Peter Welch

“I want the Senate to pass this resolution. At least 17 Americans have been hurt or killed in the West Bank, and others are being held in prison without charges. Our government needs to protect its citizens and demand answers when they are harmed.”

“Mr. President, I rise in support of this resolution. I want to thank my colleagues Senator Sanders and Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen, for your leadership on this particular resolution. The situation in the Middle East, in Gaza and the West Bank, is deplorable. And before I start about what is occurring here in the West Bank, I just want to remind the American people that the dire situation in Gaza is getting worse. Mr. President, 92 percent of the people in Gaza, their shelter is a tent or a plastic cover. They still lack water. They still lack access to regular food, and the kids are not going to school. And this is a Palestinian community that was very proud of one of the highest literacy rates and education rates in the world, despite the very difficult circumstances they face. That is really unacceptable. But today we are here on this resolution that is about protecting Americans, 17 Americans who have been the victims of violence in the West Bank. And, today, this resolution is about the obligation that our State Department has--our government has--to protect American citizens abroad by demanding a report, by getting information, and by insisting on accountability. So whatever one’s position may be with respect to the hostilities in the Middle East, what this resolution is requiring is that the State Department do the job with respect to American deaths in the West Bank--the same request that we would make if this were another government, not Israel, and American citizens were the victims of violence in other countries. It is the basic responsibility of this U.S. Government to protect U.S. citizens. That is what this is profoundly about. The failure for the State Department and our government to do the basic responsibility of citizen protection and accountability has to be wired up into the policy of this administration to look the other way when these things are happening. It has been the policy of the United States to support a two-state solution. It is the policy of the Netanyahu government to occupy and ultimately annex the West Bank. And the result of that, there is, in many cases, settler violence towards citizens in the West Bank, in some cases Americans who are there. It also is the reason why, in many cases where this violence is occurring is very much in front of the eyes of the Israeli military, they are looking the other way and doing nothing to protect the victims. This is not an argument that is made by folks like Senator Van Hollen and Senator Sanders and me, who are concerned about that violence. It is something that was recognized by our own Ambassador Mike Huckabee. In July of 2025, Mr. Saifullah Kamel Musallet, a 20-year-old American from Florida--an American from Florida--who was visiting his family in the West Bank was beaten to death by violent Israeli settlers during a settler attack on the town of Sinjil. Eyewitness accounts report that settlers and Israeli forces impeded ambulance access for more than 2 hours. And to his credit, Ambassador Huckabee called the killing of Mr. Musallet a ``criminal and terrorist act,’’ and stated ``there must be accountability.’’ We agree. I want to mention a couple of other cases. Shireen Abu Akleh, she was a journalist, a prominent reporter, a well-known reporter. She was shot. It was not a combat situation, but was shot by a sniper from nearly 200 meters away. She was standing calmly with other reporters wearing a press helmet and a press vest. She was shot in the head. Another reporter Dylan Collins, a constituent from Vermont, a very accomplished photojournalist. He was not in the West Bank, but he was reporting from the Israeli-Lebanese border. He was also in a group of journalists, prominently stationed on an open hillside. They had the usual identification of ``press’’ vest, blue helmets, in a vehicle clearly marked ``press,’’ where they were clearly visible. They were fired on by an Israeli tank and heavy machinegun fire. There has been no significant investigation on the part of the Israeli Government to get to the bottom of how that happened. Also, as we know, the Israeli Government now is detaining without charges dozens of Americans, as well as thousands of Palestinians--some of these include minors. One of those was a 17-year-old young man, American, Abdalkareem, who is pictured here. He has been held under ``administrative detention,’’ and that means that under Israeli law authorities can hold him indefinitely without charge or without trial--without any intention of bringing him to trial. We have been in touch with his father, who tells us that Abdalkareem was 17 when he was detained around 3 a.m. on June 29. He was in the process of completing high school exams. He has since turned 18. This is a young man who had never been detained or arrested before. He is now being held in the Ofer prison, which has a terrible reputation for attending to the well-being of those who are imprisoned there. His detention is also based on undisclosed ``secret’’ information that has not been shared with his lawyers or his family. Embassy officials, who were finally allowed on July 23 to visit, and Abdalkareem reported being beaten during interrogation, and prison authorities would not even let the U.S. Embassy give this young man vitamins, scabies medication, or his schoolbooks. And he has not been allowed family contact. The real question here is not what Israel is doing, but what the United States Government is not doing on behalf of its own citizens, some of whom have been killed, others of whom have been detained. So this resolution is asserting the will of Congress that our government do its job to protect American citizens. When they have been injured or they have been killed, to demand accountability and an investigation. And it is certainly within the power of this government to use its influence so that Israel does comply with our law. I urge all of our colleagues to stand up for the rights of all of our citizens to have the full protection of the U.S. Government. I yield the floor.”

• Unsupported
  ?

  Speech in the House

  Reasoning 33 of 100

  This statement drew 6 conclusions, but gave no reasons for 4 of them.

  See full analysis →

“The President is putting new tariffs on goods from Canada without the legal power to do so. Only Congress has the power to set taxes. These tariffs are hurting businesses, driving down tourism, and raising costs for families in Vermont and across the country. I want the Senate to pass our bill to end these tariffs right now.”

“Mr. President, the President of the United States--acting, in my view, without any legal authority--is imposing unilateral tariffs on Canada. Those tariffs are now being reciprocated by Canada on us. They are doing enormous damage today to Vermonters and to Americans. They are doing enormous damage to our Canadian neighbors and their businesses. They are doing nothing beneficial for our long-term relationship with our major trading partner. Canada is Vermont’s major trading partner, but we are not unique. Thirty-four States, and, I think, including Idaho--I may be wrong-- count Canada as their major trading partner. Canada and the United States have been operating very well under a trade agreement, the USMCA. That was a trade agreement that President Trump bragged about--and, by the way, rightly bragged about--as the best trade deal ever. And that is being ripped up by the President, without any committee hearings in the Finance Committee, without any discussion with Republicans or Democrats, but with undeniable harm to everyday people in this country. Senator Gillibrand and I have introduced the BAD DEAL Act, and it is to repeal these extraordinarily damaging, unjustified tariffs, give relief to commerce on both sides of the United States-Canadian border, and begin the process of healing our relationship with our closest ally. I am going to just give a couple of examples of what has happened in Vermont. We have an extraordinary cheese-making company called Jasper Hill in the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont. It was started by two college graduates a number of years ago. They are now worldwide renowned and win cheese-making awards internationally. They have been a source of sustaining agriculture in Vermont, which is very tough. They have created hundreds of jobs. They have a piece of equipment that costs a million dollars. It is on the Canadian side of the border. They will have to pay an extra $500,000 if they need this piece of equipment. They can’t do that. We have a manufacturing company with a facility in Wisconsin and also, again, in the Northeast Kingdom. They make snow-moving equipment on tracks. They have a number of pending sales to Canada. This is a $500,000 piece of equipment. They are losing the sales because the buyer will have to pay an extra $250,000. For what? This is just bone crushing, business crushing, job crushing, and there is no rationale for it. And then, when you add onto that the rhetoric--the 51st State, the Governor of Canada--our tourism industry, very close with Canada, is down with Canadian visitors by about 47 percent. We have Jay Peak, which is an extraordinarily wonderful ski area for families. Canadians generally come down and have close relationships with the Vermonters up there in Burke, VT. They are not coming. And, by the way, it is an emotional blow, as well, because our business is like the Presiding Officer’s. The folks really care about who their customers are. And some of these are bed and breakfasts with families that come back every single year. And for what? Nothing--nothing good is coming of this. The other point that I think is absolutely essential for every single one of us in the U.S. Senate to acknowledge is that the taxing power of this country is vested in the U.S. Congress, not in the President of the United States. And when the President is claiming emergency authority to justify these tariffs, when there is no emergency, and where even the grant of emergency authority, in a bipartisan way in years past, was based on the premise that there would be restraint on the part of the Executive and would only use it in the moment of a real emergency, that authority is just rampantly being abused by the Executive. And we, with our responsibility, under the Constitution, Republican or Democrat, must insist that it is this body that decides yes or no on taxes that are imposed on the American people. And make no mistake, a tariff is a tax. Our bill--Senator Gillibrand and I--on these tariffs that are invoked under section 338, a never-before applied section of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, that notorious act that was an accelerant of driving this country into the Great Depression, would repeal that authority. It is called the Banning Antiquated Duties and Delivering Equitable American Levies, or BAD DEAL, Act. It would also repeal President Trump’s import ban on various Canadian products. In Vermont, the average household is going to be paying $4,500 more for goods and services due to rising costs, due in large part to the President’s trade war. In Vermont, these section 338 tariffs, according to our agency of commerce, will cost Vermont businesses an additional $193 million. For what? We are not going to build a road. We are not going to repair a bridge. We are not going to help farmers through a tough season. We are not going to be able to put that money into our schools. It really hurts. One in four businesses in Vermont relies on trade with Canada, and Vermont buys more goods from Canada than the next nine largest foreign markets combined. So it is time for us to accept our responsibility for taxing authority and not capitulate to an Executive who is reaching into the powers of this Congress. And we have the opportunity now, by acting, to end these punitive tariffs, these punitive taxes, that are leading to higher costs everywhere, including fertilizer costs in my State and in Idaho. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 5397 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, 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.”

“I am honoring Katherine Boise. She grew up in foster care and has spent over 14 years helping foster children and adoptive families in Vermont.”

“Madam President, it is with great pride today that I celebrate Katherine Boise, an American patriot whose tireless dedication to the health and welfare of Vermont’s children and families is immeasurable. As a Post-Permanency Service Provider at Lund Adoption Agency for over 14 years, Katherine has transformed countless lives of Americans in our country’s most vulnerable communities for the better. Katherine’s experience as a child in foster care shaped her life journey and unique career path at Lund. Her decision to turn her own experience into a way to support families through their own journeys in the foster care system is selfless beyond words. She has been relentless in her pursuit to spotlight just how important post- permanency services are to the long-term success of adoption and forever families. Katherine has lifted the voices and stories of those she has helped to community partners, legislators, and welfare professionals to raise awareness about what can be improved in foster care and secure funding for Lund’s Post-Permanency Program. Her compassion, integrity, and strength-based philosophy is vital to making certain that the Lund Post-Permanency Program has the resources it needs to help children and families who need it most. Vermonters praise Katherine for her dedication and commitment to ensuring everyone can share their truth and thrive. Her extraordinary commitment to empowering everyone to build a meaningful, prosperous life, and at the recommendation of those who have witnessed her dedication, should make all of us reflect on how we can follow her example and better serve our communities. Vermonters like Katherine Boise exemplify the best parts of what it means to be an American and a patriot and why our State is so special. Her choice to pursue a career that benefits something greater than herself proves why she is a perfect nominee for the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute’s Angels in Adoption honor.”

“We must end this war in Iran now. The President started it on his own, and his plan has failed. It is hurting American farmers and businesses with high fuel costs. The Senate must vote to stop it.”

“Mr. President, this war in Iran absolutely, immediately must end, and it will only end if the person who started it with the unilateral decision to go to war decides to end the war. We in the Senate have voted numerous times to end this war. We can’t do it unless we get votes from the other side of the aisle, but it is absolutely disgraceful that the United States is in this war. It was a decision of two men, not of two legislative bodies and not of two votes of the American people, but of two men--Donald Trump and Binyamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu was in the Situation Room, making his case that we should go to war with Iran. Any of the advisers to the President said it was a bogus claim that it would be done overnight, which is essentially what the assertion was. So our President made a decision--and it was a unilateral decision by him, a unilateral decision--that we go to war. He told the American people it would be over in a couple of days, just like in Venezuela, and that the people of Iran would rise up and take out the Ayatollah. Many Iranians did rise up, and they got slaughtered. The President bragged about the military might--and we do have a strong military--but his strategic thinking was totally flawed and foolish. He thought bombing could resolve something that it couldn’t. So, yes, we bombed. Yes, the leadership in Iran was wiped out. But then Iran did what military advisers knew it would do, but the President could not listen. They used an asymmetric response--drones-- to close the Strait of Hormuz. The impact here has been going on for over 6 months, and the only way we can assess what has happened is to come to the conclusion that the President’s policy was a complete failure. It is not working. The President continues to promote a nonpolicy and to assert we are putting the squeeze on Iran. Mr. President, you are putting the squeeze on farmers in Iowa. You are putting the squeeze on the tourist industry in Vermont. You are putting the squeeze on manufacturers in Wisconsin. You are putting the squeeze on the American people. You know, for a farmer in the Midwest who wants to fill up his combine with diesel, it is 1,500 extra dollars a day. And for what? For what? For the ego of a man who capitulated to the pressures of Binyamin Netanyahu--and that is what he did--and who does not have the leadership ability or the character to assess what has happened in these past 6 months and acknowledge that it is time for a change? This is a day-to-day catastrophe, and the man who started this must end it. But we, as U.S. Senators, with the responsibility and the trust given to us by the people who elected us, have a say, and it is time for us to say: End this war. End this war now. Arrogance is not a substitute for good judgment. Arrogance is not an expression of toughness and resolve.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Speech in the House

  Respect 88 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “the ego of a man who capitulated to the pressures of Binyamin Netanyahu--and that is what he did--and who does not have…”.

  See full analysis →

“Fifty years ago, Chilean secret police murdered Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt with a car bomb in Washington. Chilean courts recently convicted three officials for Moffitt's death. But here in America, immigration officials released Armando Fernandez Larios, who helped carry out the bombing. The government deports people without criminal records every day, yet it let a confessed killer go free. I want Fernandez Larios deported for this murder and his human rights crimes.”

“Madam President, 50 years ago yesterday, on September 21, 1976, Chile’s former ambassador to the United States Orlando Letelier and his colleague Ronni Karpen Moffitt were murdered by a car bomb placed by agents of the Chilean secret police. Every year on the anniversary of that horrendous crime, people gather to pay tribute to Ambassador Letelier and Ronni Moffitt at Sheridan Circle, just 3 miles from the Capitol Building, where a small monument marks the spot where their lives were violently cut short. That monument is inscribed with the words ``Justice--Peace--Dignity’’-- ideals they embraced in their professional and personal lives. For years, justice eluded Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt and much has been written about the decades-long effort to identify the perpetrators and bring them to justice. I want to acknowledge and credit the Institute for Policy Studies where Letelier and Moffitt both worked, along with Peter Kornbluh and the National Security Archive for their unending efforts to obtain the declassification of documents that record that long arc of justice, and to keep the memory of Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt and the ideals they stood for in the public consciousness for the past 50 years. Eventually, the FBI identified two DINA operatives, American-born Michael Townley and Maj. Armando Fernandez Larios, as leading suspects. The U.S. then sought the extradition of DINA’s top two officers, Manuel Contreras and his deputy Pedro Espinoza, which Chile’s dictator General Pinochet blocked. A CIA review of its own intelligence on the car bombing concluded that there was ``convincing evidence that President Pinochet personally ordered his intelligence chief to carry out the murder’’ and that Pinochet ``decided to stonewall on the case to hide his involvement and, ultimately, to protect his hold on the presidency.’’ When Chile returned to democracy in 1990, the George H.W. Bush administration agreed to drop sanctions against the Pinochet government for protecting the DINA officers if the new government prosecuted Contreras and Espinoza. They were both found guilty of conspiring to assassinate Letelier and given short prison sentences of 7 and 6 years respectively. But Pinochet, still the head of the Chilean Army, remained immune from prosecution, as did all the other torturers and executioners from his cruel dictatorship. It was not until Pinochet was arrested in London in October 1998 under the European Anti-Terrorism Convention that his immunity was lifted. Although the British released him after more than a year of house arrest, just days after his return to Santiago a courageous judge, Juan Guzman, filed papers in court to strip Pinochet of his immunity from prosecution. At the time he died in 2006 at the age of 91, he faced indictments and investigations for corruption and human rights atrocities. In 2012, a Chilean court finally ordered that Ronni Moffitt’s case be officially investigated. Fourteen years later, on June 15, 2026, Chile’s magistrate for human rights, Judge Paola Plaza, ruled that three former DINA officials were guilty of killing Moffitt. Brig. Gen. Pedro Espinoza, DINA’s former deputy director for operations, was sentenced to 15 years. Gen. Raul Iturriaga, a high-ranking officer in DINA’s ``Exterior’’ department, was also sentenced to 15 years, as was retired Brig. Gen. Jose Zara Holger, also a director in DINA’s international operations division. Fifty years after the assassination, the Moffitt ruling is part of the final chapter in the effort to hold General Pinochet and his DINA accomplices accountable for an act of international terrorism in Washington, DC. This past July, The New York Times reported on ICE’s detention--and then release--of one of those accomplices, Armando Fernandez Larios, who defected to the U.S. in 1987 and served just 5 months in prison for his role in the assassination plot. Last October, in its quest to find immigrants with real criminal backgrounds, ICE detained Fernandez Larios and the Department of Homeland Security rightly labeled him ``the worst of the worst’’ for his past crimes of homicide. But while hundreds of migrants who have no criminal history are summarily arrested and deported from this country every day, Fernandez Larios was quietly freed from the Krome Detention Center in Miami on March 19--a glaring example of the Trump administration’s double standard in the administration of justice. Fernandez Larios should be deported for his part in the assassination of Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt and the egregious human rights crimes he committed before coming to this country. The United States must not be a haven for foreigners who violate human rights or commit acts of terrorism. The Fernandez Larios case and the recent ruling in the case of Ronni Moffitt have refocused attention on the September 21 bombing a half- century ago. I join those who honor the memory of Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt and reaffirm that no matter how long it takes for the wheels of justice to turn, no one is above the law, especially those who abuse their positions of power to commit heinous crimes.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech in the House

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 4 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“I want the Trump administration to end the economic blockade on Cuba and take Cuba off the list of state sponsors of terrorism. Cuba is not a threat to us. Our sanctions hurt everyday Cuban people by cutting off basic supplies and power. Cuba is starting to make economic reforms and release political prisoners. We should support those changes instead of trying to force their government to collapse.”

“Madam President, in the midst of all the chaos and cruelty inflicted by the White House on the American people and around the world, I suspect not many Americans are aware that we are also carrying out an illegal blockade against Cuba, a country the size of Tennessee that poses no threat to the United States, but whose government we have tried to depose by one means or another for more than 60 years. There is plenty to not like about the Cuban Government, which has defended a failed economic model and repressive political system for decades. The Cuban people deserve freedom and opportunity. But that does not justify the United States imposing a naval and financial blockade against an impoverished country that has neither attacked us nor threatened to attack us. The consequences for the Cuban people have been devastating. Today, they are suffering from daily electrical blackouts that have made everyday life a virtual nightmare. Schools, hospitals, public transportation, food production, trash collection, and many other life necessities have been brought to a practical standstill. Ironically, even our own embassy has been impacted to the point that they are unable, or unwilling, to provide the necessary support for Members of Congress who have a legitimate interest in observing firsthand the consequences of the policy of collective punishment against the Cuban people being carried out by our government. According to an article in the New York Times on September 17, 2026: Secretary of State Rubio claims that ``if Cuba is a humanitarian disaster, it is because their regime is a disaster, because the economic model they follow doesn’t work.’’ That heartless statement ignores the fact that no such humanitarian crisis existed before the Trump administration launched what amounts to a unilateral policy of economic warfare against Cuba. This is unconscionable, it is immoral, and it is a clear violation of international law. If any country were to engage in such aggression against the United States, we would condemn it as an act of war. During the past year, Cuba’s authorities have announced wide-ranging and long overdue economic reforms. While they are aspirational goals, they represent the kind of transformational reforms the United States has been calling for as long as I can remember. But has it made any difference to the Trump administration? To the contrary. The administration has only increased sanctions on Cuba, making it even harder to implement structural changes to the economy. It is apparent that nothing will satisfy the White House short of regime change--or regime collapse, with the consequent risk of social upheaval and mass migration. President Trump confirmed as much in his speech at the U.N. General Assembly earlier today, when he said that Cuba ``will fall.’’ Earlier this year, I spelled out steps that I and many others believe both governments can and should take to address the legitimate concerns of the other. Among other things, on the U.S. side, those steps include ending the failed economic embargo and removing Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism, which has no factual or legal basis. On the Cuban side, it includes economic reforms to increase foreign investment and unshackle the private sector, and releasing prisoners whose only offense is criticizing Cuba’s repressive one-party system. Back then, neither government showed interest in taking the initiative, and conditions for the Cuban people, and for Americans whose own government has prevented them from freely traveling to Cuba, have only gotten worse. But the Cuban Government has finally recognized that its antiquated centralized economic system needs to change, and they are trying to move in that direction. They have also released some political prisoners, including celebrated artist Luis Manuel Otero Alcantara, although he was forced into exile in the U.S. Others, including Maykel ``Osorbo’’ Castillo Perez, must be released. The Trump administration, which routinely insists that its policy is to support the Cuban people, should match its rhetoric with action. It should support economic reforms that have the potential to significantly improve life on the island. Ending the illegal blockade would be an obvious and necessary step. No legitimate U.S. interest is served by compounding the misery of the Cuban people by preventing other countries and companies from sending lifesaving fuel and supplies to Cuba.”

“The United States should join the international treaties that ban cluster bombs and landmines. These weapons kill and injure innocent people for decades after wars end. We need to stop making, storing, selling, and using them, and we need to spend more money to clean up the ones we already dropped.”

“Mr. President, the Third Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention on Cluster Munitions is underway in Laos, a country where millions of U.S. cluster munitions from the Vietnam war continue to maim and kill civilians. Large areas of provinces bordering Vietnam remain contaminated with these deadly explosives. The U.S. is helping clear these munitions, but more resources are needed. Cluster munitions continue to be used today in other armed conflicts. A provision in U.S. law authored by my predecessor Senator Leahy prohibits the sale or transfer of cluster munitions with a failure rate of more than 1 percent. That was an important step, but further action is necessary. Cluster munitions are delivered by artillery or aircraft, disbursed by hundreds or thousands over wide areas. If they detonate on impact as designed, they threaten the lives and livelihoods of anyone-- combatant or noncombatant--within a large radius. Cluster munitions that fail to detonate pose an unacceptable risk to innocent people for years or decades, just like landmines. I commend the states parties to the Convention and the nongovernmental organizations around the world, like Legacies of War in the United States, which have worked to rid the world of these indiscriminate weapons. The U.S. and the other major powers should join both the Convention on Cluster Munitions and the Anti-personnel Mine Ban Convention and work to end the production, stockpiling, transfer, and use of these weapons that have no place in the arsenal of civilized nations.”

“I am celebrating the 80th anniversary of the Vermont Country Store. I want to thank the Orton family for running this business across three generations and sharing Vermont products with the country.”

“Madam President, I rise today to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the Vermont Country Store opening its doors in Weston, VT. Eight decades after its founding, the Vermont Country Store remains a staple of Vermont’s business community and is known to folks across the country for its selection of high-quality products and old-fashioned charm. Throughout the store’s history, its owners, the Orton family-- who pride themselves as the ``Purveyors of the Practical and Hard-to- Find’’--have maintained the store’s traditions while continuously adapting the store to the changing economy. The Vermont Country Store started as an aspiration of Vrest Orton’s in the early 1900s. Vrest grew up in Calais, VT, where, as a child, he helped run his father’s country store. Vrest hatched the idea for the Vermont Country Store decades later while working at the Pentagon during World War II. Vrest wanted to bring old-fashioned, high-quality products--like those sold in his father’s store--to customers far and wide at a time when country stores like his father’s were dying around the country as the United States grew and consumption patterns changed. Vrest and his wife Mildred started the Vermont Country Store as a catalog mailing business, headquartered in their kitchen. Vrest and Mildred were savvy entrepreneurs. Because catalog mailing businesses were innovative at the time, customers were skeptical of sending cash through the mail, so the Ortons included a ``Customer’s Bill of Rights’’ in each catalog to make people feel confident about doing business with the Vermont Country Store. The couple mailed their first catalog in 1946 to about 1,000 customers. It was 12 pages long, and its products were drawn in black and white, captioned by Vrest himself. The Ortons’ first catalog was so successful that they were able to open the doors to Vermont Country Store’s first retail location in Weston, VT, a year later in 1947, where it remains to this day. The store was cluttered but curated, and customers appreciated its rustic character. In 1984, the Weston store, along with the entire Weston Village Historic District, was rightfully included in the National Register of Historic Places. By 1967, the Vermont Country Store had grown so much that the Ortons were able to open a second location in nearby Rockingham, allowing them to expand their merchandise, storage, and customer service offerings. Like the Weston store, the new location maintained its hallmark old- fashioned appeal, featuring a restored covered bridge and a gristmill. Vrest’s and Mildred’s son Lyman took over running the Vermont Country Store in 1972, at a time when business in America was changing by the minute. Lyman worked to carry on his parents’ legacy and improved customer service by expanding phone-ordering capabilities and further expanding the store’s offerings. He made exclusive agreements with merchandisers, cementing Vermont Country Store’s reputation for having niche and high-quality products. Now, Lyman’s sons Cabot, Eliot, and Gardner, help him run the Vermont Country Store. Together, they have adapted to the digital age while retaining much of the old-fashioned appeal that has made Vermont Country Store so special and successful. Despite having a website, most of the store’s business is still driven by catalog sales, which today is 100 pages long and features professionally shot and color-printed photos of handmade fudge, wool rugs, and seersucker pajamas. The Vermont Country Store is now celebrating its 80th anniversary under a third generation of Ortons and is thriving. I wish the Orton family nothing but continued success and extend my deep gratitude for what they have done to bring little pieces of Vermont to every corner of the country and the world.”

“I do not want the Senate to confirm Todd Blanche. He is loyal to the President instead of the American people, and he has used his power to protect the President from taxes. The Senate must stop confirming the President's nominees and start checking his power.”

“Mr. President, I listened to the presentation by my colleague from Maryland and agree with everything he said. And the heart of the question is whether the person who has been nominated to serve as Attorney General will serve the people of the United States or will he serve the President to whom he has indicated blind, complete, servile loyalty? And the recitation of facts about what Mr. Blanche has done in this incredibly important job as Acting Attorney General has made clear what his client is, who that client is. There is no place at the top of the Justice Department for a person who pledges personal loyalty to anyone other than the American people. But, you know, the reality here is, the President won’t appoint anybody to the Attorney General’s position who won’t act as his personal attorney. And there is a sadness that I have about this whole story that is before us. It is the story of a person who when he was a young man, a young attorney, Todd Blanche was extraordinarily talented, was very idealistic, was a prosecutor’s prosecutor, and who did abide by and uphold the rule of law. He became a new person in service of a President that I believe is corrupt. Two billion dollars of income to the President of the United States in his first year raises more than a mild question. And this person now to be Attorney General, in his Acting Attorney General role, essentially provided tax immunity to the President and to all of his children, family, and affiliates. It is totally outrageous. When you say it, you can’t even believe the words are coming out of your mouth. It is absolutely unprecedented. It has nothing to do with the way public business should be conducted. But Mr. Blanche, who has considerable talents, has used those talents to enable and to facilitate and to cover up and to revise and accommodate the corrupt goals of a President who, I believe, is corrupt. And, by the way, as I mentioned earlier, that is whom the President wants. He wants someone who is going to do his work for him unquestioned, no matter what. But, you know, there is another question that belongs right here in the U.S. Senate. Is there no line that the U.S. Senate will not allow this President to cross? The Senate confirmed Bondi; it confirmed Hegseth; it confirmed Patel; it confirmed Noem; and we are about to confirm Blanche. The President is abusing his authority, in my view, in every day and in every way. And that is shame on him, but the U.S. Senate is failing to use its authority, its power on any day or in any way. Shame on the U.S. Senate. Should not the U.S. Senate use its advice and consent authority to demand competence and integrity? Did the Senate do that with Bondi, with Noem, with Hegseth, with Patel, and now with Blanche? Should not the U.S. Senate use its taxing authority to stop tariffs that the vast majority of this body believes is hurting the American people and is not the right of the Executive to impose? Should not the U.S. Senate use its constitutional power of the purse to stop the invasion by President Trump into the power of the purse? And should not the U.S. Senate use its constitutional authority over the awesome power to declare war and stop this illegal war in Iran that, in fact, President Trump is losing? The President is abusing his authority. We are failing to use ours. We can stop capitulating today by rejecting this nomination. I yield the floor.”

“We must stop Russia from making money from oil to fund its war in Ukraine. I support putting tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil. But the new bill also lets the president put tariffs on any country accused of helping buyers get around sanctions. That rule is too broad and gives the president too much power. I will offer a change to remove that part, so the bill only punishes the actual buyers of Russian oil.”

“Mr. President, we are faced today with two urgent and compelling foreign policy priorities: ending the war in Iran and winning the war in Ukraine. The war in Iran is increasing the world price of oil, enriching Putin’s Russian wanton war machine. On February 27, just before the start of the U.S.-Iran war, oil was at $70 a barrel. Last week, it was up to $100 a barrel. And if the Strait of Hormuz is closed again, experts warn prices could surge up to $125 a barrel, driving up fuel, fertilizer, and food costs. And with every $10 increase in global oil prices, Putin’s war machine receives a windfall of more than $1.5 billion a month--$1.5 billion a month--in extra revenue. If oil reaches $125 a barrel, as many experts predict, Putin’s windfall would be $9 billion a month or $108 billion a year. It is a very compelling reason why, to win the war in Ukraine, we must end the war in Iran. It is also a reason why taking up the Graham- Blumenthal Russia sanctions bill is urgent. From the first day of Putin’s savage attack on Ukraine, no one has been a more stalwart defender of Ukrainian victory than our departed colleague Senator Lindsey Graham. He and Senator Blumenthal had a compelling insight: You hurt Russia by going after the buyers of Russian oil. And the way to go after the buyers was by imposing a tariff on the major buyers of Russian oil, making it too costly for those buyers to continue purchasing it. It would starve the Russian beast of the revenue fueling its cruel aggression. The language in that original bill by Senators Blumenthal and Graham was specific and limited. Buyers of Russian oil would be targeted and tariffed. It was a limited and specific delegation of congressional tariff authority that could be used for the limited and sole purpose of cutting off oil revenue to Russia--all for the purpose of assisting U.S. efforts to help defend Ukrainian freedom and repel Russian aggression. That is why the original Graham-Blumenthal bill had 84 bipartisan cosponsors, myself enthusiastically among them. But we are now on the threshold and are now considering a new version of the Graham-Blumenthal bill, one that Senator Graham and, we understand, the White House have signed off on. But we have to remind ourselves, in any delegation of congressional tariff authority to the Executive, the statutory language must be specific, and it must be limited to the purpose of squeezing Russia and its oil revenues. To achieve Senator Graham’s goal--starving Russia of its oil revenues-- care must be taken in the drafting to guarantee that outcome and that outcome only and not language that would facilitate other outcomes. In broad terms, the revised Graham-Blumenthal bill does two things. No. 1, it imposes tariffs at the discretion of the Executive of up to 100 percent on the top five purchasers of Russian oil and gas. No. 2, it allows the Executive to impose 100 percent tariffs on the top five countries ``facilitating’’ the evasion of sanctions on Russian oil. (Ms. LUMMIS assumed the Chair.) Madam President, my concern is with this second provision. There is a fatal absence of specificity as to what countries could be considered ``facilitators’’ or what conduct or the extent of that conduct that could constitute being a ``facilitator.’’ In the bill text, the new tariffs would apply to ``countries in which . . . foreign persons are knowingly engaging in transactions, activities, or services that circumvent, or assist any third party to circumvent, any sanction related to oil that originated in the Russian Federation.’’ This language is very general. In effect, this would be a blanket delegation of congressional tariff authority to the Executive. In the name of targeting a ``facilitator,’’ the Executive could target and tariff any country for any reason under the methodology of this language. Congress cannot and Congress must not give this type of blanket delegation of tariff authority to this Executive--or, for that matter, to any Chief Executive. We are all very much indebted to Senator Graham and Senator Blumenthal for their relentless pursuit of a Russian sanctions bill and to the many others who have fought to keep Ukraine at the center of the Senate’s agenda. Colleagues like Senator Shaheen, Senator Wicker, Senator McConnell, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Risch, and Senator Murkowski, among others, have all been critical to protecting freedom in Ukraine and America’s national security interests in Europe. But in all my own personal conversations with Senator Graham and, I suspect, in all the discussions my colleagues had with Senator Graham, he was always focused on specific and binding language that would enable and it would require the Executive to impose tariffs on buyers of Russian oil, not on undefined ``facilitators.’’ Senator Blumenthal, who spoke to Senator Graham just before he died, has informed us that Lindsey was over the moon about this bill. But the Presiding Officer and I both know Senator Graham was really unique among us. Despite the open-ended language about ``facilitators,’’ Senator Graham had a unique relationship with President Trump, and if any among us could have persuaded President Trump to carry out Congress’ narrow and limited intent, it was Senator Graham. But without Senator Graham, our language must specify our intent and do so with absolute clarity: Go after the buyers. That was Senator Graham’s goal, and we must have language that makes achieving that goal real. That is why, when we take up the Graham-Blumenthal bill, I will offer an amendment to strike the overly vague delegation of tariff authorities to also target ``facilitators’’ of sanctions evasions. As currently written, the ``facilitator’’ provision enables the Executive, with full congressional authorization, to impose any tariffs on any country, for any reason, so long as the Executive labels the tariffed country a ``facilitator.’’ If we delete the ``facilitator’’ provision, as I propose, we do achieve Senator Graham’s goal without his bill being used for any other purposes. In doing so, the bill will retain the original tariff authority that only targets buyers of Russian oil. Senator Graham and many of us, myself included, agreed about maximizing the imperative of sanctions and tariff tools to hurt Putin and stop his aggression against Ukrainian civilians, and I hope we can honor Senator Graham by quickly coming together to pass a bipartisan bill that will specifically and effectively target the companies and countries that are buying the oil that Putin is using to pay for the missiles and the bombs that are raining down on the innocent people of Ukraine. I yield the floor.”

“I missed the vote on Walter Clayton's nomination to be Director of National Intelligence. If I had been there, I would have voted against him.”

“Mr. President, on July 28, 2026, I missed rollcall vote No. 210, on the cloture motion on the nomination of Mr. Walter Clayton to serve as Director of National Intelligence. Had I been present, I would have voted nay.”

“The United States must support Guatemala's president, Bernardo Arevalo, and his work against corruption. Corrupt leaders in Guatemala and their allies in Washington are trying to stop him. We should support free elections and democracy in Latin America, not try to pick their leaders or help corrupt politicians.”

“Mr. President, in December 2022, I traveled to Guatemala as part of a congressional delegation led by Senator Tim Kaine. Four months earlier, to the shock and dismay of powerful rightwing forces in Guatemala’s Congress and business community, Bernardo Arevalo, an anti- corruption activist, had been overwhelmingly elected President in an election widely recognized as free and fair. Guatemala is one of Central America’s most corrupt countries, so it was not surprising that his election triggered a frantic attempt by his opponents, led in part by then-Attorney General Consuelo Porras, who had been sanctioned by the United States, to invalidate the election on fabricated grounds of fraud and prevent Arevalo’s inauguration. The purpose of our trip was to demonstrate our strong support for the choice of the Guatemalan people, in particular Guatemala’s historically marginalized indigenous population, and for the integrity of the democratic process. To the country’s credit, Arevalo was inaugurated on January 15, 2024, and for the first time in decades, Guatemala has a President who is not beholden to the corrupt forces that have exploited political power for their own enrichment and used Guatemala’s armed forces and police to harass, threaten, arbitrarily arrest, and even murder their opponents. But having failed to prevent Arevalo from taking office, those forces have carried out a relentless campaign, aided by counterparts and lobbyists in Washington with close ties to the Trump administration, to sabotage his efforts to reform the justice system and end the culture of corruption, violence, and impunity that has plagued Guatemala for generations. Career U.S. foreign service officers who stood up for the rule of law and democracy in Guatemala, were summarily replaced by U.S. Embassy appointees who reportedly urged members of Guatemala’s Congress to support a rightwing candidate tainted by corruption for a seat on the constitutional court, or risk losing their U.S. visas. Unlike President Trump and officials in his administration, I do not believe it is our role--using threats, inducements, or other means--to try to influence the outcome of election of foreign candidates for office, whether Presidents, legislators, or judges. We oppose such interference in our own sovereignty, and it is hypocritical and unwise to engage in such conduct ourselves. I mention this because President Arevalo has another year and a half in his 4-year term. If political and economic forces in Guatemala, backed by nefarious associates of the Trump administration, continue to try to deny the will of the Guatemalan people and thwart Arevalo’s anti-corruption mandate by using their influence to undermine the institutions of democracy for the benefit of themselves and their cronies, they will pay a price when the balance of power shifts in Washington. People here know the history of U.S. political and economic intervention in Guatemala dating back to 1954, and they have long memories when it comes to corruption and the manipulation of judicial and law enforcement institutions in that country. The appropriate role of the United States in Guatemala, as in the rest of Latin America, is to support the people there by improving their lives through free and fair elections, equitable economic opportunities, and access to justice that conforms to international protections of due process. Too often, U.S. policy in Guatemala has strayed from those goals, motivated instead by greed and corrupt interests in our own country, and promoting the militarization of internal security. That is a recipe for a return to authoritarianism, ethnic and social division, and armed conflict. Guatemalans who choose that path should be forewarned that it will ultimately be their own, and the country’s, undoing. No President, even in the best of circumstances, can transform a country like Guatemala in 4 years, but President Arevalo deserves our strong support. At a time when the trend in Latin America is to elect leaders who equate law and order with subverting judicial independence, militarizing the police, and running roughshod over due process of law, President Arevalo has restored integrity to the office and defended the institutions of democracy. In the long run, that has the best chance of producing the transparency, accountability, stability, and prosperity the Guatemalan people need.”

“I oppose this military spending bill. It ignores the war in Iran and its harm to our economy. It forces us to share intelligence and build weapons with Israel instead of letting our leaders decide. It wastes money on old weapons systems instead of modern technology like drones. Finally, it adds half a trillion dollars to our debt with no plan to pay for it.”

“Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the Senator from Maryland, for leading this discussion on what is an absolutely critical decision that this U.S. Senate is going to have to make. One of the most important things we do is pass the National Defense Authorization Act. That is the moment where, through the committee process and the floor debate, America lays out a pathway to secure the defense of this country against all threats. It is an extraordinarily important piece of legislation that sets the course for a year. This National Defense Authorization Act fails to address the critical question that is before this country right now, and that is the war in Iran. It fails to address the changing nature of warfare by spending a half a trillion dollars more on weapons systems that are the weapons systems of yesterday. Third--and this is a point my colleague has been making, and I am going to talk about it very immediately--it outsources to another country those decisions on intelligence sharing and weapons production that should only be made by our country. Fourth, it commits the taxpayers of this country to the obligation of another half a trillion dollars with absolutely no outline of how we are going to pay for it, and this on top of a deficit that is the highest we have ever had in this country. So let me talk about these one by one. First of all, it is absolutely catastrophic what is going on, in the Middle East, to our economy. We are in a war that was decided by the President of the United States unilaterally to enter into that war. It was done with the expectation that B-1 bombers would be able to blast their way into victory. And it was done without an appreciation or awareness that, once the extraordinary power of the U.S. military was applied with weapons that are only ours to deploy, the asymmetric response by the Iranians allowed them to close the Strait of Hormuz, which to this day is not open to the passage of ships. That is having an incredible impact on our economy, on our farmers, on our manufacturers, and on grocery prices. And there is no end in sight. And the fact that we are going to have a debate about authorizing a $1.5 trillion defense budget without having any discussion about what is driving the cost or what is the major defense threat right now--and that is this ongoing war in Iran--is not acceptable. We have the obligation to debate that, and many of my colleagues have indicated already by their vote that they oppose the authorization of warfare in Iran. This NDAA bill comes before us as though that is not even going on. That is wrong. We have an obligation to debate that, and we have an obligation to vote on it. But, second, there are provisions in this bill that do outsource fundamental responsibilities and obligations of our military and our national security organizations and our President to make decisions on the basis of what is in our national interest and what is required for national security. My colleague mentioned them. There are provisions in this bill that create a legal obligation for the United States to do information and intelligence sharing with another government and to enter into joint production agreements with another government. When it comes to sharing intelligence, I want our generals, I want our national security officials, I want our President--our Chief Executive and Commander in Chief--to have unfettered discretion to make those decisions about with whom we share information, what information we share, and under what circumstances to be our decision and our decision alone. And, of course, our military and our national security organizations work very hard to have cooperative relationships with neighboring countries or with fellow countries that are aligned with us on interests, and that can include Israel, as it has at times. But we have never, ever had an obligation to relinquish the exclusive right of decision making that has to fundamentally be made in the best interest of what is in the national security interest of the people of this country. We cannot relinquish that right and that responsibility. So this provision that ``the President, acting through the Director of National Intelligence and, as necessary, the Secretary of Defense, shall’’--shall--``subject to applicable law and the protection of intelligence sources and methods, expand and enhance intelligence sharing with the Government of Israel’’--my concern here is less the Government of Israel. It is about the national security interests in this country and the unfettered right of our military, national security, and President to make decisions on behalf of the American people and exclusively for what is in the best interest of the national security of this country. That provision has no place in this national defense authorization. A third point I want to make is that what we have seen with the extraordinary conflicts in Ukraine, in Iran, and Lebanon is that the old weapons systems that are so expensive don’t win the victories. The drone warfare in Ukraine has allowed them, through their ingenuity, to turn the tide on Russia. The B-1 bombers--the exquisite weapons systems that cost so much money--are not winning the conflict in Iran for the United States. And we are seeing these situations where there will be a $35,000 drone that is taken out by a $1 million missile, and all of us know that is not a sustainable situation. Our Pentagon knows that. But in the rush to make the adjustment--and I know that the people in the Pentagon are trying to make that adjustment. You don’t make that adjustment by suddenly coming up with a half a trillion dollars where you don’t have a plan, you don’t have a strategy, and you end up throwing money at a problem without a plan on how to solve the problem. So I have gone through three things here: one, an NDAA that acts as though the war in Iran is not a war that is having an impact on the American people; No. 2, outsourcing absolutely critical decisions about intelligence sharing and weapon-production sharing that have to be the sole prerogative of the United States, our military, our national security community, and our President; and then, third, the failure to have a coherent plan about the extraordinary adjustments that have to be made in the design of weapons systems of the future. And the fourth point I want to make--and I know this is a topic of great concern to you: How are we going to pay for this? We are adding half a trillion dollars to the deficit, and there is literally-- literally--no discussion about how we are going to pay for it. You know, we have a debate in this body about how to spend money, what the priorities should be. And I will acknowledge that I am on the side of spending more money on domestic efforts. I do think we should help our farmers more. I do believe we should put more into education. I do believe we should put more into scientific research. But when I say we should do that, I am also willing to pay for it. And I do believe we have to have a strong military, but we have to pay for that too. And what we have seen in this Congress is that the folks who want to put more money in the military, they may be willing to pay for it by cutting scientific research, by cutting education, by cutting nutrition benefits for the thousands--millions--of Americans who are struggling to feed their kids and can’t do it without the SNAP program. There is a lot of good work that has been done by our committee on a bipartisan basis with many of the provisions--policy provisions--in this NDAA, but we cannot act on the NDAA in a responsible way if, No. 1, we don’t address the war; No. 2, we don’t absolutely insist on defense and intelligence and production decisions being the sole prerogative of this country and not delegate authority to any other country to interfere with what we believe is in our national security interest. Third, we need a coherent plan to have a production system that focuses on weapons of the future and not legacy weapons of the past that are revered by the defense-industrial complex but are not effective on the battlefield. And, fourth, we have to come to a reckoning that, whether it comes to national defense or even domestic programs, they don’t pay for themselves, and we have got to step up and accept that responsibility. For far too long, we have been ignoring it. I yield the floor.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech in the House

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 10 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →