Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am horrified and outraged by the assassination of Awdah Hathaleen, a Palestinian teacher, community leader, father, and peace activist in the West Bank town of Umm Al- Khair.

Awdah was a nonviolent activist, respected advocate for his community, and a voice for freedom in the West Bank.

Awdah was shot by a settler terrorist Yinon Levi, who has been sanctioned by the UK, Canada, and the European Union and previously sanctioned by the United Sates under the Biden administration for perpetrating violence against Palestinians. The world knows how dangerous and reckless he is. Yet, on the first day of President Trump's second term, his administration removed the sanctions on Levi and other violent settlers.

We need to call these actions what they are: terrorism--part of a violent, systematic effort, supported by the Israeli military, to forcibly remove Palestinians from their land.

Awdah worked with film directors Basel Adra and Yuval Abraham on their Oscar-winning documentary ``No Other Land,'' which heroically showcased the violence in the West Bank, enabled by Israeli forces.

I call on the White House to immediately reinstate the sanctions on those who disrupt the peace, security, and stability of the West Bank. I also urge Israel to hold Yinon Levi accountable for his crime. He should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Israeli officials often speak of their independent system of justice. Impunity for Mr. Levi's crime and the crimes of other settlers must end. We cannot be complacent in the face of this deadly violence and injustice.

Mr. President, like my colleague from New Hampshire, I want to make a statement after, but I want to, at the moment, accommodate the scheduling requirements of some of my other colleagues. So I want to make a unanimous consent motion.

As if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2383; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, these tariffs are terrible. No. 1, let's be clear, they are a tax. So every tariff is going to be paid for by every consumer in this country, and it is going to be an expense for every business in this country. That is No. 1.

No. 2, these tariffs are totally chaotic in creating an immense amount of uncertainty so that businesses don't know what is the tariff from one day to the next. The least desirable situation for any of our businesses is when there is total uncertainty about what governmental policy is.

The challenges to our consumers and to our businesses are universal. Every consumer in every State, every business in every State faces the threat of these higher expenses that go to consumers in this incredible uncertainty that is inflicted on businesses.

But my legislation, the Creating Access to Necessary American- Canadian Duty Adjustments Act, the CANADA Act, cosponsored by Leader Schumer, by my colleague Senator Shaheen, Senator Murkowski of Alaska, Senator Kaine, Senator Collins, Senator Markey, and Senator Wyden, focuses special attention on our small businesses.

The reason for that is as challenging as this is for every business, it is especially so for small businesses. They do not have the margin to deal with these price swings. They don't have the margin to adjust to the Monday-Tuesday-Wednesday policy changes. They don't have the margin to be able to absorb a huge hit in their expenses on the basis of whether a shipment that they were awaiting from another country was delivered on Monday or Friday.

That literally is what is happening.

Our small businesses are so profoundly important to us in Vermont-- and I know that is true in West Virginia, I know it is true in New Hampshire--and we have got to be doing things that help them. We should not be doing something that really hurts them. That is these tariffs.

The impact to us in Vermont is especially acute in our proximity to Canada. Canada is Vermont's major trading partner, but Vermont is hardly unique. Thirty-four States in our country have as their major trading partner Canada.

So we have got to level with the American people--the people we represent. The President is suggesting that these tariffs are nothing but pure revenue for our country. You know what, it is revenue for our country, but it is revenue that is paid for by our consumers and by our businesses.

As Senator Shaheen has so eloquently stated, we have got a serious affordability crisis in this country. People who work hard, who work full time, cannot afford to pay their bills at the end of the month. Our businesses that are operating with enormous efficiency and who are super concerned

about the price consciousness of consumers and are doing everything they can to keep their prices down but have enough of a profit to keep the lights on, to keep people employed--they are overwhelmed by what is happening with these tariffs and how it is inflicting uncertainty and causing them to have layoffs.

You know what, those small businesses do not have the pricing power that our major businesses have. They can deal with it. They have got market power. And I am actually on their side because I don't think they should be subject to these horrible tariffs, but what I do have some appreciation for is the fact that the small businesses just don't have that margin no matter how hard they work, no matter how carefully they plan, no matter how committed their workforce is. If you have this tariff that creates a tsunami of uncertainty and expense, that jeopardizes their ability to hang on.

Let me go through some of the effects on Vermonters that I spoke to. All of us, like Senator Shaheen, visited businesses, talked to real people. Here is what I am hearing in Vermont:

Farmers: They are having to pay already 25 percent more for fertilizer. By the way, that is not unique to Vermont. That is all over the country. Our dairy farmers, small margin. How do you tell them to pay 25 percent more? And on August 1, by the way, it can go up to 35 percent.

Our maple producers: We import a lot of maple syrup from Canada. We produce the most maple syrup in the United States of any State, but we cooperate with them, and it is going to create a distortion of the market and put a lot of pressure on our maple producers.

Housing: As Senator Shaheen said, we get lumber from Canada. Housing is incredibly expensive. We all know that. It is true in your State, and it is true in mine. It is one of the big threats to people having an opportunity to move into the middle class. They can't afford a house.

These tariffs are sticking it to our folks in housing. The National Association of Home Builders is absolutely opposed to these tariffs, and rightly so, because an already expensive house now is going to have a 25- to 35-percent increase in the cost of lumber. I mean, where is that coming from? How is that fair? How does that make any sense for everyday, hard-working people in Vermont and in every State?

We are losing jobs from these. Steel and car manufacturers are having layoffs. They are in Michigan. They are in Indiana. They are in Alabama. They are in Minnesota.

In my State, Orvis, which is an iconic producer of elegant and exceptional fly rods, has had to lay off workers for the first time in a very, very long time, and it is all totally as a result of these tariffs.

You know, small business--I know we all believe this--is the backbone of our States, and every single one of us on both sides of the aisle, I think, sincerely believes that. But is it really a belief when we give lip service but not action to protect their opportunity to compete? And these tariffs are a killer for them. There is not a small business you can talk to that supports these tariffs and doesn't see it as an existential threat to their well-being.

You know, the President, on these tariffs particularly with Canada-- we had the United States-Canada-Mexico Trade Agreement, and that was negotiated by President Trump. He, in his Trumpian way, bragged about that as the best deal ever, and now he is ripping it up.

So what was it, the best deal ever? It actually was working. It gave stability. We had a market from Mexico up through Canada, and now that is getting ripped apart with these arbitrary actions on the part of the administration.

So it is all downside here. You know, there is a lot of press recently about the President getting a deal here and a deal there. And in the short-term news cycle, that is regarded as a victory. But you know what, when you step back and look at what the deals are, it is a deal to raise the cost to folks in West Virginia; it is to raise the cost to folks in Vermont, raise the cost for folks in Oregon, raise the cost for folks in New Hampshire.

I ask the obvious question: How is that a good deal?

Maybe it is a good deal, politically, for the President, but it is a really bad deal for our small businesses and for our consumers.

The other part of this, particularly with Canada--huge tourism industry. About 20 million Canadians come to the United States, about $20 billion. The folks from Canada--we, in Vermont, in New Hampshire, feel very close to them. We feel a social, economic, political connection to them. We really value them, and this has been such an insult to them.

I mean, aside from the tariffs, to talk about the 51st State to the Governor of Canada, that is all really uncalled for and very hurtful and very harmful.

Senator Shaheen and Senator Wyden both led delegations to Canada where I think they were, on behalf of all of us, expressing the appreciation and respect we have for our Canadian neighbors. We should not be doing something with these tariffs that shows massive disrespect to them.

I just want to end with a few quotes from the Vermonters I spoke to. By the way, these are Republicans; these are Democrats and Independents. This is not a deal that relates to whose side you are on in the Presidential contest. These are folks committed to the community they live in, committed to the employees who work for them, and care about a strong economy and a strong social life for us in Vermont.

Our treasurer said: Small local businesses will be hit very hard. They don't have the ability to find a different supplier and different vendors with the limited flexibility they already have.

We had another, a vegetable farmer, small scale: It feels like death by a thousand cuts.

Person in healthcare: Adding a tariff will either lead to drug shortages in the short term or long-term significant price increases.

So there is a commonsense element here that just seems to escape the U.S. Senate at times. We are actually pretending that this tariff is not a tax. It is a tax. We are pretending that the constant change and whimsical nature, the arbitrary nature with which the radius of one thing today and a different thing tomorrow doesn't have a really disastrous impact on folks who have to make real-world decisions about their ability to produce a product to meet the obligations of a contract they have entered into, to maintain the stability of their workforce and their supply chain.

It is all downside with these tariffs, and these are not targeted. You know, it is a separate question to use a tariff when you have got unfair labor or trade practices as we have from China. I think all of us here are quite open to the proper and limited use of tariffs as a tool. But this notion that tariffs as a revenue source and pretending that revenue is not being paid for by our businesses and by our consumers is wrong. It is just flatout wrong.

As this policy gets implemented, we are going to lock in these price increases and further aggravate the affordability challenges that everyday, hard-working Americans are feeling more acutely than ever.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the mass starvation in Gaza must end. The forced displacement of 2 million Palestinians in Gaza must end. We all condemn Hamas. We support a Jewish independent democratic state. We want a cease-fire, and we want the hostages home. But a colleague in the other body stated what needs to be said. It is the most truthful and easiest thing to say that October 7 in Israel was horrific and all hostages must be returned but so is the humanitarian crisis and starvation happening in Gaza. And that is happening with U.S. complicity, and it is time for us to stop complying.

Let's face it, let's face the facts and not ignore them. The starvation that we are seeing today, it is not unforeseen. It is not the unintended, unfortunate consequence of war. The starvation we are witnessing today is the self-conscious result of a military policy to concentrate the Palestinian population into an ever-smaller slice of land.

The starvation that we are witnessing today, it is an advanced and accelerating stage of the military strategy that is being executed by the Netanyahu government to force Palestinians out of northern Gaza and to induce them to leave the territory altogether.

And Palestinians, compelled by hunger and thirst, are being forced to make their way to a handful of sites, which our closest allies uniformly condemn as a drip feeding of aid. And, in fact, aid was totally cut off--totally cut off--by Israel for over 2 months. How in the world did they justify doing that?

And from the earliest days after October 7, we witnessed this plan of systemic and wanton destruction that included destruction of homes, destruction of mosques, hospitals, and schools. This was done. This is fact. We may not want to face it, but it was done with bombs that were provided by American taxpayers and approved by this Congress.

Israel unleashed the most deadly and destructive aerial bombardment campaign since Vietnam. More than 200,000 buildings were destroyed. Thousands of children were killed and injured. Thousands are amputees. And in just the last 3 months, the last 3 months--May, June, and July-- the Netanyahu government campaign has continued, and thousands more homes have been flattened by controlled demolitions. That literally means the military folks go up to a home, wire it, and blow it up. It is a home. Thousands more have been demolished by bulldozers. Israeli

forces have bulldozers, and they flatten the home.

You know, it is too late, it is too late for the 60,000-plus people that have been killed in Gaza. But it is absolutely not too late for the U.S. Senate to act. We are at an absolute catastrophic inflection point. And I believe that the United States, in fact, does have an obligation under humanitarian law to act. And I do believe that the American people, in your State and in mine, whether they have been supportive of Israel or not, are horrified at what is happening to innocent people in Gaza.

We have an obligation to act because if we do act, we can help save thousands of lives of Palestinians, who, as we speak, are starving.

You know, some folks take the position that the suffering and starvation will end when Hamas lays down its arms or releases the remaining IDF hostages. Every single one of us wants that day to come. But you know what, we have to ask ourselves a frank question: Is it right, is it just to use as a tool of warfare the starvation of an innocent population?

And I believe it isn't. International law says that is not allowed. It is a crime to starve a population to get what you want from your enemy. It is illegal and cruel to starve children to obtain a battlefield advantage.

Yet the Israeli government, under Prime Minister Netanyahu, has said that it is doing that; that is what it is doing.

It is so long past time for us to say enough. It is long past time to say, no, the United States will not stand by while hunger is being used as a weapon of war.

And we cannot separate the current starvation in Gaza from the Netanyahu government's strategy of forcibly displacing Palestinians from their land. You know, the leaders of Israel have explicitly stated their vision for Gaza.

So this is not like a discussion or a debate trying to figure out what is the story. Prime Minister Netanyahu said: I don't care about the tactics and ordered military officials to ``destroy the homes, bomb everything in Gaza.'' He said that.

Finance Minister Smotrich, he said, ``Gaza will be totally destroyed, civilians will be sent to . . . the south to a humanitarian zone . . . and from there they will start to leave in great numbers to third countries.''

Heritage Minister Eliyahu, last week, said that the Israeli Government--this was last week he said that--was ``rushing toward Gaza being wiped out'' and ``driving out the population.''

There is no mystery about what the agenda here is under the Netanyahu government.

You know, we are here to debate a continuation of American military weapons that are being used to implement the Israeli--Netanyahu-- Government policy. But we are doing it at a time when the horror of starvation has become apparent to everyone.

And I applaud President Trump for saying it like it was. There is starvation in Gaza--and then being in conflict with Prime Minister Netanyahu, who still denies it.

But America's closest allies are calling for an end to the war. America's closest allies are wanting to cut off the shipment of weapons that sends a green light to Netanyahu's extremist government.

And yet we are here today where just 2 weeks ago, President Trump, in fact, indicated that he intends to ship another half billion dollars' worth of 2,000-pound bombs and 1,000-pound bombs to the Netanyahu government.

So today we are here to debate, once again, whether we as representatives of the American people and the American taxpayers, people who want peace, who want the hostages home but are horrified at the starvation and the destruction of innocent civilian lives, the wholesale destruction of buildings and communities, whether we should continue to provide those weapons to Israel.

These bombs, by the way, are in addition to the 70,000 tons of explosives--70,000 tons--that have already been dropped on Gaza. And that is the equivalent of six Hiroshima nuclear explosions. Those bombs, as Senator Sanders said, have been used to destroy more than 200,000 buildings in Gaza. That is more than three times the number of buildings in Manhattan.

The bombs have killed thousands of kids, the equivalent of a classroom full of children every day has been killed in this conflict, a classroom. And let me tell you just about one strike. It was caused with a U.S.-provided JDAM.

On June 30, a month ago, a 500-pound bomb struck a crowded beachfront cafe, the Al-Baqa Cafe. People were having coffee. How in the world they had the ability to do that with the destruction all around them, amazing. But CNN reported that 40 people were killed, dozens were injured, including a 4-year-old child and a well-known filmmaker. And a couple that had recently become engaged--just think about that. They got engaged in the midst of this destruction, showing that despite all this violence, they had hope for the future; they had love for one another; they had that capacity amidst this enormous suffering to see a future and want to be part of it--dead.

Mona, who was the woman, was an engineering student, spoke fluent English, volunteered with orphans, and she was out for a break with her friend. Mariam Salah, she was a young painter who grew up in a refugee camp. She painted murals and dreamed of a career as a digital artist. She is dead.

You know, the Netanyahu government claimed we were targeting terrorists. Who knows? Was there a ``terrorist'' there? There was nobody in combat.

So we have to stop. We have to stop. And the question for this country is, Will we stop being complicit in this destruction?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Israeli-inflicted starvation of Palestinians in Gaza must end. It must end.

I have come to the floor time and again to urge the Senate to take action, to demand a cease-fire, to stop the bombing, to demand a surge of humanitarian aid in Gaza, and to bring home the hostages.

Two months ago, I spoke about a young girl who starved to death in Gaza--Jinan Iskafi, seen here--who died in the arms of her father. All those speeches have been to no avail.

Tragically, Jinan--and by the way, that name means ``paradise,'' the hope of that family for what they hoped would be a future for this beautiful, young girl--died of starvation, government-inflicted starvation, in Gaza.

Tragically, many more young children have followed. Jinan's death and the deaths of so many--tens of thousands of innocent people--in Gaza will become part of our history because the U.S.A. shares responsibility for this catastrophe, and we and future generations of Americans will have to live with that forever.

The children who survive this war will be remembered as victims of a unique class of warfare. This is a manmade famine caused by weapons provided by the United States--and paid for, by the way, by U.S. taxpayers.

The starvation we are seeing today is not the unforeseen or unintended consequence of war. Let me be direct. The starvation we are witnessing today is the result of a military policy to concentrate the Palestinian population into an ever-smaller slice of land.

The starvation we are witnessing today is an advanced and accelerating stage of the Netanyahu government's military strategy, devised and executed immediately following the terrible attacks by Hamas on October 7, and that was to force the Palestinians out of northern Gaza and to induce them to leave the territory forever.

Compelled by hunger and thirst, the people, the Palestinians in Gaza, are being forced to make their way to a handful of sites that our closest allies have uniformly condemned as the drip feeding of aid. This so-called humanitarian pause is a mirage. It is false. It is a trickle of aid to the mere 12 percent of Gaza that is not a military zone that is being razed and flattened as we speak--razed and flattened as we speak--razed to ensure that it cannot be returned to.

From the earliest days after October 7, we witnessed this plan that can only be seen for what it is--a systematic and wanton destruction of homes, of mosques, of hospitals, and of schools. That is what is happening.

With bombs provided by American taxpayers, the Netanyahu government has unleashed the most deadly and destructive aerial bombardment campaign since Vietnam. More than 200,000 buildings were destroyed. Thousands of children were killed and injured, thousands of amputees, and it goes on and on.

In the last 3 months, that campaign has continued. Thousands more homes have been flattened by controlled demolitions--self-conscious application of military explosives to destroy a home or a school. Thousands more have been demolished by bulldozers before the very eyes of people whose homes they are seeing totally flattened.

It is too late for the 60,000 people that have been killed in Gaza, but it is not too late for the Senate to act. We are

at an absolutely catastrophic inflection point, and I believe that the U.S. Senate has an obligation, as our country does, under international humanitarian law to act.

We can act and help to save thousands of Palestinians who as I speak are starving to death--as I speak, are starving to death.

Two months ago, I led a resolution. It was sponsored by 46 Democrats. It had a simple demand: Our country must work to end the siege on food aid. It was blocked.

You know, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I am sure every bit as much as I am, are horrified at the suffering in Gaza.

But it is not enough for us to be horrified. We have to act. We all condemn Hamas. We all want the release of the remaining hostages. But we have to ask ourselves the question: Is it at all justifiable that there is a policy that has to be recognized that starvation is being used as a tool of warfare?

I reject the legitimacy of that act. It is a war crime. It is a war crime to starve a population to get what you want from your enemy. As righteous as your defense against an enemy may be, it is illegal to starve children to obtain a battlefield advantage. Yet the Netanyahu government has actually said it is doing that.

In my view, Mr. President, it is long, long past the time to say: Enough, enough, no. The United States will not stand by while hunger is used as a weapon. We don't do that, and we cannot separate the current starvation in Gaza from the Netanyahu government's strategy of forcibly displacing Palestinians from their land.

A short-term surge of aid to keep Palestinians alive is not what we need. We need full, uninhibited, generous, accessible aid, medical and food. But that is not the Netanyahu government policy.

And we can sometimes act as though we are not an agent here or we don't quite see or we want to give them the benefit of the doubt because Israel has been our ally. But take the words--can we be numb to the words of the Netanyahu government officials? The Prime Minister himself said ``I don't care about targets'' and ordered military officials to ``destroy [the] homes, bomb [everything in Gaza].''

He said that.

Finance Minister Smotrich said Gaza will be totally destroyed. Civilians will be sent to the south to a so-called humanitarian zone. And from there, they will start to leave in great numbers to third countries.

He said that, a high official in the Israeli Government.

Heritage Minister Eliyahu said last week--last week--that the Israeli Government was rushing toward Gaza being wiped out.

There is no mystery here. These are the statements of high government officials.

Defense Minister Katz said:

Gaza residents, this is a final warning . . . you will pay

the full price . . . return the hostages and remove Hamas,

and other options will [be] open [to] you, including leaving

for other places in the world for those who want to.

The Palestinians who live in Gaza, hard as it may be for us to appreciate it, that is what they call home and they want to stay there.

Mr. President, the tragedy and suffering in Gaza today demands our full attention and our full engagement because this is a war that we are contributing to sustain. I am here today to debate Gaza's famine conditions because the United States has been paying for weapons that Israel is using to flatten Gaza but not to feed Palestinians in Gaza. It was American taxpayers who paid for the bombs and bulldozers that are continuing to flatten homes to ensure they are never returned to and that are creating the misery that all of us are shocked to see today.

America, first under President Biden and now under President Trump, provides cover for extremists in the Netanyahu government to continue these actions. America's closest allies have called for an end to the war and cut off the shipment of weapons that send a green light to the extremist government of Binyamin Netanyahu.

And yet just 2 weeks ago, President Trump notified the Senate that he intends to ship another half billion dollars' worth of 2,000-pound bombs and 1,000-pound bombs to Israel. While President Trump speaks of trimming budgets and spending more money here at home, he is shipping billions of dollars of bombs and shells and bullets that are being used not just to starve the Palestinian people but to flatten their homes and drive them off of their land.

Mr. President, I oppose this. I believe the American people have had enough. The American people are demanding leadership and clarity from us--from the White House--that can put an end to this terrible bloodshed and put an end to the misery of generations of Palestinians in Gaza. And the American people are demanding leadership from us today to help secure a real justice and peace for the people of the Middle East.

Mr. President, whatever differences we may have, none of us can--none of us should; none of us can--condone the excruciating starvation and misery that can be abated immediately with the full access to the food and medicine that the people of Gaza need.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, cross-country skiing is a sport enjoyed by tens of thousands of Vermonters, including several Vermont Olympians. Just about every Vermont ski area today has groomed cross- country trails, and most schools and communities have cross-country ski programs. Where I live in Norwich, VT, cross-country skiing is as popular as riding a chair lift and skiing down. From our front door, my wife Margaret and I can put on our skis and head out across a field and into the woods, breaking our own track or following a snowmobile trail.

Many Vermont cross-country skiers today are not old enough to know how the sport got its start because, before John Caldwell--often referred to as the ``father'' of cross-country skiing--it was something people did in Scandinavia that hardly anyone in America knew about. That was until Caldwell wrote ``The Cross-Country Ski Book.'' It was published by the Stephen Greene Press in Brattleboro in eight editions from 1964 to 1987 and became one of the most widely distributed skiing books published in the United States.

John Caldwell is an Olympian himself, competing in the 1952 Winter Olympics in both cross-country and ski jumping. After graduating from Dartmouth College, he went on to coach U.S. Olympic cross-country ski teams in 1960, 1964, 1968, 1972, and 1984. Although born in Michigan and currently living in New Hampshire to be close to children and grandchildren, for all intents and purposes Caldwell has been and will always be a Vermonter; his ancestors arrived in the State in the 1740s. He attended the Putney School in Putney, VT, where he met his future wife Hep, and for more than three decades taught mathematics and coached skiing at Putney, finally retiring in 1989.

To train for ski racing his students would run cross-country in the fall and split firewood. He was demanding, but he was also a master of dry humor, and his students were devoted to him. Above all, his goal was to show them that learning the technique to be able to glide on skis under one's own power

could be great fun. Several of them went on to ski in the Olympics, including Bill Koch and his eldest son Tim who competed in four Olympic games. His granddaughter Sophie won medals in multiple World Cup races, and she and grandson Patrick competed in the Olympics. His son Sverre served for nearly four decades as Nordic director at Stratton Mountain School. His daughter Jennifer was the fastest woman of thousands who competed in the country's largest cross-country ski race in 1983.

John Caldwell's contribution to cross-country skiing in Vermont and the United States knows no equal. He brought the sport to Vermont, and from there, it spread across the country. Just a few hundred yards from where he lives today, in the winter, scores of elementary school students can be seen practicing their cross-country technique on trails around the old Dartmouth golf course.

Everyone who puts on a pair of cross-country skis today owes a debt of gratitude to John Caldwell. Cross-country skiing isn't just a sport. For those who love it, it is a passion--even a way of life. As Caldwell describes in ``The Cross-Country Ski Book,'' it is a simple, graceful way for just about anyone of any age to have fun gliding almost silently across snow-covered fields and through woods and getting in shape in the process. All Vermonters should be proud that, thanks to John Caldwell, our State was the birthplace of cross-country skiing in America.

I ask unanimous consent that an April 11, 2025, article in the Brattleboro Reformer, entitled ``John Caldwell: He wrote the book-- literally--on cross-country skiing,'' be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I rise today to celebrate the 100th anniversary of an iconic Vermont institution, Henry's Diner. Henry's Diner has provided delicious food, welcoming ambience, and classic consistency to the Burlington, VT, community since 1925.

Henry's Diner was founded in 1925 by Henry Couture, a beloved Burlingtonian and entrepreneur. At the time, diners were perceived as lower-class, and women hardly ever ate at them. But Mr. Couture dedicated himself to building an institution that was welcoming to everyone. He included special touches to attract female patrons, and the diner grew into a place frequented by all. Today, you can find anyone from day laborers to college students to politicians enjoying a meal under the original railroad cart ceiling.

Henry's 100-year tenure has not been without its challenges. A fire in 1969 necessitated a months-long closure and heavy renovations to the business. Still, care was taken to preserve as much of the original diner as possible, and Henry's successfully reopened the following year.

In the early 90s, a McDonald's opened directly across the street from Henry's. Some feared this signaled a cultural shift and could spell the end of the historic diner. However, the McDonald's closed years ago while Henry's remains standing proudly on Bank Street. During COVID-19, like many other Vermont businesses, the diner weathered staffing shortages and temporary closures.

In the face of all these difficulties, Henry's has persevered. For a century now, Henry's has remained a place where people from all walks of life can gather over hearty food and a hot cup of coffee. The values that characterize Henry's--community, kindness, and acceptance--are Vermont values, and our state would not be the same without Henry's sitting in the heart of Burlington.

Henry's has changed ownership multiple times across its history and was most recently bought by Patricio Ortiz in 2024. Despite changing hands, each owner has carried on the quality service that has made Henry's so beloved. I wish the Ortiz family nothing but success in continuing Henry's legacy and look forward to another 100 years of good food and great company.

Thank you, Henry's Diner, for feeding the hearts and souls of so many Vermonters.

Madam President, I rise today to celebrate the 70th anniversary of one of Vermont's most iconic general stores. Dan & Whit's has been the beating heart of the Norwich community for 70 years.

Dan & Whit's is a third-generation Vermont family business, nestled on Main Street in Norwich, VT--my hometown. The store is so integral to the people of Norwich, it is often used as a landmark: ``Turn right at Dan & Whit's.'' The building itself is historic, too, having served as a townhall and post office before being converted into a general store. Dan Fraser and Whit Hicks, longtime friends, bought the store from its previous owners in 1955 and renamed it Dan & Whit's. The store has been run by the Fraser family ever since.

Dan & Whit's is known for their huge inventory. The store is deceptively large inside, and endless aisles are lined with a vast selection of goods, rumored to number into the hundreds of thousands. They stock everything from general store necessities, like cold beer and sandwiches; to Vermont necessities, like maple sugaring equipment; to the downright unexpected, like chicken feed and sushi. Their slogan, ``If we don't have it, you don't need it,'' is stamped on their custom merchandise and attested to by anyone who visits.

The business is an anchor in the Norwich community. Generations of high schoolers can trace their first job back to Dan & Whit's. Customers stop by for milk and end up chatting with so many familiar faces they forget what they came in for. The store is also a leading participant in charitable giving around town. They were a pioneer of 19 Days of Norwich, an annual holiday drive where businesses donate a portion of their December sales to the local food shelf. During the rest of the year, they put on numerous fundraisers--selling creemees, pizza, and wine tastings, all to benefit local nonprofits.

The store prides itself on the Vermont values of respect and acceptance. They have made a point to be inclusive in their hiring, giving second chances to Vermonters who are exiting homelessness or incarceration. A sign hanging outside, surrounded by community notices and posters, proudly reads ``Hate Does Not Grow In the Rocky Soil of Norwich, Vermont.''

When faced with staffing shortages during COVID-19, it seemed likely Dan & Whit's would have to close its doors for the first time in history. The store put out a cry for help, and the call did not go unanswered. Dozens of community members offered to pick up a shift or two. The new workers were often older Vermonters who had been retired for years, but they stocked shelves, checked out customers, and prepared sandwiches with enthusiasm. They pitched in not because they had to--many donated their salaries to charity--but because they felt the store's survival was essential to their community.

Despite the challenges they face as a small business--staffing shortages, supply chain issues, competition from online retailers--Dan & Whit's endures. The store represents the best that Vermont has to offer: a place where the person ringing up your groceries knows your name and where those running the store care more about their community than their bottom line.

I extend my deepest thanks to the Fraser family and every Dan & Whit's employee for their service to Norwich. I wish Dan & Whit's nothing but success and another 70 years of business.

Mr. President, I oppose the appointment of Emil Bove to serve on the Federal court.

You know, there are two issues. One for any judge is temperament-- absolutely essential--where that judge has to step back and not be partisan, has to be fair to all litigants. Emil Bove totally lacks the temperament to serve on the Federal judiciary under any President, under any administration.

In 2018, the Federal Public Defender for the Southern District of New York sent a letter to the Southern District leadership detailing incredibly detailed complaints from fellow defense attorneys about Bove. These are people that worked with him in a professional capacity. This was before Bove was the political figure that he has become. They described him gratuitously as a person who was vindictive, a prosecutor version of a drunk driver, and needing adult supervision. It was because of his conduct towards the people he was working with in the judicial system.

The reality that we all know is that in the judicial system, fierce as you may be as a prosecutor, determined as you may be as a defense attorney, impartial as you want to be as a judge, everyone has to cooperate to do their job, not interfere with others, and to be supportive of those who are doing the work with you--your fellow prosecutors, your fellow defense attorneys. Bove couldn't do that. He does not have the temperament to serve in a high judicial position.

Second and really most importantly, Bove does not have respect for the rule of law.

If you are in a litigation situation, as prosecutors are, as trial attorneys are, as public defense attorneys are, you have an obligation to serve your client fiercely, energetically. But what you have as a shared responsibility, no matter which role you have in the litigation process, the judicial process, is a respect for the rule of law and an obligation to act in accordance with the ethics that apply to you in your service.

On June 24, Erez Reuveni, who was a well-respected supervisor--and this is about the Bove character--who had defended Trump's policies in his first administration--this is a person who was supportive of many of the policies that then-President Trump was advocating. He came forward with a very credible whistleblower claim that Bove advocated for violating court orders.

Bove reportedly said that the Department of Justice should be prepared to tell courts whose decisions they did not like to ``f off.'' He said that, and he meant it. That is the truth. And that was gratuitous but very reflective of the orientation that Mr. Bove has towards the law, and it is that the law is incidental. His goals and the goals of his now-client President Trump are the only things that matter.

That also happened subsequently, just very recently, with the transfer of individuals to El Salvador in violation of Chief Judge Boasberg's oral order in J.G.G. v. Trump. That is the case where the judge gave an order stopping the deportation, and Bove was complicit in having that plane fly and actually do what was directly in conflict with the order.

He also, as we know, instructed prosecutors to drop the criminal case against the New York City mayor Mr. Adams. It was a blatant quid pro quo.

Bove has been an active participant in political payback against the January 6 prosecutors and FBI agents who were simply doing their jobs.

By the way, this is so appalling to me. You are a prosecutor. You know that if a prosecutor is assigned a case in a large office like the Southern District of New York or in the Washington district, the prosecutor's job is to prosecute that case.

Well, there were a number of prosecutors who were assigned to prosecute the January 6 cases, and, as you know, Mr. President, that included people who came in here and started beating up on cops. That is what they did. And those prosecutors did their job and were then fired by Bove--no loyalty to people who had the same job and the same responsibility as he did.

He also--Mr. Bove--sought the names of all FBI employees who worked on investigations into January 6. You know, he stated that was part of an investigation about the weaponization of the FBI against the January 6 rioters.

So he is part of the rewriting, the whitewashing, of the history of January 6 that is the favored narrative of President Trump.

But bottom line, Bove has made it clear that he works for his political boss, and that is the President. And the question is not just about Bove. The question is for us in the Senate who have this real responsibility. We have our partisan differences. We have our honest policy differences. But we have a shared responsibility when it comes to the nomination of a person for a Federal judicial position to evaluate their qualifications for the job.

And first and foremost among the qualifications is that that individual has to be someone who sees as his or her client the Constitution of the United States and the statutory rights and obligations that citizens and companies in this country have.

And what President Trump has made very clear--uncomfortable as this may be to acknowledge for many of us, many of my colleagues on the Republican side who have to deal with the wrath of a President who doesn't get everything he wants when he wants it--the reality is that President Trump himself has made it clear that the people he wants appointed, that he will appoint to the court, are people who will put him first, not the Constitution; to put his political whims, his political desires first.

He has got the right person in Bove, but that is the wrong person for us to confirm.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 423, I voted no. It was my intention to vote yea. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.

Mr. President, of all the uninformed, ill-conceived, and self-inflicted errors of this administration, the just-announced decision to withdraw from UNESCO stands out.

The justification given by the State Department spokeswoman was a recitation of outdated, vague, and inaccurate criticisms of an organization that has seen dramatic reforms over the past 7 years under the outstanding leadership of Director General Audrey Azoulay. Since her initial appointment in 2017, Director General Azoulay has made numerous trips to Washington to meet with leaders in the Congress and the administration. I have heard consistently positive reactions to her leadership of UNESCO by Republicans and Democrats alike, including regarding UNESCO's efforts to address anti-semitism.

Given Director General Azoulay's success in focusing UNESCO on its mission of promoting international cooperation and peace in a manner consistent with democratic values and human rights and dignity, one can only conclude that the administration officials behind this short- sighted decision never bothered to do their homework--or they were guided purely by Project 2025's mindless opposition to multilateralism, regardless of the facts. As far as I am aware, they did not bother to consult anyone in Congress, including those who have regularly engaged with Director General Azoulay and her professional staff.

Most Republicans and Democrats have long recognized that it is far better for the United States to be in the room, rather than remain outside and cede our influence to those who don't share our interests or values. The Chinese Government is looking for any opportunity to expand its influence in the United Nations, and UNESCO is no exception. We rejoined UNESCO in 2023 after a 5-year absence, and now, we are withdrawing again. It sends a terrible message that the United States can no longer be counted on. It is a message the Chinese will applaud.

Mr. President, on February 13, President Trump said something that 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 what President Trump said. It is why I want to speak today about the soon-to-expire New START treaty and the very real possibility of a new nuclear arms race, something that neither the President, the Vice President, nor any other senior official has even mentioned, but it is looming.

It is important to step back a moment and understand how we got to this point. There is no better way to begin than with J. Robert Oppenheimer, the scientist who led the team of physicists and engineers who built the first atomic bomb. Oppenheimer, as you know, directed the Manhattan Project's Los Alamos Laboratory in a way that--it was widely believed then and is to this day--no one else could have done.

The use of the atomic bomb against Japan marked the end of the Second World War. It also demonstrated to the world that a war between two nuclear powers would be cataclysmic for both and potentially apocalyptic for the entire world.

After the war ended, Oppenheimer and many of the scientists who participated in the Manhattan Project, knowing the dangers, spent much of the remainder of their lives warning the world of the danger of a nuclear arms race, and they advocated for international controls on nuclear weapons.

In 1954, unfortunately, at the height of the McCarthy era, Oppenheimer himself was targeted for his advocacy by the Atomic Energy Commission. No evidence was ever produced that Oppenheimer was a security risk or that he was anything other than a loyal American, and the Commissioners acknowledged as much. Nevertheless, the physicist who just 9 years before had been heralded as a hero for his role in ending the war in the Pacific had his security clearance revoked, and it effectively ended his brilliant scientific career.

The flawed AEC decision remained in effect for 68 years until my predecessor, Senator Patrick Leahy, along with 42 of his Senate colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--petitioned then-Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm to vacate the AEC's flawed decision. And they were supported by distinguished members of the U.S. scientific community, including the Director and former Directors of the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

On December 16, 2022, Secretary Granholm vacated the AEC's decision, thanks to Senator Leahy's multiyear effort. Her thoughtful decision recognized that the abuse of power used to discredit Oppenheimer should not remain a historical precedent. In doing so, Secretary Granholm reaffirmed the government's responsibility to encourage unrestrained, unthreatened scientific discourse.

So, Mr. President, today, unfortunately, Robert Oppenheimer's worst fear is becoming a reality. Hundreds of our nuclear warheads are literally ready to launch on missiles that can obliterate targets that are thousands of miles away in a mere 30 minutes. And we also, as the Presiding Officer knows, have hundreds of nuclear bombs in this country and others.

Now Vladimir Putin is recklessly threatening to use tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine. That is the equivalent of a Hiroshima bomb. That is what we would call it today. China is expanding its arsenal of more than 600 nuclear weapons. North Korea is expanding its arsenal of nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles. And it may be only a matter of time before terrorists obtain the enriched uranium to build a crude nuclear bomb.

Unlike the atomic bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, many of today's thousands of nuclear weapons are many more times powerful. And that decision to start a nuclear war can be made by a single individual--the President--with no requirement that he first consult with anyone. 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. The number of people killed immediately is estimated to be in the tens or even hundreds of millions, and many more would later die from famine.

There is little doubt that a nuclear war would pose an existential threat to civilization as we know it. So I believe we must all, regardless of political affiliation, reaffirm what both Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev said 39 years ago:

A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.

Yet here in Congress, despite the warnings of organizations like the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the Arms Control Association, one rarely hears a word spoken among us about this existential threat. We have become far too complacent because for 80 years, as Robert Oppenheimer and others hoped after revealing to the world the immense destructive power of an atomic bomb, the inevitability of mutually assured destruction itself has deterred the use of those nuclear weapons.

It is different today. 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 they are close to expiring, and there are no negotiations currently underway or even envisioned on a new generation of international limits on nuclear weapons.

My colleague from Massachusetts Senator Markey and several others here have sought to counter this complacency, and I want to commend Senator Markey for the bill he introduced on January 20, the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act, of which I am an original cosponsor. And last week, I also cosponsored Senator Markey's resolution marking the 80th anniversary of the Trinity Test and urging the United States to lead the world in reversing the nuclear arms race.

But the danger of a new nuclear arms race has received far too little attention from Congress and from the administration. This complacency cannot continue. The use of a single nuclear weapon, whether tactical or strategic, accidental or intentional, and the likely response would dwarf all the other crises that we are preoccupied with by many orders of magnitude, and by then focusing on it would be too late.

Despite our sharp differences with the Governments of Russia and China, they have as much interest in preventing an unwinnable nuclear war as we do. We and our allies must urgently seek to reinvigorate negotiations on

more effective mechanisms to prevent the development, proliferation, and use of nuclear weapons.

The New START Treaty, which entered into force in 2011, limits Russia's arsenal of nuclear weapons. The United States and Russia extended the treaty in 2021, but only for a period of 5 years, and that expires in February 2026.

Ideally, we and the Russians would agree to continue to abide by the limits of the New START while we negotiate yet another treaty to further reduce the number of nuclear weapons. But, unfortunately, last February, Putin announced the Russian Federation's suspension of New START, and there has been minimal discussion between our two countries about any further agreements.

When New START does expire, unless a new agreement is in place, there will be absolutely no limits on the number of strategic nuclear weapons that the United States and Russia can deploy. The number of nuclear weapons could skyrocket to levels not seen since the 1980s, incidentally, at huge cost to the American taxpayer.

The result would be a world far more dangerous than the one we now occupy.

The United States has its share of responsibility for the collapse of nuclear arms control. During the first Trump administration, the United States withdrew from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. And during President Trump's first term, he withdrew from the Iran nuclear agreement, after which Iran, as we know, accelerated its uranium enrichment program.

Today, some of President Trump's advisers have even proposed that we resume nuclear testing. We cannot do that. It would be an unmitigated disaster, subjecting countless Americans to cancer-causing radioactive fallout once again. We cannot repeat that mistake. We cannot repeat and cause that harm.

Under the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the United States, Russia, and China have an obligation to ``pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.''

In the past, even when relations have fallen to their lowest points, the United States and Russia had decades of cooperation on this issue. Today, with Vladimir Putin firmly in control, it is hard to see a way forward.

President Trump's comments in February offer me a ray of hope. We should continue to denounce Putin's nuclear saber-rattling and Russia's suspension of its participation in New START. But the Trump administration should also do everything possible to breathe new life into talks with Russia to achieve new binding limits on Russia's arsenal. The security of both countries and our allies depends on this.

If Putin refuses to replace New START, despite it being in Russia's own national interest, there are other concrete steps that we, Russia, and China could take short of negotiating an entirely new treaty that would help reduce the risk of nuclear war, one that could be caused by false alarm, by error, or by misperceptions.

These include improving lines of communication to reduce that risk of miscommunication or misperception; creating joint early-warning centers to monitor missile launches; detargeting so that 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 a possible nuclear attack; reducing the number of deployed nuclear weapons; and renouncing first use of nuclear weapons and restricting or eliminating a President's authority to launch a nuclear weapon without congressional approval.

Mr. President, since the 1980s, thanks to negotiators in both countries, the United States and Russia curtailed an unrestrained nuclear arms race that 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--bipartisan achievements. I would like to think that President Trump was serious when he spoke of the need for the United States, Russia, and China to stop building more nuclear weapons. But even modest steps to reduce the chance of a catastrophic mistake or miscalculation resulting in the use of nuclear weapons should be among our highest national priorities.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Reginald Adams Berry, a native of Washington, DC, who died unexpectedly on June 28.

Mr. Berry was, by all accounts, an exceptionally kind, thoughtful, and intellectually curious person who was also the beloved husband of my friend--and the friend of many of my colleagues--Ann Berry, who served as Secretary of the Senate from March 2021 until January 2025. Ann rose from extremely humble beginnings in Alabama to her lofty position on the third floor of the Capitol Building, but I think she would agree that being married to Reginald and mother to their daughter Elizabeth was more important than any of her many professional achievements.

As his obituary describes, Reginald was an accomplished architect who had a lifelong love of learning. He traveled the world, and his breadth and depth of knowledge rubbed off on all who knew him. Above all, he was devoted to his family and many friends.

I was shocked and saddened to learn of Reginald's passing at the age of 68, and I extend my deepest condolences to Ann and Elizabeth.

I ask unanimous consent that the obituary of Reginald Berry be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the Department of Homeland Security has an extremely important mission: to keep Americans safe. Under that mission, the Department is tasked with two critical jobs: border security and disaster response.

Our current Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, has failed both. In her short tenure, Secretary Noem has overstepped, underperformed, and endangered the lives of countless Americans. I believe it is time for Secretary Noem to resign or for her to be fired.

Secretary Noem has undermined FEMA's work and, in so doing, endangered disaster victims. Just a few months ago, Secretary Noem said in a Cabinet meeting:

We are eliminating FEMA.

And she meant it. She meant it. We saw evidence of that in what happened not just in Texas but in North Carolina, New Mexico, California, Kentucky, Hawaii, and Vermont, where FEMA is absolutely crucial to helping people in communities and businesses recover from disaster.

We need FEMA. It is only the resources of the Federal Government that can surge resources into affected communities. We can't lose that function and that capacity. When you need safety from a flood, when you need to start the long road to recovery, you need the support of the Federal Government. No State, no community can do this alone.

I have seen from our experience in Vermont that FEMA, in fact, must be reformed. It must not be destroyed, as Secretary Noem has suggested.

In my view, we cannot have a leader in charge of FEMA who is committed to its destruction. We must have one who is energetically committed to its reform.

We have seen the result of Secretary Noem's indifference to FEMA as the catastrophe in Texas unfolded. As the waters rose along the Guadalupe River in Hill Country, it was the people of Hill Country, as my colleague Representative Chip Roy of Texas said, who responded heroically. They were saving lives; they were rescuing stranded children; they were comforting those who lost loved ones; and they provided material assistance and constant support.

As for FEMA, it didn't answer the phone. Secretary Noem had instituted a policy to micromanage FEMA to death. Under Secretary Noem's watch, FEMA instituted a new policy that required the Secretary's signature on any expense more than $100,000, which, at the time of a major catastrophe, is a very small amount.

Secretary Noem had an ``eyes wide open'' awareness that this policy would mean it would take ``a minimum of five days for front office review.'' In a disaster, you do not have 5 days.

Contractors for FEMA answered the vast majority of calls--about 3,000--from flood victims on July 5. But according to news reports, after contracts with those companies were allowed to lapse, that response rate fell to 36 percent on July 6 and then only 16 percent on July 7. When people needed someone to answer the phone, FEMA left 13,793 calls unanswered.

In the aftermath of disaster, people cannot wait for help. Many are homeless or living in very dangerous conditions. Search and rescue teams were waiting to be deployed. Disaster recovery centers were slow to open. Current and former FEMA employees have raised the alarm about how slow the Federal Government was to respond and support Texas. We can reform FEMA in very commonsense ways--and we must--but we cannot risk the lives of countless Americans under the mismanagement of a Secretary who has called for its elimination.

There is a second reason Secretary Noem must resign. She is failing our country on immigration. We have three fundamental issues on immigration: border security, the deportation of criminals, and the status of people who are here without legal status but are working, are paying taxes, in many cases have families, and have no criminal record.

I want to step back for a minute and acknowledge something that too many Democrats have been too slow to state: The United States does need a secure border, and President Trump has largely accomplished that.

In December 2023, there were 249,740 illegal crossing arrests between official ports of entry. That was an alltime high. Last month, that number dwindled to 6,070 illegal border crossing arrests. I give President Trump credit for that change.

The second issue is that undocumented immigrants who have committed serious crimes should be held accountable. They should be prosecuted, punished, and deported. There is widespread consensus on that.

Yet on the third issue, those who are here without committing crimes, who in many cases were brought here as young people, we are seeing under the leadership of Secretary Noem that her response is an across- the-board embarkation on a massive and far-reaching deportation plan. There is no distinction in her policy among those who were brought here as children, who have families, who have jobs, who pay taxes, and who serve their communities.

But there is a big difference between deporting known criminals and rounding up immigrants--some of whom have status to be here, in fact, are here legally--from work sites, from schools, and from churches. This mass deportation policy is not about serving America and doing what our country needs to be strong and safe. It is, instead, about Secretary Noem accumulating the highest possible head count of deportees. It is hurting those folks, their families, and their communities, of course, but it is also hurting America and, particularly, rural America.

Our farmers depend on labor to milk their cows and to pick their crops. It is weakening our construction industry, where workplace raids are shutting down construction sites, including for low-income housing, which we so desperately need. It is decimating our healthcare workforce, in the hospitality industry in every State of the Union.

We need a Homeland Security Secretary who will help us develop a sensible policy for folks who are here without status but have no criminal record, who work, who have families, and are taxpayers.

There is no restraint. There is no nuance. There is no judgment being applied by the Department leader, the Secretary of Homeland Security, to develop a policy that makes sense, a policy that balances security and our economy, a policy that makes a distinction between law-abiding people who know no country other than the United States of America versus criminals who should not be allowed to remain in the country.

And finally, I have significant concerns about Secretary Noem's fiscal mismanagement and self-aggrandizement as DHS Secretary. This fiscal issue is particularly important in light of the billions of dollars that were allocated to that Department in the recent legislation.

Secretary Noem awarded as much as $200 million for an ad campaign that she started, thanking President Trump for his immigration policy and warning migrants in the United States to leave, a campaign that was reportedly awarded to a Republican campaign consultant.

Secretary Noem spent $21 million to transport 400 migrants to Guantanamo Bay--$55,500 per person.

Do we really need to spend that much?

And several of those migrants were quickly transferred out of the facility.

There are also too many instances of Secretary Noem putting her personal

ambition ahead of her mission responsibility. She has posed for photos and videos using detained people as props. She has joined television interviews in various uniforms--as a Border Patrol agent. She has treated ICE raids as political theater.

And while in Vermont at the Haskell Free Library and Opera House--it is a library that sits directly on the Vermont-Canadian border--the Secretary jumped from one side of the line in the middle of the library and parroted terrible things about Canada; ``51st State''--and then she jumped back, ``United States''; ``51st State, United States.''

That was deeply offensive to Vermonters who have an enormous amount of affection for our Canadian neighbors, and we have suffered the consequences of dramatic downsizing of our tourism industry--totally unnecessary, totally provocative and wrong.

We have an obligation to protect the safety of the families that all of us represent, and I urge every one of my colleagues to demand better for our constituents and for every American. We need a Secretary at the Department of Homeland Security who puts public safety and preparedness before her personal image or political aspirations.

Secretary Noem must resign.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, a June 25 article in the New York Times captured, in a single headline, the disaster that the misguided policies of this White House are inflicting on the world's most vulnerable people. It also illustrates the immense damage this White House is causing to years of hard-won goodwill for the United States around the world.

The title of the article, ``Promise of Victory Over H.I.V. Fades as U.S. Withdraws Support,'' says it all. The headline goes on to describe how, ``a new drug that gives almost complete protection against the virus was to be administered across Africa this year. Now, much of the funding for that effort is gone.''

I remember vividly, as do many of my colleagues, when President George W. Bush announced the PEPFAR program, a program that for the past 22 years has received enthusiastic bipartisan support, a program that has saved countless lives, a program that people and governments around the world have thanked the American people for.

Each year in our appropriations bills we have always, without disagreement, provided the funds to sustain PEPFAR and to fulfill our pledges to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and malaria. The Global Fund works in close collaboration with PEPFAR, as well as in countries where PEPFAR does not, because HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases do not pick and choose who they infect. No country is immune, and no person is safe. Millions of Americans travel, work, and serve overseas, and then they return home. Everyone is at risk if the virus is not contained everywhere.

Now, the Trump administration is proposing drastic cuts to PEPFAR and our contribution to the Global Fund, two programs that by any measure have been wildly successful. This week the Senate will consider President

Trump's request to cut $400 million from PEPFAR and another $500 million in other global health programs. If Congress goes along with that, we will share responsibility for sabotaging one of the great public health achievements of this century.

President Trump is pushing these cuts at the cusp of a potential breakthrough in our fight against the HIV epidemic.

There is a new preventative therapy for HIV; it is called lenacapavir, and it is a twice-yearly injection that protects against infection. This drug was supposed to be getting rolled out in eastern and southern Africa.

Not many years ago, preventing HIV infection altogether would have seemed impossible. Now it is real--and it is being derailed by these reckless cuts.

Peter Sands, the executive director of the Global Fund, put it this way:

If you want countries to take on the responsibility for

their H.I.V. responses, in terms of both leadership and

funding, it's a very different thing to take on a problem

that is still growing than a problem where you have made a

significant dent in the numbers of new infections. . . And

lenacapavir gives that opportunity to dramatically reduce new

infections.

We don't even know what the full impact of these cuts will be because funding for collecting the data needed to track infection rates is on the chopping block.

So I can't help but wonder why? Why is the White House walking away from these lifesaving programs that everyone agrees have been a huge success story? It would be one thing if HIV/AIDS had been eradicated. But we are a very long way from that. There are an estimated 1.3 million new HIV infections every year.

We cannot let down our guard. We cannot be so shortsighted to think that we would save money by cutting funding for PEPFAR and the Global Fund. Prevention is far less expensive than treatment. If Congress does not reject these funding cuts there will almost immediately be more infections, not fewer. More Americans will get sick. Mother to child transmission will exponentially increase. Many more people will die needlessly.

A drug developed by an American biopharmaceutical company that can prevent HIV/AIDS finally exists. Let's do again what President Bush did nearly a quarter century ago and show the world that the United States can be the world's leader in saving lives from a deadly disease.

I yield the floor.