member and supporter. While I will not recount each of their mandates and activities, I encourage my colleagues to do so. It would become readily apparent that their work is squarely in sync with U.S. national interests.

Of course, if one believes, as the President and some of his closest advisers believe, that climate change is a hoax and that any program or organizations with the words ``climate'' or ``nature'' in its title should be eliminated, then it is not surprising that they would want to withdraw from the IUCN, the IPCC, and the UNFCCC, which play key and complementary roles in monitoring and reporting on the health and environmental impacts of carbon emissions and the destruction of the Earth's biodiversity.

If you believe, as perhaps some in the administration believe, that preventing sexual violence in conflict is not something that requires international cooperation, then there would be no need for the Office of the Special Representative. But Members of Congress and their staff who have met with the extraordinarily knowledgeable and dedicated occupants of that position over the years would strongly disagree.

If you believe that the alarming proliferation of conventional weapons, including small arms like machine guns and shoulder-fired missiles that are susceptible to ending up in the hands of terrorists and narcotics traffickers halfway around the world is not a problem, then it is understandable why some would favor withdrawing from the UN Register of Conventional Arms, which provides transparency on arms transfers and helps to deter the traffic in illicit weapons. But it is as illogical as it is dangerous.

And if you believe that it is wrong to support an organization that provides lifesaving, voluntary family planning information and services in countries where impoverished women and girls lack access to modern contraceptives, then it is hypocritical but not surprising that some, for purely political and ideological reasons, would want to withdraw from the UN Population Fund, even though it is prohibited by its own bylaws from supporting abortion.

The key point I want to make is that applying an ideological litmus test to these organizations and withdrawing from them without any consultation or debate will further isolate the United States. Our adversaries will fill the vacuum. There are many problems that cannot be solved by the United States or any other country alone: global warming, the destruction of tropical forests, acidification of the oceans, rape as a weapon of war, illicit arms sales, and unsustainable population growth in countries that cannot feed their own people today. These daunting challenges require regional and global cooperation and the active involvement of these UN organizations that provide the necessary expertise, data, strategies, and guidance. Their effectiveness is a function of the quality and active participation of their members, and without the United States, their ability to carry out their mandates will suffer.

Congress understands this. In their bipartisan fiscal year 2026 conference agreement for National Security, the Department of State, and Related Programs that was published earlier this week, House and Senate appropriators recommend continued funding for most UN organizations and programs, as in past years.

According to their bylaws, no UN member state, including the United States, can withdraw from some, if not many, of these organizations and treaties by simply declaring an intent to withdraw. There is an interim period of months before a withdrawal takes effect. Withdrawing from treaties may require an act of Congress. It would be a serious mistake for the White House to go down that road, absent a thorough assessment by the relevant executive Agencies and congressional committees of jurisdiction of the pros and cons of doing so. Otherwise, it will be just a matter of time before China or some other country occupies the dominant positions in not only these organizations but the UN Secretariat itself. By then, Donald Trump will be gone, but it will be too late to reverse course, and future generations of Americans will pay the price.

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Colorado, and I want to thank my colleague from Virginia for their leadership on what is the very important question before the U.S. Senate.

In the weeks and months leading up to the capture of Nicolas Maduro, President Trump sent 15,000 U.S. military personnel to the Caribbean and Venezuela, that included Special Forces, Marines, and specialized units from all of our branches of government. He sent 13 warships to the Caribbean, including the USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group, and several amphibious assault ships. More than 100 advanced combat aircraft were deployed, including F-35s from the Vermont National Guard. And we can estimate that thousands of military and intelligence personnel were involved in planning and executing the raid that seized Maduro.

A mobilization of this size costs hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions. This operation is, and apparently always has been, about one thing: seizing control of Venezuela's oil. President Trump and his closest advisers have made that clear. It is about President Trump using the power that he has as President, without restraint, to get the oil that he wants.

This is not my assertion. These are President Trump's words:

We built Venezuela's oil industry with American talent,

drive and skill, and the socialist regime stole it from us .

. .

It was the greatest theft in the history of America. They

took . . . away from us.

We're going to have our very large United States oil

companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend

billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the

oil infrastructure and start making money for the country.

We will be selling large amounts of oil to other

countries.

I think it is a fair question. If that is the President's goal, what is in it for farmers in Vermont? Small business owners in Ohio? For the elementary school teacher in Texas? For a truck mechanic in South Dakota? There is absolutely nothing in it for everyday Americans. And we spent hundreds of millions of dollars on a mission that can only benefit the oil industry who didn't even ask that this be done in the first place.

So what about this operation is ``America First''? It might be ``Trump First'' or it might be ``Chevron First,'' but it is not ``America First.'' And we just saw the revelation that a major donor to President Trump bought at bargain basement prices a Chevron subsidiary and can stand to make literally billions of dollars. Should our foreign policy be about pure profits, as opposed to pure benefit for the American people? About profits that go to big corporations and to the President's friends? That is what is going on here.

There is no limit. Within hours of Maduro's capture, President Trump was threatening Greenland; they have minerals. Colombia, they have resources as well. Cuba and Mexico. Is this the world that will work for us or the world that we want where rather than acting as a defender--actually the leader--in maintaining long-established principles of national sovereignty, we threaten and invade countries to seize their natural resources? That is the way it was before 1945: ``Might makes right.'' That is a dangerous world. And is that the world that the United States wants to leave to future generations?

There are two questions before the Senate. One is a policy debate, the wisdom of this attack on Venezuela. There is no dispute about the evil of Maduro. None. There is enormous respect and appreciation for the professionalism, the bravery of our military that did something that, frankly, seems impossible. But in service of what? This is an extraordinary military victory, but it is in service of a neocon dream. We saw this in Libya. We saw this in Iraq. We saw this in Afghanistan.

President Trump is now saying we are going to ``run the country.'' And President Trump is heralding that Maduro is in jail in Manhattan. We all are. But left behind in Venezuela is every structure that Maduro put in place. His hand-picked Vice President is now the leader. His repressive, brutal, murderous Interior Minister is still in charge. So, yes, Maduro is gone, but everything he built remains behind. What kind of victory is that?

The second question--and I thank Senator Kaine for being the leader on this--is one that every person who serves in the U.S. Senate has to answer: Will we do our job? This is not optional. Article I of the U.S. Constitution says it is up to Congress to authorize the use of military force in going to war. It is our job, and it is our responsibility. And one of the enormous threats to our democracy right now is the capitulation of too many Members of the House and too many Members of the Senate of powers that are vested in this body, under the Constitution, in ceding those authorities to the Chief Executive.

Why is that wrong? It is wrong because there is wisdom in the Constitution's separation of powers that power cannot be concentrated in one branch of government. And it is as a result of one branch of government ceding its authority and its responsibility to the Executive. We have an obligation to protect our constitutional role, and it is not about us. It is about our country. And what is a greater responsibility than the decision to send men and women into combat? That is our job.

And, Senator Kaine, thank you so much for all of your efforts to remind us of our responsibility and to tell us to do our job.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this bipartisan bill is a crucial first step to bring Members of Congress, industry, civil society, and families to the table to discuss the future of the internet. It does not aim to end the conversation.

Social media, and the internet broadly, continue to evolve. We need to keep up. Tech platforms must be appropriately incentivized to address the harmful content that has been allowed to proliferate online and influence our children, our communities, and our country as a whole.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 was passed into law during the early days of the internet, with the intent of incentivizing an environment where platforms could innovate. Section 230 also immunized platforms that engaged in good-faith moderation of content they deem to violate their platform's terms and conditions or community standards.

While section 230 played a central role in the growth of the internet as we know it today, the legislation could not have anticipated the growth and popularity of social media platforms we are now grappling with. For nearly 30 years, social media platforms have enjoyed blanket immunity for the content they host. They have failed to adequately police harmful content on their sites, despite their terms and conditions mandating them to do so.

While most of the conversation surrounding section 230 focuses on Big Tech, it is important to take into consideration small community-based platforms that are also protected by section 230. These platforms do not use algorithmic recommendations, do not contain live feeds, like buttons, and are not in the business of keeping people online. Rather, they serve as a platform for community engagement. I believe these platforms can serve as a model for content moderation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to find ways to continue to provide protection for platforms that promote respectful exchange among users.

I have long advocated for free speech and believe that all communities should have the right to express themselves online. But tech platforms have made billions while ignoring violent and exploitative content and disinformation that lives on their platforms. It is time for Congress to act.

Mr. President, first of all, I want to acknowledge the wonderful comments by my colleague the Senator from Delaware.

There are three reasons why it is very important we have this discussion:

No. 1, we have got to honor the Capitol Police who were on the receiving end of violent conduct by citizens who stormed the Capitol.

No. 2, it is important that we have accountability for who caused this and to be explicit about who caused this and who was the primary motivator.

And 3, it is extremely important for us not to allow history to be rewritten so what happened then will happen again.

So I want to start most directly with what we all share, and that is an incredible appreciation for the Capitol Police. They showed up that day. These are folks who oftentimes have to commute an hour and a half.

The person who was guarding us--I was in the Gallery of the House of Representatives--had an hour and a half commute each day--to and from work. He had two young kids. And the last thing in the world he wanted to do was to have to use his firearm in order to protect us. But it was clear he was going to do his duty.

We saw so many officers who were in the same place, where they were actually being assaulted by American citizens whose democracy was under assault by American citizens.

I want to express today what I think all of us feel and that is a deep appreciation for the men and women who serve on the Capitol Police force, the Metropolitan Police force, and other authorities who came to the assistance.

Second, it is important for us to be explicit about what happened here and who is accountable. We are having a debate about it. There is an effort to rewrite the history of what happened on January 6, but the fact is indisputable that the primary instigator of January 6 was the President of the United States then and who is the President of the United States now, and that is Donald Trump.

Why do I say that?

He is the one who lost the election. He is the one who created the narrative that it was a stolen election, despite the fact that of all of the challenges, they were largely dismissed by the courts. There was never evidence. There was the use of the Presidential power that he had because he did have and does have many American citizens who believe in him.

With the trust that he had with those everyday Americans, when they heard their leader say that the election was stolen, understandably, they believed him. When he said: Come to Washington; it will be wild, they came to Washington.

When he made his speech at the Ellipse and he said: We will march down to the Capitol, they marched down to the Capitol. When the whole place was falling apart here and he was getting urgent calls from the then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy, when he was hearing from others, he was going on to tweet against Mike Pence for not abusing the authority of the Vice President of the United States--by the way, it is not even authority. It is a ceremonial function to certify the election.

It was Donald Trump, who was, in the beginning, the instigator of the lie, the instigator of the call to people around the country who did believe in him to come here and stop the steal and who culminated his efforts with his speech at the Ellipse, telling people to march on the Capitol.

Now, the third reason it is absolutely so important is that history can't just be written, in this case, by the winner. And that is, Donald Trump did win the election. It was a fair-and-square election, despite all those things I just said that are true--not just that I believe are true.

But what happened on that day was shocking to me, and it was shocking to all Americans. Here is why: It is not just--when this happened, I was in the Gallery in the House. I was 30 feet from where the shot was fired. I was standing there witnessing the mob trying to break down the doors that the President enters to give the State of the Union Address and saw the glass and heard the glass shatter.

Even as that was happening, and all of us in the Chamber were bewildered as to what was going to happen, fearful of the violence that was occurring now and how that could escalate, I didn't believe it was happening. I didn't believe it was happening.

I was seeing it. I was hearing it. I was witnessing officers with their guns drawn, but I said to myself: Peter, this is the United States of America. We have a peaceful transfer of power. We win elections. We lose elections, but it is the people of this country who decide who the winner is--not politicians, not a mob attacking the Capitol.

This is a blessing that all of us have been bequeathed by those who came before us, the peaceful transfer of power.

The other aspect of this I couldn't believe was I was witnessing violence--and we have never had violence in the Capitol--in an effort to overturn an election. So two things happened that have never happened: an assault on the Capitol in the effort to overturn the results of an election and thwart the peaceful transfer of power.

That is on Donald Trump. I want to say that explicitly, as uncomfortable as that may be, and whatever policy positions he may have and others and many people may agree with, that attack on the Capitol was inspired, instigated, and accelerated by the explicit actions of the then-President of the United States.

We have to go back to where America began, and that is: We have elections; we do all we can to encourage people to vote; we count the votes; and we accept the outcome as decided by the people of this country.

That is what a democracy has to be about, where the competition is about ideas. It is about aspirational connection to the wonderful Americans that we represent and their confidence that we will serve with the honor, the integrity, and the commitment to their needs, not our preferences, that makes us all so proud to be representatives of the people who sent us here.

So this day is a day of commemoration for those who served us. But it has also got to be a day of accountability and assessment about what happened and how. It can't be whitewashed because the current President has support and was elected. He does. We have accepted that--those of us who didn't vote for him. But that does not whitewash, it doesn't exonerate, it doesn't erase what he did to cause this insurrection. He played the major role in this, and it is forever going to be a stain on that President.

I yield the floor.