Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am so pleased to come to the floor this morning to join Senator Blumenthal, one of the sponsors of this legislation, to remember Senator Lindsey Graham and to thank everyone who has worked so hard on this legislation: the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act. And I so appreciate Darline Graham's being here and her support for this.

So I am here to support the underlying bill, but I also am here to oppose the Paul-Wyden amendment. Now, I understand the concern of some of my colleagues on tariffs. I share those.

I co-led an amicus brief, challenging the President's illegal use of IEEPA to impose tariffs, and appreciated Senator Wyden's partnership on that. That argument prevailed at the Supreme Court.

I also oppose any abuse of the tariff authorities that are currently on the books. But the authority in this bill to impose tariffs is very narrowly scoped, and it contains clear guardrails. It explicitly says that the only countries that can be subject to tariffs are the top five purchasers of oil or gas--the top five--and the top five sanctions evaders for Russian oil.

So if we are going to be successful at putting pressure on that we need to put pressure on to get Vladimir Putin to the table, we have got to shut down the money that he is getting from oil and gas, and that is what this bill would do.

These tariffs have one purpose: to make it more costly for countries to keep buying the Russian energy that funds Putin's war.

This amendment does not restore Congress' constitutional authority over trade, which listening to the authors, you might question. And if this amendment is adopted, President Trump's existing tariff authorities remain exactly where they are today. The only thing that would change would be our ability to put pressure on countries that are still buying Russian energy. So I oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to oppose it as well.

And I think one of the critical issues here is the urgency of where we are in this war right now. The momentum is on Ukraine's side. This is Russia's worst summer of the war yet, but we know the situation can change quickly against Ukraine.

China is supporting Russia's efforts to regain battlefield advantage by helping the Russians develop their own version of Starlink, one of the things President Zelenskyy raised a concern about the last time Senator Graham and I had a chance to meet with him in Ankara at the NATO summit.

According to President Zelenskyy, that technology that China is working on can be available as early as November. That would advance Russia's drone technology to catch up with Ukraine. The battlefield could look significantly different in the next 6 to 12 months, and that could roll back Ukraine's advantages.

Now is the time to put more pressure on Putin. This legislation, if it is advanced before the August recess, will be ahead of Russia's upcoming elections. They hold their legislative elections in mid- September. After that, Putin is likely to be required to change conscription in response to the severe shortage of recruits because they are losing 35,000 Russians a month.

Advancing the legislation ahead of Russia's upcoming elections will increase pressure on Putin to seriously revisit prospects for a peace deal.

And make no mistake: Russia is watching what we do. We have the history of this war to show that every time the United States backs away from putting pressure on Russia, from helping Ukraine, from funding the war, Russia ramps up its attacks in Ukraine. It kills more civilians.

And that is where we are. If we can't shut down the funding for the war machine that Russia is using against Ukraine, then they are going to keep at it. We have to show the determination that the United States feels to support this emerging democracy that Senator Blumenthal was so eloquent to talk about.

So that is why there is real urgency for what we are doing today, not just to pass this underlying sanctions bill but to make sure that the tariffs that are funding Russia's war machine can shut down the oil and gas that is keeping that war machine going.

So I hope all of my colleagues will oppose this amendment and support the underlying bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Shaheen, Blumenthal, and Schumer be recognized for up to 1 minute each.

Mr. President, colleagues, every day that Russia earns billions from energy exports, it has more resources to finance this war. Every day that Putin has those resources, he gains more time. Every day that Putin gains more time, more Ukrainians are killed.

This legislation is what President Zelenskyy asked us to do. This is what Senator Graham worked so hard to achieve. I hope we can give it an overwhelming vote.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, while I voted No on S. Res. 817, which calls for an up or down vote on 74 nominations, en bloc, I would have voted yes on the following nominations if I had the opportunity to vote on each nomination separately:

1. Calendar No. 729: John Breslow, of Arizona, to be

Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United

States of America to the Republic of Cyprus.

2. Calendar No. 730: Todd Steggerda, of Virginia, to be

Representative of the United States of America to the Office

of the United Nations and Other International Organizations

in Geneva.

3. Calendar No. 731: Adam Cassady, of Virginia, to be

Ambassador at Large for Cyberspace and Digital Policy.

4. Calendar No. 732: Preston Wells Griffith III, of

Virginia, to be Representative of the United States of

America to the Vienna Office of the United Nations.

5. Calendar No. 733: Preston Wells Griffith III, of

Virginia, to be Representative of the United States of

America to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

6. Calendar No. 734: Fleet White, of Virginia, to be an

Assistant Secretary of State (Political-Military Affairs).

7. Calendar No. 739: Kenneth Sorenson, of Hawaii, to be

United States Attorney for the District of Hawaii for the

term of four years.

8. Calendar No. 740: Johnson TeeHee II, of Oklahoma, to be

United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Oklahoma

for the term of four years.

9. Calendar No. 746: Timothy VerHey, of Michigan, to be

United States Attorney for the Western District of Michigan

for the term of four years.

10. Calendar No. 748: Jack Chambers, of West Virginia, to

be United States Marshal for the Southern District of West

Virginia for the term of four years.

11. Calendar No. 749: Jason Holt, of Oklahoma, to be United

States Marshal for the

Northern District of Oklahoma for the term of four years.

12. Calendar No. 757: Michael Kavoukjian, of Florida, to be

Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United

States of America to the Kingdom of Norway.

13. Calendar No. 761: Eric Wendt, of California, to be

Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United

States of America to the Republic of Albania.

14. Calendar No. 762: David Brat, of Virginia, to be

Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United

States of America to the Commonwealth of Australia.

15. Calendar No. 781: Sean Costello, of Alabama, to be

United States Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama

for the term of four years.

16. Calendar No. 822: David M. Prouty, of Maryland, to be a

Member of the National Labor Relations Board for the term of

five years expiring August 27, 2031. (Reappointment).

17. Calendar No. 823: Brett Matsumoto, of Maryland, to be

Commissioner of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, for a

term of four years.

18. Calendar No. 826: Kaveh Farzad, of Maryland, to be an

Assistant Secretary of Energy (International Affairs).

19. Calendar No. 835: Christopher Michael De Bono, of the

District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the

Superior Court of the District of Columbia for the term of

fifteen years.

20. Calendar No. 836: Sharon E. Goodie, of the District of

Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of

the District of Columbia for the term of fifteen years.

21. Calendar No. 837: Bradford Pentony Wilson, of New

Jersey, to be Archivist of the United States.

22. Calendar No. 842: Michael Christopher DiLorenzo, of the

District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the

Superior Court of the District of Columbia for the term of

fifteen years.

23. Calendar No. 843: Craig Edward Leen, of the District of

Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of

the District of Columbia for the term of fifteen years.

24. Calendar No. 844: Christine Michelle Macey, of the

District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the

Superior Court of the District of Columbia for the term of

fifteen years.

25. Calendar No. 845: John Barlow Timmer, of the District

of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court

of the District of Columbia for the term of fifteen years.

26. Calendar No. 848: James Andrew Crowell IV, of the

District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the

District of Columbia Court of Appeals for the term of fifteen

years.

27. Calendar No. 849: Stuart Gordon Nash, of the District

of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the District of

Columbia Court of Appeals for the term of fifteen years.

28. Calendar No. 850: Rudolph Bauer, of South Carolina, to

be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United

States of America to Belize.

29. Calendar No. 853: Barbera Thornhill, of North Carolina,

to be Director of the Office to Monitor and Combat

Trafficking, with the rank of Ambassador at Large.

30. Calendar No. 854: Christopher Anderson, of Wisconsin,

to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the

United States of America to the Kingdom of Cambodia.

31. Calendar No. 855: Stanley Brown, of Virginia, to be

Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United

States of America to the Republic of Equatorial Guinea.

32. Calendar No. 856: Joseph Burkhalter, of Georgia, to be

Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United

States of America to the Republic of Moldova.

33. Calendar No. 857: John Hurley, of California, to be

Representative of the United States of America to the

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, with

the rank of Ambassador.

34. Calendar No. 858: Daniel Perez, of Florida, to be

Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United

States of America to Brazil.

35. Calendar No. 859: Laurence Socha, of Illinois, to be

Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United

States of America to the Republic of The Gambia.

36. Calendar No. 860: Juan Segura, of Virginia, to be an

Assistant Secretary of State (Western Hemisphere Affairs).

37. Calendar No. 863: Brendan Hanrahan, of New York, to be

an Assistant Secretary of State (European and Eurasian

Affairs).

38. Calendar No. 864: Donald Blome, of Illinois, to be an

Assistant Secretary of State (Near Eastern Affairs).

39. Calendar No. 865: Katherine Bowles, of Alabama, to be

an Assistant Secretary of State (Legislative Affairs).

40. Calendar No. 868: Thomas B. Chapman, of Maryland, to be

a Member of the National Transportation Safety Board for a

term expiring December 31, 2028. (Reappointment).

41. Calendar No. 869: Karen Jean Hedlund, of New York, to

be a Member of the Surface Transportation Board for a term

expiring December 31, 2030. (Reappointment).

42. Calendar No. 874: Roger Mason, of Virginia, to be

Director of the National Reconnaissance Office.

43. Calendar No. 899: Mark Cruz, of Oregon, to be Director

of the Indian Health Service, Department of Health and Human

Services, for the term of four years.

44. Calendar No. 903: Christopher Nassar, of Oklahoma, to

be US Attorney for the Northern District of Oklahoma.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today in support of the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act.

I want to applaud Senator Schumer's comments about supporting this legislation to try and end the war in Ukraine. I applaud Senator Britt and Senator Wicker, and, of course, Senator Blumenthal who has worked for over a year to get to this point and thank Senator Darline Graham for her efforts to support this legislation.

I had the privilege of traveling with Senator Graham earlier this month on what tragically turned out to be his final codel.

We all know that he was a tireless advocate for Ukraine. He knew that Ukrainians stand on the frontlines of freedom. This legislation is designed to cut off Vladimir Putin's most important resource in his war against Ukraine: his money.

And you can see from this poster, what this legislation does is impose mandatory sanctions that target Russia's war machine; it clamps down on Russia's shadow fleet; it strengthens financial and export restrictions; and it

enforces targeted duties on top purchasers of Russian oil and gas.

This includes sanctions against the Russian central bank, which keeps Russia's war economy afloat; Sberbank, the country's largest lender; and Gazprombank, which has helped finance Russia's energy exports. It also sanctions Russia's energy sector and the executives who run it, the major state energy projects that generate billions for the Kremlin, and future arctic energy projects designed to keep that revenue flowing.

For the first time, this bill would impose sanctions on the Russia shadow fleet and any foreign vessel that is used by the Russian Government for sanctions evasion. It would impose tariffs on imports from the top five countries buying Russia crude oil or natural gas, and it would impose tariffs on imports from those top five countries facilitating Russia's oil sanctions evasion.

We know who topped that list in 2025; it was China. They topped both lists. They continue buying Russian oil, even as Russia kills civilians and kidnaps Ukrainian children.

And as sponsors of this bill, we have worked hard to protect our allies, those who have worked hard to get off of Russia's natural gas purchases.

Now, some have raised concerns about the tariff provisions in this bill. They say that President Trump has used tariffs indiscriminately to target our closest allies.

Well, I agree. But in the case of this bill, Congress is explicitly directing these tariffs for one unambiguous purpose: to increase the pressure on Vladimir Putin and end his unprovoked war against Ukraine. That is why this bill is narrowly targeted at the worst actors supporting Russia.

I saw the consequences of Putin's strategy firsthand earlier this year on a congressional visit to Odessa. It was winter. Ours was the first official congressional delegation to visit Odessa. The Russians had destroyed every bridge going into the city, except the one that our convoy crossed over that the engineers--Ukrainian engineers--had managed to patch together.

And, sadly, it is not a new phenomenon because Russia deliberately targets civilian infrastructure to break the will of the Ukrainian people, and it attacks American businesses. It attacks the grain silos of ships that help feed the world.

And you can see what they are doing. This is a rescue worker at a Philip Morris factory in Kharkiv. They have attacked Coca-Cola, Cargill, Mondelez. Others have been deliberately hit. And when we met with businesspeople who were working for those American companies in Ukraine, they said they believed they were being deliberately targeted by Russia.

So for those people who are concerned about the tariffs, consider the cost of continuing to do nothing. Pressure is the only language Vladimir Putin understands. It is the only thing he responds to, and that is why it is critical that we pass the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act today.

The Ukrainians are making great progress. They are striking deep inside of Russia. They are targeting defense factories and oil facilities that enable Putin's war. And now is the time for us to do everything possible to put pressure on Putin. President Zelenskyy supports this bill. Everything that reduces Russia's revenues reduce the ability for Russia to continue the war against Ukraine.

As ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I believe this is the only bill that Congress has before it that has a realistic path forward for imposing new sanctions on Russia. This is our best opportunity to support Ukraine, who are defending not just their country, but the rest of Europe from an increasingly aggressive Russia.

And so I call on all my colleagues to vote for this bill to send Vladimir Putin a bipartisan message in a language that he understands. Let's pass the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent, but had I been present, I would have voted yes on rollcall vote No. 50, On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Amdt. No. 4308).

I was necessarily absent, but had I been present, I would have voted yes on rollcall vote No. 52, On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: H.R. 6644 as amended).

I was necessarily absent, but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 54, On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture Re: Motion to Proceed to H.R. 7147).

I was necessarily absent, but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 59, On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Upon Reconsideration, Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Appalachian Mountain Club and recognize its 150 years of dedicated service in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions of our country. As the Nation's oldest continuously operating outdoor recreation and conservation organization, the Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) has encouraged generations of Americans to venture outside and protect the region's most beautiful and prized mountain landscapes.

AMC began with a call from Professor Edward Charles Pickering for ``those interested in mountain exploration'' to attend a meeting in early January 1876 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. According to news reports at the time, the meeting drew interest from 30 to 40 people. They gathered in an era when more Americans were beginning to appreciate mountains for their unparalleled beauty, their open space for recreation, and their considerable value for scientific study of the natural world. In the early years of the organization, members set their sights on New Hampshire's White Mountains to visit, create accurate maps, build accessible trails, and collect data in a variety of fields from botany to geology to meteorology. They published the first edition of Appalachia in 1876, which grew into the Nation's leading and longest running journal on outdoor exploration and conservation. In 1888, AMC opened its first backcountry hut in the Presidential Range and dramatically reshaped the culture of hiking in the region. The Madison Spring Hut has not only offered overnight shelter to exhausted hikers, but also contributed to scientific research, supported trail stewardship and visitor safety, and helped protect a fragile alpine environment. AMC still operates a network of eight huts in New Hampshire's White Mountains, and they epitomize the organization's founding philosophy of making mountain experiences more accessible while also promoting stewardship of the landscape.

AMC's advocacy for the passage of the Weeks Act in 1911 is another example of its work at the intersection of conservation and recreation. Known as one of the most important conservation laws in American history, the Weeks Act authorized the Federal Government to purchase private land for the purpose of restoring and protecting forests and watersheds. It led directly to the establishment of the White Mountain National Forest in New Hampshire and later dozens of other national forests in the eastern United States. Today, nearly 20 million acres of forestland have been permanently protected through the Weeks Act. Thanks in large part to the public support AMC generated for its passage, Americans will enjoy the many environmental, economic and recreational benefits of these lands for generations to come.

The Weeks Act was a defining public policy achievement for AMC, but it was far from its last. Throughout the next century, its members and volunteers would continue to advocate for smart,

forward-thinking legislation and programs that balance recreation, scientific research, conservation, and public access to this valuable mountain environment. AMC launched the Maine Woods Initiative in 2003 to conserve land, support sustainable forestry, create new trails, and enhance climate resilience across Maine's 100-Mile Wilderness. It also championed the Highlands Conservation Act in 2004 that protected thousands of acres of forestlands and watersheds in Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Most recently, AMC promoted the passage of the Great American Outdoors Act and the permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This legislation is helping to tackle a substantial backlog of maintenance projects on Federal public lands.

While promoting and raising public awareness for conservation, AMC never lost sight of one of its earliest objectives: to build and maintain public trails. It remains one of the Northeast's largest trail stewards. AMC crews care for more than 1,800 miles of trails across the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, including many of New Hampshire's most popular routes. In 2021, I was proud to secure Federal funding used by AMC to restore and realign the Franconia Ridge Loop Trail, one of the Northeast's premier hikes. I was also pleased to see AMC open the Cardigan Mountain All-Persons Trail in 2023, a half-mile trail in Alexandria, NH, that allows people with wheelchairs and other mobility devices to take in a tranquil mountain setting.

The 150th anniversary of the Appalachian Mountain Club is worthy of celebration. It is an opportunity to reflect on a century-and-a-half of advocacy and hard work that has strengthened our connection with each other and the natural world. It is also a chance to look forward and recommit to the longstanding mission of this worthy organization: to foster the protection, enjoyment, and understanding of the outdoors. I ask all Americans to join me in recognizing these enduring contributions and saluting the next generation of AMC staff, volunteers, explorers, and stewards who will carry forth this legacy in the next 150 years and beyond.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Marcia ``Marty'' Sink and recognize her decades of advocacy on behalf of Granite State children. Marty will retire at the

beginning of July as president and CEO of Court Appointed Special Advocates of New Hampshire, CASA NH. She leaves a legacy worthy of our praise and our gratitude.

Marty is known throughout New Hampshire for her dedicated leadership and steady management of an organization that she brought to the Granite State nearly four decades ago. Her path to CASA NH began with a disheartening experience with an overwhelmed and overworked child protection and juvenile family court system. After she and her husband became foster parents in their mid-30s, Marty witnessed massive gaps in the systems put in place to protect abused and neglected children. In one case, they cared for an infant for 2 years prior to his adoption and never saw his guardian ad litem. Marty asked herself how a person could make recommendations to a court on a child's best interests if they never met the child or foster parent. Around the same time, Marty read a story about a Seattle, Washington-based organization that recruited volunteers and trained them to serve as guardians ad litem. She called Court Appointed Special Advocates and asked how she could get involved. They told her that New Hampshire did not yet have a CASA program, but they offered logistical support and some starting funds for Marty to open a new State chapter. She launched CASA NH in 1989.

CASA NH grew slowly in the early years, but Marty took careful steps to build trust within the court system and garner support within the community. With the first crew of volunteers, she met with judges and community leaders to ease their concerns that people with no background in law or social work could be effective advocates for children in the system. CASA NH started in 1989 with 10 volunteers covering cases in 2 courtrooms. Word spread quickly about the value of CASA volunteers. According to its most recent annual report, the organization now comprises 664 volunteer advocates. In 2025, they served over 83,000 hours, drove over 737,000 miles, and met with nearly 1,500 children. This substantial growth and significant impact are a testament to Marty's leadership and her efforts to attract fellow advocates who share her commitment to the organization's mission. They seek to provide something to children that is impossible to quantify yet critical to their health and long-term well-being: a stronger foundation for a better, brighter, and more hopeful future.

There is nothing more important to the future of our country and State than to ensure the next generation can grow and thrive in safe and welcoming homes. But sadly, not every child is afforded the necessity of a nurturing home. That is why the work of CASA NH and all its volunteer advocates is so important. They offer a strong voice, a sympathetic ear, and a stable presence in times of uncertainty and despair in a young child's life. Children feel supported by a CASA NH volunteer who stands beside them in a courtroom, learns their unique story, provides a dependable human connection, or offers unwavering encouragement and assistance as they find a safe and permanent home.

For nearly 40 years, Marty has worked tirelessly to turn this vision of CASA NH into a reality for thousands of New Hampshire children. She has also built a strong organization that is poised to continue its advocacy and community involvement long after she begins a well- deserved retirement. Marty says she will continue to serve and support children and families in New Hampshire, but she is looking forward to stepping back from the all-consuming nature of her job. I know that she will find meaningful ways to contribute to New Hampshire and the world.

Marty's decades of community leadership will be celebrated later this month, and her friends, family and colleagues have already joined together to reflect on her many achievements. I join them in spirit for this celebration of Marty, and I once again thank her for all she has done for our Granite State.

Mr. President, while I voted no on S. Res. 690, which calls for an up or down vote on 49 nominations, en bloc, I would have voted yes on the following nominations if I had the opportunity to vote on each nomination separately:

1. Cal. #615--Andrew Benson, of Maine, to be United States

Attorney for the District of Maine for the term of four

years.

2. Cal. #621--Gregory LoGerfo, of Massachusetts, a Career

Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-

Counselor, to be Coordinator for Counterterrorism, with the

rank and status of Ambassador at Large.

3. Cal. #622--Eric Meyer, of California, to be Ambassador

Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of

America to the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.

4. Cal. #623--Jennifer Wicks McNamara, of Virginia, to be

Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United

States of America to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

5. Cal. #648--Daniel Edwards, of North Carolina, to be an

Assistant Secretary of Transportation.

6. Cal. #649--Steven Haines, of Virginia, to be an

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Analysis

(part of the International Trade Administration focused on

supply chains).

7. Cal. #653--Zachary Keller, of Louisiana, to be United

States Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana for the

term of four years.

8. Cal. #654--Ryan Raybould, of Texas, to be United States

Attorney for the Northern District of Texas for the term of

four years.

9. Cal. #664--Gregory Gilmore, of Illinois, to be United

States Attorney for the Central District of Illinois for the

term of four years.

10. Cal. #665--Douglas Weaver, of Maryland, to be a Member

of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the term of five

years expiring June 30, 2031. (Reappointment)

11. Cal. #675--Robert Rotter, of Iowa, to be United States

Marshal for the Northern District of Iowa for the term of

four years.

12. Cal. #677--David St. Pierre, of Maine, to be United

States Marshal for the District of Maine for the term of four

years.

13. Cal. #678--Brian Birdwell, of Texas, to be an Assistant

Secretary of Defense.

14. Cal. #680--Lee Lipton, of Florida, to be Ambassador to

the Republic of the Philippines.

15. Cal. #681--William Long, of Missouri, to be Ambassador

to the Republic of Iceland.

16. Cal. #682--Jared Novelly, of Missouri, to be Ambassador

to New Zealand, and to serve concurrently and without

additional compensation as Ambassador to the Independent

State of Samoa, the Cook Islands, and Niue.

17. Cal. #683--Robert Sweeney, of Texas, to be United

States Director of the Asian Development Bank, with the rank

of Ambassador.

18. Cal. #685--Asel Roberts, of Virginia, to be Ambassador

to the Republic of Slovenia.

19. Cal #686--Wesley Brooks, of Florida, to be Assistant

Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental

and Scientific Affairs.

20. Cal. #687--Frank Garcia, of Virginia, to be an

Assistant Secretary of State (African Affairs).

21. Cal. #688--Matthew Anderson, of Colorado, to be Deputy

Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration.

22. Cal. #689--Michael Graham, of Virginia, to be a Member

of the National Transportation Safety Board for a term

expiring December 31, 2030. (Reappointment)

23. Cal. #700--Steven Lewis, of Missouri, to be United

States Marshal for the Eastern District of Missouri, for the

term of four years.

24. Cal. #701--Priscilla Lopez, of Florida, to be United

States Marshal for the Southern District of Florida for the

term of four years.

25. Cal. #712--James Stuart, of Minnesota, to be United

States Marshal for the District of Minnesota for the term of

four years.

26. Cal. #714--Yeouk Kim, of Texas, to be Representative of

the United States of America to the Association of Southeast

Asian Nations, with the rank and status of Ambassador.

27. Cal. #715--Ademola Adewale-Sadik, of New York, to be

Director of the African Development Bank for a term of five

years.

Mr. President, I defer to Senator Graham.

Mr. President, more than 2 months ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the tariffs that President Trump had imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, were unlawful. That means that more than $166 billion in taxes--or tariffs--under IEEPA were illegally collected, and they are owed back to the importers who paid them.

Now, this wasn't a shocking outcome because the law that the President tried to use for these tariffs--IEEPA--had never been used to impose tariffs. It does not even mention the words ``tariff'' or ``duty'' once, anywhere, in that law.

And so 15 months ago, a number of us introduced legislation to clarify that IEEPA cannot be used for tariffs.

Congress then submitted three amicus briefs, arguing that these tariffs were unlawful. The lower courts agreed. And on February 20, the Supreme Court blocked the tariffs and said that they should be repaid.

Now, 2 months later, here we are. No refunds have been paid, and the administration says it could take another 60 to 90 days before any refunds will be paid out.

Yesterday, some businesses were finally able to apply for refunds in the Customs and Border Protection's new system, but that system didn't allow businesses to even apply for refunds they have been waiting the longest for. This new system, which is called CAPE, disadvantages small businesses who may not know they need to file to receive refunds.

Those who don't have large legal teams to pursue these claims and have to take time away from their businesses just to give Customs information that it already has, they are not going to be able to comply with these requirements.

It also makes small businesses more likely to sell their refund claims to Wall Street banks like the one run by the Secretary of Commerce's sons and to sell those claims for a significant discount.

This administration was ready to reimpose a 10-percent tax on everything Americans import on the same day the Supreme Court ruled, but it took 2 months to roll out a partial refund system. That has real costs.

It hurts small businesses who are already struggling with high prices and shouldn't have to wait months to get refunds for unlawful taxes. It hurts our economy, with businesses unsure when or even if they will be able to reinvest this money. And it hurts taxpayers because these refunds have to be paid with interest.

That means that every day of delay adds $22 million to the bill for these unlawful and damaging tariffs. That is $1.3 billion more just since the Supreme Court ruled with billions more to come. Those are added costs because this administration failed to prepare for the obvious outcome.

So let's be clear on what is happening. President Trump's tariffs raise prices across the board, and now he is slow-walking getting out the refunds that Americans are entitled to. There is a better answer. That is the Speedy Tariff Refund Act, legislation that Senators Markey and Wyden and I have been working on. It is a bill that would require that Customs pay refunds automatically within 30 days, that it use the information it already has, and that all of these refunds be paid now.

The bill prioritizes refunds to small businesses rather than putting them at a disadvantage to big companies. Those businesses have already had to deal with added costs they can't easily absorb and constantly shifting tariffs that make it impossible to plan.

So this is not complicated. The Court said these tariffs were unlawful. The money was collected. It should be returned promptly and in full. It is time to pass our bill. It is time to return the $166 billion to the American people because every day we delay adds another $22 million to the tab.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Paul Grenier and recognize his decades of public service to the city of Berlin, NH. Paul recently wrapped up his final term in public office and walked out of city hall in January as a private citizen after 18 years on the city council and 14 years as mayor. He leaves a legacy of resilience, steady management, creative problem solving, and genuine care for the constituents of his hometown.

A native of Berlin, Paul grew up in a vibrant city anchored by a paper mill system that employed thousands of people and buoyed other local industries. Like many of his high school classmates, he found a stable job in the mills and even became a trustee for the local paper union. Yet Berlin was not immune to the dynamics of a changing economy that pulled manufacturing jobs from small mill towns and forced mill workers to find employment elsewhere. These changes left a clear mark on a community known as ``The City That Trees Built.'' Paul heard a call to public service when he was concerned that his children and the next generation would not have the same opportunities that he enjoyed. As he would do throughout his career, he rolled up his sleeves and looked for ways to help his neighbors and his struggling hometown. He put his name on the ballot and campaigned for a seat on the city council in 1991. It would be the first of many election day victories for Paul Grenier.

Paul learned a lot about municipal management throughout his many years as city councilor and mayor of Berlin. Paul faced incredible challenges early in his tenure as mayor, including the shuttering of three large regional employers. He tapped into relationships throughout Berlin and New Hampshire not only to manage the impacts of these closures, but also to reimagine the local economy in the years ahead and develop new avenues for growth. Mayor Grenier successfully lobbied for a Massachusetts-based steel company to open a fabrication facility in Berlin and take advantage of the city's skilled fabricators. He pushed for the expansion of Jericho Mountain State Park, a small window into his broader efforts to promote Berlin and northern New Hampshire as a four-season destination for outdoor enthusiasts. He upgraded equipment for the city's first responders and public works. He improved the city's athletic fields, and he even donated his salary to worthy local causes like Berlin Youth Hockey. He focused his final years on securing Federal investments to revitalize the city's Main Street and boost its appeal to prospective businesses and tourists. Throughout his seven terms as mayor, Paul Grenier worked tirelessly for Berlin in ways big and small. He embodies the core values of the community he so skillfully led: resilient, resourceful, innovative, collaborative, friendly, and respectful.

Paul concluded his decades of public service right where it began, in the Berlin City Council chambers. After finishing his seventh term as mayor, he spent 2 months as a private citizen before receiving an appointment to finish the term of a departing city council member. His wealth of experience and deep knowledge of city hall made him a natural fit. Now a private citizen again, Paul likes to spend his time at Berlin's Notre Dame Arena teaching local kids to skate in a community known as Hockey Town USA.

Paul Grenier has made an unforgettable mark on the city of Berlin. Hearing him speak about the potential of his hometown is truly inspiring, and he has turned that passion and advocacy into concrete actions that vastly improved his community. Paul passed the most crucial test of public leadership: ``To leave a place better than you found it.'' Berlin is better and its future is brighter because of Paul Grenier.

Paul will be honored by his neighbors and peers this month at the annual meeting of the Androscoggin Valley Chamber of Commerce. I join them in spirit for this celebration of a humble and hard-working public servant, and I ask my colleagues and all Americans to join me in thanking Paul for his longstanding service.

Go ahead.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Hawaii both for her eloquent statements and for her willingness to let me go ahead of her. I appreciate that, but she was here first.

I come to the floor today to join my colleagues Senator Blumenthal, Senator Hirono, and so many others in this caucus because after years of relentless attacks on reproductive freedoms nationwide, what we are seeing from our colleagues here in Congress and the Trump administration is that they have now set their sights on our Nation's veterans, those who have dedicated their lives in service to our country.

The Trump administration's new policy that we are voting to overturn today isn't just extreme; it is flat-out dangerous. Republicans and Democrats alike have committed to doing everything we can to uphold the basic promises we have made to our Nation's veterans. So we have to ask: Why is this administration bending over backward to further erode the freedoms our veterans risk their lives to protect by ripping away the basic, essential healthcare that women need?

After the Dobbs decision, the VA took a basic but critical step to protect the health of veterans and their families by providing them access to healthcare in a very specific set of circumstances--tragic instances like when our veterans have been victims of rape, when they have experienced incest, or when their lives or their health has been directly in danger--because when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and diminished the reproductive freedoms that women have enjoyed for half a century, it was clear that the Federal Government needed to take action to make it easier, not harder, for the hundreds of thousands of young women who have served our country to be able to access basic healthcare when they need it the most--veterans who have often waited until after their military service to start a family and now must question whether it is going to be safe for them to do so, veterans who are now facing the most restrictive abortion ban across the Federal Government.

This policy doesn't just prevent those brave Americans from receiving care under dire and heartbreaking circumstances; it actually prevents them from receiving basic counseling about their health as well. As my colleagues have already pointed out, this ban on abortion counseling means that VA providers can't discuss pregnancy options with their patients.

While the VA claims they will always save a veteran's life, their own internal guidance is so vague that providers will be forced to make impossible decisions. In this case, the lack of planning and specificity will leave it up to the VA to make split-second decisions about an urgent medical need based on very murky guidelines.

At every turn, this administration has pushed forward dangerous policies intended to threaten access to full reproductive care. That is why I am calling on our colleagues across the aisle to show some common sense and to realize that we can't repay those veterans who have already sacrificed so much for their country with a policy that puts their lives in danger, particularly at a time when one in three of our Nation's female veterans has reported experiencing military sexual trauma over the course of their service.

Let me repeat that because I think that is a staggering statistic. One in three of our Nation's female veterans has reported experiencing military sexual trauma during their service.

These brave women deserve better than the carelessness of this administration refusing to give them full access to reproductive health care. We can't sit back and abandon them when they need it the most. We can't sit back and watch as reproductive freedoms slip away because access to necessary, lifesaving reproductive care should not be left to chance or the

split-second decision of a provider. It should be a fundamental right, especially in the United States of America, where we have a Constitution that says that all people are created equal. Now, I know it says ``all men are created equal,'' but I think, since the founding of this country, that has been expanded to the understanding that we are talking about all of the citizens of this country.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize this week as National AHEC--Area Health Education Centers--Week.

The AHEC program was originally authorized in 1971 and worked in conjunction with other Health Resources and Services Administration programs to provide health professionals to staff brick-and-mortar community health centers across the country. Today, AHECs offer hands- on and innovative health career curriculums for pre-college level students and are committed to continuing education, clinical training of health professionals, and responding to community health needs. The Nation's 300 AHECs are in nearly every State and in multiple U.S. territories.

AHEC clinical training placements put health professions students in a variety of real-world settings, such as urban and rural community health clinics and health departments that provide healthcare to traditionally hard-to-reach populations. Students, in particular those working through their AHECs, are more likely to remain in the communities where they trained, making it critically important to establish training opportunities in rural and underserved areas.

The need to strengthen the healthcare workforce continues. According to data from the Association of American Medical Colleges, the U.S. could see a shortage of up to 124,000 physicians by 2034, and the American Hospital Association says more than 200,000 new registered nurses are needed each year to meet increasing healthcare needs and to replace retiring nurses. AHECs have continued to work towards addressing workforce shortage areas, especially in rural and underserved communities. Just in the past 5 years, the AHEC program has trained 2 million healthcare professionals.

I have had the opportunity to work closely with the New Hampshire AHEC and have witnessed the amazing work they do. The mission of the New Hampshire AHEC is to support workforce development activities for current and future healthcare workers in the Granite State. In 2025, the New Hampshire AHEC offered continuing education to over 4,500 healthcare workers, improving treatment options for patients suffering from diseases such as diabetes and substance use disorder. In addition to working with providers, they also offer trainings on chronic disease, chronic pain, and diabetes self-management to patients in the community. More than 3,000 individuals have participated in these programs since 2010.

The New Hampshire AHEC team were pioneers in identifying the need for a workforce that bridges healthcare and community. Over the past 28 years, New Hampshire AHEC has focused on building the healthcare workforce by offering both day and residential programs for high school students, while also providing didactics and community-based experiences for health professions students across the State. It cannot be understated how important the New Hampshire AHEC is for our

communities and how important it is that the program continues to receive support from Congress. AHECs not only address current healthcare gaps and challenges, but they recruit, train and, bolster our future health workforce. On behalf of my constituents at the New Hampshire AHEC program and the national AHEC program more broadly, I call on my colleagues to join me in recognizing March 23 to March 27 as National AHEC Week.

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

Mr. President, I came to the floor this afternoon in opposition to the SAVE Act. And I must admit, listening to some of the proponents of the act talk, it doesn't sound to me like they are talking about the same piece of legislation that I understand we are going to be voting on. But I will get to that in a minute.

The fact is that I don't understand the timing on voting on this bill because, right now, what the families in New Hampshire are worried about is paying their grocery bills, being able to afford their rent or their mortgage, being able to heat their homes, being able to pay for childcare. They are worried about the rising costs of healthcare premiums. And we are here debating a bill that is going to have the Federal Government intervening in how States operate elections in ways that make it harder for people to vote.

I don't have any objection to my colleagues here who were talking about that they support the SAVE Act because they believe only American citizens should vote. That is the law. Only American citizens can vote in American elections. We are not--nobody is trying to change that.

What this law is trying to do is make it harder for American citizens to vote. And I know from personal experience because New Hampshire passed a similar law, house bill 1569, in 2024, and then-Governor Sununu signed that law making some of the most sweeping changes in generations in how people in the Granite State vote.

We have seen the results now. We have had two municipal elections. We had the elections in 2025 where our cities voted, and we have seen the town meeting elections in 2026. That law was in effect, and what we saw is that voters showed up with driver's licenses as an ID, and they were told that wasn't enough; that didn't match the requirements of the law, just like the SAVE Act says it is not enough.

Women showed up with birth certificates, and they were told it didn't match their legal names, so that wasn't enough. They couldn't vote. First-time voters showed up expecting to register, and they were told they needed a passport.

Each of these voters came prepared with an ID. In New Hampshire, we require photo IDs. Each of them had photo IDs, and each of them was told they didn't have what they needed.

That is what this debate is about. It is about whether people who have photo IDs who are registered to vote can actually vote.

At our polling places in New Hampshire, in townhalls and high school cafeterias and public libraries and churches and fire stations, when an eligible voter is told they don't have what they need, in many cases, they are not told anything more--not what documents are missing, not how to fix it, not whether they can still vote that day. They are just told, no, they can't vote. If they can't come back because they have work or childcare or transportation, then they don't get to vote even though they are eligible.

That is what should concern all of us, Democrats and Republicans, unaffiliated voters.

As I said, only American citizens should vote in American elections. Nobody is trying to change that. That is the law. It should be enforced. The question before us is straightforward: Does this SAVE Act make it easier for eligible Americans to vote or harder? Does it disenfranchise voters or ensure that people who are legitimate voters who want to vote are able to go to the polls and do that?

So to answer that question, I think we need to look at the problem this bill is meant to solve. When you look at the data, noncitizen voting is exceedingly rare--I mean, like so rare, it is less than one- hundredth of 1 percent. Even organizations that have gone looking for noncitizen voters have found fewer than 100 cases over more than two decades--over more than 20 years.

Now, what the SAVE Act says you have to do in order to register to vote is that you have to have proof of citizenship that is a passport or a birth certificate. We know that 146 million Americans--almost half of all Americans--lack a valid passport.

Some of my colleagues said this was not going to affect women. Well, I am sorry, but it is going to affect women because if women are married, like me, and took their husband's name, like I did--my birth certificate doesn't have my married name on my birth certificate. Not only that, I didn't have easy access--when I applied for a passport, and I was an adult by the time I got a passport, I had to send away to Missouri because that is where I was born. It took me weeks to get my birth certificate.

We know that about 69 million married women have taken their husband's

name, and they don't have birth certificates that match their current legal name.

So in New Hampshire, our secretary of state, who has refused to comply when this administration--this Justice Department said: Send us your voter rolls.

He said and the State of New Hampshire said: We are not going to do that because the State conducts our elections. We are doing this appropriately, and you don't need the voter rolls.

But he said that instances of voter fraud are ``minuscule''--and he is a Republican.

I think if this were a widespread problem, we would expect a bipartisan effort to address it, but what we are considering is a very partisan bill that blocks eligible voters.

More than 21 million Americans don't have easy access to documents that prove citizenship. Many don't have documents that reflect their current legal name. As I said, my birth certificate doesn't have my current legal name on it. In some cases, that means that voters have to leave and return multiple times because their documents don't match.

After we passed this voter ID law in New Hampshire, I went to vote in Madbury, where I had been registered since I moved to Madbury in 1979 when we built our home there. I have run for office--about 10 times my name has been on the ballot. Everybody in the town of Madbury who is part of the voting process knows exactly who I am.

I got into the polling place, and they said: Nope. You can't vote. We know who you are, but you have to go get your voter ID.

Well, fortunately, I left it in the car, so I went out and got it and brought it back. But for a lot of people, if they have to go home and get the documents they need, often they are not able to get back because the polling hours in some polling places like Madbury don't go all day long. They start at 11 in the morning and they are over at 7 at night in Madbury.

As I said, in the municipal elections, what nonpartisan observers found was that at least 244 voters were turned away. In some communities, it was as many as 1 in 10 same-day registrants who couldn't complete the process. Women were turned away because their documents didn't match their current legal name. In March of 2025, New Hampshire Public Radio reported that Brooke Yonge of Derry had to make multiple trips to the polls because her documents didn't match her married name.

This wasn't limited just to new voters or the people unfamiliar with the system; it included people who had participated in our elections for years--people like me.

This bill prevents Americans from voting, and that is not acceptable.

I think we can enforce the law. We can ensure that eligible Americans are able to vote.

Today, voters already confirm they are eligible under penalty of perjury. Election officials already have tools to verify that information.

In States like New Hampshire, before house bill 1569, we had a system that allowed voters to register and yet still required documentation to be provided.

For years, voters who didn't have documentation could sign a sworn affidavit and provide it after the fact. That gives local officials clear, workable standards.

Right now, under the SAVE America Act, the affidavit that is required doesn't provide guidelines for voter registration officials to understand what is required for proof of citizenship. It creates this new bureaucratic process, but then it doesn't give State officials the details on what they need to do.

This bill moves us in the direction of replacing a system that has worked in practice with one that risks turning eligible Americans away.

One of my favorite examples--because it is so outrageous--of what happened in the municipal elections in New Hampshire is that we had a former Republican executive councilor--in New Hampshire, we have this position called the executive council that is a carryover from colonial days. It is a five-member elective body that approves all State contracts and all of the Governor's nominees.

We had a very prominent former executive councilor--Republican--who was turned away at the polls because he didn't have the required documentation, not because he was ineligible. He had changed wards from one ward to another, and because he had changed wards, he had been purged from the voter rolls.

So he went back and got the proof of where he was living, and they said: Oh, no, because you have been purged, we need proof of citizenship.

Again, this is somebody who had run for elected office multiple times in New Hampshire, who was well known to election officials in the Republican Party--was well known. He was asked to go back and get proof of his citizenship. Unfortunately, he couldn't produce that proof of citizenship in the time required before the polls closed, and so because he didn't have it, he wasn't allowed to vote.

That is what happens under this law. That is the consequence of this approach. And it doesn't just affect new voters, voters unfamiliar with the process; it affects people who know the process well. It doesn't strengthen our election system; it weakens it.

At a time when my constituents in New Hampshire are paying more to heat their homes, when fuel prices are spiking, when gasoline prices are spiking, the fact that we are here debating this instead of debating how to help people address the rising costs of living, how to make their lives more affordable--instead, we are debating how to make it harder for them to vote. That makes no sense.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and let's get on to addressing what our constituents are really concerned about, which is how to make their lives better, how to ensure they can afford to feed their families, make sure they can afford to pay their rent, buy their gasoline, and pay their bills.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Donnalee Lozeau and recognize the enduring contributions of a stalwart community leader, dedicated advocate, and deeply cherished friend to so many Granite Staters. Donnalee recently stepped down from her longtime role as chief executive officer of Community Action Partnership Hillsborough and Rockingham Counties, CAPHR, and I join a grateful community in thanking her for bringing so much passion, knowledge and experience to an indispensable local resource.

A lifelong resident of Nashua, NH, Donnalee grew up in a household that fostered political awareness and encouraged political involvement. She played a role at a young age on campaigns for well-known New Hampshire officials, including Congressman Lou Wyman, Congressman Jim Cleveland, and Gov. Walter Peterson. Then, at the age of 24, Donnalee decided to put her own name on the ballot and campaign for a seat in the New Hampshire House of Representatives. It was the first of many election day victories for Donnalee. She represented her hometown at the statehouse in Concord for eight terms, eventually ascending to the position of deputy speaker in one of the largest legislative bodies in the English-speaking world.

I worked closely with Donnalee while we both served in the New Hampshire State House as elected officials. As a State senator and Governor, I always appreciated her earnestness, her willingness to engage, and her commitment to finding consensus across party lines. Her sense of humor was also a bright light in trying times, including the long days and late nights when we came together to find a solution to a school funding crisis in the 1990s. Sitting across the table from Donnalee, you could never doubt that she approached each challenge and every opportunity with progress in mind and her constituents' best interests at heart.

Donnalee served as a State representative for 16 years. Seven years after leaving the statehouse, she returned to public service as the 55th mayor of the city of Nashua. She was the first woman to lead the city and ran unopposed for her second term. Highlights from her tenure include the redevelopment of Nashua's downtown and the completion of the Broad Street Parkway, a massive public-works project that reduced traffic on Main Street and spurred economic activity in the city's historic Millyard District. It was a project that we helped to move forward when we served together in Concord.

After deciding not to seek a third term as mayor, Donnalee quickly moved into the chief executive officer position at the largest community action agency in our State, Southern New Hampshire Services. Donnalee likes to say that her ``whole life is the fundamental mission of community action.'' While serving in New Hampshire's citizen legislature, Donnalee continued to work as the director of program and community development at Southern New Hampshire Services. Her 15 years of knowledge and experience in this role paid dividends when she became CEO. She deftly steered the agency through the COVID-19 pandemic, oversaw a rebrand of the organization from Southern New Hampshire Services to Community Action Partnership Hillsborough and Rockingham Counties and opened the agency's first opportunity center where people can find a variety of services and resources in one accessible location.

In times of crisis and uncertainty, our vulnerable neighbors look to CAPHR for guidance and support. Under Donnalee's insightful leadership, the team at CAPHR answered with trademark compassion and deployed assistance to ensure that all Granite Staters have the means to meet their most basic needs. They offer Head Start and child care to help build a foundation of cognitive and social skills in children's most formative years. They connect households with assistance to pay rent, put food on their tables, and keep their homes warm in our cold New Hampshire winters. They provide thousands of rides to seniors to help maintain a sense of independence. They break the cycle of poverty in our communities by engaging neighbors at every stage of life, and their commitment, energy, and sincerity are a reflection of the distinct personal qualities of their CEO.

Donnalee has made an unforgettable mark on New Hampshire. The Community Action Partnership Hillsborough and Rockingham Counties blossomed under her steady direction, and its growth expanded opportunity across southern New Hampshire and enabled more people to live with dignity and chase their dreams. Donnalee was more than a cheerleader for the mission of CAPHR or a politician representing her beloved hometown. She was a trailblazer who passed the most crucial test of public leadership: to leave a place better than you found it. New Hampshire is better and its future is brighter because of Donnalee Lozeau.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to join Leader Schumer and others in requesting that this body address the healthcare disaster that is facing millions of American families. It is a disaster, sadly, that we have seen coming for more than a year. And if we are serious about protecting both the physical and financial health of Americans, we must restore the enhanced premium tax credits that expired on December 31.

Congress has not fulfilled its duty to protect Americans from rising healthcare costs. And at a time when so many Americans are worried about the cost of living, inaction is causing health insurance premiums to skyrocket for millions of Americans. More than 22 million Americans have already been affected by the expiration of the enhanced premium tax credits.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reported earlier this week that more than 1.4 million people, including tens of thousands in New Hampshire, have already lost their healthcare coverage because of the unaffordable cost increases of healthcare premiums without the enhanced premium tax credits. And unfortunately, that is just the beginning. Insurers have told us higher prices and more losses are coming, as families realize they can't continue to pay their monthly premiums. The Urban Institute predicted almost 5 million people could lose their healthcare coverage. Families are being forced to reduce the quality of their coverage, and they are facing higher out-of-pocket costs.

Back in October, one of my constituents from New Boston, NH, Darla, contacted me with serious concerns about whether she and her husband would be able to afford healthcare coverage without the enhanced premium tax credits. This is what is so disturbing.

Last month, she reported that her family's monthly premium would go from $100 a month to $1,200 a month, so more than $15,000 a year. She and her husband can't afford that kind of an increase. They are in their fifties; so they can't afford to go without healthcare coverage.

If we fail to act, we have failed Darla's family and millions of other Americans.

The crisis was avoidable. We knew that this would happen if the enhanced premium tax credits expired.

One year ago, on January 9, I introduced the Health Care Affordability Act, which would have made the enhanced premium tax credits permanent. There are 44 Democratic cosponsors on my bill.

Last week, we saw the House pass an extension with strong bipartisan support, and I applaud all those Members of the House who supported that 3-year extension and who worked hard to make it bipartisan.

I know many of our Republican colleagues agree that we need to restore the enhanced premium tax credits so people like Darla and her family can afford healthcare coverage. They know that Americans want Congress to act to bring down costs. And what Leader Schumer asked for today is straightforward: that the Senate allow an immediate extension of the enhanced premium tax credits to move forward without delay.

I am not surprised at the objection because we saw what the vote was back in December on extending the premium tax credits in this body.

I am hopeful that the bipartisan efforts that have been ongoing to try and find a compromise to address some of the reforms that Senator Crapo referenced, but also to ensure that we can, both, lower the cost of healthcare and make sure we don't have millions of families who lose their health insurance--I am hopeful that bipartisan effort can continue, that we can reach a compromise, and that we can do what is in the best interest of the people of this country and the millions of Americans who are faced with losing their health insurance coverage.

I yield the floor.