Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, my colleague from Virginia was very persuasive, I think, in pointing out the threat to national security that providing Nvidia's chips to China presents.

Unfortunately, another area that has the potential to significantly undermine our national security is that of the efforts by this administration to try and negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine.

Now, don't get me wrong. I support ending the war in Ukraine. I think it would be in America's interests, in Europe's interests, and in Ukraine's interests to do that. But to do it in a way that undermines Ukraine for the long term--that gives Vladimir Putin access to the Ukrainian army, which is the largest army in Europe now and is the most technologically advanced--and to do that in a way that would further undermine the future security of Ukraine is not in America's interest.

But, to continue his war in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin needs two things. He needs money, and he needs weapons.

Russia has hundreds of billions of dollars in assets that are frozen overseas, some of which are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Moscow is fighting hard to regain access to that money because it would help sustain its war effort.

But, as we know, money alone is not going to be enough. Sanctions have significantly degraded Russia's defense industry, and to keep building weapons, Russia relies on outside supply chains. Much of that support now comes from Chinese entities that are providing the materials and the technologies that are keeping Russia's war machine running.

So, if President Trump is really serious about ending this war, those are the pressure points to put against Vladimir Putin.

The good news is that the tools we need to apply that pressure already exist. The United States can deny Russia access to its frozen sovereign assets, and we can disrupt the supply chains that enable Russia to keep fighting. The Foreign Relations Committee has already reported out two

bills that have had strong bipartisan support that would address each of these.

One is the REPO Implementation Act, known as REPO 2.0. I think that is particularly important because hundreds of billions of Russian sovereign assets have been frozen, including about $5 billion here in the United States, since the start of Russia's murderous invasion of Ukraine.

To help Ukraine beat back the Russian invasion and to eventually rebuild, seizing and repurposing those Russian frozen funds is the right place to start. Senators Risch and Whitehouse led the Rebuilding Economic Prosperity and Opportunity for Ukrainians Act, known as the REPO Act, which I supported, to allow the frozen assets in America to support Ukraine's recovery and reconstruction to ensure Russia's accountability and ensure a just and lasting peace.

The partnership has worked again in this session of Congress to put in place an even stronger REPO 2.0. This bill, which passed out of committee, promotes the regularly scheduled transfers of sizable amounts of these underlying assets to Ukraine to build pressure until Russia ceases its war of aggression and agrees to terms that compensate Ukraine for war damages.

Now, I think it is particularly important for the United States to act because our EU friends have been working on this issue. They have had significant objections. Last year, when the first REPO Act was introduced, they raised a number of concerns. But this year, our European allies are working very hard to get this done in Europe where most of the Russian assets are actually being held.

There is a meeting on this today in Brussels. The question of freezing and then seizing and deploying Russian sovereign assets is a global security question. It should be decided by people operating in a global security environment.

Now, as I said, the Foreign Relations Committee adopted REPO 2.0 by voice vote in October, and I am confident we will pass this legislation out of this Congress at some point in the next few months, if not today.

But supporting Ukraine against Russia in this unjust war is important to America's national security. One way to help ensure that Ukraine has the support they need is to pass the REPO 2.0 Act.

So, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 243, S. 2918; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Kentucky's longstanding efforts to object to sanctions and to any way to hold accountable states that commit atrocities like Vladimir Putin, but I think he is just wrong on how we end this war.

The way we end this war is by putting pressure on Vladimir Putin so that he is willing to come to the table. He has not been willing to come to the table to have serious negotiations.

And the President's rolling out the red carpet for him in Alaska, welcoming him back into the international community, also has not brought him to the table.

So the only thing Vladimir Putin understands--and I agree with my colleague about the Russian people. I have been to Russia. The Russian people are wonderful. They are being misled by a tyrant who will do anything to continue to expand Russia's influence, not only in Europe but around the world.

My colleague, I am sure, hasn't read some of the documents that show what

Russia is doing right now to meddle in the United States to try and influence public opinion about the war in Ukraine. So I think he is absolutely wrong.

That is why I am going to continue to ask for a unanimous consent to pass the third bill that came out of the Foreign Relations Committee because I think that Russia--not Ukraine, not U.S. taxpayers--should pay for the destruction it has caused.

What the REPO 2.0 bill would do would be to make clear that aggression carries lasting financial consequences.

Mr. President, I think my colleague is confused. This bill would not tell China what to do; it would require sanctions that would prohibit the actions that I outlined about support to Russia. And there aren't any tariffs in this bill.

Again, my colleague is confused.

I don't think giving NVIDIA chips to China is the way to get China to cooperate with the United States. I think developing a relationship where China understands where we are on issues and we understand where they are is important, and that is what this bill is about. It is about helping China to understand that we stand in support of Ukraine and that we don't support China providing weapons and keeping Russia's war machine going.

So I am afraid my colleague from Kentucky is interested in appeasement rather than interested in trying to solve the issues.

We will come back to the floor and continue to try to raise these issues because it is important for Ukraine to understand that there are Members in this Congress who believe we need to support them in this unjust war that

Russia started, and Russia is continuing to cause thousands of casualties and millions of dollars in destruction in the country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, while I voted No on S. Res. 532, which calls for an up or down vote on 97 nominations, en bloc, I would have voted yea on the following nominations if I had the opportunity to vote on each nomination separately:

1. Calendar Number 429: Michael Powers, of Virginia, to be

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense.

2. Calendar Number 430: Benjamin Kohlmann, of Texas, to be

an Assistant Secretary of the Navy.

3. Calendar Number 431: Amy Henninger, of Virginia, to be

Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, Department of

Defense.

4. Calendar Number 432: David Denton, Jr., of Virginia, to

be General Counsel of the Department of the Navy.

5. Calendar Number 454: Jonathan Burke, of Georgia, to be

Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing, Department of

the Treasury.

6. Calendar Number 461: Jeremiah Workman, of Ohio, to be

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Veterans' Employment and

Training.

7. Calendar Number 470: James Mazol, of Virginia, to be a

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense.

8. Calendar Number 478: Dominick Gerace II, of Ohio, to be

United States Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio for

the term of 4 years.

9. Calendar Number 479: Jerome Francis Gorgon, Jr., of

Michigan, to be United States Attorney for the Eastern

District of Michigan for the term of 4 years.

10. Calendar Number 480: Bryan Stirling, of South Carolina,

to be United States Attorney for the District of South

Carolina for the term of 4 years.

11. Calendar Number 518: Platte Moring, of South Carolina,

to be Inspector General, Department of Defense.

12. Calendar Number 522: Peter Metzger, of the District of

Columbia, to be Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and

Analysis, Department of the Treasury.

13. Calendar Number 524: Edward Forst, of Florida, to be

Administrator of General Services.

14. Calendar Number 525: Stephen F. Rickard, of the

District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the

Superior Court of the District of Columbia for the term of 15

years.

15. Calendar Number 526: Elana S. Suttenberg, of the

District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the

Superior Court of the District of Columbia for the term of 15

years.

16. Calendar Number 527: John Cuong Truong, of the District

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

of the District of Columbia for the term of 15 years.

17. Calendar Number 529: Robert Kadlec, of New York, to be

an Assistant Secretary of Defense.

18. Calendar Number 530: Marc Berkowitz, of Virginia, to be

an Assistant Secretary of Defense.

19. Calendar Number 531: Joseph Jewell, of Indiana, to be

an Assistant Secretary of Defense.

20. Calendar Number 532: Brendan Rogers, of Connecticut, to

be an Assistant Secretary of the Navy.

21. Calendar Number 533: David Beck, of Tennessee, to be

Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs, National Nuclear

Security Administration.

22. Calendar Number 535: Michael Borders, of Florida, to be

an Assistant Secretary of the Air Force.

23. Calendar Number 536: William Lane III, of Virginia, to

be General Counsel of the Department of the Air Force.

24. Calendar Number 538: James Caggy, of New York, to be an

Assistant Secretary of Defense. (New Position)

25. Calendar Number 539: Timothy Dill, of Ohio, to be an

Assistant Secretary of Defense.

26. Calendar Number 540: Michael Payne, of Virginia, to be

Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation,

Department of Defense.

27. Calendar Number 541: Maurice Todd, of Florida, to be an

Assistant Secretary of Defense.

28. Calendar Number 551: Stephen Carmel, of Virginia, to be

Administrator of the Maritime Administration.

29. (66) Calendar Number 552: Timothy Petty, of Indiana, to

be Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere.

30. Calendar Number 553: Laura DiBella, of Florida, to be a

Federal Maritime Commissioner for a term expiring June 30,

2028.

31. Calendar Number 555: Michelle A. Schultz, of

Pennsylvania, to be a Member of the Surface Transportation

Board for a term expiring November 30, 2030. (Reappointment)

32. Calendar Number 565: Benjamin Leon, Jr., of Florida, to

be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United

States of America to the Kingdom of Spain, and to serve

concurrently and without additional compensation as

Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United

States of America to the Principality of Andorra.

33. Calendar Number 566: Brent Christensen, of Virginia, a

Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of

Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary

of the United States of America to the People's Republic of

Bangladesh.

34. Calendar Number 567: Morvared Namdarkhan, of Texas, to

be an Assistant Secretary of State (Consular Affairs).

35. Calendar Number 575: Erin Creegan, of New Hampshire, to

be United States Attorney for the District of New Hampshire

for the term of 4 years.

36. Calendar Number 578: Scott Leary, of Mississippi, to be

United States Attorney for the Northern District of

Mississippi for the term of 4 years.

37. Calendar Number 582: Melissa Argyros, of California, to

be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United

States of America to the Republic of Latvia.

38. Calendar Number 583: Yehuda Kaploun, of Florida, to be

Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, with the

rank of Ambassador.

39. Calendar Number 584: Bernardo Navarro, of Puerto Rico,

to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the

United States of America to the Republic of Peru.

40. Calendar Number 585: Darryl Nirenberg, of Virginia, to

be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United

States of America to Romania.

41. Calendar Number 587: Christopher Yeaw, of Virginia, to

be an Assistant Secretary of State (Arms Control,

Nonproliferation, and Stability).

42. Calendar Number 588: Mary Anne Carter, of Tennessee, to

be Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts for a

term of 4 years.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent, but had I been present, I would have voted yes on rollcall vote No. 631, on the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: Susan Courtwright Rodriguez to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of North Carolina).

I was necessarily absent, but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 632 on the Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 131).

I was necessarily absent, but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 633 on the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture: S. Res. 520).

I was necessarily absent, but had I been present, I would have voted yes on rollcall vote No. 634 on the Nomination (Confirmation: Susan Courtwright Rodriguez, of North Carolina, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of North Carolina).

Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senator Blumenthal and Senator Graham, who are right to highlight Russia's conduct in Ukraine and the need to hold Vladimir Putin's murderous regime accountable.

I think our colleague from Kentucky couldn't be more wrong when he talks about this bill as continuing the war in Ukraine. The fact is the only thing Vladimir Putin does understand is pressure, and the problem is we haven't put enough pressure on him in the United States and in Europe.

And if appeasement is what was going to end this war, then we have already done that. President Trump rolled out the red carpet in Alaska when he met with Putin. That got us nowhere.

The only thing Vladimir Putin understands is pressure, and we need to do everything possible to add to the pressure on Putin and Russia so that he will come to the table, so that he will actually negotiate in good faith and end this war because, as talks continue, we need to be clear about what actually is driving this war. And Senators Blumenthal and Graham talked about Putin's interests in totally eliminating Ukraine and absorbing the culture and absorbing the country into Russia.

President Putin doesn't want peace on terms that respect Ukraine's sovereignty. Russia continues to strike civilian infrastructure, continues to kidnap thousands of abducted Ukrainian children. These are not the actions of a government that is negotiating in good faith.

Second, as has been said, Russia is not sustaining this war alone. Moscow relies on China for materiels and technology to keep its war machine running. It relies on North Korea for people to fight this war. And, finally, Putin's strategy depends on exhausting Ukraine's ability to defend itself and rebuild. These are not abstract problems.

As Senator Graham was going through the litany of Russia's encroachment into Ukraine, what he missed was, in 2008, when Russia went into Georgia and took two provinces in Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. They are now basically Russian mandates within the bounds of Georgia.

So these are not abstract issues. They describe how Russia is fighting this war, and Congress has the authority and the tools to raise the cost of that strategy, to make it harder on Vladimir Putin.

And that is why we are here on the floor today, supporting the bill that would designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism, because what this bill does is it addresses the character of Russia's conduct in this war, and, as

Senator Blumenthal said so eloquently, it speaks to the values that we have in the United States; that we have got to take on a country--a regime like Vladimir Putin's--that would steal children from another country. It reflects the use of terror as a tool of state policy that includes the abductions of Ukraine's children. What this bill would do is to further isolate the Putin regime. It would make clear that his conduct carries real consequences as far as we are concerned in the United States.

Fortunately, this isn't the only bill that Congress can pass to put pressure on Putin. In addition to this bill, the Foreign Relations Committee has passed two other pieces of legislation that would do exactly that.

One is the STOP Russia and China Act, which is a bill that goes directly at the supply chains that Putin relies on to rebuild forces and prolong the fighting. It would block Chinese entities from supplying materiels and technology to Russia's war effort. And without that support, Russia's ability to keep escalating is sharply reduced.

Now, the other is the REPO Act. This bill addresses the costs of Russia's aggression. It would authorize the use of frozen Russian sovereign assets to support Ukraine's defense and recovery, and it would ensure that Russia, not Ukraine or the U.S. taxpayers, would bear the responsibility for the destruction it has cost.

Taken together, these bills give Congress a clear way to raise the cost of Putin's strategy. They target the supply chain, the money, and the conduct of the Russian state itself. They send a unified signal that escalation will be met with real costs. That is the message that Congress should be sending now to up the ante on the cost of this war for Vladimir Putin and Russia.

So we are not going to stop with this UC request today. We are going to keep going, into January, until we see a real commitment on the part of Russia to go to the negotiating table.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, before I begin my official remarks to address the vote that we are going to be having shortly, I just want to respond to the majority leader's remarks because I think there was some misinformation there.

The fact is that 92 percent of people who get those enhanced premium tax credits are making $200,000 or less, and the average income for a person who receives those premium tax credits is $32,000 a year. That is not somebody in a higher income bracket. In fact, about 50 percent of the people who receive premium tax credits are small business owners or their employees, who have no other option for healthcare because they can't afford employer-sponsored health insurance.

I think much of what the majority leader said about costs and about addressing fraud and about lowering the cost of healthcare are things that we all ought to support. I am ready to come to the table.

I think we would be better served if, after we get through these votes, we sit down and come to a compromise to address the real costs that people are facing in terms of healthcare, and I am ready to do that.

But in a few moments, we are going to vote on whether millions of Americans can keep the Affordable Care Act enhanced premium tax credits or whether they will face a crushing financial blow. These credits have helped millions of families, including tens of thousands of people in New Hampshire, keep their coverage and balance their family budgets. For many, they are the only thing that is standing between stability and a crisis.

I have worked on these tax credits since 2019 when I first introduced the bill. I have warned for more than a year about what would happen to rates if we failed to address this issue in Congress. Well, now that open enrollment has begun, we are seeing the consequences of that failure to act in real time.

States and insurers are reporting that significantly fewer people are reenrolling in health insurance plans because families simply cannot afford the rising premiums. The Republican proposal that Senators Cassidy and Crapo are introducing doesn't really address that issue.

Even those who are reenrolling are often being pushed into less comprehensive plans that leave them exposed to substantial out-of- pocket costs.

Yesterday, at a forum that I cohosted with Senator Warner, we heard directly from people who depend on this coverage. Their stories were personal, and they were urgent.

One small business owner who is also a healthcare provider told us that affordable ACA coverage allows her to keep serving new mothers in her community while still caring for her own family. But she also pointed out that if we don't address these premium tax credits, the cost of her health insurance was going to quadruple.

Another woman from Concord, NH, described the moment her son, who lives with a serious mental illness, had his coverage approved. She said she wept with relief. With that coverage, he has been able to work, to live independently, and to get the treatment he needs.

These are real families who have real stakes in this debate that we are having. This is not a game, and people are already feeling the impact of inaction.

Democrats have put forward a straightforward, immediate solution to prevent the premiums from jumping and to keep people insured. Some of my Republican colleagues have offered ideas that they believe could help. I think that engagement has been constructive, but the time is short. We need to act now, and we need to extend the tax credits.

I know there are Members in both parties who want to find a responsible path forward. I welcome the discussion on where we can find common ground, and I am ready to come to the table, as I said, with any of my colleagues, to work on long-term reforms.

First, we must keep millions of Americans from losing coverage in the coming months. Extending these credits is the easiest and most direct way to protect families.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on International Human Rights Day, which marks the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.

After the atrocities of World War II, world leaders understood that large-scale abuses do not begin with mass violence. They begin when governments cut off basic rights, freedoms, and silence their own people. The declaration was an effort to build a more stable and predictable world by setting clear rules for how governments should treat their citizens.

More than seven decades later, we are again seeing election interference and political repression, attacks on journalists and civil society, war crimes committed with impunity, and a broader disregard for basic human rights. One of the clearest examples is Russia's invasion of Ukraine. To deny Ukrainians the freedom to choose their own future, Russia has bombed hospitals and kindergartens, executed civilians, and abducted Ukrainian children in an attempt to erase Ukrainian culture. And Ukraine is not the only place where the Kremlin uses coercion to control its neighbors and dictate their political direction.

Last year, the Georgian Government took unprecedented steps to silence its citizens and weaken their democratic system. It passed repressive laws. It walked away from Georgia's constitutional promise to join the Euro-Atlantic community. And it cracked down on civil society and imprisoned political opposition, moves that align squarely with Moscow's interests. Leaders in Georgian civil society--including Nino Dolidze, the recipient of the National Democratic Institute's democracy award--have worked at great personal risk to defend those basic rights. Their fight is part of a larger global struggle.

From Eastern Europe to Latin American and Southeast Asia, the pattern is the same: When authoritarian leaders feel threatened, they silence critics, shut down independent groups and dismantle the checks meant to hold them accountable. And the regimes that do this are the same ones that threaten regional stability and our own security, which is why supporting democratic movements and civil society abroad remains squarely in America's interests.

This administration's funding cuts for democracy and election observation programs move us in the wrong direction. And directives telling U.S. personnel to avoid speaking publicly about how elections are run overseas only make it harder to call out abuses when they occur. The United States should not be stepping back; we should be stepping up.

Few leaders understood these stakes more clearly than Madeleine Albright. At her confirmation hearing for Secretary of State, she said, ``Democratic

progress must be sustained as it was built, by American leadership. And our leadership must be sustained if our interests are to be protected around the world. Do not doubt: those interests are not geopolitical abstractions, they are real.''

I was reminded of that during a visit to Kosovo a few years ago. While standing at Secretary Albright's statue, an older man approached to thank us for her leadership and for the U.S. role in ending the war there. It was a clear reminder that when the United States stands with people fighting for basic rights, it makes a difference.

On this Human Rights Day, we should take that lesson seriously. Supporting democracies and independent civic groups makes America safer. That takes U.S. leadership. So I urge my colleagues to back steady funding, credible election observation, and the resolve to call out abuses when they occur.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize George Copadis for his decades of public service and advocacy for Granite Staters. George has been a giant in New Hampshire's State government for an impressive 21 years, and he has been a magnetic local leader in the city of Manchester for even longer. He leaves a legacy of steady management, consensus-building, and genuine care for his neighbors and constituents.

George has firm roots in New Hampshire. He was born and raised in Manchester, attended college at the University of New Hampshire, and remains a lifelong resident of the Granite State. In 2004, George stepped away from a successful career to accept an appointment as the commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Labor by Governor Craig Benson. He oversaw a State agency that ensured compliance with New Hampshire's labor laws and encouraged workplaces to respect the dignity and interests of their employees. George served in this position for 8 years under two Governors of two different political parties.

In July of 2012, George became the interim commissioner of New Hampshire Employment Security. Governor John Lynch remarked that George's dependable leadership would bring ``a calming effect,'' and his initial 6-month appointment has blossomed into 13 years as commissioner of an important State agency for job-seekers and employers. Individuals seeking unemployment compensation, career- related services, and labor market information look to New Hampshire Employment Security, often in times of great need. George and his team work diligently and swiftly to connect these people to helpful resources.

As commissioner of New Hampshire Employment Security, George served under four Governors from both political parties. His tenure is marked by stability and fulfillment of the agency's critical mission, yet it was not without its challenges. George describes the COVID-19 pandemic as the most demanding stretch of his career. Working 7 days a week around the clock, George and his team managed the awarding of unemployment benefits that--at the height of the public health emergency--exceeded $2 billion to 175,000 individuals. Their efforts provided hope in a time of great uncertainty for many Granite State families.

In addition to his service in State government, George is well known throughout New Hampshire for his involvement with several nonprofits and local groups. He has given his time as a board member of the Manchester Housing and Redevelopment Authority for 33 years, and he has also volunteered for many United Way Charitable Campaigns. Most notably, George is famous for his connection to St. George Greek Orthodox Cathedral in his hometown of Manchester. He has served on its board for 39 years and can always be found at its community events, especially the church's popular annual GLENDI Festival. Ever proud of his Greek heritage, George has a reputation for bringing baklava to big meetings and gatherings.

I have known George for decades. As a policymaker, I have always welcomed his perspective and advice on ways we can strengthen New Hampshire's economy and provide employers with the workforce they need to grow and thrive. But more importantly, I am proud to call him a friend.

George's decades of public service and community involvement were celebrated this past month, and friends, family, and colleagues have joined together to reflect on his many achievements. Having spent most of his life as a local leader in his beloved hometown, George will undoubtedly continue to serve his friends and neighbors with care and compassion in meaningful ways. I join them in spirit for this celebration of George, and I once again thank him for all he has done for our Granite State.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I am normally your seatmate, but I thought it might be easier if we talked this way.

So I am down here in a different place than I usually am to ask a question.

But I want you to know how much I and all of your colleagues appreciate your standing up for democracy because we are in a pivotal moment, as you said, not just in this country but globally.

I know that you care about not just what is happening domestically in the United States, but you also care about what is happening in the world because you and I serve on the Foreign Relations Committee together.

I just came from a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who shared that Europeans are now spending more on defense than the United States for the first time since President Eisenhower. And they are working together to strengthen sanctions against Putin and his bloodthirsty gangs who are wreaking havoc on Ukraine and Europe.

I have some good news that I wanted to share with you from the Foreign Relations Committee this morning, since you weren't able to be with us, and it applies to what is happening in Ukraine and Europe-- because this morning, in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the committee considered three bipartisan bills to address Russia's continued, expanding aggression--for the first time in this Congress.

So the first time since the beginning of the year, we have actually taken action in the Foreign Relations Committee, action that you supported with your proxy votes--and I appreciate that--to take action against Russia's aggression in Ukraine.

One bill will designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism because of what they have done to kidnap Ukrainian children. One will stop Chinese entities from supporting Russia's brutal war machine against Ukraine. And the final one will authorize a continued quarterly transfer of Russia's foreign assets that have been seized in the United States to support Ukraine.

So I think--all of these bills passed. They were bipartisan. They passed unanimously out of the committee. And I think it is a critical time in history for this Congress to be taking a stand on Ukraine.

So, Senator Merkley, given this important moment in history, what more can we do in the Senate to support our allies and to protect the Ukrainians from further bloodshed from Vladimir Putin?

Thank you.